[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ARK., S.DAK., COLO., UTAH, CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

June 12



ARKANSAS:

Arkansas judge seeks to dismiss complaint over demonstration



An Arkansas judge charged with breaking judicial ethics rules for participating 
in an anti-death penalty demonstration the same day he blocked the state from 
using an execution drug says a disciplinary panel should dismiss its case 
against him.

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen's attorneys renewed their May 2017 
request for the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission to dismiss the 
complaint against the judge.

He was photographed on a cot outside the governor's mansion last year wearing 
an anti-death penalty button and surrounded by people holding signs opposing 
executions. Earlier that day, Griffen blocked the state from using a lethal 
injection drug over claims the company had been misled by the state.

A 3-member panel of the commission on Friday charged Griffen with violating 
ethics rules over the demonstration.

(source: Associated Press)








SOUTH DAKOTA:

Was This Man Sentenced to Death Because He's Gay?----His defenders say yes. 
South Dakota says no. The Supreme Court may soon weigh in.



Before South Dakota jurors decided the fate of Charles Rhines in 1993, they 
sent a handwritten note to the judge. They had just found Rhines guilty of 
fatally stabbing 22-year-old Donnivan Schaeffer, an employee of Dig 'Em Donuts 
in Rapid City, during a robbery a year earlier. But now they had some 
questions.

Case in Point

In "Case in Point," Andrew Cohen examines a single case or character that sheds 
light on the criminal justice system. An audio version of Case in Point is 
broadcast with The Takeaway, a public radio show from WNYC, Public Radio 
International, The New York Times, and WGBH-Boston Public Radio.

If they didn't vote for the death penalty, what would his life in prison look 
like? Would he be "allowed to mix with the general inmate population"? Would he 
be able "to create a group of followers or admirers"? Would he have a cellmate?

The judge said he couldn't answer, and the jury sent Rhines to death row, where 
he remains today. A few years ago, those seemingly innocuous questions became 
crucial to the last-ditch efforts to save his life. Rhines's lawyers knew that 
the jurors had been told that Rhines is gay. They went looking for jurors, 
following a hunch that turned out to be correct.

"There was lots of discussion of homosexuality," one juror recalled, according 
to affidavits later filed in court. "There were lots of folks who were like, 
'Ew, I can't believe that.'" Another juror said they "knew that he was a 
homosexual and thought that he shouldn't be able to spend his life with men in 
prison." A 3rd recalled overhearing a fellow juror say that life in prison 
would mean "sending him where he wants to go."

In essence, the defense argues, the jury sent Rhines to his death because some 
jurors thought life in a male prison might be enjoyable for a gay man.

South Dakota jurors sent Charles Rhines, pictured, to death row for fatally 
stabbing Donnivan Schaeffer. Rapid City Journal

The Supreme Court is now considering whether to hear Rhines's argument that his 
death sentence should be thrown out because it was tainted by homophobia. In 
the wake of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision - in which the court ruled for a 
baker who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple - the Rhines 
case could pave the way for new legal debates about how the justice system 
treats LGBTQ+ people accused of crimes. Simply put: Can a sentence be 
overturned if it was based on someone's sexual orientation?

Until recently, the answer would have been an easy no. A central tenet of 
American law is that what happens in the jury room stays in the jury room. 
(This is often called the "no-impeachment rule.") But last year, the court made 
an exception to that rule in the case of Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez. He was 
convicted of sexually assaulting 2 teenage girls, but a juror had allegedly 
remarked that Mexican men "had a bravado that caused them to believe they could 
do whatever they wanted with women." Sending the case back to lower courts, 
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that judges should look at situations where a 
jury may have relied on "racial stereotypes or animus" to find someone guilty. 
The justices then ordered a lower court to revisit the case of Keith Tharpe. 
Years after sentencing Tharpe to death, a juror admitted, "I have wondered if 
black people even have souls."

These cases concern race, but Shawn Nolan, who oversees Rhines's defense team 
at the Federal Community Defender Office in Philadelphia, called sexual 
orientation "a natural next step."

Paul Swedlund, the assistant attorney general for South Dakota who is arguing 
against Rhines, said he could not comment on pending litigation. But his brief 
to the Supreme Court punches back hard, arguing that jurors had lots of reasons 
to sentence Rhines to death beyond his sexual orientation. "Rhines locked 
Donnivan's head between his knees and pounded a hunting knife into the base of 
Donnivan's skull, partially severing his brain stem," the brief says. 
"Unaffected by the screams and blood and death, Rhines left the store with his 
loot to get something to eat...an order of french fries."

Then there was his "bloodcurdling confession, in which he cackles while 
comparing young Donnivan's death spasms to a beheaded chicken running around a 
barnyard."

The state's lawyers also argue that discrimination against sexual minorities 
has not been as destructive - and thus in need of policing by the courts - as 
racial discrimination. "No politician has ever proposed constructing a wall to 
keep homosexuals out of the country," the state's brief says. "No civil war has 
been fought over [sexual orientation]. No nationwide pogrom has been 
perpetrated for the enslavement or eradication of homosexuals."

In other cases, prosecutors have been criticized for making inflammatory 
comments about a defendant's sexual orientation, but researchers know little 
about whether juries listen to them. A few studies have found that college 
students, serving as mock jurors, tend to find people they know are homosexual 
guilty more often in certain circumstances. "If there is a potential 
homosexuality component to the case, this is something that is on the minds of 
jurors," Bellarmine University criminologist Heather Pruss wrote in a 
dissertation based on thousands of interviews conducted by the national Capital 
Jury Project. But how jurors evaluate sexual orientation is difficult to 
untangle. In cases out of Kentucky and California, for example, jurors spoke 
disparagingly about gay victims - suggesting they were somehow culpable because 
they were lured by the defendants - and the implication was that this made the 
jurors less likely to vote for death.

Such cases are rare, and the legal battles over them are plagued by hazy facts. 
Juries don't typically record their conversations, and interviews with former 
jurors often happen years or even decades after the fact. Some judges also 
restrict the ability of defenders to interview former jurors. Even when they 
find them, each of the twelve can remember things a little differently.

South Dakota also says Rhines shouldn't have an audience before the Supreme 
Court because the defense misrepresented what jurors really said in interviews. 
The state sent its own investigator to find the jurors in May 2017. Many told 
him they had no memory of the homophobic comment and felt harassed by the 
defense. One did recall someone saying Rhines might "like life in the 
penitentiary among other men," but said this line was a passing remark that was 
given little weight.

The state lashed out at the defense lawyers as a "boutique, anti-death penalty 
law firm" that stretched the truth to save their client. "We're not boutique! 
We're public defenders!" Nolan responded, pointing out that the state has not 
shown that any jurors actually recanted their comments on homosexuality.

But what really happened in the jury room? I reached out to 3 jurors - 1 quoted 
by the defense, 1 quoted by the prosecution, and 1 quoted by both sides - and 
the picture grew even muddier.

Former juror Frances Cersosimo said last week that she vividly remembers a 
juror saying that Rhines might not mind life in prison because he was gay. 
"There was a murmuring, everyone said 'Whaaat?" Cersosimo recalled. 
Immediately, this man admitted "it was a stupid thing to say...I don't know why 
I said that." The South Dakota state investigator characterized this as a 
"joke," though Cersosimo insisted, "It was not a joke." (The juror she recalled 
being the one who said this declined to comment.)

In another affidavit collected by the defense, juror Harry Keeney admits the 
knowledge of Rhines's homosexuality affected his decision. His signature 
appears shaky and the state says this is because he has dementia. His wife 
Janet Keeney confirmed to The Marshall Project this is true. "I think he didn't 
say that," she said of the comment in question. "I wouldn't depend upon it."

"We'd just come back from a vacation," she added. "We were tired...The average 
person can't remember what happened 25 years ago."

The jurors I reached all said that they sentenced Rhines to death primarily 
because of the nature of the murder. "The pictures of the kid, he way he 
bragged about the kid begging for his life. Those things never leave your 
head," said juror Delight McGriff, who has no memory of any comments about 
homosexuality, though she admitted "this was a long time ago."

The Supreme Court will discuss whether to take the case on Thursday. Rhines's 
lawyers, in asking them to say yes, cite the case of Duane Buck. At his trial, 
an expert witness made remarks about his race. When the court overturned his 
sentence, Chief Justice John Roberts memorably declared that the "law punishes 
people for what they do, not who they are." The expert's comments boiled down 
to a couple of sentences, but Roberts noted that "some toxins are deadly in 
small doses." If the Supreme Court agrees to hear Rhines's case, they'll again 
need to decide how to weigh just a few words, uttered decades ago and now 
mostly forgotten.

(source: themarshallproject.org)








COLORADO:

Colorado Supreme Court rules prosecutorial misconduct docs can remain secret in 
death row case----The state's highest court ruled against The Colorado 
Independent in its attempt to unseal the records detailing wrongdoing by DA and 
AG candidate George Brauchler's office.



The Colorado Supreme Court today denied a petition from The Colorado 
Independent to unseal records about prosecutorial misconduct in the capital 
case against Sir Mario Owens, a death row inmate who was convicted of murdering 
a state lawmaker's son.

The unanimous ruling may make it easier for Colorado courts to decide to block 
public access to court documents. That includes, evidently, records related to 
cases in which the death penalty is at issue and cases in which prosecutors are 
accused of wrongdoing, said Steve Zansberg, attorney for the Independent.

"These types of documents are the only way the press and public can gauge 
whether prosecutors and judges - officials who have enormous power over 
people's lives - are serving ethically and fairly. By allowing these records to 
be shrouded in secrecy, this ruling will further erode confidence in Colorado's 
criminal justice system and the public's trust the judicial branch of our state 
government," said Independent Editor Susan Greene.

The Independent is considering appealing today's ruling to the U.S. Supreme 
Court, which, as the state Supreme Court wrote, has never ruled on the matter 
of whether access to "all criminal justice records is a constitutionally 
guaranteed right belonging to the public at large."

The statewide nonprofit news site filed an emergency petition in January to the 
state Supreme Court after District Court Judge Christopher Munch issued a 
1,500-page order issued nine months ago in which Munch upheld Owens' conviction 
and death sentence despite having found a pattern of misconduct by state 
prosecutors whom the judge found withheld evidence that might have helped 
Owens.

This suppression of evidence happened under the watch of Carol Chambers, the 
former district attorney of the 18th Judicial District, and later under her 
successor, District Attorney George Brauchler, the Republican currently running 
for state attorney general.

Vikki Migoya, spokeswoman for Brauchler's office, said, "We feel the ruling 
speaks for itself and have nothing to add."

Owens' legal team filed a motion seeking to disqualify Brauchler's office from 
the case on grounds that the office had withheld evidence that could have 
helped Owens's defense. That motion asked the court to appoint a special 
prosecutor from another district, but it was denied and sealed along with the 
denial and all documentation related it.

"While presumptive access to judicial proceedings is a right recognized under 
both the state and federal constitutions," Justice Melissa Hart wrote on behalf 
of the state Supreme Court, "neither the United States Supreme Court nor this 
court has ever held that records filed with a court are treated the same way. 
We decline to conclude here that such unfettered access to criminal justice 
records is guaranteed by either the First Amendment or ... the Colorado 
Constitution."

The ruling today has statewide impact and "means the public will never come to 
understand why a motion to disqualify a prosecutor in a capital murder case was 
denied. That's, I think, deeply disconcerting," said Steve Zansberg, attorney 
for the Independent.

"I'm not saying (Owens's) motion should have been granted. but we'll never know 
why it was denied."

Said Jeff Roberts, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information 
Coalition, "Access to court records is important so that the public can 
evaluate how the criminal justice system is working and hold officials 
accountable. So it's disappointing that relevant facts about the prosecution of 
a capital murder case will remain under seal."

Owens, 32, was convicted and sentenced to death in 2008 for the 2005 killings 
of Vivian Wolfe and her fiancee, Javad Marshall-Fields - son of Rhonda Fields, 
now a state senator from Aurora. Marshall-Fields was scheduled to testify 
against a suspect in a different murder case for which Owens ultimately was 
convicted.

Owens is 1 of 3 death-row inmates in Colorado. All 3 were prosecuted by the 
office Brauchler now leads, and all 3 are African-American - a population that 
comprises less than 5 % of Colorado's overall population. Vast racial and 
socioeconomic disparities in who gets sentenced to death in the state have been 
cited by civil libertarians and even Gov. John Hickenlooper, a 1-time death 
penalty supporter, as reasons to reconsider capital punishment in the state.

Brauchler repeatedly has said his office is color-blind and ethical in seeking 
death sentences. Since The Independent became a party in The People v. Sir 
Mario Owens, the 18th Judicial District Court and the state Supreme Court have 
blocked access not just to documents related prosecutorial misconduct 
allegations, but also to Owens' entire 13-year case.

(source: coloradoindependent.com)








UTAH:

Prison settles lawsuit filed after inmate's death



A lawsuit filed in the death of a Utah man killed at the state prison has been 
settled.

Jeffrey Vigil, 24, was beaten and stabbed to death after guards ignored 
warnings that he would be in danger from members of a rival gang if he was 
moved to another part of the prison, the lawsuit claimed.

Terms of the settlement reached Thursday were not immediately available, the 
Standard-Examiner reported. The case filed by his widow originally sought $20 
million in damages.

Prison authorities did not immediately respond to messages from The Associated 
Press seeking comment on the case Monday.

Vigil was in prison for almost a year after violating his parole when he was 
beaten to death in 2016. The suit also claimed the area was understaffed and 
guards were slow to react to the attack. It says authorities canceled a 911 
call at one point, contributing to a 45-minute delay before he reached the 
hospital, the suit said.

The suit claimed prison officers were warned repeatedly that Vigil, a member of 
the Ogden Trece gang, could be targeted by members of the rival Crips gang if 
he was moved.

Vigil was originally in a maximum security area, but was transferred to a 
lower-security cell, "possibly as a reward for good behavior," the suit said.

He was attacked hours after being transferred, the suit states. Authorities say 
Ramon Luis Rivera, 31, stabbed him, choked him to unconsciousness and kicked 
him in the head at least 70 times. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty if 
he's convicted of aggravated murder.

An attorney for Rivera could not immediately be reached for comment. A 2nd man 
is accused of preventing Vigil from escaping.

(source: Associated Press)








CALIFORNIA:

Jurors to weigh death penalty for eight-time serial killer who murdered women 
in Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties



An 8-time serial killer was driven by anger and frustration combined with 
childhood trauma and brain damage, his attorney on Monday told jurors who will 
soon weigh whether the convicted killer should receive the death penalty.

As the penalty phase in the capital murder trial of Andrew Urdiales came to an 
end, the 53-year-old killer's attorney argued that Urdiales feels remorse for 
his actions and helped bring closure to the victim's families by confessing to 
killing women in Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties.

Urdiales has been convicted of killing 1 woman in Orange County while stationed 
as a U.S. Marine at Camp Pendleton; 4 women in Riverside and San Diego counties 
while stationed at Twentynine Palms; and 3 women in Chicago while working as a 
security guard after leaving the military.

Urdiales' attorney, Denise Gragg, during her closing arguments Monday noted 
that had her client not brought up the California murders soon after being 
arrested for the Chicago killings, law enforcement officials would not have 
tied the slayings together.

"He didn't say he was crazy, he didn't say he was hallucinating, he didn't say 
that God made him do it," Gragg said. "He was trying to figure out why he did 
it, he didn't want to do it and he felt bad about doing it. Bad enough to go to 
therapy for years, and bad enough that when he knew he was caught for the 
Chicago murders to say 'call California'... that is worth something. That is 
worth a lot."

The same Santa Ana jury last month found Urdiales guilty of the Orange County 
murder of Robbin Brandley in 1986 in a Saddleback College parking lot in 
Mission Viejo; and over the next 7 years the Riverside County killings of Julie 
McGhee, Tammie Erwin and Denise Maney; and the San Diego slaying of Mary Ann 
Wells. A Chicago jury previously convicted him of the killings of Laura Uylaki, 
Cassandra Corum and Lynn Huberand.

During the most recent phase of the trial, jurors also heard dramatic testimony 
from Jennifer Asbenson, who described in terrifying detail how she escaped from 
Urdiales after being kidnapped and sexually assaulted in a remote Riverside 
County desert.

Gragg contended that Urdiales was born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, a 
result of his mother's drinking during her pregnancy. His condition was 
worsened by a childhood marked by emotional, physical, sexual and psychological 
abuse, as well as teen years in which he was targeted for regular harassment, 
the defense attorney said.

Gragg told jurors that Urdiales was unable to connect with others, particularly 
women, and had "free-floating anger" that led him to "lash out."

"There are people who commit these crimes because they just enjoy it," Gragg 
said. "They enjoy hurting other people. That is not Mr. Urdiales."

Deputy District Attorney Matt Murphy during his closing arguments. dismissed 
what he referred to as the "sad, abused, loner narrative."

"Kind of tough to make friends when you keep killing people you could be 
friends with," Murphy told jurors.

Murphy described Urdiales as a a "misogynistic, sadistic monster" who killed 
for his own pleasure. The prosecutor questioned whether Urdiales actually 
suffered from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, arguing that he was capable of 
controlling his impulse and desires.

Murphy also noted that Urdiales during one police interview told police he had 
no remorse for killing Brandley, an aspiring broadcaster who was stabbed 41 
times.

"What weight do we put on that?" Murphy asked the jury. "How many layers of 
horror do we need before (death) is the appropriate penalty?"

Jurors are expected to begin deliberations on Tuesday morning as to whether 
Urdiales should receive the death penalty or life without the possibility of 
parole.

(source: Orange County Register)








USA:

Public support for the death penalty ticks up



Public support for the death penalty, which reached a 4-decade low in 2016, has 
increased somewhat since then. Today, 54% of Americans favor the death penalty 
for people convicted of murder, while 39% are opposed, according to a Pew 
Research Center survey conducted in April and May.

2 years ago, 49% favored the death penalty for people convicted of murder, the 
lowest level of support for capital punishment in surveys dating back to the 
early 1970s.

While the share of Americans supporting the death penalty has risen since 2016, 
it remains much lower than in the 1990s or throughout much of the 2000s. As 
recently as 2007, about twice as many Americans favored (64%) as opposed (29%) 
the death penalty for people convicted of murder.

Since the mid-1990s, support for the death penalty has fallen among Democrats 
and independents but remained strong among Republicans.

About 3/4 of Republicans (77%) currently favor the death penalty, compared with 
52% of independents and 35% of Democrats.

Since 1996, support for the death penalty has fallen 27 % points among 
independents (from 79% to 52%) and 36 points among Democrats (71% to 35%). By 
contrast, the share of Republicans favoring the death penalty declined 10 
points during that span (from 87% to 77%).

The trends look somewhat different when considering a more recent time frame. 
Since 2016, opinions among Republicans and Democrats have changed little, but 
the share of independents favoring the death penalty has increased 8 % points 
(from 44% to 52%).

Support for the death penalty has long been divided by gender and race. In the 
new survey, about 6-in-10 men (61%) say they are in favor of the death penalty 
and 34% are opposed. Women's views are more divided: 46% favor the death 
penalty, while 45% oppose it.

A 59% majority of whites favor the death penalty for those convicted of murder, 
compared with 47% of Hispanics and 36% of blacks.

Young people are somewhat less likely than older adults to favor capital 
punishment. Those younger than 30 are divided - 47% favor and 46% oppose it - 
but majorities in older age groups support the death penalty.

There are educational differences in views of the death penalty. Adults who 
have a postgraduate degree are more likely to oppose the use of the death 
penalty in cases of murder (56%) than those whose education ended with a 
college degree (42%) and those who never received a postsecondary degree (36% 
some college experience; 38% high school degree or less).

White evangelical Protestants continue to back the use of the death penalty by 
a wide margin (73% favor, 19% oppose). White mainline Protestants also are 
substantially more likely to support (61%) than oppose (30%) the death penalty. 
But among Catholics and the religiously unaffiliated, opinion is more divided: 
53% of Catholics favor capital punishment, while 42% oppose it. And while 45% 
of those who are religiously unaffiliated oppose the death penalty, 48% support 
it.

In 2015, a more detailed study of attitudes toward capital punishment found 
that 63% of the public thought the death penalty was morally justified, but 
majorities said there was some risk of an innocent person being put to death 
(71%) and that the death penalty does not deter serious crime (61%).

(source: pewresearch.org)