[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, VA., OHIO, TENN., ARK., MO., OKLA., COLO., CALIF.

[Rick Halperin]

November 28



TEXAS:

Texas is Trying to Execute a Man for a Murder He Didn't Commit----The Texas 
Court of Criminal Appeals denied a recommendation to relieve him of execution.



Can a state sentence someone to death for a murder that they didn't commit? 
According to Texas, the answer is "yes."

In 1996, 22-year-old Jeff Woods was involved in the robbery of a convenience 
store, which resulted in the death of Kris Keeran, the store clerk. Woods was 
outside in the getaway vehicle when his co-conspirator, Danny Reneau, fatally 
shot Keeran. Though Woods did not kill the clerk, both he and Reneau were 
sentenced to death. Reneau was executed in 2002.

Now, 22 years later, Woods' lawyers are fighting to get him off of death row.

Last Wednesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied a trial court's 
recommendation to relieve Woods, who is now 45, of execution. The court argued 
that Woods posed a future threat because of a previous robbery with Reneau. 
This assessment was based in part on a 1998 testimony from psychiatrist Dr. 
James P. Grigson, who carries the nickname "Dr. Death."

Grigson's influence in the case has been controversial. His method for 
determining an inmate's likelihood to reoffend was questioned by Woods' lawyers 
as they argued that Grigson almost always concluded that defendants would be 
future dangers. A 2004 article, which looked closely at Grigson's career, 
states that he often did not even meet with the defendants he recommended for 
death. Grigson was eventually expelled from both the American Psychiatric 
Association and the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians for his 
predictability methods, which the boards deemed unscientific.

Now that the appeals court has made its decision, it will now set an execution 
date for Woods. But there is still hope. A request for commutation can now be 
filed on his behalf. Lucy Hale, the prosecutor in Wood's initial trial, sent a 
letter to the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole in August 2017 asking Gov. Greg 
Abbott to reduce Woods' sentence to life in prison. Hale noted in her letter 
that she was unaware of Grigson's history. Had she been made aware, she would 
have decided against asking him to testify.

As previously explained by Reason in 2016, Texas' "law of parties" is to blame 
for Woods' placement on death row. Though he was not directly responsible for 
the taking of Keeran's life, Texas law demands that a person who has aided 
someone else while they commit a capital murder is similarly eligible for the 
death penalty.

Bonus link: Texas is not the only state with overzealous sentencing demands. An 
Illinois mother is currently dealing with the consequences of being on the sex 
offender registry despite not being a sex offender.

(source: reason.com)








VIRGINIA:

Appeals court orders new hearing for Va. death row inmate----Mark Lawlor 
admitted raping, killing Genevieve Orange in 2008, but court says expert 
testimony was wrongly limited



A Fairfax County, Va., man sentenced to death for raping and killing a woman in 
2008 should receive a new hearing because a Fairfax judge wrongly limited the 
testimony of a defense witness at sentencing, a federal appeals court ruled 
Tuesday. But it was not clear if his capital punishment was overturned.

Mark E. Lawlor, now 53, is 1 of only 3 people on Virginia's death row. He used 
a frying pan and a hammer to bludgeon 29-year-old Genevieve Orange to death in 
September 2008, in the Falls Church, Va.-area apartment building where he was a 
property manager. Lawlor then sexually assaulted the unconscious woman, 
prosecutors said. He had previously served prison time for abducting an 
ex-girlfriend, and was working as a property manager as part of a 
rehabilitation program. Lawlor did not contest his guilt at trial in February 
2011, but claimed he was so drunk and high that he did not have the willful 
intent necessary to be convicted of capital murder.

A Fairfax jury disagreed. At sentencing, Fairfax prosecutors argued both that 
Lawlor's crime was so vile that it merited the death penalty, and that he posed 
such a future danger to society that he also deserved the death penalty. Though 
the jury had to find only 1 of the "aggravating factors" in the case, it found 
both, and Fairfax Circuit Court Jonathan C. Thacher imposed the jury's death 
penalty in June 2011.

But defense lawyers argued that Thacher had wrongly prohibited one of their 
experts from testifying about Lawlor’s future dangerousness in prison. Defense 
attorneys in death penalty cases present mitigating evidence to convince a jury 
that a life sentence is more appropriate than death. Thacher ruled that the 
expert must testify about Lawlor's potential dangerousness in all of society, 
not merely prison, and limited his testimony. The Virginia Supreme Court and a 
federal district court both ruled that Thacher's rulings were correct.

On Tuesday, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 
declared that all 3 of those courts got it wrong.

The opinion written by Circuit Court Judge Stephanie D. Thacker, joined by 
judges Diana Gribbon Motz and Allyson K. Duncan, cited a U.S. Supreme Court 
ruling from 1981 which said the "Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that 
the sentencer not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any 
aspect of a defendant’s character or record...that the defendant proffers as a 
basis for a sentence less than death."

The defense expert, clinical psychologist Mark Cunningham, interviewed Lawlor 
and reviewed his prior records. He was prepared to testify that if Lawlor were 
sentenced to life in prison, he would be a low risk to commit further violence. 
The trial judge, Thacher, ruled that Lawlor's future dangerousness was "not 
limited to prison society, and it's misleading to the jury." The appeals court 
panel ruled that "Virginia courts have not held that evidence of prison 
dangerousness, particularized to the defendant, is irrelevant to a 
consideration of 'society as a whole.'"

The appeals court ruled that it had "grave doubt" that Thacher's limitation of 
the testimony was harmless. They remanded the case to U.S. District Court in 
Alexandria for "proceedings consistent with this opinion."

But it was not clear whether overturning the "future dangerousness" prong of 
the sentence would overturn Lawlor's death sentence. The appeals court decision 
did not address the jury's finding that Lawlor's crime was so vile it deserved 
the death penalty and whether that should also be revisited. Fairfax County 
Commonwealth's Attorney Raymond F. Morrogh, who tried the case in 2011, said he 
would wait to hear from the Virginia attorney general's office, which handles 
criminal appeals in Virginia.

The attorney general's office said it was still studying the ruling. Defense 
attorneys from the federal public defender in Philadelphia, which handled 
Lawlor's appeal, did not return messages seeking comment Tuesday.

The victim's mother, Marilyn Orange, who sat through the entire trial, was not 
troubled by the ruling. "The facts are there and he's a bad egg," Marilyn 
Orange said. "But whether he killed Gini or not, I don't know. I don't want him 
to die if he didn't do it."

(source: Washington Post)








OHIO:

George Brinkman gets death penalty for Cuyhoga County murders



He will be formally sentenced next month for killing a North Royalton woman and 
her 2 adult daughters.

The man charged in connection with a 2017 double homicide in Lake Township will 
be sentenced to death for the murders of 3 women in a separate Cuyahoga County 
homicide case.

George Brinkman, 46, will be formally sentenced Dec. 28. He pleaded guilty to 
aggravated murder and other crimes earlier this month, and a 3-judge panel on 
Monday issued its decision on his fate.

Brinkman also has been indicted in Stark County on 2 counts of aggravated 
murder related to the June 2017 shooting deaths of Lake Township couple Rogell 
"Gene" John, 71, and Roberta "Bobbi" John, 64.

The 2 crimes are being handled separately.

Stark County plans to proceed with its case, according to the Stark County 
Prosecutor's Office.

"The case is proceeding in the criminal justice system," said Fred Scott, head 
of the criminal division at the Prosecutor's office.

The Stark County murders were committed less than 24 hours after the murders in 
Cuyahoga County. Brinkman was house-sitting for the Lake Township couple, whom 
he knew because he had dated their daughter and worked for Rogell John.

Brinkman was arrested following a standoff at a home in Brunswick.

(source: Canton Repository)








TENNESSEE----impending execution

Death row inmate David Earl Miller picks the electric chair for Dec. 6 
execution



David Earl Miller, the next Tennessee death row inmate scheduled to be executed 
on Dec. 6, has told prison officials he wants to be executed using the electric 
chair.

Miller, 61, informed the warden at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution of 
his decision in a handwritten note that was marked "URGENT." The Tennessee 
attorney general's office announced the move in a court filing Monday.

Miller's attorneys had previously argued to delay the deadline for a choice, 
but the state argued his letter to warden Tony Mays choosing electrocution 
rendered those requests moot. A federal judge agreed, signaling Miller's 
execution is set to move forward as scheduled. < Inmates sentenced to death for 
crimes committed before 1999 can choose between the electric chair and lethal 
injection, the state's primary execution method.

(source: The Tennessean)








ARKANSAS:

Arkansas lawmaker revives change to death penalty sentence



A State Representative in Arkansas has revived a bill that would make it more 
difficult for a criminal with a serious mental illness to be sentenced to 
death.

State Rep. Vivian Flowers, D-Pine Bluff, reintroduced House Bill 2170 to the 
House Judiciary Committee Monday.

The legislation would allow the person to petition the court after receiving 
the death penalty. The court would appoint 2 examiners, psychiatrists or 
psychologists licensed by the Arkansas State Medical Board, to determine the 
extent of the mental illness. The criminal would then have another hearing, 
upon which the court has 30 days to make a decision.

If the court determines the person has a serious mental illness, the death 
penalty is off the table. However, the state could still seek life without 
parole.

(source: arklatexhomepage.com)








MISSOURI:

Councilman-elect pushes for death penalty in Catholic Supply murder 
case----"This horrific sexual assault and murder begs for the ultimate penalty 
upon conviction," Tim Fitch wrote in a news release Tuesday morning.



Incoming councilman and former St. Louis County police chief Tim Fitch is 
calling for federal prosecutors to take over the case of suspected Catholic 
Supply gunman Thomas Bruce.

Fitch is the county councilman-elect in west St. Louis County where Jamie 
Schmidt was murdered last week. He wants newly elected St. Louis County 
prosecuting attorney Wesley Bell to turn the case over to the U.S. Attorney’s 
Office for the Eastern District of Missouri for federal prosecution.

Doing so would increase the chances that if convicted, Bruce could face the 
death penalty.

"This horrific sexual assault and murder begs for the ultimate penalty upon 
conviction," Fitch wrote in a news release Tuesday morning.

Bruce is facing 17 charges, including 1st-degree murder and sodomy.

“The community needs to send a convincing message in senseless deaths such as 
the one forced upon the victim, Jamie Schmidt,” Fitch wrote in his statement.

Outgoing Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch said the decision on whether to 
seek the death penalty will be up to the man who's replacing him: Prosecuting 
Attorney-Elect Wesley Bell.

"I don't think elected officials, me included, should decide which parts of the 
law they follow and which ones they don’t follow," Fitch said. "The people of 
Missouri have authorized the death penalty as part of our law."

Bell's campaign website has an entire section dedicated to getting rid of the 
death penalty.

"Multiple federal statutes call for the ultimate penalty for the type of crimes 
committed by the suspect in the death of Mrs. Schmidt. Councilman-Elect Fitch 
respectfully requests U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri review 
the facts and circumstances of this brutal crime and assume responsibility for 
the prosecution of the suspect," Fitch's statement said in conclusion.

5 On Your Side has reached out to Bell and his office for a response. A 
spokesperson provided the following statement:

"There is only 1 prosecutor at a time, thus it would be inappropriate for Mr. 
Bell to comment on any pending cases prior to taking office."

U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen';s office provided this statement:

"We can neither confirm nor deny we are investigating or pursuing federal 
charges at this time."

Bruce is being held without bond. He made his 1st court appearance Monday and 
asked for a public defender. He’s scheduled to be back in court Dec. 5.

(source: KSDK news)




OKLAHOMA:

Oklahoma Death Penalty Case Could Restore Indian Lands



A Native American man’s legal challenge to his murder conviction in Oklahoma 
could cause massive disruptions if it is upheld, because it could force the 
redrawing of legal boundaries in a sizable chunk of the state, a lawyer for the 
state told the Supreme Court on Nov. 27.

The murder case, known as Carpenter v. Murphy, has given rise to a boundary 
dispute that covers 4,600 square miles of land, including most of Tulsa, 
Oklahoma's 2nd-largest city. Shifting the internal border would have an impact 
on thousands of criminal cases and cause social, economic, and governmental 
upheaval, the state argues.

The Trump administration supports the state's position. If the state loses this 
case, it says almost 1/2 of the state's population would suddenly be subject to 
tribal jurisdiction and that the same kind of transformation could happen in 
other states with Indian reservations - claims rejected as fear-mongering by 
opposing counsel.

There will be "earth-shattering consequences" if the Supreme Court finds in 
favor of respondent Patrick Dwayne Murphy, the attorney for the state, Lisa S. 
Blatt, told the 8 justices during oral arguments. (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused 
himself from the case.)

"There are 2,000 prisoners in state court who committed a crime in the former 
Indian territory who self-identify as Native American. This number is grossly 
under-inclusive because, if the victim was Native American, the state court 
also lacked jurisdiction. That's 155 murderers, 113 rapists, and over 200 
felons who committed crimes against children," Blatt said.

Reopening these cases "would re-traumatize the victims, the families, and the 
communities," Blatt said. "Nor is it clear that the federal government could 
retry any of these cases because the evidence is too stale or the statute of 
limitations has expired, which appears to be the case in about half of them."

Ruling in favor of Murphy "raises a specter of tearing apart families all 
across eastern Oklahoma, and probably beyond, for years and years and years and 
years after the fact," she said. That's because "under the Indian Child Welfare 
Act, any tribe, any parent, and any child can undo any prior Indian child 
welfare custody proceeding if the state court lacked jurisdiction because the 
Indian child lived on a reservation."

Crime and Appeal

Murphy, a member of the Muscogee tribe, was convicted in 2000 by a state court 
jury in McIntosh County, Oklahoma, of murdering another Muscogee man named Greg 
Jacobs, and was sentenced to death. The 2 men fought over a woman who lived 
with Murphy but had previously been in a relationship with Jacobs. Murphy 
stabbed Jacobs, sliced off his genitals, and left his body by the side of a 
road.

Murphy contends the state had no legal right to try him because the victim was 
also an Indian and the crime took place on Indian territory, as established by 
an 1866 treaty. A federal law known as 18 U.S.C. § 1153 grants the federal 
government exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by or against 
Native Americans in so-called Indian country.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit threw out the 
conviction, agreeing with Murphy's reasoning.

Murphy had raised the same territorial argument before state courts without 
success. He also previously argued unsuccessfully that his legal counsel at 
trial was ineffective and that he was intellectually disabled and therefore 
ineligible for execution.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Murphy's territorial argument 
and determined the crime took place on state land.

The 10th Circuit disagreed.

"Mr. Murphy's state conviction and death sentence are thus invalid," the 
circuit court stated. "The OCCA erred by concluding the state courts had 
jurisdiction, and the district court erred by concluding the OCCA's decision 
was not contrary to clearly established federal law."

Whenever a Native American is charged with murder on an Indian reservation, 
that person has to be tried in federal court, the circuit court ruled, citing 
earlier precedent. The circuit court determined that the crime took place on 
land that was part of an Indian reservation that was never formally 
disestablished by Congress.

Tribal Sovereignty During oral arguments, Blatt got into an extended 
back-and-forth with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan about the history 
and current status of the reservation.

Eastern Oklahoma, where the crime took place, isn't an Indian reservation 
because "Congress destroyed all features of a reservation by terminating all 
sovereignty over the land in the march up to statehood," Blatt said. "Congress 
stripped the former Indian territory of reservation status by terminating all 
tribal sovereignty over the area to create Oklahoma."

Sotomayor interrupted, asking for the exact date when this disestablishment of 
Indian sovereignty took place.

"Our position is it was done by statehood," Blatt replied.

Sotomayor countered that at the time Oklahoma became a state in 1907, the tribe 
still existed.

"We don't have to give you a date," Blatt said. "Rome did not fall in a day. We 
know it fell by 476, but it was sacked several times before that."

But Kagan told the at-times abrasive Blatt that things were less clear-cut.

In 1901, Congress planned to terminate all sovereignty by 1906, but then 
extended tribal government "in order to wind things up," Kagan said. Then 
Congress extended tribal government again, she said. "Whatever Congress thought 
it might want to do, it decided it didn't want to do it in the end."

After a few minutes, Kagan expressed frustration. "I'm still not getting it," 
she told Blatt.

Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh asked Murphy's lawyer, Ian 
Gershengorn, why they should make a ruling that would potentially be so 
disruptive to Oklahoma.

Kavanaugh said, "Stability is a critical value in judicial decision-making, and 
we would be departing from that and creating a great deal of turmoil."

Breyer said, "There are 1.8 million people living in this area ... what happens 
to all those people?"

Gershengorn said, "The state's concerns are dramatically overstated."

He acknowledged there would be "significant" but not "existential" 
ramifications. "There will be limits on state authority over income tax and 
sales tax of tribal members on the reservation."

But the "kind of seismic change" Blatt identified won't happen, he said.

(source: theepochtimes.com)








COLORADO:

Death Penalty In CO: Activists Think 'Blue Wave' May Abolish It----'I think 
this year is going to be the year.'



Opponents of the death penalty - hoping to capitalize on the blue wave that 
swept Colorado in November's midterm elections - plan a concerted effort to 
abolish capital punishment in the state after a string of failed attempts.

"I have worked on this issue for several years but wasn't able to get it 
passed," said outgoing Democratic State Sen. Lucia Guzman, the former minority 
leader. "But I think this year is going to be the year."

Guzman says she recently spent a lot of time with Rep. Jeni Arndt, a Fort 
Collins Democrat, who is working on a bill to do away with the death penalty in 
Colorado. In an interview with The Colorado Independent, Arndt said she called 
Guzman in June and asked for the lawmaker's blessing to pick up the abolition 
fight. Arndt declined to discuss specifics until the draft bill is finalized 
but said among the outstanding questions is whether repeal would be applied 
proactively or retroactively - a question with major implications for 
Colorado's 3 current death row inmates.

Activists opposed to the death penalty see Arndt's legislation as having a 
better shot at passage given the new Democratic legislature and Gov.-elect 
Jared Polis's signaling that he would sign a bill to abolish capital 
punishment.

Polis recently told 9News that he feels the death penalty is "not cost 
effective, it's not an effective deterrent, and, you know, I do have a problem 
with some of the ways it's been implemented from a racial bias perspective, as 
well."

Arndt called Polis's statements a "game changer." She already has won the 
support of Rep. Adrienne Benavidez, a Commerce City Democrat who Arndt says has 
signed onto the bill. The duo is now reaching out to lawmakers of all political 
stripes, trying to frame the issue as a moral rather than a partisan decision.

"I can't imagine how you can compromise on this," Arndt said. "It is a binary 
bill - this is an either-or push. I think what we have to do is build 
coalitions. I don't think there is going to be a lot of persuasion."

Currently, 20 states have banned the death penalty, while it remains legal in 
30 states - including Colorado. Beyond the moral debate over whether the 
government should kill a killer, capital punishment opponents in Colorado argue 
that racial disparities in death penalty cases, the limited shelf life of 
lethal drugs, and the immense cost of such cases all weigh against keeping a 
rarely used punishment in place. The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado 
estimates the average death penalty case costs taxpayers $3.5 million, compared 
to roughly $150,000 for life in prison without parole.

(source: patch.com)








CALIFORNIA:

Death penalty decision delayed in Nia Wilson BART stabbing case



The family of Nia Wilson, the young woman stabbed to death at Oakland's 
MacArthur BART station, wants the death penalty for her suspected killer.

But they won't get an answer for 3 more weeks after Alameda County Prosecutors 
delayed that decision during a Tuesday court hearing.

John Lee Cowell faces murder and attempted murder charges in connection with 
the attack against 18-year-old Nia and her sister Letifah Wilson back on July 
22, 2018.

Cowell was set to enter a plea on Tuesday, but that was delayed as prosecutors 
announced that they had not decided whether to seek the death penalty.

A month after Cowell was arrested at another BART station, prosecutors added a 
special circumstance allegation that he killed while 'lying in wait.'

That special circumstance could result in either the death penalty or life in 
prison without parole if Cowell's convicted.

Prosecutors obtained a grand jury indictment in October in an effort to speed 
up the case.

But several of Nia Wilson's family members who attended the latest court 
hearing in Oakland said the case is taking a toll.

"This process is going too slow for me and our families," said Wilson's father 
Ansar El Muhammed.

"We already been dealt the death sentence with the murder of our daughter. Like 
I said it's getting very frustrating and I wish this process would move on."

(source: KGO news)

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

We need all kinds of punishment - including the death penalty - to deter all 
kinds of killers



To the editor: When humans lived in caves, the tribal chief would serve as the 
group's executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. His task 
was great: to dispense punishment in a way that would preserve the tribe. He 
quickly reasoned that if murder was not effectively deterred, the tribe would 
not long exist.

Times have changed, but the basic dynamics have not. The only difference is 
that there are a lot of murderers who value the ability to kill over keeping 
their own lives and would be happy to die quickly. For them, the prospect of 
life imprisonment is an absolute nightmare.

For this reason, all punishments, including life imprisonment without parole as 
well as the death penalty, must remain on the books. We must try to deter every 
possible killer.

Ignored in this editorial, which asks outgoing Gov. Jerry Brown and his 
successor Gavin Newsom to work together to abolish the death penalty, is that 
our focus must be on saving the lives of all potential victims. We must protect 
potential victims whose killers fear either execution the most or life 
imprisonment. Neither punishment should be abolished.

The goal is deterrence, not punishment.

Robert S. Henry, San Gabriel

The writer is a retired capital case coordinator with the California attorney 
general's office.

..

To the editor: In addition to the excellent reasons in your editorial to 
abolish capital punishment, there is yet another reason that was not mentioned: 
the devastating effect a death sentence has on the people involved.

Imagine living, almost always for many years, with the possibility that your 
relative may eventually be executed. Sometimes even the families of the victims 
protest against the death penalty.

Instead, why can't we have a less bloodthirsty but very severe (and more 
immediate) punishment for convicted murderers? The possibility of life 
imprisonment with no hope of parole - with solitary confinement and no 
amenities such as television - might be more of a deterrent to would-be killers 
than the death penalty.

Jan Kelley, Studio City

(source: Letters to the Editor, Los Angeles Times)