[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----MO., IDAHO, CALIF., WASH., USA

[Rick Halperin]

February 5



MISSOURI:

Controversial Missouri bill would allow organ donations from death row inmates



A controversial bill before state lawmakers in Jefferson City would allow death 
row inmates to voluntarily donate organs moments before they are executed.

Supporters say Missouri could be the 1st state in the country to do it, but 
opponents say not so fast.

The legislation is House Bill 630.

The question now up for debate at the state capitol, elsewhere there is a 
question as to whether death row inmates should be allowed to give life through 
organ donation as they`re about to be executed.

House Bill 630 calls for executions in Missouri to be carried out in a manner 
that allows consenting inmates to make organ and anatomical donations.

30-year-old Julia Sommer has been on kidney dialysis since 2015. Both of her 
kidneys have failed and she says she needs a kidney transplant.

Julia thinks the potential of more organs being available through donation is 
positive even if the organs come from death row killers.

“It needs to happen. It needs to happen because it will save lives and there is 
such a terrible organ shortage,” said Sommer.

Zach Sanders played a major role in developing the bill.

He`s the executive director of the group Missouri Conservatives Concerned about 
the Death Penalty.

Sanders` father was murdered by Russell Bucklew, one of the people facing 
execution in Missouri.

Sanders believes giving death row inmates a chance to donate their organs 
before execution could bring something positive to all of the tragedy 
surrounding death row cases.

“Maybe if we can improve a life or even save a life, why wouldn`t we? You know, 
try to find light in the darkness out of all of this and save somebody`s life,” 
explained Sanders.

Sanders and his group sold state representative Jim Neely on the bill.

Neely, who represents parts of northwest Missouri including Cameron has been a 
doctor for years.

Neely told Fox 2, “If we`re going to execute somebody and they have tissues or 
organs that are usable and they`re wanting to donate, why not do it?”

But not everyone is on board with the bill.

Among those with questions, the Missouri Catholic Conference.

The group opposed the bill when it first came up last year. They have similar 
concerns now even though they haven`t yet officially established a position 
this time around.

The concerns include whether a death row inmate about to be executed is truly 
in the right frame of mind to voluntarily consent to organ donation and if the 
state of Missouri should be in the business of harvesting organs from death row 
inmates.

“Is it proper in that setting to be doing this, you know, and for the state to 
be doing it when they`re about to put someone to death,” questioned the group`s 
executive director Tyler McClay.

There are similar concerns the group Missourians for Alternatives to the Death 
Penalty.

They have already come out against the bill.

Elyse Max with that group told us, “This isn`t a viable source of organ donors 
and it`s a slippery slope. It`s kind of stating that we value an inmate`s 
organs more than their innate value as a human. And so, we think this is 
further exploitation of a vulnerable population.”

Zach and Julia acknowledge the concerns but for them, it boils down to a matter 
of life and death...they are choosing life even if it comes from death row.

“There needs to be a source for more organs and death row inmates would 
definitely be a good place to start,” said Julia.

Neely also sponsored the bill during the last legislative session.

It unanimously passed out of committee but never made it to the floor for a 
full house vote.

So far in this session, the bill does not have a hearing set for it.

But representative Neely is confident that the bill can pass both the House and 
Senate.

Neely says details on how the whole procedure would work would be left up to 
the Department of Corrections.

A department spokesperson told us they have no opinion on the bill and that no 
plans are in place to implement the legislation if it passes.

We will see what happens at the session moves forward.

(source: KPLR news)






IDAHO:

Idaho judge urged to force disclosure of execution drugs----A judge will decide 
whether the public interest in knowing where Idaho has obtained its lethal 
injection drugs for executions is outweighed by what prison officials say is 
the risk that future drug suppliers will dry up



Idaho's attempt to withhold information about the source of its lethal 
injection drugs is similar to hiding the type of ammunition used by firing 
squads or the brand of rope used in a hanging, an attorney for the American 
Civil Liberties Union of Idaho told a state judge on Monday.

The arguments from the ACLU's Ritchie Eppink came at the close of a trial 
pitting the Idaho Department of Corrections against a University of Idaho 
professor who sued for access to execution documents under the state's Public 
Records Act.

Similar lawsuits have been filed across the U.S. in recent years with varying 
results, as prison officials struggle to find lethal injection drug suppliers 
in the wake of sometimes botched executions.

Professor Aliza Cover, who studies how the public interacts with the death 
penalty, requested the documents from prison officials in 2017. She sued after 
the state largely denied her request, and Judge Lynn Norton heard closing 
arguments in the case on Monday.

Idaho Department of Correction officials fear that revealing information about 
where they obtained the lethal drugs used in executions in 2011 and 2012 will 
prompt protests by anti-death penalty advocates and cause other lethal drug 
suppliers to refuse to sell to the state.

"The public has an interest in its public agencies carrying out lawful orders, 
which the death warrant is," said corrections department attorney Jessica 
Kuehn, referring to the court document that orders an execution to be carried 
out.

But she characterized the public interest in the source of execution chemicals 
as "minuscule."

Kuehn said the Idaho Legislature has given the Board of Correction the 
authority to determine which documents to withhold from public record releases, 
and the courtroom is not the forum to contest that.

But Cover's attorney said her record request was essentially a request for 
public reassurance that the state is acting appropriately and not resorting to 
illegal, unethical or unsavory drug suppliers when carrying out executions, 
Eppink said.

"Instead, the department argues, 'If we told you where this came from, the 
public might not allow you to do it again,'" Eppink said. "The Legislature or 
the market might respond by removing these suppliers from the options that we 
as society consider acceptable."

Other states have faced similar lawsuits with mixed results. In Arizona, news 
organizations including The Associated Press sued in hopes of finding out where 
prison officials sourced their execution drugs, but a federal judge ruled in 
2017 that the media outlets did not show they had a First Amendment right to 
the information.

A public record lawsuit in Nevada forced that state to reveal the types of 
drugs it planned to use for lethal injections, and that information prompted 
three pharmaceutical companies to sue to stop the state from using their drugs 
in executions.

The pharmaceutical companies contended Nevada prison officials obtained the 
drugs by subterfuge by having them shipped to a non-prison address. That 
lawsuit is ongoing.

A Nebraska judge ordered prison officials there to release public records 
related to lethal injection drugs — including records that identify the state's 
supplier — and pay court costs to the ACLU and two newspapers who sued for the 
information. Prison officials have appealed that decision and the records 
remain undisclosed.

Eppink claimed the Idaho corrections department had a pattern of hiding, losing 
or destroying documents rather than providing them to people who seek them 
under the state's Public Records Act. He said the department administers the 
death penalty on behalf of the public, and the public deserves to know if that 
responsibility is being carried out well.

"When the department's team injects those drugs, we all push those drugs in," 
Eppink said. "To prevent the public from putting sunshine onto that apparatus 
... suggests we are so ashamed we must hide it like a profound regret."

Kuehn acknowledged that the department has record retention problems and said 
officials are working on the issue.

Norton said she will begin deliberating on the case on Feb. 13 and will issue a 
written ruling sometime later.

(source: ABC News)








CALIFORNIA:

California Supreme Court reverses death sentence of man convicted in brutal 
1998 Long Beach attack



In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court on Monday reversed the death 
sentence of o1 of 3 men on death row for the December 1998 rape and beating 
death of a mother of 3 who was attacked while walking to a store in Long Beach.

The court affirmed the 2004 conviction of Jamelle Edward Armstrong for his 
involvement in the Dec. 29, 1998, sexual assault, robbery, torture and slaying 
of 43-year-old Penny Sigler, also known as Penny Keprta.

But a majority of justices agreed that several prospective jurors were 
improperly excused from the trial panel, leading to the reversal of the death 
sentence. In an opinion authored by Justice Carol Corrigan, the court ruled 
that the lower court erroneously excluded at least four jurors because they 
were judged, based on a hypothetical set of facts, to be unequally willing “to 
impose death on an aider and abettor as on an actual killer, rather than on 
whether they could follow the law and consider death as an option.”

The court also considered the question of racial bias in jury selection. 
Armstrong had asked the lower court for a mistrial because the jury chosen 
included no black men. His motion was denied. The high court found that there 
were other valid reasons, unrelated to race, to exclude the jurors who were not 
selected.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Goodwin Liu argued that the case had “definite 
racial overtones” that “raise heightened concerns about whether the 
prosecutor’s challenge was racially motivated.” The victim was white and 
Armstrong is black.

Prosecutors retain the discretion to retry the penalty phase in Armstrong’s 
case.

He was tried and convicted separately from his older half-brother, Warren 
Justin Hardy, and defendant Kevin Pearson, who remain on death row.

Sigler was walking to a store for groceries at about 11 p.m. when she was 
attacked under an overpass for the 405 Freeway in Long Beach.

(source: Press-Telegram)

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

Calif. Supreme Court Upholds Death Penalty Conviction Upheld for van Dam 
Murderer



The Supreme Court of California upheld a death penalty sentence for David 
Westerfield on Monday for the 2002 murder and kidnapping of 7-year-old Sabre 
Springs resident Danielle van Dam.

Van Dam's disappearance in February 2002 prompted a massive county-wide search 
conducted by volunteers. Nearly a month later, her badly decomposed body was 
found in the underbrush off Dehesa Road in El Cajon.

6 months later, Westerfield, who lived across the street from the van Dam 
family, was convicted of murder in the course of kidnapping, kidnapping and 
possession of child pornography and sentenced him to death.

The 7-member Supreme Court heard Westerfield’s automatic appeal of that death 
penalty in November.

In a 490 page legal brief, first submitted 7 years ago, Westerfield’s lawyer 
outlined 28 reasons why his client deserves a new trial. Among those arguments: 
the trial judge, William Mudd, wrongly denied Westerfield’s motion to suppress 
certain evidence; the child pornography charges should not have been heard at 
his trial, there was insufficient evidence of kidnapping to support that guilty 
verdict; and Judge William Mudd should have sequestered the jury, to prevent 
members from being exposed to prejudicial publicity.

Westerfield has remained on death row at San Quentin State Prison for more than 
a decade-and-a-half.

He has other legal avenues to challenge the jury verdict. His attorneys have 
promised a series of appeals, which could last decades.

It’s possible that Westerfield could die in custody before his appeals are 
exhausted and before he’s executed.

(source: nbcsandiego.com)








WASHINGTON:

Impose death penalty in all 1st-degree murders



State Sen. Keith Wagoner, R-Sedro-Woolley, wants the death penalty for an 
inmate who kills while behind bars (“GOP senator wants death penalty revived 
for prison killings,” The Herald, Jan. 23). Well, that’s a step in the right 
direction, but why not the death penalty for murder before they’re behind bars?

How many in prison for murder commit a 2nd murder while in jail or after their 
release for a previous murder? There’s no incentive not to kill if they’re 
already in for life and there is no death penalty. Reinstate the death penalty 
for all 1st-degree murders. It will save lives. Isn’t that what we hear all the 
time: If it saves just one life?

Richard Stevens, Lake Quint

(source: Letter to the Editor, The Herald)








USA:

Red states move to end death penalty



Some of the most conservative states in the country are leading a new effort to 
abolish the death penalty, a punishment that a growing number of Republicans 
say does not serve to deter offenders from committing crimes.

In Wyoming, the state House passed a bill Friday to end capital punishment. In 
Virginia, the state Senate voted to bar the death penalty for those with 
serious mental illnesses. And in Kentucky, state House Majority Whip Chad McCoy 
(R) has introduced his own bill to stop executions.

Republicans who back the push to end capital punishment said they view the 
practice as immoral, ineffective — and costly.

“When you talk about death penalty, a lot of people immediately want to have a 
criminal justice angle on it or a morality angle. And mine is purely 
economics,” McCoy said in an interview.

Those on death row “have cost us an inordinate amount of money, and if we just 
went with life without parole, we would save the state millions and millions of 
dollars,” he added.

In Wyoming, the state spends about $750,000 every year on legal bills 
associated with death row inmates, even though no one has been sentenced to 
death since 2004.

“I think we have to decide what our system to look like. If it’s not a 
deterrent, we have to ask ourselves what is it,” said state Rep. Jared Olsen 
(R), who sponsored the Wyoming bill. “I think the only thing we can conclude is 
that it serves one purpose, and that’s retribution. I personally don’t believe 
that we want to enshrine in our laws a system of retribution.”

Olsen said he was troubled by the number of prisoners sentenced to death who 
had subsequently been exonerated. Since 1973, more than 160 people have been 
released from death row, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a 
think tank that opposes capital punishment.

“That tells me that the system is broken,” Olsen said. “It is way too much 
authority to vest in our government, and we get it wrong.”

McCoy said he is building a coalition of Catholic legislators who oppose the 
death penalty on moral grounds and traditional Republicans who see it as 
ineffective both in deterring crime and in keeping costs down.

“I’m a very pro-life person, and if you’re going to be pro-life, it would 
include these lives,” McCoy said. “I’m hoping we can at least get a vote.”

30 states still allow death sentences, including both the most liberal and the 
most conservative states in the country.

More people sit on death row in California, 740, than any other state; more 
people have been executed in Texas, 559, than in the next 6 states that most 
often use the death penalty combined.

But the number of death sentences carried out has fallen dramatically in recent 
years, from a high of 98 in 1999 to just 25 in 2018, according to the Death 
Penalty Information Center.

Prosecutors are also seeking the death penalty less often, said Robert Dunham, 
the center’s executive director. Death penalty sentences have dropped 85 % 
since the mid-1990s. Only 42 death sentences were handed out in 2018, down from 
295 in 1998.

The new push against the death penalty reflects an evolving political reality. 
Where opposition to the death penalty was once seen as being soft on crime, 
both Republicans and Democrats now back so-called smart on crime approaches to 
the criminal justice system.

“The typical view of the death penalty was an ideological view. Now it’s 
becoming much more of a pragmatic view. Republicans are subjecting the death 
penalty to the same kind of scrutiny that had previously been reserved for 
social programs,” Dunham said.

“More and more Republicans are voting for repeal. Democrats support repeal at a 
higher rate, but the combination of the high rate at which Democrats are 
supporting repeal and the growing rate at which Republicans are supporting 
repeal has created a bipartisan consensus that hadn’t previously existed,” he 
said.

Several other states have moved toward abolishing the death penalty in recent 
years.

The Washington state Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional 
in 2018; a Democratic supermajority in Oregon is moving to limit the death 
penalty solely to terrorism cases, which would make it functionally obsolete.

New Hampshire legislators voted to abolish the death penalty last year, though 
Gov. Chris Sununu (R) vetoed that measure.

Nevada and Colorado, 2 states where Democrats took control in the 2018 midterm 
elections, are both considering their own bills to end capital punishment.

At the same time, public support for capital punishment has fallen in recent 
decades.

In 1996, more than 3/4 of Americans said they favored the death penalty for 
those convicted of capital murder.

Today, just over half, 54 %, support capital punishment, according to a Pew 
Research Center survey conducted last year.

Some states are moving in the other direction.

Legislators in Iowa, which ended the death penalty in 1965, are considering a 
bill to reinstitute the practice.

South Carolina’s state Senate voted last week to allow executions by both the 
electric chair and firing squad, after medical companies declined to sell the 
state the chemicals necessary to conduct lethal injections.

A similar bill died in the South Carolina state House last year.

About 2,700 people sit on death rows across the country.

The vast majority of executions that have taken place since the Supreme Court 
allowed capital punishment in 1976 have taken place in just a handful of 
states.

Virginia and Oklahoma are the only 2 states aside from Texas that have executed 
more than 100 prisoners, though Florida is close to that mark.

But the political situation is changing even in those states where executions 
are most common.

Voters in recent years have replaced prosecutors in places like Harris County, 
Texas, home of Houston; Dallas County; and Bexar County, home of Austin, with 
candidates who have more openly opposed the death penalty.

New prosecutors in Orange County, Calif.; Orange County, Fla.; Philadelphia; 
and Caddo Parish, Louisiana have all taken stands against the death penalty.

“It’s not just no longer politically beneficial to be harsh on crime without 
being smart on crime, it’s now also politically dangerous,” Dunham said.

(source: thehill.com)