[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----N.C., S.C., GA., FLA., ALA., LA.

[Rick Halperin]

February 12




NORTH CAROLINA:

Murdered, pregnant prostitute ‘matters,’ prosecutor says as death penalty trial 
begins----The death penalty trial of Seaga Gillard, accused of fatally shooting 
a pregnant woman inside a Raleigh hotel room in December of 2016, began on



The case of a prostitute shot dead in the door of her Raleigh hotel room opened 
Monday with prosecutors insisting that she matters as a victim despite her 
criminal profession.

April Lynn Holland was roughly 12 weeks pregnant when she was shot in the chest 
and head at America’s Best Value Inn, where her boyfriend and father of their 
children Dwayne Garvey was also slain in December 2016.

The state is seeking the death penalty against Seaga Gillard, 31, whom 
prosecutors accused of seeking out Holland as a customer paying $140 and then 
shooting her after an accomplice shot Garvey in the hallway.

“Do they matter?” asked Wake County Assistant District Attorney David Saacks. 
“Do Dwayne and April matter? Will they be offered the same consideration, will 
they be offered the same justice that any one of us would expect? ... We are 
confident that they will, and that they do.”

April Lynn Holland and Dwayne Garvey, who were shot to death on the 2nd floor 
of the America’s Best Value Inn at 3921 Arrow Drive, off Blue Ridge Road near 
the Crabtree Valley Mall, before dawn on Dec. 2, 2016. The next day, police 
charged Seaga Edward Gillard, 28, and Brandon Xavier Hill, 29, with 1st-degree 
murder in the double homicide.

The case highlights the underworld of prostitution but also the increasing 
rarity of the death penalty in North Carolina. The state has not executed an 
inmate since 2006, and more than two years have passed since a jury last 
imposed death as punishment.

A recent poll conducted by Public Policy Polling showed 51 percent said North 
Carolina should or probably should replace the death penalty with life in 
prison without possibility of parole. Of those polled, 70 percent said they 
believe it is either very or somewhat likely that innocent people have likely 
been executed.

But out of 100 counties statewide, Wake is the only one to seek death sentences 
in each of the past three years, according to the Center for Death Penalty 
Litigation. Since 2016, Wake held a quarter of the 12 capital trials across 
North Carolina.

Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman said last month that her office 
seeks the death penalty in fewer than 5 % of all homicide cases, reserving it 
for “the most egregious.”

Much of Gillard’s trial will hinge on video footage. In his opening statements 
to the jury Monday, Saacks described the Wake Forest man arriving at the hotel 
near Crabtree Valley Mall with Brandon Hill, also known as “B.”

Holland was to have a customer in the room just before 5 a.m., and when 2 men 
arrived, Garvey texted her and said, “I saw 2 dudes,” and later, “You OK?”

The couple had several children together, but Saacks said they were not living 
with them and not at the hotel the night of the shooting. Holland texted 
Garvey, “It’s OK,” and to wait by the hotel vending machines.

Video footage then shows Garvey running outside the hall and banging on room 
220, Holland’s room, in an agitated state, Saacks said. Hill then arrives, also 
agitated and carrying a gun to confront Garvey, who backed away with his hands 
up.

7 shots were fired, Saacks said, and Garvey stumbled away toward the lobby, 
where he collapsed and died. Footage then shows Gillard emerging from the room 
with Holland, putting up his hand and then running out to the parking lot with 
Hill.

“You’re not going to wonder what happened,” he said. “That’s for you and all 
the world to see.”

Raleigh police officers testified they found Holland in her room, naked except 
for her socks. They discovered seven $20 bills and an unwrapped condom inside 
the room with her.

Police circulated pictures from the surveillance footage and quickly got a call 
identifying Gillard at home in Wake Forest. They found messages on both his and 
Holland’s phones discussing terms for their “business encounter,” Saacks said. 
He had also done a Google search for the penalty for double homicide and fetal 
homicide.

Hill later eluded police at the hotel where he worked, then rode as the 
passenger in a car chase into Durham with speeds topping 100 mph, Saacks said. 
Hill jumped and ran from the car after it ran over “spike sticks” to puncture 
the tires. He was soon arrested in Florida and charged with murder.

Raleigh attorney Edd Roberts, one of two lawyers representing Gillard, 
cautioned jurors against drawing quick conclusions from the hotel video. He 
described events at the hotel as “chaos” that started in the hallway and 
“evoked more chaos” inside Holland’s room.

“It’s not a planned, premeditated killing,” he said.

Testimony continues Tuesday.

(source: Raleigh News & Observer)








SOUTH CAROLINA:

No death penalty or life sentences for SC juveniles under proposed law



Bipartisan bills making their way through the South Carolina General Assembly 
would prevent life sentences and the death penalty as punishments for juveniles 
convicted of crimes.

The so-called Youth Sentencing Act of 2019 was introduced in the House 
Wednesday, February 6. It's co-sponsored by Rep. Neal Collins, a Republican 
from Pickens County, and Rep. Beth Bernstein, a Columbia Democrat. Both are 
attorneys serving on the House Judiciary Committee.

Nearly identical legislation was introduced in the Senate on Feb. 5 by Sens. 
Katrina Shealy (R-Lexington), Brad Hutto (D-Orangeburg) and Darrell Jackson 
(D-Richland).

The bills seek to "eliminate life without parole as a sentencing option for 
juveniles" in South Carolina's criminal justice system, replacing them with 
"age-appropriate sentencing and punishment standards [...] for juveniles who 
commit serious crimes."

Justification for the new law hinges on U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 
multiple cases, which have held factors of youth such as brain and behavioral 
development should protect juveniles from the most severe of punishments, even 
when those juveniles have committed horrible crimes.

The proposal would prevent courts from sentencing people under 18 to death or 
life imprisonment without parole. It would also nullify current life 
imprisonment and death sentences for offenders who were under 18 at the time of 
their crime.

Going forward, the bill calls for capping sentences for juveniles at 25 years 
in cases involving deaths, and capping sentences at 20 years in cases where no 
death occurred.

Convicts currently in prison for crimes they committed as juveniles would be 
automatically eligible for parole if they have served more than 20 or 25 years, 
depending on the type of crime.

The bill currently sits under review by the House Judiciary Committee. If it 
were passed, it would take effect immediately upon Governor McMaster's 
signature.

(source: WCIV news)








GEORGIA:

Suspect involved in shooting that killed grandmother facing the death penalty



The suspect involved in a deadly shooting of his grandmother last July is 
facing the death penalty.

Chantz Cooper faces more than a dozen charges including murder and aggravated 
assault. Savannah Police say he was involved in a shootout with an officer when 
his grandmother was killed.

For the 1st time in this case, these court documents from Monday’s hearing show 
that the state seeking capital punishment for Chantz Cooper.

Cooper was in court on Monday with his attorney in front of Judge John Morse. 
Savannah Police say Cooper shot at a police officer last July on Stratford 
Street.

Police say a stray bullet pierced through a nearby home and killed 60-year-old 
Cynthia Fields, who was Cooper's grandmother.

He faces 16 charges, including murder, aggravated assault on a peace officer, 
having a gun during a felony.

Cooper pled not guilty to those charges on Monday and asked for a jury trial.

(source: WTOC news)








FLORIDA:

This is where Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz's death penalty case stands a year 
later



A year after Nikolas Cruz massacred 17 people and injured 17 others at his 
former high school in Florida, the question is not whether he's guilty -- he's 
confessed on video. It's does he live or die?

His defense team has offered a guilty plea in exchange for life in prison 
without the possibility of parole -- but only if prosecutors take the death 
penalty off the table. Prosecutors have rejected the plea, meaning a lengthy 
trial is all but inevitable.

If the case goes to trial, Cruz will join a short list of mass shooters who've 
faced their victims in court. Of the 10 deadliest shootings in recent US 
history, Cruz is the only one who was captured alive.

Here's the latest on his case:

The trial has not started yet

The case is on what's described as the "pretrial discovery" stage, says Broward 
Public Defender Howard Finkelstein, whose office is representing Cruz. He says 
the case is a long way from trial.

Some witnesses are giving statements

In this stage, Cruz's attorneys have been deposing dozens of witnesses to give 
oral statements under oath.

Such sessions happen behind closed doors and are only attended by attorneys, 
the court reporter and the victims' advocate, says Richard Hornsby, a criminal 
defense lawyer in Florida who is not involved in the case. Depositions are 
conducted in person by prosecutors and defense attorneys, and the defendant is 
not allowed to be present, he adds.

"It is common for victims/accusers to be deposed. However, from a strategic 
standpoint, I could not imagine the defense attorneys deposing the survivors in 
this case without a good reason," Hornsby says.

The Broward County Clerk of Court's website lists deposition notices for mostly 
law enforcement witnesses.

It's the beginning of a long, arduous process

A death penalty case can take years to go to trial.

The process itself has three stages. The current pretrial stage, where the 
discovery is conducted; the guilt phase, where the trial is conducted; and if 
convicted as charged, the penalty phase where a jury determines whether to 
impose the death penalty or not, Hornsby says.

Death penalty cases are so staggering in scope, it can take at least two years 
for the case to go to trial, he says. The process involves painstakingly 
combing through graphic details of the shooting in court. No detail is too 
small, including the gunshots, autopsies and the killer's words.

"However, with the judge pushing the case hard and the passage of Marsy's Law 
last fall, I would not be surprised if this case makes it to trial early next 
fall," Hornsby says.

Marsy's Law expanded the rights of victims of crimes, including giving them the 
right to have a voice in prosecution issues.

Prosecutors have so far rejected a plea deal

Broward state prosecutors have not revealed much in recent months. But in the 
past, they've rejected the defense's offer of a guilty plea in exchange for a 
life sentence, paving the way for a lengthy trial.

While the prosecution did not respond to CNN's request for comments for this 
article, Michael Satz, Broward County's prosecutor, has previously said this is 
"certainly the type of case the death penalty was designed for." Assistant 
State Attorney Shari Tate has said Florida will not allow Cruz to "choose his 
own punishment for the murder of 17 people."

The defense does not want a trial

Cruz's defense team has made it clear it's not looking forward to a death 
penalty trial.

That's why Finkelstein is offering his client's guilty plea in exchange for 34 
life sentences without parole. That would take the death penalty trial off the 
table and spare the victims from reliving the nightmare during testimony, he 
says.

That would end the extensive legal process he says could last decades if 
there's an appeal. In some cases, death penalty trials are followed by lengthy 
appeals in which survivors return to court to face the killer all over again.

"A plea to 34 consecutive life sentences ends not only the above immediately 
but means no appeals," Finkelstein says. "We still stand ready to plead guilty 
to 34 consecutive life sentences."

Some survivors are conflicted

Some Marjory Stoneman Douglas students are conflicted on the possibility of a 
death penalty trial.

Student leader Emma Gonzalez describes Cruz's potential death penalty trial as 
a "good" thing. Another student, Cameron Kasky, has said he wants him to "rot 
forever" in prison instead.

Andrew Pollack, whose daughter, Meadow, was one of the people killed, has said 
he does not plan to attend any death trial hearings.

"I don't want to go through some lengthy trial that's going to be brutal. I 
want him to sit in a cell and rot for the rest of his life," Pollack says.

Even the jurors face challenges

In high-profile cases such as the Parkland shooting, there are no shortages of 
challenges for everyone involved. Even finding a jury will be an ordeal, 
Hornsby says.

"Since the state is seeking the death penalty, any juror who is opposed to the 
death penalty will automatically be stricken, meaning the selected jury panel 
will already be predisposed to consider the death penalty as a viable 
sentencing option before the first witness is called," he says.

Jury selection will likely take weeks because the trial may be moved to a 
different venue, according to Hornsby.

"You will have to find people who say they could be fair and impartial to the 
defendant given what they know about the Parkland murders," he says. "Good 
luck."

Florida's death penalty law requires the jury's decision to be unanimous. If 
one of the 12 jurors dissents, the defendant must be sentenced to life without 
parole.

(source: CNN)








ALABAMA:

Alabama’s execution of Muslim inmate angers those on right and leftM



The Supreme Court’s late-night, 2-paragraph order that sent a Muslim inmate in 
Alabama to his execution last week has become the court’s most controversial 
act of the term, drawing intense criticism from the political right and the 
left.

The court's five conservatives agreed with Alabama officials that Domineque Ray 
could be put to death without an imam present in the execution chamber, even 
though a Christian chaplain who works for the prison system is in place for 
other executions.

The court's short order did not deal with the religious issue, saying only that 
Ray made his request too late. His lawyers, and the court's liberal members, 
disputed that.

The blowback was immediate.

Ray executed for 1995 murder of Selma teen

Domineque Ray killed a teen in 1995. His attorneys claim the execution should 
be delayed on religious grounds after Ray asked for his imam in the execution 
chamber instead of the Christian prison chaplain.

"I can't recall the last time that I was as shocked by a Supreme Court 
decision," said Deepak Gupta, a Washington lawyer who argues before the 
justices. "This decision is indefensible on the merits, and the court doesn't 
even bother to try."

Amir Ali, Supreme Court and appellate counsel at the MacArthur Justice Center 
and a lecturer at Harvard Law School, said the court's order was in contrast 
with recent decisions that have protected religious rights.

"Consider the opposite circumstance - a Christian person who is told that, 
during the final moments of his life, he can have only the services of an 
Imam," Ali wrote in an email. "It is hard to imagine the court reaching the 
same result as it did here. And that's a real problem because the very purpose 
of the Establishment Clause is to prevent this sort of religious preference."

Criticism from the right was strong, as well.

Muslim chaplain says inmate kept faith at execution

The Muslim spiritual adviser to an Alabama death row inmate executed Thursday 
night said the condemned man was able to read the Quran and say his required 
prayers before death.

"The Supreme Court Upholds a Grave Violation of the First Amendment," was the 
headline above conservative commentator David French's article in the National 
Review.

"Any policy that by law or practice provided death-row inmates with access only 
to Christian chaplains would likely fail 9-0 if addressed on the merits," 
French wrote. "In this case, however, the Supreme Court didn't decide the 
merits. It determined that Ray's request for an imam was made too late."

The 5 justices who allowed the Alabama execution to proceed - Chief Justice 
John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett 
Kavanaugh - lifted a stay imposed unanimously by a panel of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

That court said Ray had raised a "powerful" argument that prison protocol 
favored one religion over another: "it looks substantially likely to us that 
Alabama has run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."

It called for additional briefing in the case, but called for quick resolution 
to keep Ray's execution on track.

Instead, Alabama filed an emergency request to the Supreme Court, saying it 
should be allowed to go ahead with the procedure it had put in place to conduct 
executions in an "orderly and secure fashion." That meant having only 
correctional officials, which included the prison chaplain but not the imam who 
had been attending Ray, in the death chamber.

Archibald: Don’t grieve for killer, but ... what if?

What if the shoe was on the other foot?

The Supreme Court majority did not address the religion issue, noting only that 
Ray - on death row since 1999 for the rape and murder of a 15-year-old girl - 
learned of his execution date in November, and waited until January to file a 
lawsuit challenging the exclusion of an imam.

In a dissent that called the majority's decision "profoundly wrong," Justice 
Elena Kagan said there was a reason for that.

The relevant Alabama statute, she wrote, provides that "both the chaplain of 
the prison and the inmate's spiritual adviser of choice 'may be present at an 
execution.' " Ray learned only days before filing the suit that prison policy 
meant his imam was not allowed to be in the room at the time of his death.

Kagan said there was no reason for her colleagues not to allow the lower court 
to examine the issues surrounding Ray's case.

"Ray has put forward a powerful claim that his religious rights will be 
violated at the moment the state puts him to death," she wrote, joined by 
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

"The Eleventh Circuit wanted to hear that claim in full. Instead, this court 
short-circuits that ordinary process - and itself rejects the claim with little 
briefing and no argument - just so the state can meet its preferred execution 
date."

Because the court did not address the religious issues in the case, it creates 
no precedent for similar cases in the future.

The absence of such acknowledgment struck some as a sign the court is more 
alert to discrimination against Christians than other religions. The court's 
conservatives, for instance, allowed Christian business owners with religious 
objections in a separate case to opt out of federal regulations requiring 
contraceptives be part of insurance coverage.

"Next time the court claims that religious liberty justifies casting aside some 
other important principle, like nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual 
orientation or women's rights, we should remember what the court did here," 
said Gupta.

Some who disagreed with the decision say they do not believe anti-Muslim bias 
was the cause of the order, but the court did itself no favor by not addressing 
it.

Ilya Somin, a conservative professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George 
Mason University, posted on the Volohk Conspiracy website that the decision was 
a "grave injustice," but likely motivated by the justices' impatience with 
last-minute death penalty appeals.

But "to say that this factor likely explains the ruling is not to say that it 
excuses it," Somin wrote. "The fact that activist lawyers sometimes abuse the 
process does not relieve the justices of their obligation to carefully consider 
the facts of each case on their own merits."

The court has ruled in favor of Muslims who have been discriminated against 
because of their clothing, and in favor of a Muslim prisoner who had to sue 
prison officials for the right to grow a beard for religious reasons.

But Ali said the court's 5-to-4 approval last term of President Donald Trump's 
ban on travel for some from Muslim-majority countries stung Muslim lawyers. He 
pointed to language in Roberts' majority opinion.

"The court went the extra step of saying that there was 'persuasive evidence' 
for banning people from several majority-Muslim countries," Ali said.

“If that was a gut punch to the Muslim community, this will be seen as a 
follow-up kidney shot.”

(source: al.com)

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

Dominique Ray attempted to challenge Alabama's prison chaplain law and failed



Late at night on 7 February, Dominique Ray was executed in the death chamber by 
the State of Alabama. He died alone.

The killing by the state of another African American man in the death belt of 
the American South would not have usually drawn significant attention. But 
Dominique Ray was different. He died alone because he was Muslim. Had he been 
Christian, Alabama would have provided a state-employed Christian chaplain to 
give him comfort, hold his hand and prepare him for death in his final moments.

Ray’s execution was stayed by the conservative Eleventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals. The Court found that there was a substantial likelihood he would 
prevail on his claim that Alabama’s policy violated his right to religious 
freedom.

2 hours later, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court dissolved the stay in a 
one-sentence order, noting that Ray had waited too long to raise the argument. 
Ray had been given an execution date in November 2018; he petitioned the warden 
to have an imam present; the warden denied the request on 23 January 2019, and 
Ray filed his petition five days later. Ray had committed the crimes in 1999, 
when he was a teenager, and he had been on death row for 19 years. Justice 
Kagan, in dissent, called the lifting of the stay “profoundly wrong.”

The United States Constitution and federal statutes are profoundly protective 
of religious rights. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution prohibits 
discrimination among religious beliefs or between belief and non-belief: “The 
clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination 
cannot be officially preferred over another." This is an issue that was 
resolved at the time of the Constitution.

To be sure there were few Muslims in America at the time of the founding, 
although an estimated 20 per cent of slaves brought to the American colonies 
were Muslim. Thomas Jefferson’s religious freedom law of Virginia, approved in 
1786, was the model for the First Amendment and was intended, Jefferson wrote, 
to “comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, 
the Christian and Mahometan [Muslim], the Hindoo [Hindu], and infidel of every 
denomination.”

Congress’ ostensible solicitousness for religious rights has also been 
reflected in statutes, including the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 
Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) that applies to prisoners. A RLUIPA claimant must 
demonstrate a sincere belief and a substantial burden on his religious 
practices. At that point, the government must demonstrate that the infringing 
policy is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental 
interest.

There was no doubt that Ray was sincere in his Muslim beliefs and that being 
denied the spiritual comfort of chosen clergy at the hour of death was a 
substantial burden. It would be hard to envision a more critical or poignant 
moment for spiritual succour.

Alabama in Ray’s case simply argued that limiting the presence of a chaplain in 
the death chamber to state employees was in the governmental interest of 
security and that Ray could have a Christian chaplain in there if he wished. 
The state made no effort to consider other, less restrictive means, like 
obtaining the services of a Muslim military chaplain or Muslim chaplain with a 
history in Alabama prisons who is not on the state payroll, or employing a 
Muslim chaplain on the state payroll.

This Supreme Court has been in the process of enshrining religion as a kind of 
"super right" that takes precedence over other well-recognised rights. In the 
last term, Colorado cake bakers had a right of religious freedom to refuse to 
bake a cake for a gay couple if their religious beliefs prohibited gay 
marriage. These were the same arguments used to challenge the Civil Rights Act 
requirement that African Americans be served in restaurants and provided with 
public accommodations.

In the Hobby Lobby case, the Court found that corporations themselves had 
sufficient spiritual lives that they could not be compelled to provide family 
planning services. School prayer, state funding of parochial schools and 
abortion rights are all now within the sights of the religious right in the 
name of religious freedom. But no such protection of religious freedom was 
extended to Dominique Ray.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 majority did not hold that Dominique Ray could not have 
a chaplain in the death chamber. They moved to the easy procedural cop-out of 
delay. After nearly a quarter-century on death row, and only a 5-day delay 
after the warden denied Ray’s request, the death sentence had to be carried out 
now. The state’s right to administrative efficiency apparently trumped the 
right of religious freedom.

Presumably, the Court knew that it could not issue an opinion saying Muslims 
had no right to a chaplain when Christians did, or that Muslims had to use a 
Christian chaplain. But let’s review the recent history. My Guantanamo Muslim 
detainee clients were granted no right to religious freedom; they were not 
“persons” pursuant to the statute. A ban on Muslims was, according to the 
Supreme Court “neutral on its face” despite the fact that the president said 
over and over again it was a ban on Muslims. This is a record of differential 
treatment that cannot be hidden in legal obfuscation or technical procedural 
rulings.

Nearly a quarter-millennium ago, George Washington wrote in his letter to the 
Jewish Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, “May the Children of the Stock of 
Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of 
the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine 
and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.” Muslims, the Stock 
of Abraham/Ibrahim as well, should have the same rights, the same concern, 
especially “at the hour of our death".

(source: The Independent)








LOUISIANA:

The quest to do away with Louisiana’s death penalty



It’s been nearly 15 years since Dan Bright was exonerated of murder and 
released from prison, but he still looks over his shoulder when he leaves his 
parents’ home in the Lower Ninth Ward.

Bright, who spent four years on death row and nine overall in a Louisiana 
prison after being wrongly convicted of the murder or Murray Barnes, can’t walk 
down the street without worrying whether New Orleans Police Department officers 
will spy and harass him. At times, Bright even fears for his life.

“When I’m driving and I see a cop car, I get nervous,” Bright said. “Every 
time, they’ve pulled me over and harassed me. They unbutton their gun holsters. 
I can see [the anger] in their eyes, in their demeanor. Every time I see them 
with a gun…”

Despite overwhelming evidence proving Bright’s innocence – his original defense 
attorney was incompetent and drunk, the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s 
office withheld key FBI documents that named the true killer, facts that 
undermined the State’s primary witness’ credibility – law enforcement officers 
haven’t stopped treating him like a murderer.

“Some of them think I got off on a technicality,” Bright said. “Even with all 
the evidence pointing to my innocence, they think it was just a technicality.”

Often Bright’s only solace comes from his family and close friends.

“I’m accepted in my community,” he said. “Everyone gets along here. My 
neighbors know I’m not a murderer. We’re very close-knit. Everyone knows 
everyone, and they know about police corruption. This neighborhood knows the 
truth.”

That stigma of being on death row has lingered for 15 years for Bright. On top 
of the often excruciating hell he went through in prison at Angola, his 
wrongful conviction continues to disrupt and undermine his attempts to stay on 
the straight and narrow.

Bright openly acknowledges that before going to prison in 1996, he was waist 
deep in a criminal culture that made him a local drug kingpin, entangled in a 
life that began before he was a teenager and continued until he was convicted 
of Bright’s murder. So he understands that people who don’t know much about him 
or his story view him with disdain or distrust. That scorn only becomes 
magnified even more by being branded as a 1-time death-row inmate.

“I can’t even get a job,” he said.

“Even though I was exonerated, who wants to hire someone who was on death row?” 
he asked rhetorically. “Who wants to have a death-row inmate next to them all 
day? They worry if I have mental problems.”

(Requests to NOPD spokespersons for responses to Bright’s comments were not 
returned last week.)

But despite the financial hardships, Bright said he has steadfastly continued 
to leave his criminal life in the past. He was a drug dealer, but he isn’t 
anymore. And he isn’t, and has never been, a murderer. Bright said he has paid 
his dues – even ones he was unfairly forced to pay – and now just wants a fair 
shake.

“I would like to stop being pre-judged,” he said. “I’d like people to get to 
know me first.”

But Bright knows that realistically, that day might never fully come. In the 
meantime, he said flatly, life can be very bleak. “It’s very shitty,” he said. 
“It’s hard.”

For that reason, Bright has been watching the ongoing debate in Louisiana about 
the possible repeal of the death penalty in this state, and he’s seen how, in 
just about every legislative session in Baton Rouge, a repeal bill is filed but 
inevitably falls by the wayside or is outright defeated.

“I think it should be abolished,” he said. “It’s long overdue. It’s cruel and 
unusual punishment.

“But it’s political,” he added. “It’s all political. We don’t want to engage 
with the issue. People don’t really want to hear anything about it.”

Damon Thibodeaux, another former death-row inmate in Louisiana who was likewise 
exonerated, was wrongfully convicted in 1996 of killing his step-cousin, spent 
15 years in solitary confinement on death row before being exonerated in 2012. 
Thibodeaux has fared better than Bright and other exonerees, become a 
long-distance truck driver and moving to Texas since his release. But the sting 
remains for Thibodeaux, who has eyed the Louisiana death-penalty debate from 
afar and, like Bright, has built up a hardened cynicism over the years.

In a phone interview from on the road in New York state, Thibodeaux called 
previous attempts at repealing the death penalty “more of a political stunt 
than anything else.”

He said the Louisiana death-penalty debate has simply become a political 
football.

“[Legislators] are just punting it around, back and forth,” he said, “and 
they’re forgetting the people in the middle of it. They need to take it 
seriously. It’s always politics that kills it. If we could get the politics out 
of it, [lawmakers] can actually look at its merits.”

“It’s not fair or just,” he added.

Thibodeaux and others hope one or more state legislators will propose an 
abolishment bill during the upcoming legislative session that begins April 8 
and runs through June 6, but it would still face a slew of challenges.

Such a bill was essentially nixed in 2018 by the House Administration of 
Criminal Justice Committee, and while Gov. John Bel Edwards has made moves 
toward considering outlawing capital punishment, State Attorney General Jeff 
Landry continues to vociferously support and advocate for the death penalty 
despite the prevalence of wrongful convictions and exonerations.

Both the Attorney General’s Office and the Governor’s Office did not return 
requests for comments last week

At this point, use of the death penalty is on hold in Louisiana – while the 
Pelican State remains one of 30 states in the U.S. to allow capital punishment, 
the state has not carried out execution since 2010, and the process has been 
halted since 2014 as a result of controversy and legal action regarding the 
state’s lethal injection protocol and fairness.

Last July, U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick agreed to a 12-month extension of an 
order temporarily delaying all executions in Louisiana. Although 67 people 
remain on death row in the state, Michael Cahoon, coordinator for LA REPEAL, 
said only one death sentence was imposed in 2018, down drastically from a high 
of 12 in both 1995 and 1997. Cahoon said that sharp downward also provides hope 
for the future to abolition forces.

As other states continue to make moves toward abolishing the death penalty – 
with the prevalence of wrongful convictions and a shift in public opinion 
regarding the concept of cruel and unusual punishment – advocates of repeal 
remain steadfastly optimistic about the chances of abolishment here, and 
several non-profit and community organizations continue their efforts to sway 
opinion, both in the state legislature and the general public.

“The legislature has had some close votes in committee [in past years],” said 
Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a 
national pro-abolition advocacy group. “And with the state’s continued 
financial crisis and prosecutorial misconduct, this state may be close to 
abolition. I don’t think we can predict when it will come, but there’s a sense 
that it will come eventually.”

He added that last fall’s successful electoral effort in Louisiana to eliminate 
non-unanimous juries in felony cases, including capital trials, reflected 
another significant trend – bi-partisan movements coalescing around justice 
issues.

Still, Dunham said, many district attorneys offices continue to undermine 
efforts to reduce capital punishment and engage in reckless pursuit of the 
death penalty through prosecutorial misconduct that has reached “epidemic 
levels in Louisiana.” The harsh views and questionable vehemence of some DAs, 
he said, ignore what’s becoming more and more obvious to others.

But, he said, “When an electorate insists on honest, fair prosecution that 
follows the law and respects individual rights and be fair, that will go a long 
way in reducing the use of capital punishment.”

Cahoon said his LA REPEAL entered the new year with renewed vigor and believes 
that capital punishment in the state may be on its last legs. He said LA REPEAL 
is gearing up for what promises to be a protracted, heated but hopefully 
successful battle in 2019, one that would make Louisiana a leader in the 
region.

“I fully believe that Louisiana will be the first Southern state to repeal the 
death penalty,” Cahoon said, pointing out the state’s 85-percent reversal rate 
in death sentences. “The people of this state, when they look at the history of 
the death penalty, both the horrible and hopeful parts of history, see what 
sets Louisiana apart from the rest of the South.”

He said LA REPEAL continues to lobby Louisiana lawmakers on behalf of the 
innocent, and he said the group has seen significant support for abolition, or 
at least willingness to listen fairly to the arguments.

Still, Cahoon acknowledged, “This is an issue that is controversial and 
requires some political courage.”

Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office spokesman Ken Daley noted that 
current District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro has invoked the death penalty 
infrequently, Cannizzaro has pursued capital punishment only three times in 10 
years, with the last one coming in 2011.

“This office continues to work in accordance with the will of citizens, as 
expressed in laws passed by Louisiana’s state legislature and governor,” Daley 
added.

Daley also said the DA’s Office has no comment on Dan Bright’s specific 
circumstances because Bright wasn’t prosecuted under Cannizzaro’s watch. “We 
have no comment on a case that was fully adjudicated in all courts under a 
previous administration,” Daley said.

Meanwhile, Dan Bright sits in his parents’ house, watching after his 
grandchildren, caring for his aging parents and trying to not go stir crazy. 
“I’ve gone from reading law books [in prison] and debating laws to debating 
with my grand-daughter about SpongeBob,” he says with a smile.

Bright has already published one book about his life experiences, “The Story of 
Dan Bright,” to positive reviews, and he’s written manuscripts for four more. 
He also tours the country on speaking engagements to tell his story and 
enlighten listeners nationwide.

(source: Louisiana Weekly)