[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OHIO, IOWA, WYO., ARIZ., USA

[Rick Halperin]

February 28




OHIO:

Realities of Death Penalty Revealed in Ohio



To date, Ohio has executed 56 people since reinstatement of the death penalty 
in 1976. During that same time, 9 people have been exonerated from the state’s 
death row, 20 have received clemency, and 3 have been killed by the state in a 
botched execution.

Ohio, like many other states, has struggled with its execution protocol for 
several years now. The bottom line is that drug manufacturers do not want their 
products used in this manner.

Many view the death penalty as a human rights violation, and others simply 
recognize it’s bad for business. Either way, the supply chain for execution 
drugs has virtually dried up.

1 drug in particular has been at the center of this controversy for some time 
now, midazolam is a sedative typically used in conjuncture with 2 other drugs 
to carry out lethal injections. But the drug has also been identified as the 
culprit in a number of botched executions across the country, and its 
manufacturers have sought to prevent its use in these proceedings.

The recent findings of a pathologist at Emory University showed a pattern of 
pulmonary edema (accumulation of fluid in the lungs) in the autopsies of those 
executed with the use of this drug. This medical state produces the effect of 
drowning in its victims; these individuals would have experienced the sensation 
of being waterboarded during their executions.

There’s one big problem with that: the Eighth Amendment. This amendment bans 
the use of cruel and unusual punishment., and while arguments have raged for 
decades over what precisely meets this definition, it is universally agreed 
upon that waterboarding would most certainly cross a line.

Recently, a federal judge ruled that Ohio’s execution protocol could cause 
"severe pain and needless suffering," and it was at this point that the state’s 
newly elected Republican governor, Mike Dewine, took action.

In February, Dewine halted all Ohio executions in the state until the time that 
a new protocol could be found that passes the standard of the courts. Dewine 
has ordered the prison system to look at alternative lethal injection drugs and 
stated, "Ohio is not going to execute someone under my watch when a federal 
judge has found it to be cruel and unusual punishment."

Though newly elected as fovernor, Dewine is no stranger to Republican politics 
or the death penalty. His resume includes an impressive litany of public 
service beginning with a role as Greene County’s prosecutor, followed by 
positions as a state senator, lieutenant governor, U.S. senator, and attorney 
general. Thirty-eight years ago, while serving as a state senator, he also 
co-sponsored the state’s current death penalty law.

Whether or not the Dewine has changed his position on the death penalty overall 
remains unclear. He has not been overly expressive when questioned on his 
current views. Instead, he has pointed to the myriad of operational issues the 
state is facing with the death penalty and has stood firm in his defense of the 
Constitution.

Principled defense of the Constitution is what strong leadership looks like on 
the right. Far too many in office become consumed with towing the party line 
and approach matters of policy from a viewpoint of what will make them popular 
instead of what will make them right.

Dewine deserves applause for his consistency and for his fortitude in this 
matter.

No matter what one’s opinion of the death penalty is in theory, the realities 
of the death penalty in practice are enough to make many people change their 
stance on the topic. The system wrongfully convicts people all the time and 
shows no indication of improvement.

It also zaps resources that could be better directed towards effective tools 
that actually solve and deter crime. In fact, every dollar spent fighting the 
drug manufacturers in court or searching for new execution protocols is a 
dollar that could be used to test a rape kit or pursue a cold case.

A substantial number of Republicans have joined in the chorus of condemnation 
for the death penalty in recent years. Some are calling for outright repeal, 
some for moratoriums, and some (like Dewine) for methods that do not violate 
the Constitution.

All of these voices, though, point to a system that is broken and not 
functioning within the realms of constitutional provisions. There is no magic 
fix that will eradicate its wrongs.

It’s high past time we shut down the death penalty.

(source: Hannah Cox is the National Manager of Conservatives Concerned About 
the Death Penalty. Hannah was previously Director of Outreach for the Beacon 
Center of Tennessee, a free-market think tank. Prior to that, she was Director 
of Development for the Tennessee Firearms Association and a policy advocate for 
the National Alliance on Mental Illness----newsmax.com)








IOWA:

Iowa lawmakers push to bring the death penalty back to Iowa



Iowa lawmakers have again introduced a bill that would bring back the death 
penalty for certain crimes.

Under a bill that won support from an Iowa Senate committee Wednesday, the 
state would allow the death penalty for someone convicted of first-degree 
murder if the crime also involved kidnapping and sexual abuse against a minor. 
The committee passed it on a 3-2 vote.

20 Republican senators are co-sponsoring the bill. That's less than 1/2 of the 
50-member Senate, but more than the 6 senators who sponsored a similar measure 
last year.

Bills that would have reinstated the death penalty have been introduced in 
previous legislative sessions, but none have passed. Critics say this year's 
legislation is unlikely to fare better.

Iowa's last execution was in 1963 and the state outlawed the practice in 1965.

Sen. Jason Schultz, R-Schleswig, said Iowa law currently creates a "perverse 
incentive" to kill a victim who has been kidnapped and raped because the 
penalty for all three crimes is life in prison without parole. The bill would 
remove that, said Schleswig, who chaired the Senate judiciary subcommittee 
Wednesday.

"I do not find the death penalty to be un-Biblical, un-Christian," he said. "I 
believe that it doesn’t matter if it is a deterrent or not, there are some 
crimes for which you simply must be removed because they are so heinous and 
opposite the culture in which we live in."

Opponents of the death penalty said people of color, people with low incomes 
and people with mental illnesses are disproportionately represented on death 
row.

"The death penalty is unfair, it’s discriminatory, it’s fraught with error. The 
decision between life and death often turns on race, geography, the quality of 
counsel," said Mark Stringer, the executive director of the American Civil 
Liberties Union of Iowa.

Karen Person with the League of Women Voters of Iowa said the death penalty is 
costly and there is no evidence it's a deterrent. She said Iowa's current 
system ensures someone who commits murder or another class A felony will die in 
prison.

"The death penalty is irreversible and innocent people are known to have been 
executed. Iowa’s current penalty of life without the possibility of parole is a 
sufficiently harsh sentence," she said.

Patti McKee of Des Moines said she has been a victim of violent crime and 
opposes the death penalty. "To me it is just state-sponsored vengeance and 
murder," she said.

Religious leaders also opposed the bill. Tom Chapman, a lobbyist with the Iowa 
Catholic Conference, noted that the subcommittee was held as the World Congress 
Against the Death Penalty gathered in Brussels. He read a letter from Pope 
Francis opposing the death penalty and recognizing "the possibility of 
repentance."

No lobbyists or members of the public spoke in favor of the bill.

Sen. Jake Chapman, R-Adel, supports the bill. He said the kidnapping, rape and 
murder of a minor "is about as bad as it can come."

"There are in my opinion some crimes so heinous, so despicable that the only 
proper justice is to have their life taken, this being one of them," he said.

Sen. Tony Bisignano, D-Des Moines, opposes the bill and doesn't believe it will 
pass. It brings up painful memories and creates false hope to bring the issue 
up every year, he said.

"There isn’t one caucus member of ours that would vote for this so I hope this 
is the last time in my lifetime here that we have to sit in a subcommittee and 
raise the false hope that the death penalty is coming back," he said.

Gov. Kim Reynolds told reporters Wednesday that she'll watch the bill and see 
where it goes.

"This is an opportunity again to talk about it but there’s a lot of things that 
go into considering that and I haven’t seen any shift from where we were last 
year," Reynolds said.

The Des Moines Register last polled on the issue of capital punishment in 2006. 
At that time, 66 % of Iowa adults favored reviving the death penalty for 
certain crimes, and 29 % opposed it.

(source: Des Moines Register)

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

Republicans move Iowa death penalty bill out of Senate panel



20 Senate Republicans have signed on to a bill that would reinstate a death 
penalty in Iowa, a state that hasn’t put anyone to death in more than 50 years.

A Senate subcommittee on Wednesday approved the bill with only Republican 
support. It would make it a capital offense to kidnap, rape and murder a minor.

A similar bill failed last year, and this year’s bill isn’t expected to be 
approved by the Legislature.

Attorney General Tom Miller says reinstating the death penalty wouldn’t make 
Iowans safer and likely cannot be administered fairly. Democratic Sen. Tony 
Bisignano says the death penalty represents nothing but vengeance.

However, Republican Sen. Jake Chapman says he supports the bill because some 
crimes are so heinous that only the death penalty offers proper justice.

Iowa currently requires life in prison without parole for people convicted of 
offenses including 1st-degree murder, 1st-degree kidnapping and certain sexual 
abuse crimes.

Iowa abolished the death penalty in 1965.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Could The Death Penalty Return To Iowa?



Could Iowa soon join the list of states in the U.S. that has the death penalty? 
Some Iowa lawmakers would like to see it that way. Twenty Senate Republicans 
have signed on to a bill that would reinstate the death penalty in the state. 
No one has been executed in Iowa in more than 50 years.

A Senate subcommittee approved the bill yesterday with only Republican support. 
The bill would make it a capital offense to kidnap, rape, and murder a minor. A 
similar bill failed last year and this bill's fate appears to look very 
similar.

Attorney General Tom Miller said that the death penalty wouldn't make Iowa any 
safer and likely can't be administered fairly. Republican Senator Jake Chapman 
says that some crimes are so heinous that only the death penalty offers proper 
justice.

Currently, the state of Iowa requires life in prison without the possibility of 
parole for crimes including 1st-degree murder, 1st-degree kidnapping, and 
certain sexual crimes. Iowa abolished the death penalty in 1965.

(source: KHAK news)








WYOMING:

Capital punishment repeal put to death



An ongoing battle over a bill to repeal Wyoming’s death penalty came to a halt 
when the bill failed to pass in the state Senate Feb. 14.

Republican Rep. Jared Olsen sponsored House Bill 145, which was introduced Jan. 
14, along with other representatives. The bill passed in the House but was 
quickly shut down in the Senate with 12 senators voting for the bill and 18 
against.

Capital punishment was reinstated in Wyoming in 1976, though only one execution 
happen since then. Mark Hopkinson was executed by lethal injection in 1992 for 
the murder of four individuals.

Wyoming spends an estimate of $750,000 a year to keep the death penalty. Sen. 
Brian Boner (R), another co-sponsor of the bill, said that’s a high price to 
pay for revenge in place of impartial justice.

“That’s not what the justice system is supposed to be about,” said Boner in a 
release. “Justice is supposed to be blind. It’s supposed to be based on reason 
and what brings out the best result for society. Not emotion, not retribution, 
not revenge.”

Some representatives argued the supposed benefits of the death penalty.

“The greatest man who ever lived died via the death penalty for you and me,” 
said Sen. Lynn Hutchings (R) in a release, referencing Jesus. “I’m grateful to 
him for our future hope because of this. Governments were instituted to execute 
justice. If it wasn’t for Jesus dying via the death penalty, we would all have 
no hope.”

Some, like Rep. Mike Hopkins (R), feel that the death penalty is ineffective 
when applied on a larger scale. Inmates spend years — sometimes decades — 
waiting for their sentence to be carried out. By that time, some feel, capital 
punishment loses its impact. Hopkins believes that it would be better to have 
life in prison without opportunity of parole in its stead.

However, Wyoming spends millions of dollars on imprisonment, about $35,000 to 
$54,000 per inmate. This raises the question on whether the death penalty is 
helping Wyoming’s economy or hurting it.

Wyoming is not the only state where attempting to abolish capital punishment. 
Kentucky and Montana representatives are also looking for alternatives.

“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,” said Kentucky Rep. Chad McCoy (R) in a release from the Death 
Penalty Information Center.

The death penalty is rarely used and doesn’t have the desired impact, some 
officials feel. While some feel that capital punishment is necessary for 
morale, others just feel like it is an expensive addition to a state’s finances 
that no longer serves as an adequate tool for justice.

More information about the bill is available at the Wyoming’s Legislature 
website, WyoLeg.gov.

(source: Ther (Univ. Wyo.) Branding Iron)








ARIZONA:

Arizona may tighten death-penalty requirements



Arizona may tighten the requirements to put someone to death.

For a person to be sentenced to death, state law requires proof of at least 1 
aggravating circumstance and that the sentence is the most appropriate 
punishment.

Sen. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, has introduced legislation to eliminate 
several possible aggravating circumstances. Senate Bill 1314 has bipartisan 
support.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, a non-profit organization 
that provides information on capital punishment, Arizona is among 30 states 
that still have a death penalty.

There is a push in Colorado to abolish the death penalty there.

Democratic lawmakers have in the past introduced bills in Arizona to eliminate 
it, with no success.

In 2017, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery wrote in an op-ed in The 
Arizona Republic that the death penalty was still needed.

"As long as there are horrific murders reflecting the worst of crimes, there 
will be a role for the death penalty as a just and proportionate punishment," 
he wrote.

Eliminating aggravating circumstances

There are 14 aggravated circumstances to determine death-penalty cases.

"Prosecutors have to present sufficient evidence for a jury if 12 to 
unanimously find that the aggravating circumstance is present to render someone 
eligible for a sentence of death," Amanda Steele, Maricopa County Attorney 
public information officer said.

The bill will eliminate 3:

The defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in 
addition to the person murdered.

The offense was committed in a cold, calculated manner without pretense of 
moral or legal justification.

The defendant used a “remote stun gun” during the crime.

Arizona execution methods: a short, gruesome history

What's the impact of the change

Farnsworth did respond to requests from The Arizona Republic about the need for 
the bill.

Earlier this month, Rebecca Baker, a legislative liaison for the Maricopa 
County Attorney’s Office, spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the 
bill.

“What we know is that the death penalty statues that we have in place are 
constitutionally sound,” she said.

According to Baker, the County Attorney’s Office has had discussions about 
which factors it most often uses when prosecuting cases, and how the office can 
enhance the state statute to make it more sustainable for the future.

She said the 3 proposed statutes have proven to historically not be the most 
persuasive factors when prosecuting death penalty cases.

According to Steele it is rare that murders are sentenced to death based on 
those circumstances.

The bill passed the Senate unanimously and has now moved to the House for 
consideration.

(source: azcentral.com)








USA:

Death penalty possiblel for 8 defendants in Girard case



8 defendants in a federal RICO prosecution potentially face the federal death 
penalty if convicted, court documents show.

The defendants are part of what prosecutors label the “Paul Girard Criminal 
Enterprise” after Girard, the 31-year-old accused ringleader of a group charged 
in connection with five murders on St. Croix and a half-dozen armed robberies 
on St. Croix and St. Thomas. Girard is represented by attorneys Martial 
Webster, Matthew Duensing and George Dudley.

At least 1 attorney — Jason Gonzalez-Delgado representing Shaquielle Correa — 
has filed a motion in federal court asking for “learned counsel” as a 
precaution against that eventuality.

Federal law allows courts to appoint attorneys familiar with death penalty law 
to represent the accused in capital cases, and Gonzalez-Delgado argued that 
Correa, 23, who faces 5 charges that potentially could result in a federal 
death sentence, is entitled to such representation.

“The United States Department of Justice has already initiated its Death 
Penalty Protocol, and undersigned counsel lacks the necessary expertise in 
death penalty eligible cases,” Gonzalez-Delgado wrote. “Therefore, ‘Learned 
Counsel’ should be appointed in order to safeguard defendant’s right to 
effective assistance of counsel.”

7 other defendants have also been charged with potential death penalty crimes 
in the case:

• Shaquan Prentice, 24, represented by Adriane Dudley, Malorie Diaz, J. Daryl 
Dodson, and Kanaan Le’Roy White

• Kareem Harry, 31, represented by Kye Walker

• Tyler Eugene, 21, represented by Richard F. Farrelly

• Shermyra Gumbs, 24, represented by Kendys Pementel-Soto

• James Cruz, currently without listed representation.

• Robert Brown, represented by Renee Marie Andre.

Each defendant eligible for the death penalty is charged differently, and each 
defendant faces multiple counts that could potentially result in a death 
sentence.

Prentice, Correa and Cruz are charged with a count of carjacking resulting in 
death in Count 4, murder in aid of racketeering in count five, and firearm use 
resulting in death in Count 6.

Girard, Prentice, Correa, and Harry are charged with murder in aid of 
racketeering in Count 11, and firearm use resulting in death in Count 12.

Girard and Eugene are charged with kidnapping in aid of racketeering in Count 
18 and murder in aid of racketeering in Count 19.

Girard, Cruz and Harry are charged with kidnapping in aid of racketeering 
resulting in death in Count 20.

Girard, Brown, Harry and Gumbs are charged with murder in aid of racketeering 
in Count 24, as well as firearm use resulting in death in Count 25.

Girard, Prentice, Brown and Eugene are charged with murder in aid of 
racketeering in Count 37, and firearm use resulting in death in Count 38.

The 47-count indictment charges the defendants with operating a conspiracy 
involved in drug dealing, 5 murders, and a half-dozen armed robberies.

All but Brown are mentioned in a “special findings” section of the indictment.

U.S. Attorney for the District of the Virgin Islands Gretchen Shappert declined 
to comment, apart from directing questions about the case to the indictment.

According to the Department of Justice Manual, which governs federal 
prosecutorial conduct, U.S. Attorney’s offices don’t file indictments for 
crimes that may involve the death penalty as punishment without consulting with 
Justice Department officials.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr ultimately determines whether or not the 
case would transition from a “death penalty eligible” case to one in which 
federal prosecutors are actively seeking the death penalty.

Barr’s process is confidential. In other death penalty cases, federal 
prosecutors have considered victim impact statements along with characteristics 
of the crimes in question, which echo the special findings in the Girard case.

Following Barr’s approval, prosecutors would file a “Notice to seek the death 
penalty” with the district court. No such document has yet been filed in the 
case.

U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman Nicole Navas Oxman issued a brief written 
statement in response to a query from The Daily News.

“The attorney general of the United States will decide whether to seek the 
death penalty based on the recommendation of the U.S. Attorney and after 
carefully considering each defendant’s background and the circumstances of the 
crime,” she wrote. “We have no further comment.”

(source: Virgin Island Daily News)






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

Judge denies retrial request for federal death row inmate



An Oklahoma man's new trial request for a 1999 federal murder conviction and 
death sentence in Arkansas has been denied, with the judge saying he doesn't 
have jurisdiction while noting that evidence presented by attorneys "is 
reasonably likely" to have led to a different sentence.

Danny Lee, 46, of Yukon, was convicted and sentenced to die for the 1996 deaths 
of gun dealer William Mueller, his wife, Nancy Mueller and her 8-year-old 
daughter, Sarah Powell, of Russellville and stealing guns and cash in a plot to 
establish a whites-only nation in the Pacific Northwest.

Chevie Kehoe, 46, of Colville, Washington, was also convicted of murder in the 
case and was sentenced to life in prison, though prosecutors called Kehoe the 
ringleader and also sought the death penalty for him.

Tuesday's order by U.S. District Judge Leon Holmes said that because the 
request is the 3rd by Lee, it requires federal appeals court authorization, 
which has not been requested.

Lee's attorneys, assistant federal public defenders Morris Moon and George 
Kouros, did not return phone calls for comment Wednesday.

The defense attorneys said in their September motion for a new trial that 
recently discovered documents show a 1990 murder charge against Lee, who was 17 
at the time, was not reduced to a robbery charge, as said by prosecutors during 
the sentencing phase of his 1999 trial, but dismissed for a lack of evidence.

Holmes' 20-page order notes that prosecutors, in seeking the death penalty, 
told jurors that Lee had received a "gift" when the murder charge in Oklahoma 
City was reduced.

"Assuming that the Oklahoma state court held at a preliminary hearing that the 
evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause that Lee was guilty of 
murdering Joey Wavra, that evidence is material," Holmes wrote. "In light of 
the government's reliance on the Wavra murder during sentencing it is 
reasonably likely that ... the outcome at sentencing would have been 
different."

The new trial request does not say when the documents were discovered, but 
includes a September 1991 request for attorney fees by Kenneth Watson, the 
attorney for Lee, who was known at the time as Daniel Graham.

"Court finds crime of Murder I not established by evidence," according to the 
request. "Court recommends a dismissal of Murder I charges and state consider 
refiling on charge of Robbery I."

Watson, now a retired state judge, did not immediately return a phone call for 
comment.

Lee's cousin was later convicted of killing Wavra and sentenced to life in 
prison.

(source: Associated Press)

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

The most unlikely convert to opposing the death penalty



If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would be working to end the death 
penalty, I would have laughed at them. I was an ardent supporter of the death 
penalty at that time and my position was based on simple reasons: I believed in 
justice, I thought our justice system was the best mankind had ever known, and 
I believed the penalty was reserved for only the worst of the worst.

I unwillingly began researching the death penalty a number of years ago when 
asked to do so by a former boss. I obliged, mostly with the goal of being 
better able to debate him on the issue the following Monday. But what I found 
surprised me.

Like most Americans, I believed our system was designed to let 100 guilty men 
go free rather than 1 innocent person perish. Despite being a 
limited-government advocate and someone who frequently ranted about the 
failures of government in other areas, I for some reason thought the justice 
system was the exception to the rule and followed this principle. What I 
discovered was that 1 person had been fully exonerated for every 10 executions 
in this country. Clearly, many innocent people were perishing in our system.

I also learned that the most substantial costs for the death penalty stemmed 
from the trial portion of the cases, meaning that speeding up appeals processes 
would not only fail to conserve our tax dollars, but would also very likely 
mean more innocent people would be killed. A North Carolina study actually 
found that death penalty trials cost 4 times that of the appellate process.

The deterrence argument for the death penalty also failed to support my belief. 
In fact, I found the opposite to be true. Regions of the country that used the 
death penalty the most continuously had the highest rates of violent crime, 
while regions that did not use it had much lower rates. By all indications, it 
would seem that this is due to the amount of resources that law enforcement has 
at its disposal to solve crimes. With an average homicide clearance rate of 
only 51 % in the U.S., and even lower solvency rates for other crimes, there 
appears to be a relationship that the resources spent pursuing a cherry-picked 
number of cases for the death penalty actually contribute to fewer crimes being 
solved. That’s not justice for all. That’s hanging the majority of crime 
victims out to dry.

When you look at who gets the death penalty in this country, it becomes vividly 
apparent that we value victims differently, and that it is hardly the “worst of 
the worst” receiving this penalty. The place where a person commits a crime is 
actually the biggest determinate for whether or not they will get the death 
penalty—not what they did. This is because the majority of death penalty cases 
come from only 2 % of counties, and to date, all executions since 
reinstatement, since 1976, have come from fewer than 16 % of counties.

The next largest determinates, though, are whether or not a person can afford a 
good attorney, followed by the race of that person’s victim. 1 in 4 people on 
Texas’ death row had a public defender that was later disbarred or disciplined. 
73 % of those on death row in North Carolina were tried before the creation of 
an indigent defense office. And in 96 % of studies on death penalty cases, 
there was evidence of racial bias against the defendant, victim, or both. In 
Louisiana you are 96 % more likely to get the death penalty if your victim was 
white. In California you are 3 times more likely to be sentenced to death for 
killing a white person.

These are the reasons that conservatives and libertarians are turning against 
the death penalty. It is vastly more expensive than any other sentence or 
component of the criminal justice system. It is arbitrary and largely applied 
to the poorest among us. The system is marked with racial bias, wrongful 
convictions, poor representation, corruption and trauma. It does not deter 
crime, and it consumes resources that could be used to actually make our 
communities safer.

This year alone, seven states are considering death penalty repeal legislation 
introduced by Republicans. This is not an anomaly. Since 2000, we have seen the 
number of GOP lawmakers introducing repeal legislation increase by 10-fold, and 
67 % of those have done so in red states.

We can do better. As conservatives, we pride ourselves on limiting government, 
using our tax dollars efficiently, and protecting the sanctity of human life. 
The death penalty fails to meet any of those measurements. Expect the trend of 
Republican support for ending the death penalty to continue to grow.

(source: Hannah Cox is the National Manager of Conservatives Concerned About 
the Death Penalty. Hannah was previously Director of Outreach for the Beacon 
Center of Tennessee, a free-market think tank. Prior to that, she was Director 
of Development for the Tennessee Firearms Association and a policy advocate for 
the National Alliance on Mental Illness----thehill.com)