[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ARIZ., NEV., WASH., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 12



ARIZONA:

Arias trial to resume after a nearly 2-week break


The sentencing retrial of Jodi Arias is scheduled to resume Wednesday after a 
break during which news organizations protested a decision to let a skittish 
defense witness testify in private and authorities were accused of destroying 
evidence.

The trial has been in recess since Oct. 30 after a judge ordered that the 
public be kept out of the courtroom during testimony by the 1st witness called 
by Arias' lawyers.

Arias' lawyers are trying to spare her the death sentence in the 2008 killing 
of her former boyfriend Travis Alexander.

Her attorneys also alleged on Monday that authorities destroyed files on 
Alexander's computer that would have been beneficial in defending Arias.

The jury hearing the case was picked to decide whether she should be sentenced 
to life in prison or death.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Free Jodi Arias? Yes. (And no.)


So, is it time to set Jodi Arias free?

Yes. And no.

It is time to end the sentencing trial that would determine if she receives 
life in prison or the death penalty. It is time to send her to prison and 
forget about her, for the rest of her life.

But should charges against her be dropped?

No.

As Michael Kiefer from the Arizona Republic reported, Arias' attorneys filed a 
motion Monday to dismiss all charges against Arias, alleging prosecutorial 
misconduct. As an alternative, they suggested simply dropping the sentencing 
trial.

I'd go with that.

Although it might not be completely unreasonable if the judge went along with 
the defense's blockbuster request. Attorneys for Arias say that their 
computer-forensics expert found out that thousands of files, mostly of 
pornography, were deleted from victim Travis Alexander's computer while the 
computer was in custody of Mesa police.

Not cool.

Defense attorneys would have used that information at Arias' trial. It's an 
awful thing in criminal trials that defense attorneys get to smear victims. But 
the fact is, they do. Sympathy plays a big part in murder trials, whether we 
want to admit it or not. A trial is not just about the evidence, as we pretend 
it out to be.

Jurors don't simply want to find a killer guilty; they want to feel sympathy, 
empathy for the victim.

But what if the victim isn't such a an honorable character? What if the victim 
shares many of the same unattractive traits as the murderer? Would jurors be 
less likely to find the killer in such a case guilty of murder in the 1st 
degree?

It's hard to say.

The evidence that Alexander had porn on his computer doesn't change the fact 
that Arias killed him. But it might alter the way a jury looks at him, and that 
could alter a verdict. It's troubling that his attorney's didn't have access to 
the information. And even more troubling if the porn was purposefully scrubbed 
from his computer to deny them access.

With all the publicity surrounding the case I can't imagine Judge Sherry 
Stephens dismissing all charges. But prosecutors seem to be going out of their 
way to provide an appeals court with reasons to do so.

I wouldn't be surprised if Stephens nixed the prosecution's intent to seek the 
death penalty against Arias. That would end the sentencing trial. It wouldn't 
free Arias, who would be shipped off to prison.

But it would free us.

(source: EJ Montini, Columnist; The Arizona Republic)

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

If Jodi Arias trial resumes, what will the public hear?


The Jodi Arias sentencing retrial was supposed to reconvene Wednesday in 
Maricopa County Superior Court. But with Monday's allegations of prosecutorial 
misconduct and an ongoing battle over the media's access to the trial, that 
seemed increasingly remote.

Defense attorney Kirk Nurmi had already been digging in against shuffling his 
witness list to seat witnesses who are not afraid to testify in open court.

The Arizona Court of Appeals last week ruled that he could not continue to take 
testimony out of earshot of the media and public until the court has a chance 
to hear oral arguments on the issue later this month.

Then, Monday's bombshell, a motion to dismiss all charges or at least the death 
penalty, alleging gross prosecutorial misconduct, raised questions of whether 
the trial can go forward at all.

If defense experts' claims are true that thousands of pornographic files on 
victim Travis Alexander's personal computer were destroyed while the computer 
was in possession of Mesa Police, it could lead to criminal and ethics charges 
against the police and prosecutors.

When such issues arise before trial, prosecutors and defense attorneys often 
reach hasty plea agreements and the public never hears about the misconduct or 
the plea deal.

Everyone has heard about the Jodi Arias case - even though much of the case has 
unfolded in secret.

The alleged police and prosecutor misconduct will likely come up in court 
Wednesday.

And if she follows her past practice, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge 
Sherry Stephens may well hold those discussions behind closed doors, court 
documents and trial observations indicate.

The most recent secrecy battle has involved the defense: Nurmi says many of his 
witnesses will not testify in front of the media and the public because of 
harassment that witnesses suffered in the first trial.

The Arizona Republic, KPNX-TV and other news outlets objected in court.

The question has split the criminal court community: In a death-penalty case, 
does the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial and 14th Amendment 
right to due process trump the media's First Amendment right to report on it?

"Open trials are the way we ensure fair trials," said John Canby, a prominent 
defense attorney. "What gives me pause is that the witnesses said they won't 
come back if it's not secret. But if we're going to kill people in the name of 
the public, we damn well better know why."

The media took their case to the Court of Appeals last week, but the secrecy of 
the Arias trial began before then.

Much of the 1st Arias trial was argued at the bench with the voices of the 
judge and lawyers masked by a white noise machine that became a running joke 
among journalists and bloggers and the people who followed them in cyberspace. 
Stephens briefly unsealed the content of those bench conferences after the 
trial, only to reseal them when their embarrassing content became known.

The 1st trial was a media circus, streamed around the world, and the Internet 
denizens viewed it as a morality play, a parable of good versus evil. Attorneys 
and witnesses were ridiculed, harassed, even threatened. Some of them didn't 
show up for court.

The judge and attorneys responded by closing down.

Nearly all of the evidentiary hearings in the year and a half leading up to the 
2nd trial were held behind closed doors. The trial strategy was mapped out in 
secret. The media was forbidden from airing video of the trial until it is 
over. Nurmi's witness list was sealed, as were many of the motions filed by the 
attorneys. And almost 1/2 of the "minute entries" - that is, Stephens' rulings 
and journal entries - during that pretrial period were also sealed.

"I think that secret trials are bad," said attorney Tim Agan, who defended 
serial shooter Dale Hausner.

"I've represented much worse guys than Jodi Arias," he added. "I think this 
case is very unusual and shouldn't create precedence for any other case."

Arias was found guilty of first-degree murder in May 2013, but the jury could 
not agree on whether to sentence her to life or death. That is the only 
question the present jury must decide.

The second trial began Oct. 21. The 1st week and a half were spent summarizing 
the Arias case for that jury - the gruesome photos of victim Travis Alexander, 
dead in the shower of his Mesa home; a phone-sex conversation between the fated 
lovers; the lies Arias told during interrogation.

On Oct. 30, Nurmi was ready to present his mitigation evidence. Mitigation 
evidence is intended to persuade the jury to pick a life sentence over death.

Before Nurmi called the 1st of his witnesses, Stephens ordered the media and 
the public to leave the courtroom, because the witness would not testify 
otherwise.

The Arizona Republic and KPNX-TV called attorneys; other TV stations joined the 
lawsuit. Stephens stood firm. Then, on Nov. 3, the Court of Appeals told Nurmi 
and Stephens that they could not hold testimony behind closed doors until the 
dispute was fully aired before the appeals court.

The next day, the defense attorneys and prosecutor Juan Martinez huddled at 
Stephens' bench, their conversation drowned out by the white noise. Then 
Stephens announced that there would be no witnesses until Wednesday.

Given the developments of this week, it is even less likely that any witnesses 
will testify. Nurmi has also asked that TV cameras be banned from the 
courtroom.

And the secrecy issue is not settled, so it's unclear if the trial will go 
forward until decided by the Appeals court.

The 1st Arias trial began Jan. 2, 2013, and soon descended into chaos - via the 
Internet and social media. Midway through the trial, the attorneys began 
spending more and more time locked in secret argument at the bench.

Almost five months later, on May 23, 2013, the jury announced it could not 
reach a unanimous verdict on life or death and was dismissed. Stephens declared 
a mistrial on the sentencing phase of the trial. A week later, on May 30, 2013, 
Stephens unsealed the videotapes and transcripts of the bench conferences.

On June 6, 2013, The Republic published an article about their content, 
highlighting Martinez' conduct.

During 1 conference, Martinez said that if he were married to defense attorney 
Jennifer Willmott, he "would f-ing kill himself."

In another conference, he told Willmott she should go back to law school. Nurmi 
spoke up on her behalf in both instances. Judge Stephens did nothing - until a 
week later, when she resealed the bench conferences, saying they "could 
potentially affect a future jury pool."

And then, the courtroom doors remained closed for most of the subsequent 
pretrial hearings in which defense and prosecution plotted out the course of 
the second trial.

>From May 30, 2013, when she temporarily unsealed the bench conferences, until 
Sept. 29, the 1st day of jury selection for the retrial, Stephens wrote 54 
minute entries; 25 of them referred to motions that were sealed, hearings that 
were closed, or media access denied.

On Sept.16, 2013, Stephens ordered that the mitigation witness list be sealed, 
without commenting why.

A settlement conference was closed. Motion after motion was sealed, as was the 
prosecution's proposed jury questionnaire.

Hearings were closed, despite objections from The Republic and other media, 
which Stephens dismissed curtly.

And then on Oct. 30, Stephens ordered the courtroom cleared for the 1st mystery 
witness, and the media called their attorneys, claiming a First Amendment right 
to cover the trial.

"The trial court's closure order violates well-settled law," media attorney 
David Bodney wrote in his petition for special action to the Court of Appeals. 
"Under the First Amendment, the public has a strong presumptive right of access 
to criminal court proceedings."

Nurmi disagreed, and in his response, he cited the Fifth, Eighth (against cruel 
and unusual punishment) and 14th Amendments as supporting his view that the 
testimony can remain secret.

He pointed out in the response that 2 mitigation witnesses refused to testify 
in the first trial because of threats. He has had difficulty enlisting new 
witnesses.

"Most, if not all of these people, were unwilling to testify on Ms. Arias' 
behalf because of the potential that they would face negative consequences for 
speaking on Ms. Arias' behalf," he wrote. "Of the people who were willing to 
testify, some are only willing to offer testimony in sealed proceedings, so 
that their identities remain unknown to the public until after the proceedings 
are completed."

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office filed a brief with the Court of Appeals 
stating that it had no objection to the media hearing the testimony and opposed 
closing the courtroom.

The judges and lawyers who try capital cases are split on whose rights trump 
whose.

Defense attorney John Canby was unequivocal.

"I don't buy it," he said. "I just don't think trial should be carried out in 
secret."

Veteran defense attorney Mike Terribile didn't think that Stephens would close 
the courtroom for no reason.

"There's got to be something else that came to her attention," Terribile said.

What that something is, was discussed in secret, however.

But Vikki Liles, another defense attorney who takes high-profile cases, was 
adamant in support of Nurmi.

"The right of the defendant to present mitigation, free from threats, is 
superior to the rights of the public, the rights of the victim and the rights 
of the state."

Similarly, trial-court judges are of mixed opinion.

Kenneth Fields, a retired Superior Court judge who has also been a prosecutor 
and defense attorney, said, "You can't have secret trials; that's forbidden. 
It's just totally inconsistent with the American court system."

On the other hand, David Derickson, a defense attorney and former Maricopa 
County Superior Court judge, said that "to deny her the ability to present 
those witnesses because they won't show up if the press is there is a denial of 
due process."

But when asked if he would still hold that opinion if one of the secret 
witnesses, as rumored, is Jodi Arias herself, he quipped, "If he (Nurmi) can 
make a straight-faced argument that Jodi Arias has a secret left to tell after 
her other trial, then I want to hire him as a lawyer."

(source: Arizona Republic)

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

CG man faces death penalty----Declared competent; accused of killing mom, 
stabbing aunt


A Casa Grande man with a history of mental illness and prior stays in mental 
health institutions has been declared competent to stand trial and faces the 
death penalty.

Joseph Caine Cecil, 39, has pleaded not guilty to charges of first-degree 
murder, attempted murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He's 
accused of stabbing and killing his mother, Ronna Thomas, of stabbing his aunt 
and attempting to assault a neighbor who was helping the 2 women when the Oct. 
4, 2013, attack occurred in Casa Grande.

Deputy Pinal County Attorney Kathryn Pierce filed the state's notice of intent 
to seek the death penalty on June 16, after that office sought 2 extensions of 
time in which to make the filing.

After an Oct. 17 hearing to determine if Cecil's stay in the Arizona State 
Hospital had restored him to competency, Judge Henry Gooday on Oct. 23 ruled 
Cecil was competent to stand trial. In February, Gooday committed Cecil to the 
state hospital to undergo treatment to regain his competency.

After a hearing had to be continued so a capital-qualified attorney could be 
found to represent Cecil, James Soslowsky was appointed defense counsel. 
However, the County Attorney???s Office claims that Soslowsky isn't qualified 
to represent him. The judge hasn't responded to the county attorney's motion to 
disqualify Soslowsky from the case.

Soslowsky represents multiple clients accused of capital offenses.

Cecil was released from the Arizona State Hospital in May 2012 after a 3 
1/2-year stay after pleading guilty except insane to a charge of aggravated 
assault with a deadly weapon. He's been arrested about a dozen times in 
Arizona.

A pretrial conference in the murder case is set for Dec. 2.

(source: Casa Grande Dispatch)






NEVADA:

Vegas man gets death in '09 double murder, robbery


A 29-year-old Las Vegas man has been sentenced to death in the killings of 2 
men after an apparent drug deal and robbery 5 years ago.

A jury decided Monday that Ralph "Macky" Jeremias should get the death penalty 
after he was convicted of 1st-degree murder, robbery and burglary.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports (http://bit.ly/1zhiwUQ) Jeremias told his 
mother he loved her after the sentence was read.

Paul Stephens and Brian Hudson were found dead in June 2009 inside their 
apartment on Decatur Boulevard near Flamingo Road.

Prosecutors say Jeremias had purchased marijuana from Stephens and killed the 
men so there wouldn't be witnesses when he robbed them of money and laptops.

Jeremias told jurors he walked into the apartment and found the victims already 
shot dead.

(soruce: Associated Press)

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

Nevada is finally getting an appeals court after voters approve tribunal; 
Intermediate body will function between district court and supreme 
court----Supreme court will concentrate on publishing opinions in key cases


Justice hasn't always been swift in Nevada, which until last week's election 
was 1 of 10 states in the nation without an intermediate court of appeals.

That meant that every appeal from each of the state's 82 district courts - 
death penalty convictions, medical malpractice judgments, prison food 
complaints, administrative hearing reviews, driver's license revocations - had 
to be heard by a very busy 7-member Nevada supreme court.

After 3 earlier attempts since 1980, voters on 4 November heard the state high 
court's plea and agreed to establish a 3-judge state court of appeals that 
proponents say will give supreme court justices time to focus on the most 
important cases and publish more opinions to serve as legal precedent. In 
recent years, the court has published opinions in no more than 4% of appealed 
cases.

"The legal precedent can then be used by judges, lawyers and litigants in 
predicting the outcome of their legal affairs," said supreme court justice 
James Hardesty, who spearheaded the campaign for the appellate court 
initiative, Question 1. It passed by a 54% to 46% margin.

After years opposing the idea, even Richard Gammick, outgoing district attorney 
in Washoe County, grudgingly backed the idea of a state appellate court. "This 
leaves the supreme court in the position of giving their attention to those 
major cases that need it," he said.

Court officials are wasting no time in getting the court up and running ahead 
of a 5 January start date.

The state board of examiners on Wednesday will be asked to release $782,500 in 
startup money that the legislature set aside last year in case voters approved 
the constitutional amendment to create the court. The legislature's interim 
finance committee is expected to also sign off on the funding.

Meanwhile, the Nevada commission on judicial selection has received 5 
applications ahead of a 5pm Wednesday deadline, commission official Myrna Byrd 
said. Interviews will take place next month, and Governor Brian Sandoval will 
appoint the 1st 3 judges, at an annual base salary of $165,000. Judges will 
have to run for election in November 2016 to a 6-year term.

The supreme court will hold a 4 December hearing to establish rules for the new 
court, Hardesty said. Plans call for 1 of the 3 appellate judges to serve as 
chief, and for the court to formulate its own operating procedures.

All civil and criminal appeals will still go to the state supreme court, which 
is on pace to render about 2,300 rulings this year. Hardesty said the court has 
a backlog of 2,167 open cases.

The high court will assign or "push down" about 700 to 800 cases a year to the 
court of appeals, which will have offices in existing space at the Clark County 
Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas and the supreme court building in Carson 
City.

On the list could be venue challenges, injunctions and administrative appeals 
on state board of equalization, workers' compensation or unemployment 
compensation. Tax, water and public utility appeals would remain on the high 
court docket.

Civil case litigants will still be required to try settlement and mediation 
conferences before their appeal is heard.

Criminal cases may still get fast-track treatment under a program that, since 
1995, has cut the average disposition time from about 18 months to 8 months. 
But Hardesty said the court may revisit the fast-track program in response to 
criticism that the high court does not hear the whole case.

"Because of the abbreviated briefing, we haven't been able to develop all the 
issues the way we'd like," Hardesty acknowledged.

Phil Kohn, Clark County public defender, and Howard Brooks, the deputy who 
handles as many as 150 appeals a year to the supreme court, said they hoped 
fast-tracking will stop.

The most complicated cases take the most time, Brooks said. But "the sheer 
volume of the less-complicated cases can possibly hinder those cases receiving 
the necessary attention".

"We need someone who has the time to adequately hear our appeals - someone to 
grade the district courts' work and have the time to do it right. We want to 
see every case fully briefed," Brooks said.

(source: The Guardian)






WASHINGTON:

Holding 3 Simultaneous Death Penalty Trials in King County Is Unprecedented - 
and Hugely Expensive; So Why Won't Prosecutors Pursue a Cheaper Option: Life in 
Prison?


AN UNPRECEDENTED 3 DEATH-PENALTY TRIALS -- The costs of prosecuting Christopher 
Montfort, Joseph McEnroe, and Michele Anderson are going to be huge.

Dead leaves dance on the sidewalk under the huge windows of King County 
Superior Court judge Ron Kessler's courtroom, while inside, prospective jurors 
report for vetting in the trial of infamous cop killer Christopher Monfort. 
He's charged with fatally shooting Seattle police officer Timothy Brenton late 
on Halloween night in 2009.

At long tables, 2 King County prosecutors and three public defense attorneys 
sit sipping water from paper cups and trading jibes. "It's just too bad Chris 
doesn't have the money to hire good lawyers instead of going with you guys," 
Seattle Police Department detective Cloyd Steiger says to the defense team. 
Everyone laughs.

It's clearly a joke, because Monfort has the best representation public money 
can buy; defending him has cost King County well over $4 million so far, not 
including the additional costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, crime 
labs, and other agencies outside of the prosecutor's office and the Department 
of Public Defense. Millions more in taxpayer dollars will likely be spent 
before Monfort's trial - and 2 other death penalty cases that are about to get 
under way in King County - reach their conclusions.

Though trials involving the death penalty are hardly unheard of in this county, 
having three of them running simultaneously is unprecedented, according to the 
King County prosecutor's office. The other 2 that will be under way at the same 
time as Monfort's: separate trials for Joseph McEnroe and Michele Anderson, who 
are accused of gunning down 6 of Anderson's family members on Christmas Eve 
2007. Among the dead in that incident were two kids and Anderson's elderly 
parents.

Monfort enters the courtroom in a blue-and-white plaid shirt, handcuffed to his 
wheelchair. He's one of those guys who seem unexpectedly large in person. One 
member of his entourage of corrections officers unlocks his handcuffs, and 
Monfort focuses his attention down and forward at something on the table in 
front of him. Or possibly nothing.

The steep cost of his defense isn't just because he doesn't have money to hire 
an attorney. In aggravated murder cases in which prosecutors file a "death 
notice" - telling the court they are seeking the death penalty - virtually all 
defendants qualify for defense on the public's dime because these cases are 
just so expensive to defend. "Jury selection is 1 expensive part," said death 
penalty case defense lawyer Mark Larranaga. "Death qualifying a jury takes 
weeks, months - that process doesn't exist in a non-death-penalty case." In 
most other cases, jury selection takes a week or 2.

This particular jury selection process is likely to go on even longer than 
average. "It's taking a long time, in part, because Monfort was shot when he 
was apprehended," says Department of Public Defense communications manager 
Leslie Brown, explaining that Monfort can only sit for 2 hours at a time. "His 
life expectancy is not great," Brown continues. "The process of actually 
executing someone is a multiyear process. Here in public defense, we just have 
to let the process unfold."

Right now in Washington, calling the death penalty a multiyear process is 
putting it mildly. Governor Jay Inslee ordered a moratorium on executions on 
February 11, effectively pressing pause on executions in this state for as long 
as he remains governor. Even before that, most other Washington counties had 
ceased to file death notices in aggravated murder cases. Since 2000, only 6 
notices have been filed, all west of the mountains and with a success rate of 
about 66 %. Past studies have attributed the drastic drop in death penalty 
cases to changing values. Inslee mentioned another factor when he announced his 
moratorium: arbitrariness. He noted that the decision to charge sometimes comes 
down to "the size of the county's budget where the crime occurred."

It's hard to say exactly how much the average death penalty case costs. A 2001 
study completed by researchers in Kansas found that these cases are 70 % more 
expensive than non-death-penalty cases. The Washington State Bar Association 
studied the issue in 2006 and found that these cases cost around $517,000 more 
to try than aggravated murder cases where the penalty sought is life without 
parole. In its report, the WSBA also noted that the public costs go well beyond 
money, as prosecutors and public defenders neglect other priorities to focus on 
these time-intensive cases. The trial of serial killer Gary Ridgway, believed 
to be the most expensive in Washington history, clocked in at $12 million in 
defense and prosecution costs and ended with Ridgway sentenced to life without 
parole.

No one knows how much the specific trials of Monfort, McEnroe, and Anderson 
will end up costing King County. But it's already in the millions - $4.9 
million for McEnroe and Anderson so far, more than $4 million for Monfort???and 
could easily climb above the $12 million spent on Ridgway. In studies, other 
states have consistently found that it's cheaper to sentence someone to life in 
prison than it is to sentence them to death. For example, a 2011 study 
conducted in California found that state could save $1 billion in 5 years by 
ditching the death penalty and choosing permanent imprisonment instead. (No 
cost comparison studies have yet been undertaken in Washington State. But for 
some perspective, these three cases are on track to cost more than the total 
proposed 2-year budget for administering all of King County's Community and 
Human Services programs and operating all of the county's Community Service 
Centers.)

"It is a complete waste of resources and time," said Larra???aga. "We've had 
five executions in 40 years. Seventy-five to 80 percent of these cases are 
reversed."

A few floors up from Kessler's courtroom, Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell removes his 
eyeglasses, places his thumb and forefinger on either side of the bridge of his 
nose, and rubs. A moment later, he puts the glasses back on and glances at the 
clock on the wall. It's 10:30 a.m., and weeks of prospective jurors in the 
McEnroe case stretch ahead of him. Framed prints of Abraham Lincoln and George 
Washington hang ever so slightly off-kilter on the walls of the windowless 
room.

A clean-cut and mild-mannered McEnroe sits quietly, scrawling in cursive on a 
legal pad as he sizes up the parade of individuals who may 1 day decide whether 
he will live or die. The air of civility surrounding the whole process seems 
surreal given the nature of this meeting.

A prospective juror enters and is seated for questioning. He's an 
intellectual-seeming fellow in a sky-blue button-down, gray tweed jacket, and 
slacks.

"We need impartial jurors," says Judge Ramsdell, after both prosecutor Scott 
O'Toole and public defender Leo Hamaji finish grilling the man. "Do you think 
there is a place for the death penalty in certain cases?"

"Yes, I do think that," says the prospective juror. He is led back to the jury 
room to wait.

O'Toole tells the court he doesn't want this guy on the jury, pointing to an 
answer on a questionnaire as evidence of his opposition to the death penalty.

"The death penalty aligns us with countries with horrible human rights policies 
like China and Iran," the man wrote, along with four other arguments against 
the death penalty.

Therein lies just one of the many challenges that slow these trials to a pricey 
crawl: Everyone has an opinion on capital punishment.

So why, exactly, is the county seeking death in these cases?

"Monfort shot and killed a police officer," says Brown. "That is hugely 
significant among prosecutors and law enforcement." The crimes allegedly 
committed by McEnroe and Anderson are also particularly horrific. But on the 
whole, there's no science to when death penalty cases are charged. No magic 
type of victim, no threshold number of people killed.

"One could better predict whether the death penalty will be imposed on 
Washington's most brutal murderers by flipping a coin than by evaluating the 
crime and the defendant," wrote Supreme Court justice Mary Fairhurst in a 2012 
opinion.

I call Dan Donohoe at the prosecutor's office to ask why they filed death 
notices in these cases when, according to studies, there's a more 
cost-effective route for the county to take.

"We're right in the middle of jury selection, then we'll have opening 
statements," says Donohoe. "We're very limited in terms of doing interviews."

In the hall outside Judge Ramsdell's courtroom, prosecutor O'Toole is slightly 
more helpful.

"It is not a negotiation tool," he says. "I know, after Gary Ridgway it gets 
confusing." (Prosecutors dropped death penalty charges against Ridgway after he 
led them to more of his victims.) "But," O'Toole continued, "when we charge the 
death penalty, that's our intention."

In other words, the King County prosecutor's office, led by the public's 
elected representative, Dan Satterberg, is charging death in these cases 
because it really wants Monfort, McEnroe, and Anderson to die. At any cost.

(source: thestranger.com)






USA:

Man accused of killing California prison guard to go on trial


A Guam man accused of killing a California prison guard is scheduled to go to 
trial next year.

The suspect, Joseph Cabrera Sablan, faces the death penalty if found guilty.

Sablan and James Ninete Leon Guerrero, who also is from Guam, were indicted in 
August 2008 on allegations that they killed Jose V. Rivera, a corrections 
officer at the U.S. Penitentiary in Atwater, California.

At the time, Sablan was serving a life sentence for murdering his girlfriend in 
1990.

The incident began the day after Leon Guerrero arrived as a new inmate at the 
penitentiary.

On June 20, 2008, Rivera was securing inmates in their cells and had just 
closed Leon Guerrero's door when Sablan allegedly jumped at the officer.

Sablan, who was suspected to be intoxicated, "appeared to pull something from 
his pocket, and in a stabbing motion, struck Officer Rivera in the torso," 
stated a report from the Bureau of Prisons.

Alcohol, said the report, was "easily obtained by the inmate population."

Leon Guerrero, also allegedly drunk, rushed out of the cell.

After chasing Rivera down a stairwell, Leon Guerrero tackled Rivera and held 
him down.

The report said Sablan "got on top of Officer Rivera and began to strike (him) 
with the icepick-type weapon."

Rivera was pronounced dead at a hospital later that afternoon.

A subsequent autopsy found 28 injuries, 7 of which were to Rivera's head and 
neck. 2 stab wounds punctured the officer's heart.

In February 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to federal 
prosecutors in California, telling them they are "authorized and directed to 
seek the death penalty" against the 2 inmates for the murder case.

Earlier this year, however, Leon Guerrero and federal prosecutors reached a 
plea agreement that spared that defendant the death penalty.

Sablan still faces trial.

According to federal court documents, Sablan's trial will begin on April 6, 
2015.

Last month, his attorney filed several motions, including one that would move 
to have the case heard outside the Eastern District of California, where the 
case is currently filed.

The motion argues that because of the high concentration of correctional 
facilities within the Eastern District of California -- there are 19 federal 
and state facilities in the district -- it would be extremely difficult to find 
an objective pool of jurors.

(source: guampnd.com)

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

Murder Rate Highest in South; Northeast Has Sharpest Decline


On November 10 the Justice Department released its annual Uniform Crime Report 
for 2013. The report revealed an overall decline of 5.2% in the national murder 
rate. The Northeast had the lowest murder rate--3.5 murders per 100,000 
people--and the sharpest decline from last year. The South again had the 
highest murder rate (5.3). The West had the 2nd-lowest murder rate (4.0), 
followed by the Midwest (4.5). The states with the highest murder rates in the 
country were Louisiana (10.8) and Alabama (7.2). The states with the lowest 
rates were Iowa (1.4) and Hawaii (1.5). The Northeast has also had the fewest 
executions in the modern era, with 4, and none since 2005. The South has had 
the highest number of executions (1,132) since 1976. The average murder rate 
for states with the death penalty (4.4) was higher than the average rate for 
states without the death penalty (3.4).

Among the 10 states with the lowest murder rates, 6 have abolished the death 
penalty. Overall, as the use of the death penalty has declined, the murder rate 
has continued to fall.

("Crime in the United States, 2013", U.S. Dept. of Justice, Nov. 10, 2014).

(source: DPIC)