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

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 17



MISSOURI:

Death penalty protest planned in Springfield


An execution is scheduled Wednesday, and a protest planned for Tuesday in 
Springfield.

The Springfield chapter of Missourians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty 
will hold a vigil on Tuesday, November 18 from noon to 1 p.m. on Park Central 
Square to protest the scheduled execution of Missouri prison inmate Leon 
Taylor.

Taylor, 56, is scheduled to die for killing a Kansas City-area gas station 
attendant in 1994. Court records say Taylor also tried to kill the attendant's 
step-daughter, but his gun jammed.

Supporters have sent a letter to Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon seeking clemency for 
Taylor, saying he was treated unfairly because of race. The mixed-race jury in 
Taylor's 1st murder trial convicted him, but could not reach a verdict on 
punishment. The judge sentenced him to death. The sentence was overturned, and 
after a 2nd trial, an all-white jury sentenced Taylor to death. Taylor is 
African-American.

After Taylor's 2nd sentence became final on appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court 
ruled, based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision, that if a jury could not agree 
on the death penalty, the judge could not then impose it, and subsequently 
commuted the sentences of all individuals on death row who had been given a 
death-sentence by a Judge under these circumstances. Taylor did not receive a 
commutation.

The Missouri Supreme Court had originally scheduled Taylor's execution for 
September, but withdrew that death warrant after his lawyers said they would be 
unable to work on his case at that time.

(source: KSPR news)






UTAH----female to face death penalty

Hearing for mother accused of killing Ethan Stacy


The preliminary hearing begins today for the mother accused of killing 
4-year-old Ethan Stacy, whose disfigured body was found 4 years ago buried near 
Powder Mountain.

Stephanie Sloop, 31, of Layton is charged with aggravated murder under both 
sections of the child abuse law, including Shelby's Law.

The murder charge carries a possible death sentence if she is convicted. Her 
husband, Nathanael Warren Sloop, was also charged in the boy's death. He 
entered a guilty plea to aggravated murder, but mentally ill, on Feb. 4 and was 
sentenced to 25 years to life in the Utah State Prison.

She has yet to enter any type of plea. Her case has not yet gone to a 
preliminary hearing.

Prosecutors have 60 days following a felony arraignment hearing to file their 
intent to seek the death penalty.

The 3-day preliminary hearing is scheduled to run until Wednesday in Farmington 
before Judge Thomas L. Kay.

Prosecutors have 60 days following a felony arraignment hearing to file their 
intent to seek the death penalty.

According to the probable cause statement, she "told police officers and 
dispatch that Ethan had done this over the past 4 nights."

After an extensive search, police learned the little boy had not left the 
apartment, but the Sloops had found him dead in his room, according to the 
document.

Stephanie Sloop admitted to police that Nathan Sloop had gotten angry with 
Ethan and took him in his bedroom, where she could hear "Nate slapping Ethan in 
the bedroom," according to the document.

When she went into the bedroom, she found "Ethan badly beaten about the head 
area," and she knew he needed medical attention, but never got it, according to 
the document.

She told police her son was ill over the next several days, and at one point 
she and Nathan Sloop forced the boy to drink 2 16-ounce bottles of water, a 
16-ounce bottle of Kool-Aid and a glass of orange juice, according to the 
document.

Stephanie Sloop also told police that the boy was burned in the bathtub but she 
also did not seek medical attention for him. Several more days passed, and 
Ethan was still sick.

In the early morning hours of May 9, 2010, the couple realized Ethan had died, 
according to the documents.

They took the boy's body to a place near Powder Mountain and buried him there, 
police said.

Stephanie Sloop had gone to 2 convenience stores in the area, according to the 
probable cause statement. At one store, she bought 2 cans of lighter fluid and 
at another store she bought 2 slush drinks.

She told officers the lighter fluid was for Nathan Sloop, "because he wanted to 
burn the body," according to the probable cause statement.

(source: The Standard)






NEVADA:

Wolfson gives more scrutiny to potential death penalty cases


After an emotional 2-day penalty hearing, jurors agreed that there were nearly 
2 dozen mitigating factors to consider sparing Ralph "Macky" Jeremias' life, 
yet they still gave him the death penalty.

During the penalty phase of the trial, Jeremias' attorney Charles Cano asked 
jurors to "look inside yourself and see if there's mercy."

Other defense lawyers familiar with death penalty cases say that the sentencing 
process often can be confusing to jurors.

"There's a lot of room for improper considerations or analysis that doesn't 
come out with an objective standard," said Dayvid Figler, who represents four 
people who could be sentenced to death.

Before District Attorney Steve Wolfson took office in 2012, Clark County had 
more pending death penalty cases per capita than any other urban county in the 
United States.

Those numbers are falling, though, as Wolfson says he's giving more scrutiny to 
determine which 1st-degree murder defendants prosecutors want to send to death 
row.

He has filed notices to seek the death penalty in 25 cases since 2012, and he 
said that he's seeking capital punishment in about 1/2 as many cases each year 
than his predecessor, David Roger.

"I think there's a little bit of a change of culture here in the DA's office," 
Wolfson said. "We're only going to file the death notice in what we consider to 
be the so-called worst of the worst cases."

A group of senior prosecutors, including Wolfson, regularly review murder cases 
to determine whether to seek the death penalty. The process takes between 30 
and 90 minutes per case, he said.

Last year, Clark County prosecutors considered 56 eligible cases and decided to 
pursue the death penalty in 13. In 2012, there were 24 eligible cases and 
prosecutors decided to seek the death penalty in 5 cases.

Some of the factors he believes make a case eligible include previous murder 
convictions, multiple victims and the involvement of children.

Wolfson acknowledged that death penalty cases are more costly than murder cases 
without the death penalty, but he said that's not a deterrent for prosecutors.

"If it's the right case, regardless of the cost, we're going to file notice on 
it," Wolfson said. The death penalty "is still the law. And until and unless 
the law changes, it's my obligation to pursue it in appropriate cases."

Wolfson said he has withdrawn the death penalty in about 5 cases since he took 
office, resulting in plea bargains.

The 29-year-old Jeremias, who was born in the Philippines, was convicted 
earlier this month in a double-murder carried out inside a central valley 
apartment 5 years ago.

His mother, grandmother and cousins testified during his penalty hearing, 
asking the jury to spare his life. Throughout that testimony, some jurors wiped 
tears from their eyes.

Relatives of the victims, Paul Stephens and Brian Hudson, also spoke during the 
penalty hearing, evoking emotion that even had one prosecutor choked up.

Prosecutors said Jeremias and two men went to the apartment planning to rob the 
victims. The 2 men told police Jeremias walked into the apartment alone and 
used a 9 mm handgun to kill the victims execution-style.

One of the men cut a deal with prosecutors and pleaded guilty to 2 counts of 
2nd-degree murder and other charges. In exchange, he agreed to testify at 
Jeremias' trial. The 2nd man was acquitted of murder and robbery charges in 
2012.

Jeremias, who denied the killing, had past arrests for possessing a gun in a 
park and possessing a gun with an obliterated serial number. He had also 
admitted to selling marijuana.

Among the list of mitigating factors the jury found for Jeremias: lack of 
supervision from a very early age; multiple concussions as an infant, a teen 
and a young adult; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; his initial bond 
with his parents; lack of access to medication; loss of a martial arts career; 
untreated depression; untreated anxiety; substance abuse and that he was under 
the influence of a controlled substance at the time of the killings.

The list went on.

But they decided that those factors did not outweigh the gravity of the crime 
and Jeremias' background.

His stepfather, Gordon Daniel, believes the jury made the wrong decision.

"I don't think they took all the mitigating factors seriously enough," Daniel 
said.

John Roop, a friend of Hudson and Stephens, called it a "just verdict" that 
would help provide closure for him.

Still, he said the case was "tragic in all regards."

Jeremias' death sentence likely won't be carried out for more than a decade, if 
ever, as he and his lawyers grind through appeal after appeal. No one has been 
executed in Nevada in more than 8 years, and state legislators have ordered a 
study on the costs of the death penalty for 2015.

Veteran defense lawyer Robert Langford represents accused strip shooter Ammar 
Harris, one of Clark County's most high-profile death penalty defendants.

Langford said he investigates a client's background in most violent crime 
cases, but that becomes critical when capital punishment is at stake.

In contrast to the Jeremias verdict, Langford said, a jury can find just one 
mitigating factor to decide on sparing a defendant's life.

A jury must decide whether the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating 
pieces of the crime and the defendant's life.

"What the hell does weight mean?" Langford said. "And how do you assign weight 
to any given mitigator, or for that matter any given aggravator? There's really 
no quantification whatsoever. The death penalty is imposed in an arbitrary and 
capricious way no matter how you stack it up."

Although Wolfson wants more scrutiny in deciding which cases to pursue death, 
some defense lawyers say negotiations are non-existent.

Figler and Kristina Wildeveld represent Michelle Paet, who faces the death 
penalty in the fatal shooting of her husband, Air Force Staff Sgt. Nathan Paet. 
Prosecutors said Paet plotted with gunman Michael Rodriguez to kill the 
sergeant and collect $600,000 in military benefits and insurance.

Wildeveld said the victim's family is "adamantly to their core opposed to the 
death penalty," but prosecutors refused to take capital punishment off the 
table.

Wolfson declined to comment on the case. The defendants were indicted before he 
took office.

Wildeveld said death penalty cases take "exorbitantly more time than any other 
case." The lawyers must research everything a defendant has ever done in his 
life, good or bad, even investigating the factors of his birth. Then they 
present that evidence to a jury that must decide the defendant's fate.

"Nobody wins in a death trial," Wildeveld said.

(source: Las Vegas Review-Journal)






ARIZONA:

Jodi Arias trial: Porn and abuse used to distance jury from shrieking victims


It's a story that is getting very predictable. What crazy move and outlandish 
thing will the defense team of Jodi Arias pull next? It almost seems like it is 
impossible to get more dramatic with all that has transpired over the past 6 
years, but even Jodi Arias tops herself every single time. This week in the 
case of the State of Arizona versus Jodi Arias, trial for the 2008 murder of 
Travis Alexander, the stunts became so outlandish that some folks were even 
speculating that Jodi Arias was going to be home by Christmas. And by "home by 
Christmas", those speculations meant, freed from jail, home with her family by 
Christimas of this year. Despite events that transpired in the Jodi Arias trial 
this week, this is not going to happen. According to USA Today Nov. 14, porn 
was the subject of arguments attempted to "free Jodi Arias" before the Jodi 
Arias trial adjourned for the week.

Last week's drama in the Maricopa County Superior Court, and the Higher Appeals 
Court, centered around arguments that the Jodi Arias trial had now turned 
unconstitutional. This drama was not tampered by the evidence presented in 
victim impact statements where Tanisha Sorenson, one of Travis Alexander's 6 
siblings, reportedly "shrieked" and showed her grief openly in open court last 
week. This week, as defense witnesses began to appear, the defense clearly 
worked very hard to distance the jury from that unforgettable testimony.

As has been predicted for many months, turning the tables on the victim was the 
defense strategy this week. In the latest Jodi Arias defense move, after being 
stabbed over 20 times, nearly decapitated, shot in the head, and then left for 
dead, Travis Alexander is now being dragged through the mud with porn 
allegations. In addition to this experts have been called to accuse Travis of 
being a bad boyfriend, and a bad Mormon. Even if it were true that he watched 
porn, was a bad boyfriend, and wasn't the perfect Mormon, it doesn't reverse 
Jodi Arias's murder conviction, or the fact that he was stabbed over 25 times 
and also shot.

Jodi Arias is on trial for the 2008 murder of her lover Travis Alexander. One 
June night in 2008, she drove 90 miles out of her way to rent a vehicle to take 
a road trip to Travis. She flipped the license plate of the rental upside down, 
died her hair, and off she went from Yreka, California, with 3 gas cans of fuel 
in her car. By the time she reached Mesa, Arizona, there was not one single 
surveillance camera from a gas station, an ATM, anywhere, that had recorded 
moments in her journey to Mesa.

On June 9, 5 days after he died, Travis Alexander would be found naked and dead 
in his shower. He was found with a bullet wound to the head, a severed 
windpipe, a fatal stab wound to the heart that was reportedly approximately 5 
inches deep, a cluster of 9 stab wounds on his back, a stab wound on his head 
that chipped his skull, and over 14 more stab wounds on his body. A camera 
allegedly took pictures from one of Travis's last moments alive while he was 
standing in the shower, to the last picture where his bleeding head is seen on 
the floor. According to the time stamps on these pictures, the time lapse 
between his last shower pic to the last is approximately 90 seconds.

Jodi Arias was convicted of 1st degree murder with an element of aggravated 
cruelty that made her eligible for the death penalty in 2013. Her jury 
unanimously voted on those 2 phases. Where her 2013 jury was unable to come to 
an agreement was on sentencing. That jury was deadlocked on life or the death 
penalty for Jodi Arias, and a retrial for the sentencing phase of the Jodi 
Arias trial was set. That retrial has been in progress since jury selection 
began on September 29 of this year. This new jury is not tasked with the task 
of determining Jodi's guilt, as the guilt phase of this trial has come and 
gone. The only thing this jury must determine is, will Jodi Arias serve life in 
prison, or will she be sentenced to Arizona's death row?

Court watchers that have been following this case since 2008, or since the 2013 
trial, know how this defense likes to handle their case. It has almost become 
expected of them. What crazy allegations or drama stunts are going to happen 
now?

Since the murder of Travis Alexander in 2008, Jodi Arias and her team has made 
many attempts to deflect guilt and blame on every person or media outlet around 
them in their efforts to avoid facing the truth. It has been fully expected 
that when Jodi Arias returns to the retrial of her sentencing phase that she 
would be doing whatever she could to drag the name of Travis Alexander through 
the mud in her efforts to save her own life. So recent events should not be all 
that surprising.

Even so, it was almost humorous this week when Jodi Arias supporters were 
twittering about how Jodi Arias might be "home by Christmas" after the most 
recent stunts in the Jodi Arias trial. These stunts involved a computer, an 
alleged virus, and alleged porn files allegedly viewed by the victim in this 
case, Travis Alexander. In their efforts to try and prove these allegations, 
the Jodi Arias defense team went back to square one and even referred to 
previous defense team member Maria Shaffer according to USA Today. The first 
portion of the Jodi Arias trial last week centered around a computer that was 
owned by the murder victim Travis Alexander. After his murder, the computer was 
taken and filed in the Evidence Room of the Mesa Police Department. The defense 
team for Jodi Arias began this week of court drama by filing a motion on Monday 
Nov. 10 alleging that "thousands of pornographic files" had been deleted from 
this very computer at some point in the investigation.

In other words, the defense is reverting back to their, "We lost our evidence" 
defense. Much like the alleged "evidence" of emails that "prove" Travis was an 
abuser, these porn files allegedly got lost in the shuffle when the wind blew a 
little too hard one day. Or, as the defense alleges, when someone intentionally 
deleted these files from the computer. They are alleging this evidence proves 
Travis was a dirty dog, and thus...thus what? Thus Jodi Arias had good reason 
to kill him?

The prosecutor is alleging that if in fact those files exist, they existed 
because someone...other than Travis Alexander, put them on that computer. There 
have even been reports that those alleged porn files allegedly were placed on 
Travis's computer on June 10, 2008. If that is true, that would be several days 
after he had died, making it impossible for him to have been a dirty dog with 
those particular files.

The prosecution is not arguing that the porn files never existed, just that 
they were not involved with the files "suddenly disappearing". How could the 
files have gotten on his computer then if it can be proven that Travis did not 
do it? Kelly from Really Big Mean Dog School of Law has two theories on this, 
both of which make very good sense. She conducted field research with computer 
experts and has found, "There is definitely, for absolute sure, a virus that 
puts pornography on your computer. It is a real thing that actually exists. In 
almost all cases...it is downloaded onto a victim's computer from a trojan 
website...either at random, or else in an algorithmic pattern based on sexual 
proclivities diametrically opposed to the victim's - and deposits it in a 
not-especially-well-hidden folder somewhere on the victim's machine.

The virus also floods the victim's browser histories with compromising records, 
sometimes in a fashion that coincidentally correlates with times the victim was 
necessarily alone in the apartment. If the hard drive was signed out for 
forensic examination the very 1st thing they would have done was run an 
antivirus program to eliminate anything that could effect the lab equipment."

Now that is interesting. Could it be that a virus was put on the computer to 
make it look like Travis was a dirty dog? It's a serious allegation, but what 
is more serious than saying you have evidence that shows someone is a 
pedophile? We know Jodi Arias will stoop to nothing, she already said as much 
in her last trial.

But what if it wasn't a virus that put the material on? What if it was a human? 
Then, if it can be proven it wasn't Travis, who could it be? Kelly from Really 
Big Mean Dog has a theory on that one as well.

"Something else that we know. At one point while Travis was still alive, he was 
out of town and asked Deanna Reid to check in on Napoleon. Imagine her shock 
when she got there and found [Jodi Arias] baking cookies and using Travis' 
laptop. Could it be that [Jodi Arias] planted porn on Travis' laptop? I would 
say odds are 'No, Duh.' At that point I think her entire existence was to 
either blackmail Travis into marrying her or threatening to expose all the 
things she had manufactured about him. MY opinion."

Is any of this relevant? In a death penalty trial every stone needs to be 
unturned. So the trial attorneys unturned that stone in several ways this week. 
One stone they unturned in the process was to revert back to one of Jodi's 
first attorneys, Maria Schaffer, who was there on the day that the computer was 
first examined by all parties relevant to the case.

This occurred on June 19, 2009. On June 19, 2009, then defense team Greg 
Parzych and Maria Schaffer, the prosecutor on this case Juan Martinez, and lead 
investigator Detective Esteban Flores met to begin preparing the case according 
to USA Today. Martinez acknowledges that he was present at the time, but argued 
about how the history of the files on the computer could be altered.

"If the history was altered, it was changed by defense counsel, not the State."

Fox 12 also reports this week that Martinez strenuously disagrees with some of 
the timing of some of these files. Not only have the State's forensic analysis 
not uncovered any of the porn files in question, but asserts that the ones the 
defense are alleging he did claim has a serious timing discrepancy. On his own 
analysis Martinez argued, "It confirmed that he [Travis Alexander] had not 
accessed any of the porn files that they're claiming he accessed."

USA Today also reports that Martinez wrote in his motion that the computer in 
question contained 17 items of malware, and 24 computer viruses. He also showed 
dates where it could not have been possible that Travis viewed those files, as 
they were allegedly accessed after he had been killed. In a hearing Wednesday 
morning Nov. 12 on the matter, Martinez also said that the computer forensics 
that had been performed on Travis's computer showed no pornography at all.

Kirk Nurmi on the other hand still claims to have "evidence" that shows 
otherwise, and has asked the court in the Wednesday hearing for 2 or 3 more 
days to allow for an expert to testify on the matter later this month. Kirk 
told the court, "There is a plethora of evidence being uncovered by the 
expert."

Again the defense sought to have a "dismissal of all charges" or at the very 
least, remove the death penalty from sentencing options according to Fox 12. In 
other words, the defense is saying that 'we believe Travis was a sexual deviant 
and this should excuse Jodi Arias from the aforementioned 6 years of damaging 
evidence against her.' Another delay was requested until the defense expert 
could testify.

This request was denied. While this issue is being handled, prosecutor for the 
State Juan Martinez requested that no witnesses be questioned or allowed to 
give testimony on this matter. Judge Sherry Stephens agreed that was probably a 
good idea.

Maria Shaffer, one of Jodi's first defense attorneys was "shocked and offended" 
about Juan's allegations. She told the Arizona Republic, "To me it came out of 
left field.....At all times Juan Martinez or Detective Flores were in the room 
while we were looking at the evidence in this case."

"Left field" is how a lot of people have felt about this alleged evidence this 
week. Many feel that "left field" must be where the defense plans a lot of 
their strategies, as it seems for the past 6 years every theory, strategy, and 
create drama tactic seems to be more outrageous then the next. This motion and 
further arguments on this matter will be heard by Judge Sherry Stephens at a 
later date.

Following this drama, the Jodi Arias trial was ordered to move forward with the 
next defense witness. This defense witness was an expert psychologist who, 
according to the Arizona Republic, "specializes in unusual sexual 
proclivities." This was, as Jeff Gold tweeted, a "much weaker day for the 
defense."

This testimony occurred on Thursday of this week. Here a clinical psychologist 
Miccio Fonseca, testsified about Travis being a bad boyfriend and also someone 
with deviant sexual desires. Emails were read that were written by Travis about 
the women in his life, and experiences Travis had with abuse were brought up in 
court. During one email, it was revealed that Travis Alexander really loved a 
woman named Deanna, and did not love Jodi Arias.

The woman named Deanna was someone that Jodi Arias has been jealous of for 
years. Deanna and Travis were in a relationship before he was murdered, and she 
even became the guardian of his dog Napolean after Travis was killed. According 
to Jeff Gold from The Gold Patrol, when this email was read about Travis's 
feelings for Deanna, it appeared that Jodi's jealousy for Deanna has not died. 
Jeff Gold tweeted, "Wow still in denial. #JodiArias shakes her head ever so 
slightly as expert testifies to the effect that Travis loved Deanna, not really 
Jodi."

Abuse allegations from Travis's past, caused by his parents also came up in 
court this week. Marry Ellen from ABC 15 tweeted, "#TravisAlexander remembers 
father taking ax to mother's belongings. Mother unloading a revolver on his dad 
car. #JodiArias."

Many reporters tweeting this testimony noted that the jury was mostly bored 
about the relationship drama between Jodi and Travis, but notably shaken and 
even wiping their eyes during abuse testimony. The Gold Patrol tweeted, 
"#JodiArias juror clearly touched as #TravisAlexander words are read about 
abuse. Notes being taken by several jurors."

Was this level of depth in relationship analysis important for the sentencing 
phase? Attorney Jeff Gold says it's not only unimportant, but minutae that is 
only delaying the inevitable. He tweeted, "Can you imagine a sentencing judge 
caring a wit for a former GF saying a murder victim was selfish? 
#ridiculous.....This level of analysis of the relationship is so far beyond the 
norm of what we see in sentencing. Another failure of AZ 2 bite DP system."

The jury also saw a video this week of a Dan Freeman, who testified in the 
first trial in 2013. His testimony was shown by video to the jury this week. 
This testimony was put out by the defense in their attempts to portray the 
secret and sordid relationship between Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander. The 
video of Freeman's testimony can be viewed here.

What is all of this about really? All of these are the very tactics we have 
been expecting as Jodi Arias fights to avoid the death penalty. Until now, most 
of her desperate moves have been seen as just that. Why should this time be any 
different?

With these strategies, the defense is dancing around the truth to try and get 
the jury to think about anything else but the shrieking victim impact 
statements and the pints of blood splatter they have seen all over Travis 
former home. The real evidence that shows Jodi Arias to be a killer is not 
being discussed.

Instead, the defense appears to be flirting around every issue that they can. 
To some it is looking like the, "let's see what defense we can make stick 
today" strategy. Or, as Jeff Gold from the Gold Patrol puts it, the "OMG my 
boyfriend is so mean so I think I will kill him" defense.

This week many allegations were presented in these attempts. One of them being, 
Travis Alexander watched porn. The State vehemently disagrees with this, with a 
lot of arguments on time stamps, viruses, and deleted files. But no matter who 
"wins" those arguments, this doesn't change the fact that Travis Alexander was 
stabbed over 25 times, nearly decapitated, and shot in the head.

We also saw the strategy this week that tried to show Travis's fear of 
commitment, his "bad Mormon behavior", and testimony on how he may or may not 
have treated Jodi Arias during their relationship. Those may all be true 
things, or they may not be. Whoever "wins" those arguments may wind up feeling 
momentarily victorious, but this doesn't change the fact that Travis Alexander 
was stabbed over 25 times, nearly decapitated, and then shot in the head and 
left to die.

It doesn't change the fact that Jodi took a road trip from Yreka, California, 
to Mesa, Arizona, one fateful June night in 2008 and literally dropped off the 
grid as she did so. She was not seen on one surveillance camera, or at one gas 
station. That's because she had three cans of fuel in her car.

Did Travis watch porn? Is it possible that he may or may not have been 
disrespectful to Jodi Arias? Is it possible that he wasn't the best Mormon on 
the planet, according to the books, rules, and policies that Mormons live by? 
Was he afraid of commitment? Or was he just afraid of tying himself down to 
Jodi Arias?

Yes. It is also possible that he was, or wasn't any of those things. None of 
that changes whether or not he was stabbed over 25 times, nearly decapitated, 
shot in the head, and then left for dead as his killer did everything she could 
to cover it up after the fact. Does not wanting to commit to one person mean 
that he deserved to be slaughtered?

Attorney Jeff Gold thinks it looks like the defense is trying to "retry" Jodi's 
case and make it appear more like second degree murder than the brutal slaying 
that she has already been convicted for. During court this week, Jeff tweeted: 
"Judge allowing relitigation of defense? Nurmi want this jury to see 2nd degree 
M when they are required to assume 1st degree M # JodiArias"

Who do you think got the upper hand after this week's events in the Jodi Arias 
case? As Jeff Gold put it gently, it was a "weak day for the defense" to many. 
Last time around in the Jodi Arias trial, sympathy for the defense appeared to 
wane exponentially as soon as the defense started pulling these stunts. This 
week, a juror was seen crying.

It is probable that juror was not crying over the fact that Jodi Arias may, or 
may not have, had a mean boyfriend. In a death penalty sentencing phase, that 
is a good day for the prosecution. Juan Martinez needs to set the repeat button 
if he wants the trend to continue if he expects to secure a death penalty. But 
catering to this drama will not be the way to do it.

As Jeff Gold tweeted, he needs to keep reminding the jury that the victim 
Travis Alexander was butchered. He needs to keep reminding the jury that this 
is a fact of this case that causes the siblings of Travis Alexander to "shriek" 
about, to this very day.

Do you think the defense did a good job distancing the jury from the 
"shrieking" testimony of Travis Alexander's sister Tanisha Sorenson?

(source: The Examiner)






USA:

Government lawyer appointed for Boston Marathon Bombing trial faced allegations 
of serious professional misconduct


A specialist attorney recently appointed to assist with the prosecution of 
alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev faced previous allegations of 
serious professional misconduct, which forced a trial judge to throw out a 
kidnapping conviction and order the re-trial of a man convicted of murder in a 
Federal death penalty case.

Former Assistant DA Steven D Mellin was accused by U.S. District Judge Gerald 
Lee of deliberately planting evidence in order to sway a guilty verdict during 
the 2003 trial of Jay Lentz, a Virginia man convicted of kidnapping and killing 
his wife.

Lentz was sentenced to life imprisonment after the jury declined to impose the 
death penalty, but immediately appealed both convictions.

At a 2004 hearing, jurors reported a calendar allegedly obtained from the 
possessions of Doris Lentz, the defendant's wife, had "mysteriously appeared" 
in the jury room and had been "very influential" in their deliberations.

The calendar was previously ruled inadmissible by Judge Lee.

Mellin refused to explain to the court how the evidence got inside the jury 
room and at one point insisted the Judge had no authority to investigate him, 
nor "accuse him of misconduct in the first place".

The Judge tossed aside Lentz' kidnapping conviction and declared the initial 
murder trial void, stating Mellin, the lead prosecutor in the case, had 
intentionally put the calendar in the evidence box that had gone to the jury.

Judge Lee ruled:

"The Court concludes that Mr. Mellin's testimony indicates much more than a 
lack of credibility, rather it demonstrates his intent to act outside the 
Orders of this Court and the confines of the law. In sum, the Court finds that 
Mr. Mellin's actions with the calenders suggest his conduct was not a benign 
act or negligent error. Rather this action was reckless, and it was 
intentional",

Lentz faced a re-trial and was convicted for the 2nd time in 2006.

In 2008, the Court of Appeal issued a ruling acknowledging prosecutorial 
misconduct played a major role in the Judge's decision to dismiss the original 
guilty verdicts of 2003, despite an earlier appellate court ruling that 
rejected the finding with respect to Mellin.

Steven D Mellin is currently employed in the Department of Justice' Capital 
Case' Section.

His duties include advising the Attorney General on why a defendant should be 
subject to Capital punishment, acting as co-government counsel in Federal death 
penalty trials, and the preparation of evidence shown to a jury should the 
penalty phase of a Capital trial be reached.

Tsarnaev, 21, is slated to stand trial in January 2015.

(source: opednews.com)