[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----NEB., UTAH, USA, US MIL.

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 18


NEBRASKA:

Death-row inmate files appeal in federal court


A Gering, Nebraska, man convicted of abducting, raping and murdering a 
15-year-old newspaper delivery girl in 2003 is asking a federal judge to set 
aside his death penalty conviction.

Jeffrey Hessler filed a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court of 
Nebraska on Monday arguing that he suffered from mental illness when he 
confessed to police and therefore didn't understand the law or his 
constitutional rights.

He also contends that he was provided ineffective legal counsel and didn't 
receive a fair trial because jurors couldn't have possibly remained impartial 
with everyone in town talking about the murder, Hessler's court filing said. 
Hessler waived his right to counsel and chose to represent himself during the 
trial.

Heather Guerrero, 15, was snatched while she was delivering newspapers in her 
Gering, Nebraska, neighborhood on Feb. 11, 2003. She was raped in an abandoned 
farmhouse and then shot in the head. Authorities found Guerrero's body in the 
house the next day.

A jury found Hessler guilty, and a panel of 3 judges ordered him to receive the 
death penalty.

Hessler has appealed his conviction numerous times. In July, his case made it 
to the Nebraska Supreme Court, where justices affirmed a lower court's ruling 
to deny Hessler's appeal.

(source: omaha.com)






UTAH:

'I failed horribly,' says mother of slain Ethan Stacy----Layton woman sent to 
prison for death of 4-year-old


Stephanie Sloop pleaded guilty to aggravated murder and obstruction of justice 
Monday in connection with the death of her 4-year-old son, Ethan Stacy, in 
2010. She was ordered to spend 20 years to life in prison.

A Layton mother who once faced a potential death penalty cried to a judge 
Monday before she was sentenced to prison for murdering her 4-year-old son.

"I had an obligation and a responsibility as his mother to take care of him and 
protect him and I failed horribly," Stephanie Sloop said.

After explaining that it was her own selfishness that led to the brutal death 
of Ethan Stacy, Sloop was sentenced Monday to 20 years to life in prison.

"I was selfish when I brought Ethan into this world. I was selfish during his 
life. And I was selfish in his death," she told the judge. "I have no one to 
blame but myself and my selfish behavior for Ethan's death.

"I am entirely responsible because I am his mommy. I failed to take care of him 
properly because I couldn't even take care of myself. My selfishness and 
failure as a parent caused Pumpkin's death. There's no changing the fact that 
I'm the one responsible," she said.

Second District Judge Thomas L. Kay ordered Sloop, 31, to serve 20 years to 
life in prison for aggravated murder, a 1st-degree felony, and 1 to 15 years 
years for obstruction of justice, a 2nd-degree felony. He ordered the sentences 
to be served concurrently as part of a plea agreement.

The sentence brings to a close the tragic case of Ethan Stacy, who was sent 
from Virginia to live with his biological mother, Stephanie Sloop and her 
fiance, in Layton in 2010 because of a court-ordered custody agreement. In just 
a little over a week, Ethan was severely abused, scalded, beaten, overmedicated 
and not given the medical care that he needed.

Nathan and Stephanie Sloop got married on May 6, but left Ethan at home alone 
because they didn't want anyone to notice his bruises and swelling.

When he died, the Sloops attempted to hide their crime by disfiguring Ethan's 
body by burning him, smashing his face with a hammer and then burying him a 
shallow grave near Powder Mountain in Weber County where they sprinkled dog 
food over his grave.

Joe Stacy, Ethan's father, was in the courtroom for Monday's hearing but did 
not speak. Outside the courtroom, Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings said his 
interaction with Stacy over the past 4 years has been the most gut-wrenching 
part of the case.

"That's what's had the most impact on me, is having to deal personally with a 
father that loved a 4 1/2-year-old child, that lost that 4 1/2-year-old child 
through no fault of his own in circumstances he had no control over - a court 
order to send his son out here to this situation. He was sending him to his 
death. In the environment, the toxic environment, the perfect storm of 
Nathaniel and Stephanie Sloop."

Sloop was not thinking clearly when she married Nathan Sloop and did not think 
she could leave, defense attorney Mary Corporon told the court Monday, while 
conceding that she could have done more to protect her son.

In exchange for Sloop's guilty pleas to aggravated murder and obstruction of 
justice, prosecutors agreed to drop charges of intentionally inflicting serious 
physical injury on a child, a 2nd-degree felony, and abuse or desecration of a 
dead human body, a 3rd-degree felony.

Nathan Sloop, 35, pleaded guilty but mentally ill in February to aggravated 
murder. By accepting a plea deal, Sloop was spared a potential death penalty if 
he had been convicted by a jury. A judge instead sentenced him to 25 years to 
life in prison.

The Utah Board of Pardons and Parole recently told Nathan Sloop that his first 
parole hearing won't be for 40 years. It was in part because of the parole 
board's tough stance with Nathan Sloop, as well as his desire to avoid years of 
legal appeals, that Joe Stacy agreed to the plea deal with Stephanie Sloop, 
Rawlings said.

"We believe the Board of Pardons and Parole gets it," he said, noting that he 
expected Stephanie Sloop to receive similar treatment.

Sloop cried as she read a prepared statement prior to being sentenced. Several 
times she mentioned her selfishness as leading to her son's death in addition 
to her addiction to prescription drugs. Her drug addiction caused her to make 
"reckless and indifferent" decisions that "paved the way for this" because she 
could no longer make sound choices, she said.

"My selfishness I always had took on a new form when I caused his death," she 
said. "I love Ethan so much and I don't know who I am without him anymore."

Sloop apologized in court to her ex-husband as well as Layton police and Davis 
County prosecutors.

"It shouldn't have gone this far," she cried. "Ethan is an innocent child and I 
will carry his death with me as long as I live."

Rawlings called Sloop's statement in court a "powerful acknowledgement" and 
what she said about herself was basically the same argument prosecutors would 
have used against her at trial.

"Our theory would have been exactly what she said. That is was her selfishness 
as a mother that allowed and enabled the abuse of her son that ended up killing 
him. So I think actually the defendant in her own words probably said better 
than anybody else today what happened," Rawlings said. "Her own desires, 
basically, to protect herself so she didn't expose what was going on with this 
young boy and it ended up killing him.

"The case is what it is. She did what she did. And she didn't do what she 
didn't do. Her failure to act lead to her son's death," Rawlings said.

But Layton Police Chief Terry Keefe thought Sloop's speech was self-serving. 
It's always easy to blame drugs or a person's own domestic abuse for their 
problems, he said. Keefe said there are a lot of drug abusers who don't murder 
their sons.

"There were many opportunities, many opportunities for Ethan's life to be 
saved. And she did not take one of them. She just perpetuated and participated 
actively in the murder and the disposal of little Ethan. It's unforgivable," he 
said.

Keefe said the "gruesome" case is one that was extremely tough on his officers, 
especially those who discovered Ethan's body.

"This is the type of case that will haunt law enforcement officers involved 
with it for the rest of their lives - not just their careers. But they'll carry 
memories of this case with them for the rest of their lives," he said.

"This has been tragic all around and this is a fitting outcome to something 
that has hurt a great many people," Corporon said after the hearing.

Keefe said he's glad that the case is now over.

"We are totally in agreement with the sentence that was imposed. We feel it was 
in the best interest of justice for Ethan and his family. It just brings to 
closure a sad story in our community."

(source: Deseret News)

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

Death penalty mistakes reason enough to oppose it


I stopped supporting the death penalty years ago.

Here's why: The Death Penalty Information Center reports that since 1973, 147 
inmates in U.S. prisons who were sentenced to death have been exonerated.

I know this represents a teensy fraction of a percentage point of people who 
probably did commit murders and have been put to death or who are awaiting 
their date with the executioner. But I believe our justice system shouldn't be 
killing anyone - ANYONE - as long as there's even a possibility the sentence 
may be carried out for someone who didn't commit the crime.

Furthermore, I think it's morally wrong for the state to kill a killer. Period.

Lots of you reading this - perhaps most - will disagree with me. I'm fine with 
that. It's what we Americans do: argue about public policy, especially when it 
concerns life and death.

Consider Stephanie Sloop, who pleaded guilty Monday to 1 count of aggravated 
murder and 1 count of obstruction of justice in the death of her 4-year-old 
son, Ethan. 4 years ago, Sloop and her husband, Nathan - the child's stepfather 
- tortured and killed Ethan over the course of about a week. After the boy was 
dead, they mutilated his body and buried him near the Powder Mountain ski 
resort.

Stephanie went shopping for the shovel used to dig his grave.

Nathan Sloop is already in prison, serving sentences for aggravated murder and 
aggravated assault. He pleaded guilty but mentally ill, and got 25 years to 
life.

Stephanie Sloop got 20 years to life for murdering her own child.

Think about those words and try to comprehend them: "murdering her own child."

20 years doesn't seem much like justice for what happened to that boy. It 
doesn't to me, anyway.

Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings says prosecutors will ask the state's 
parole board to keep both Sloops locked up until they die. That's a good start, 
but I'll admit: It's not as satisfying as the idea of tying them to the bumper 
of a speeding vehicle and, a la "The Road Warrior," driving the wrong direction 
on I-15 in rush-hour traffic.

Which would be wrong, I hasten to point out, and a clear violation of my 
sincere belief that the death penalty is something we shouldn't be doing as an 
enlightened society.

Then again, how enlightened can a society be when it produces the likes of the 
Sloops?

Here's another bit of the story to consider: On May 6, 2010, a little more than 
halfway through the week or so of torture and brutality that caused Ethan's 
death, the Sloops locked the wounded child in a bedroom while they left home to 
... wait for it ... be MARRIED.

Stephen King couldn't invent such depraved, savage selfishness.

This murder case isn't the 1st that's had me questioning my opposition to the 
death penalty. And it won't be the last. Killers like the Sloops just keep 
killing.

I don't have any sort of solution or a single idea for a better way to deal 
with the homicidal humans among us. Locking them away for good is the best 
option we have.

Yeah, it doesn't seem enough; we'll just have to live with that. Our society 
may not be wise to the degree we hope for, but we have to keep striving for a 
brand of justice that is less like the crimes we are punishing.

Remove the killers from society? Yes, permanently. But kill them? No.

Not even for the worst, like Stephanie and Nathan Sloop. Because, in the end, 
we should not be killers, either.

(source: Don Porter, Standard-Examiner)






USA:

Death Row Inmates and the Lawyers Who Fail Them


The cases that are most often burned into the public's memory are those where 
some sort of profound injustice has occurred to the victim and the alleged 
murderer has been absolved or remains free. Consider the O.J. Simpson verdict, 
the murder case against Casey Anthony involving her daughter, or even Amanda 
Knox. While most of us can rattle off a few infamous acquittals that boiled our 
blood as well, very few are likely to be able to name a single case of a 
prisoner who was wrongly treated by the justice system or the lawyers that were 
responsible.

Yesterday, the new journalism site, The Marshall Project, along with the 
Washington Post, released a 2-part investigative report looking into 80 cases 
of capital offenses and shining a light on the issue of incompetent, 
unqualified, and untrained lawyers failing to submit Federal habeas appeals 
prior to the deadline and to the detriment of their clients. A nonprofit 
journalism organization focused on investigating the criminal justice system, 
the Marshall Project officially launched its website this past weekend, with 
Bill Keller, previously the executive editor at the New York Times, at the 
helm. The Project joins a burgeoning field of investigative reporting into the 
justice system, already led by other organizations and individual reporters.

There are 3 appeals that can be filed after a client has been convicted: direct 
appeal, state post-conviction appeal and, lastly and under contention in the 
report, the federal habeas appeal. After a direct appeal is denied, a 1996 law 
initiates a yearlong deadline within which the lawyer must file the federal 
habeas appeal, if they intend to. In short, when these lawyers fail to turn in 
their petitions within the 1-year deadline, after both the direct appeal and 
state post-conviction appeal have been denied, the prisoner has effectively 
exhausted their available appeals and is left with very little, if any, 
recourse.

Both part 1 and part 2 of the feature include frustrating cases where lawyers 
missed the deadline, leading to their clients' executions. Michelle Kraus, an 
experienced defense attorney, worked on Gregory Scott Johnson's case for 10 
years, including preparing a federal habeas petition. Johnson was convicted and 
sentenced to death for the murder in 1986 of an 82-year-old woman during a 
burglary. Kraus dropped the petition in the mail, arriving 1 day late. As a 
result of the petition's tardiness, Johnson's execution continued in 2005. 
According to the report, of the 80 cases that are examined in which the 
deadline was missed, 16 prisoners went on to be executed.

In other cases, a missed deadline means a prisoner misses the chance to present 
to the court a strong case for an appeal. William Kuenzel was convicted of a 
1988 murder of a convenience store clerk and sentenced to death. However, after 
new evidence was found 22 years after the trial indicating the prosecution had 
buried evidence that undermined their case, Kuenzel attracted a strong 
following of supporters, including former district attorneys who strongly 
believed prosecutorial misconduct had occurred. However, Kuenzel's lawyer 
missed the deadline by nearly 3 years due to a technicality unknown to the 
lawyers. Last known, the state was looking to set Kuenzel's execution date this 
past September; Kuenzel's most recent opposition was filed in October.

Why does this happen so frequently? Patience may be a virtue, but timeliness is 
certainly a requirement for most professions, particularly those in which a 
life is at stake. The report shines a light on the convoluted nature of habeas 
law, often misinterpreted or misunderstood by lawyers who may believe they are 
filing a petition on time only to be off by days or even years, as in Kuenzel's 
case. In other situations, lawyers simply don't care or don't want to exert the 
effort that is required in unraveling the law and keeping track of the 
timeline.

As seen with Johnson and Kuenzel's cases, the consequences rest on the 
prisoners' shoulders and, in the end, they are the ones who remain behind bars 
or are executed. In Johnson's case, the court wrote, in reaction to Kraus's 
mistake, "Lawyers are agents. Their acts (good and bad alike) are attributed to 
the clients they represent."

In about 1/3 of the 80 cases, the court found the lawyers' behavior to be 
beyond negligence and allowed the prisoners to go forward with their appeals. 
In light of these cases, the report asks a very important question: Why aren't 
these lawyers punished for their failures? As noted in part 2 of the report, 
even after the federal court found some lawyers' behavior to be "inexcusable" 
and "deeply unprofessional," they did not receive any sort of sanction from the 
bar association or any other agency.

Although the Marshall Project report only examined 80 cases out of the millions 
that are settled both inside and outside the courtroom, their report represents 
a significant problem within the system of lawyers bungling their jobs without 
repercussions. For example, if a follow-up report were to be conducted on the 
prosecutors who, in Kuenzel's case, were found to have buried exculpatory 
evidence, reporters would find most likely the attorneys would not be facing 
any sanctions. Prosecutors are rarely disciplined for such misconduct, in part 
because it is difficult to prove misconduct has occurred.

The same story rings true for prosecutors where misconduct has been found. City 
Limits, an nonprofit investigative journalism organization, looked into 
prosecutorial misconduct in the Bronx district attorney's office when similar 
problems arose in Brooklyn this past summer. City Limits found "that the office 
has a history of inaction when it comes to misconduct." In 1 case, dating back 
to April of this year, a man spent 8 months at Rikers Island awaiting trial for 
rape charges when it was discovered the prosecutor withheld evidence that the 
victim admitted the sex was consensual. However, since 1975, only 1 prosecutor 
has been disciplined for while prosecuting a case, providing a small vignette 
into the larger issue of sanctioning attorneys.

Worse yet, lawyers who showcase their incompetence in mishandling habeas 
appeals may go on to aid in other habeas appeals unchecked. Mary Catherine 
Bonner, an attorney in Florida, was a repeat offender when it comes to missing 
the petition deadline in death-penalty cases. 1 case, she was 210 days late; in 
another, 312 days late; and in yet another, 278 days late. Judge Timothy J. 
Corrigan voiced his concern and frustration over Bonner's actions in 2 of these 
cases: "It is hard for me to fathom how a lawyer who asked for and received the 
appointment of this Court, could abdicate the most basic function of filing the 
petition on time."

It's certainly easy to share Corrigan's shock over this seemingly pervasive 
ineptitude - avoidable, preventable, and detrimental to the system. In both of 
Bonner's cases that Corrigan oversaw, he granted the prisoner's "equitable 
tolling," forgiving the missed deadline. "I would be remiss,' Corrigan 
continued, "if I did not share my deep concern that in these cases our federal 
system of justice fell short in the very situation where the stakes could not 
be higher."

Clearly distressing to both judges and the Justice Department, outgoing 
attorney general Eric Holder noted that he would remark on issues with the 
death penalty and the missed deadlines to President Barack Obama. "When you're 
talking about the state taking someone's life, there has to be a great deal of 
flexibility within the system to deal with things like deadlines," Holder said. 
"If you rely on process to deny what could be a substantive claim, I worry 
about where that will lead us."

As advocates for clients who do not have the necessary legal knowledge to 
defend themselves, these lawyers' failures to file their petitions essentially 
strip prisoners of their constitutionally granted habeas corpus rights. These 
failings, as recorded in this report, reflect the need for journalist watchdogs 
to follow and report on those upending the justice system

(source: nonprofitquarterly.org)

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

Holder: America Has Probably Executed an Innocent Inmate


In his waning days as U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder reflected on his 
legacy in an interview with the Marshall Project, the criminal justice-themed 
journalism venture headed by former New York Times executive editor Bill 
Keller.

Here are some highlights from the interview, according to an edited transcript 
published by the site.

Death-penalty fears: Mr. Holder, who says he is personally opposed to capital 
punishment, predicted that America will one day execute an innocent death-row 
inmate, if it hasn't already.

"Men and women who are dedicated, but dedicated men and women can make 
mistakes. And I find it hard to believe that in our history that has not 
happened," Mr. Holder said. "I think at some point, we will find a person who 
was put to death and who should not have been, who was not guilty of a crime," 
he said, taking issue with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's suggestion in 
2006 that the nation's capital punishment system has never made such an error.

Future of marijuana laws: Mr. Holder said the Obama administration???s decision 
not to challenge new state laws legalizing recreational marijuana "really shows 
leadership." He predicted that [marijuana] decriminalization efforts will "be 
more widespread around the country," and encouraged Congress to get more 
involved in the issue.

His biggest accomplishment: He said he's most proud of policies he put in place 
that give prosecutors more leeway when it comes to charging and sentencing 
recommendations. His push toward "individualized determinations" - taking into 
account factors such as the nature of the crime and its impact on victims - 
departed from a Bush administration policy of requiring prosecutors to charge 
defendants with "the most serious, readily provable offense" with limited 
exceptions.

Biggest disappointment: The sentencing disparity between crack and powder 
cocaine offenses still needs to be reduced, said Mr. Holder. A 2010 law closed 
some of the gap, but he said crack-possession penalties on a gram-per-gram 
basis are still too harsh relative to cocaine punishments.

On state efforts to reduce their prison populations: "This cannot be seen as 
simply something that is cost-saving, because that would potentially lead to 
states' doing exactly what you say: racing to the bottom, and just trying to 
push people out of prison," Mr. Holder said. "[I]f you do that you're really 
only putting people out for some short period of time before they ultimately 
come back. So there has to be a greater emphasis on rehabilitation while people 
are in prison, and then reentry efforts to prepare them to exit prison."

Praise for Koch brothers: Mr. Holder had some kind words for liberal bugaboo 
Koch Industries Inc., which recently announced a grant to support indigent 
defense training programs. "To hear that the Koch brothers would be 
contributing money in that way is something that I think should be applauded," 
he said.

(source: Wall Street Journal)






US MILITARY:

Fort Carson soldier charged with killing comrade


A Fort Carson soldier has been charged with killing a comrade overseas in May, 
the post announced Tuesday.

An evidence hearing is set for Wednesday to determine if Spc. Jeffery T. Page 
will be court-martialed in the death of Spc. Adrian M. Perkins, 19, of Pine 
Valley, Calif.

The 2 soldiers were deployed to Jordan as trainers with the post's 2nd Brigade 
Combat Team. The Army had been tight-lipped on Perkins' death and the 
announcement Tuesday is the 1st public acknowledgment that he was killed.

The Pentagon attributed the May 17 death in Amman as a "a non-combat related 
injury."

At the time the post said Perkins died at a Jordanian military base and the 
circumstances were "under investigation."

Page faces several charges related to the killing including murder and 
manslaughter. The breadth of charges is not unusual for military trials, where 
several charges can be brought to an evidence hearing with just the 
substantiated counts going forward to trial.

Wednesday's hearing at the post should shed light on the case.

Like a civilian grand jury proceeding, the hearing will see prosecutors and 
defense lawyers vet evidence in the case before an investigating officer.

Once the evidence is aired, the investigating officer writes up recommendations 
on how the case should proceed.

If Page proceeds to trial, he could face the most serious charge in military 
justice.

In military law, premeditated killing comes with a mandatory life sentence, and 
military prosecutors can seek the death penalty.

(source: gazette.com)