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

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 24


UTAH:

7 years after Shelby's Law passes, no Utah death penalty trials in child-abuse 
homicides


7 years ago, Utah lawmakers passed a law allowing prosecutors to seek the death 
penalty if a child dies during an act of abuse, sexual assault or kidnapping - 
even if the defendant does not intend to kill the victim.

Since then, the accused killers of 5 Utah children have been charged under 
"Shelby's Law," but none have gone to trial, which leaves the statute as yet 
unproven before a jury and untested by an appellate court.

However, Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clinton, said the law is doing exactly what it is 
supposed to by giving prosecutors a "bargaining chip" when bringing charges 
against someone accused of killing a child.

"I think it is serving its purpose," said Ray, who sponsored the 2007 bill. 
"Nobody has said, 'This is not effective' or 'There's a flaw and we can't use 
it.'"

Some have been critical of the law, saying it is unconstitutional for a 
defendant to be condemned to death if they never intended to kill the child. 
The attorneys for Nathan Sloop, who earlier this year admitted that he caused 
the death of his 4-year-old stepson, Ethan Stacy, had said they had planned to 
challenge the law had the case gone to trial, however, Sloop ultimately took a 
plea deal.

Of the 5 charged under the 2007 statute, two people - Stephanie and Nathan 
Sloop - took plea deals and pleaded guilty to aggravated murder under the 
Shelby's Law statute, while 2 others - Victor Gardea in 2009, and Jeremy 
Marshall in 2014 - resolved their cases by pleading guilty to 1st-degree felony 
murder, admitting that they "knowingly or intentionally" caused the children's 
deaths.

All 4 defendants were sentenced to spend up to life in the Utah State Prison.

The 5th defendant, Sun Cha Warhola, a Layton mother accused of killing her 2 
children in 2010, is also charged under Shelby's Law, but her case stalled 
after a judge ruled she is not competent to stand trial. A competency review 
hearing is set for June 2015.

Shelby's Law is named after 10-year-old Shelby Andrews, who died in 2006 in 
Syracuse after a year of abuse at the hands of her parents.

In an effort to control and discipline the girl, her father and stepmother beat 
her, forced her to eat her own feces and shut her inside a cramped linen 
closet.

Ryan and Angela Andrews did not face a potential death sentence because 
existing law did not allow prosecutors to file aggravated murder charges unless 
they could prove the parents intended for the girl to die. The Andrewses 
pleaded guilty to 1st-degree felony murder and were sentenced to spend 15 years 
to life in prison.

Paul Boyden, executive director of the Statewide Association of Prosecutors, 
has said that there was public outrage over Shelby's death, and people 
questioned why the parents could not be charged with a capital crime. That 
public outrage spurred Utah lawmakers to craft Shelby's Law, which was signed 
into law by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.

With the Shelby's Law amendment to Utah's homicide statute, the death penalty 
can now be sought without prosecutors having to prove a killing was 
intentional.

When filing a traditional 1st-degree felony aggravated murder charge, state law 
says prosecutors must show that the defendant "intentionally or knowingly" 
caused someone's death. With Shelby's Law, it must only be proven that the 
defendant was a "major participant" in a death, and that he or she acted with 
"reckless indifference to human life."

"For any other death penalty case, it has to be an intentional kill," Boyden 
said in an interview with The Tribune last year. "You have to intentionally 
kill them. In this classification, it is ???reckless indifference to human 
life,' and there has to be causation. They have to cause the death and the 
person has to be a major participant in the commission of the crime."

Last July, Nathan Sloop's attorney Richard Mauro attacked Shelby's Law during 
oral arguments at his client's preliminary hearing, saying the law was too 
broad, "very poorly written," and that the term "reckless indifference to human 
life" is never defined in the statute.

(source: Salt Lake Tribune)






ARIZONA:

Jodi Arias trial update: Arguments about tampered evidence, porn deleted from 
victim's computer; The trial is in the hub of the supposed alteration and 
deletion of pornographic material in Travis Alexander's computer.


In the latest news about the Jodi Arias trial, the court gets more in-depth on 
the alleged deletion of pornography material from the computer hard drive of 
Arias's lover and murder victim, Travis Alexander.

According to USA Today, Arias's defense lawyers filed a response motion to the 
prosecutor's counter claims earlier this week, after prosecutor Juan Martinez 
argued that he was, at first, given a different, a tampered one even, of the 
hard drive. Martinez believes that the hard drive sent to them was of an 
individual named Tony, who is of no relevance to the case.

In response, defense attorney Jennifer Willmott explained that Tony is a 
computer technician tasked to make a copy of the original hard drive for the 
prosecution. The process of duplicating the data is, as USA Today explains, 
done to prevent any alteration powering the computer up may bring. Furthermore, 
Willmott asserted that the computer was full of porn, which did not come from 
viruses, as Martinez claimed. Computer forensic expert Bryan Neumeister also 
countered Martinez's assertion of the absence of porn in the hard drive, 
claiming that there were 70,000 modified files on the computer that experts 
have overlooked.

"There were thousands of pornography site hits found on Mr. Alexander's 
computer," Willmott wrote in her response. "Some were caused by viruses and 
some were accessed prior to viruses being downloaded onto his computer. The 
type of viruses found on Mr. Alexander's computer are severe, and typically 
associated with the computer user visiting pornography sites."

Martinez retorted that the deletion and alteration were made by Arias's legal 
team, Maria Schaffer and Greg Parzych. Schaffer strongly and angrily denied the 
accusation, iterating that Martinez was there with them when they were checking 
the hard drive. She added that case agent Mesa police detective Esteban Flores 
was even the one who turned the computer on for them, countering Martinez's 
claim that she was the one insisting to turn it on and access it.

Nevertheless, Martinez prompted the immediate availability of the original hard 
drive in his response motion, while he remained in full conviction that 
Willmott and her co-counsel Kirk Nurmi should be sanctioned for damaging the 
evidence. He also demanded that the motion to dismiss the death penalty 
requested by the 2 be scrapped.

As her rejoinder, Willmott remained resolute in her claim.

"Moreover, the state has now admitted that many viruses were found on Mr. 
Alexander's computer," Willmott wrote.

"Besides mishandling, tampering and destroying evidence on June 19, 2009, the 
state now admits that it proffered false testimony when (the forensics expert) 
testified to looking for viruses and finding none," she continued (via USA 
Today). "This testimony was solicited knowing that Ms. Arias asserted that Mr. 
Alexander's computer was infected with a virus. The state used (the) false 
testimony to argue that Ms. Arias was lying."

On Thursday, sex expert Dr. Miccio Fonseca returned to the witness stand. The 
discussions on the sexual relationship of Arias and Alexander, including erotic 
messages, provoked discussions between attorneys.

Arias was convicted of 1st-degree murder on May 8 last year, but the jury was 
unable to determine the sentence to be pressed upon her. Her then-lover 
Alexander was found lifeless in his apartment in Mesa with multiple stab 
wounds, a gunshot to the forehead, and a slit throat. Arias said it was all 
self-defense, but the jury did not believe it.

Her "fight for her life" is expected to last until December, according to KPHO.

(source: christiantoday.com)






CALIFORNIA:

Man Who Shot And Set His Girlfriend On Fire In Front Of Her Children Gets Death 
Penalty


A jury has decided that a California man who shot his girlfriend and lit her on 
fire in front of her children should be sentenced to death for the gruesome 
murder.

Back in February 2011, 41-year-old Tyrone Harts brutally murdered his 
girlfriend in front of her children. According to reports, Brandi Morales's 6 
children lived in the home with her and Harts, but on the night in question, 
Harts hadn't been living there for weeks after the couple separated.

The man allegedly called the house and spoke to one of Morales' sons, asking 
them to leave the door open for him. Late in the night, 2 of the children awoke 
to their mother screaming, and when one of the older boys went to grab a knife 
to protect her, Harts fired at him to get him out of the room.

Disgustingly, the 4 youngest children were then forced to watch Harts light 
their mother on fire after he had already shot her. Police say that the 
children attempted to put the fire out with cups of water, but it was too late. 
When police arrived, Morales was pronounced dead at the scene.

Harts was convicted of 1 count of murder, 1 count of attempted murder, 5 count 
of child endangerment, and 1 count of being a felon in possession of a handgun. 
Now, the same jury has recommended that Harts receive the death penalty, and on 
January 30, Harts will be back in court to be formally sentenced.

(source: opposingviews.com)






USA:

Police: Man charged with killing informant confessed


A Charleston man charged with killing a police informant made a lengthy 
confession, according to an affidavit written last week to obtain a search 
warrant. Marlon Dewayne "Ice" Dixon, 38, is accused of killing Branda Mae 
Delight Basham, 21, in July in retaliation for her cooperation with police.

Dixon could face the death penalty after a federal grand jury indicted him on a 
murder charge. Federal prosecutors haven't decided whether they will seek the 
death penalty.

In order to gain access to Dixon's cell phone, police wrote in an affidavit 
filed Thursday, that, in addition to a lengthy confession made by Dixon, they 
recovered Basham's blood from Dixon's shoes. U.S. Magistrate Judge Dwane 
Tinsley granted the warrant for a search of Dixon's phone.

Dixon has been appointed two attorneys: Claire Cardwell, an attorney from 
Richmond, Virginia, and David Schles, a Charleston attorney. Cardwell was 
appointed for "death penalty proceedings," according to court filings. Schles 
said Friday that when the death penalty is a possibility in a case, a defendant 
is assigned 2 attorneys - 1 of whom should be experienced with handling those 
types of cases.

"I am not," Schles said. "West Virginia doesn't have the death penalty; that's 
why the other lawyer is from Virginia." West Virginia abolished capital 
punishment at the state level in 1965, but the federal government can still ask 
for it. Dixon is also charged with 3 counts of distributing heroin, 2 counts of 
tampering with a witness by killing her, and being a felon in possession of a 
firearm. He had previously been charged with Basham's slaying in Kanawha 
Circuit Court, but federal prosecutors decided to take the case.

U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin has said one reason is his focus on eradicating 
Southern West Virginia's heroin epidemic. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua Hanks 
is prosecuting Dixon. Because Dixon is still in the custody of the state of 
West Virginia, an arraignment hasn't yet been set for Dixon in federal court, 
Schles said. Dixon has been held in South Central Regional Jail since July 17.

Schles said it's too early to comment on any factual parts of the 
case.According to federal prosecutors, Dixon shot and killed Basham to prevent 
her from testifying or continuing to provide information against him. Basham 
was working as an informant for the Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Network Team, 
according to the affidavit unsealed Thursday.

At least 3 times in May, Basham made controlled purchases of heroin from Dixon, 
according to the statement made by police.

Basham's cell phone records reveal communication with a number believed to be 
Dixon's in the moments leading up to her death.

It was the same number Basham used to set up drug buys from Dixon, according to 
police.

Basham is believed to have been killed between 3 and 4:30 a.m. on July 12. 
Between 2:28 and 3:50 a.m., Charleston Police Det. Canden Sharp wrote in the 
affidavit, that Basham and Dixon exchanged text messages and arranged to meet 
on the West Side.

A woman Dixon stayed with the night of the alleged slaying had the number saved 
under "Marlon D" in her phone, according to the affidavit. Basham was shot 3 
times July 12. Her body was found on railroad tracks near Breece and Madison 
streets on Charleston's West Side.

(source: wvgazette.com)





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

Has the United States Run Out of Ways to Make the Death Penalty More Humane?


In the summer of 2011, Hospira - the only company in America still producing 
sodium thiopental, the painless lethal injection drug - moved their facilities 
to Italy under the condition that the company would stop producing the drug 
because it violated a European Union law. Since then, state legislators in 
death penalty states have been struggling to find humane alternatives in some 
sort of bizarre, primitive regression to electric chairs, gas chambers, 
hangings, and firing squads.

This week, Utah House Representatives on the Law Enforcement and Criminal 
Justice Interim Committee endors?e?d bringing back firing squads as a method of 
execution, with a 9 to 2 vote supporting a bill sponsored by Republican 
Representative Paul Ray. While his phone has been going straight to voicemail 
for the past 2 days, he told reporters on Wednesday, "We have to have an 
option, if we go hanging, if we go to the guillotine, or we go to the firing 
squad, electric chair, you're still going to have the same circus atmosphere 
behind it. So is it really going to matter?" It's worth noting that Utah was 
also briefly the only state to allow execution by behe?adin?gs in the 
mid-1800s, although none occurred as a form of "blood atonement." It was also 
the 1st state to execute a death row inmate after capital punishment was 
reinstated in 1976, and he was executed by firing squad.

Utah banned execution by firing squads in 2004, but not retroactively. Death 
row inmates who had chosen the method pre-ban were still allowed the option, 
and on June 18, 2010, Ronnie Lee Gardner became the 1st of 3 eligible inmates 
to die by state-sponsored gunshot. The day of the execution, Gardner was 
restrained and dressed in a dark blue jumpsuit with a hood covering his head. A 
white target was positioned over his heart. 25 feet away, at the other end of 
the execution chamber, 5 anonymous volunteer police officers behind a gunport 
were handed 4 Winchester rifles loaded with .30 caliber rounds, and 1 was 
loaded with a non-lethal wax bullet, to create uncertainty as to which officer 
fired the fatal shot. Counting down from 5, the officers simultaneously fired 
before "2," and upon being shot, it was reported that Ronnie clenched his hands 
and raised his arms in the air, then slumped lifeless, blood pooling in his 
dark jumpsuit.

A 1993 study entitled "The Possible Pain Experienced During Execution by 
Different Methods" compared execution methods in 86 countries, including 
shooting, hanging, stoning, beheading, electrocution, gassing, and lethal 
injection. Researchers determined that only the injection had the potential to 
be painless, although in conclusion it notes, "Nearly all execution procedures 
are likely to be attended by pain to the condemned person. Nevertheless, 
despite the evidence presented above, it is widely asserted that executions are 
humane and painless (Supreme Court 1890; Purchase 1953; Berns 1980; Sawyer 
1991), although no evidence to this effect appears to have been published."

In reference to firing squads it states, "The Royal Commission on Capital 
Punishment (1953, para 710) discussed shooting as a possible alternative to 
hanging, but rejected it on the grounds, inter alia, that 'it does not possess 
even the 1st requisite of an efficient method, the certainty of causing 
immediate death.' Those giving evidence to the Commission frequently emphasized 
their belief that any method of execution that they recommended should be 
rapid, clean, and dignified." Since the loss of easy to source coma-inducing 
intravenous drugs, it's become clear that death by lethal injection has ceased 
to be rapid, clean, or dignified.

When Clayton Lockett was put to death earlier this year, the state of Oklahoma 
decided that in lieu of sodium thiopental, they would use an untested mixture 
of drugs, which were kept secret and purchased with petty cash. Witnesses 
reported that after Clayton was injected in the groin due to a lack of useable 
veins, and subsequently declared unconscious, he began to shiver, gritted his 
teeth, and tried to speak. When finally injected with potassium chloride to 
stop his heart, Clayton thrashed and his breathing became labored, before 
uttering, "Man," and trying to get up. The execution was deemed a failure as 
prison officials had neither the available veins, nor a sufficient supply of 
the drugs left over, and the execution was stayed. But Clayton suffered a 
massive heart attack within the hour and died. Similarly, in July, Joseph 
Rudolph Wood reportedly gasped 660 times "like a fish on shore gulping for air" 
in the 2 hours it took him to die via a similarly concocted drug cocktail.

Faced with the realities of the changing execution methods, the purpose of 
Ray's firing squad bill is to give the state an alternative choice when facing 
the potential of not obtaining the necessary drugs for a lethal injection 
within 30 days. Lethal injections, in fact, have a 7.1 % failure rate, which 
compared to the firing squad's zero % certainly makes for a stronger argument. 
We've reported before that dying via electric chair is a painful ordeal, yet in 
May the method was signed into Tennessee law as an alternative to the 
now-ineffective injection. Back in January, Wyoming, struggling with the same 
issue, proposed building a gas chamber, which was only challenged in the 
legislature on the basis of cost. In that case, Sen. Bruce Burns proposed 
firing squads, citing pre-2004 Utah as an example.

The decision to pursue efficacy over gruesome imagery (hanging) or historical 
discomfort (gassing) rephrases the entire question as to what makes one method 
more "humane" than another, or whether it even matters. On some level, killing 
another person, even in the context of wrongdoing, could be considered entirely 
inhumane, and once you take the plunge, no sugarcoated Kevorkian-esque methods 
are really going to redeem the value of what anti-death penalty advocates 
consider murder.

Of course, the heart of the death penalty debate is that it does matter, even 
if only by way of adhering to the constitution, which is a concern of Richard 
Dieter, the Director of the Death Penalty Information Center. Over the phone, 
he told me that "first and foremost, legislators have an obligation to follow 
the constitution, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment," which 
in this case means striving for the least painful method of execution. But he 
agreed that there is "some dispute" as to which method that would currently be. 
"There may not be a single answer, but [being humane] should be the goal, 
rather than 'How do we keep executing people without a delay.' The intent is 
important here."

Ray's intentions are certainly geared towards that latter mindset. One of the 
two no votes by Representative Mark Wheatley asked, "What problem does this 
solve?" Ray replied, "A long, drawn out legal battle." The inherent problem is 
that urgency sidesteps a more important question, which is, How do we keep our 
prisoners from suffering when we kill them? Dieter also pointed out that "Utah 
isn't saying the firing squad is the best, least painful, most humane method. I 
mean, they got rid of it! They banned it! They didn't have to. Now they're 
going back solely because of the practicalities of it, not the humanity of it 
all." Before ending the call, he told me, "It's a gruesome business to be 
experimenting in, but at least it should be within the goal of being most 
humane, along with the question of whether we should be doing it at all. But 
that might be further down the road."

(source: vice.com)