[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, FLA., OHIO, KAN., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 26


TEXAS----impending execution

Panetti Case Highlights Lack of Sanity Standard


Nearly 30 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mentally ill inmates 
could not be executed for their crimes unless they were deemed "competent," a 
condition that remained vaguely defined for more than 2 decades. The court 
tried to clarify the definition in 2007 through the case of Scott Panetti, a 
schizophrenic inmate in Texas who murdered his in-laws and then, acting as his 
own lawyer at trial, wore a cowboy outfit and tried to subpoena John F. Kennedy 
and the Pope.

"Jesus Christ, he doesn't need a subpoena," Panetti said at one point during 
the trial. "He's right here with me, and we'll get into that."

Panetti is now scheduled for execution on the evening of Dec. 3. His lawyers 
are asking for a stay so that his competency can be evaluated; they have 
petitioned the state's Board of Pardons and Paroles to recommend him for 
clemency, claiming that the execution of someone so mentally ill "would cross a 
moral line." Prosecutors claim that Panetti is faking it.

Regardless of what happens next, the fact that Panetti is facing a lethal 
injection despite a 30-year history of documented mental illness demonstrates 
that the ambiguities of the legal standard of "competency" he helped to define 
are far from resolved.

In the 1986 case of a Florida inmate named Alvin Ford, the U.S. Supreme Court 
ruled that executing an insane person violated the constitutional ban on cruel 
and unusual punishment. Justice Thurgood Marshall, delivering the court's 
decision, wrote that the definition of "cruel and unusual" changes over time, 
reflecting the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a 
maturing society." Justice Lewis Powell Jr. added in a concurrence, "I would 
hold that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are 
unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer 
it."

But the court did not set a standard for who was mentally fit and who was not, 
leaving that determination up to lower courts, who would hear experts for the 
prosecution and defense and decide on each inmate's competency.

The standard of what constitutes mental illness remained undefined even as a 
series of inmates widely believed to be severely schizophrenic and delusional 
were put to death, including Arkansas inmate Charles Singleton, who insisted 
his victim was still alive, and Florida inmate Thomas Provenzano, who claimed 
he was Jesus Christ.

The Supreme Court decided in 2002 to ban the death penalty for the "mentally 
retarded" - the more current term is "intellectually disabled" - and then in 
2005 for those who committed their crimes before the age of 18. In both cases, 
the court cited the idea of "evolving standards of decency," and decided that 
these defendants were less culpable for their crimes.

Mental health experts and defense lawyers assumed that the next group of 
defendants lined up to take advantage of these "evolving standards" would be 
those diagnosed with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia.

The problem was finding a clear way to define mental illness. The American Bar 
Association partnered with the American Psychological Association on a task 
force, which determined that it would be more difficult to ban the death 
penalty for the mentally ill, since psychotic disorders do not offer the same 
thresholds as intellectual disability or youth. There's no number, like an IQ 
or an age, that courts can use to separate the insane from the healthy.

People with mental illnesses often understand they have committed a crime and 
do not show outward signs of instability. "There's a misperception that if 
you're incompetent to be executed you're a drooling idiot," says John Blume, a 
defense attorney and professor at the Cornell University law school. "People 
like Scott Panetti can have moments of lucidity." Often, if a defendant appears 
sane, it is assumed that they are faking the illness to avoid punishment. 
"There's a subtext of thinking that inmates are trying to game the system."

In Panetti's case, this has not been a subtext; prosecutors have explicitly 
argued he might be feigning mental illness. Defending himself at trial in 1994, 
Panetti flipped back and forth between incoherent ramblings ("The ominous 
auras, acts of law and reference with conflicts, with truth, truth that's 
overly blatant, acceptance of calder(ph), unknowingly for convenience not 
danger not") and moments of clarity. "I had problems with certain jurors that I 
couldn't think clearly enough to ask them a certain question and I declined to 
ask those questions," he told the judge after jury selection, asking for a 
delay before the start of the trial. "I'm not looking for a long delay, but I'm 
going to definitely need a couple of days to get my medicine."

"We're all kind of watching and going, 'What is Scott going to do next?'" 
recalls Scott Monroe, who was appointed to stand by as Panetti's attorney but 
could not participate in the trial. He says some of Panetti's 
cross-examinations were "lucid and appropriate." But then Panetti described his 
crime - the violent shooting of his in-laws - to the jury in a chilling, 
3rd-person register, "like he was watching a movie."

"I think he scared them," Monroe says.

Defense attorneys and mental health experts have long claimed that a unique 
problem for insane defendants is that their illnesses, rather than leading to 
sympathy on the part of juries, can make them seem more dangerous. "People with 
mental illness are not more dangerous than the general population, but they are 
scarier," says Christopher Slobogin, a professor of psychiatry at the 
Vanderbilt University School of Law who was on the American Bar Association's 
task force on mental illness and the death penalty.

Appeals courts initially agreed with the judge at Panetti's trial, who deemed 
him competent to be tried, and the jury, who found him deserving of a death 
sentence. A series of appeals arguing that his mental illness should have 
precluded a death sentence was unsuccessful.

When an execution date was set in 2004, Panetti's attorneys changed tactics, 
arguing that under the Ford decision, their client should get a hearing over 
his competence. A lower court found that Panetti understood the fact that he 
would be put to death, and that was enough to qualify him for execution.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. In its 2007 decision Panetti v. Quarterman, 
the court sent his case back for another competency hearing, explaining that 
the lower courts needed to find that Panetti had a "rational understanding" of 
his execution and why it would happen.

Panetti's case was hailed as a landmark by capital defense lawyers, but since 
then they have realized that lower courts are not significantly more likely to 
halt executions on these grounds. (The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which 
oversees Texas, has never done so). After surveying 140 cases in which 
attorneys argued their client was incompetent to be executed, Blume and his 
colleagues wrote, "While some guidance beats no guidance, in the post-Panetti 
world lower courts and lawyers are still flummoxed as to what showing 
establishes a death row inmate's incompetency to be executed."

And Panetti himself did not benefit from the ruling that bears his name.

At a 2007 evidentiary hearing, the defense and prosecution again debated 
whether he understood the reason for his execution. 2 defense doctors stated 
that Panetti believed, in the court's words, "that his execution was part of a 
satanic conspiracy to keep him from preaching," while 2 prosecution doctors 
countered that he was "at least partially fabricating his symptoms to thwart 
their attempts to administer structured examinations designed to detect 
malingering." The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the prosecution, and 
this past October, the Supreme Court refused to intervene, allowing the state 
to set an execution date.

Panetti will face lethal injection next week unless a court grants his lawyers' 
motion for a new competency hearing, Texas Gov. Rick Perry calls for a stay of 
execution, or the state's Board of Pardons and Parole recommends clemency and 
Perry grants it. Letters supporting clemency have come from a range of 
organizations including the American Psychiatric Association and American Bar 
Association, as well as numerous Christian leaders and former Texas Gov. Mark 
White. Panetti's ex-wife Sonja Alvarado, the daughter of his victims, said in a 
1999 affidavit, "I know now that Scott is mentally ill and should not be put to 
death."

The judge and district attorney who set the execution date for Panetti have not 
responded to requests for comment from the media. Monroe, who is now a district 
attorney in neighboring Kerr County, speculates the new execution date was 
meant to force the case to some sort of resolution: "My guess is there is a 
feeling of, 'can we bring this to a close after all this time?'"

(source: Maurice Chammah; The Marshall Project is a non-profit news 
organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. For information visit 
themarshallproject.org.)

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

Death Watch: Executing the Mentally (and Physically) Ill----Texas gets ready to 
execute a schizophrenic man


Should the state of Texas proceed with the execution of Scott Panetti on 
Wednesday, Dec. 3, it will be ending the life of a man now better known for the 
manner in which he defended himself on trial than for the crime that put him on 
death row. Panetti was sentenced to death in Sept. 1995 for the 1992 murder of 
his estranged wife's parents, Joe and Amanda Alvarado, but the legal 
merry-go-round he's endured since being convicted has spun out over 19 years 
and multiple courts (including two trips to the U.S. Supreme Court), sparking 
national debate about the mental competence standard for executions.

Panetti, 56, had a long history of mental illness by the time he killed the 
Alvarados. After being diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1978, he was 
hospitalized more than 12 times between 1981 and 1992, and frequently acted 
out. In 1986, he slashed the walls of his home with a knife and buried 
furniture in his backyard in an attempt to exorcise advancing demons.

In the first days of September 1992, his wife Sonja, by then living with her 
parents, tried unsuccessfully to turn Panetti's guns over to the police after a 
fight between the couple. (The cops said they had no legal right to confiscate 
the firearms.) A few days later, Panetti shaved his head, dressed himself in 
military fatigues, and drove to Sonja's parents' house in Fredericksburg. 
There, he shot both Joe and Amanda Alvarado at close range with a rifle, and 
then ran off with Sonja and their infant daughter to a bunkhouse. Caught in a 
standoff with the police, Panetti released the 2, and eventually surrendered, 
declaring that "Sarge" - later identified as a recurring auditory hallucination 
??? was responsible for the murders.

After 2 hearings in 1994 to determine his mental competency, Panetti fired his 
attorneys and represented himself throughout his brief Sept. 1995 trial. He 
infamously dressed in a purple cowboy suit and subpoenaed upwards of 200 people 
- including Jesus Christ, John F. Kennedy, and Anne Bancroft. He cross-examined 
his alter-ego ("Sarge"), scribbled ink over important legal documents and 
medical records, and at one point berated a prospective jury member about 
having "Indian blood." The trial lasted 8 days. After 2 hours of deliberation, 
a jury found Panetti guilty and recommended capital punishment.

Immediate appeals of his conviction were denied, and in 2003 Panetti received 
an execution date of Feb. 5, 2004. His attorneys filed a motion for a stay of 
execution, claiming that their client was mentally incompetent to be executed. 
But two mental health experts appointed by Kerr Co. District Judge Stephen 
Ables declared that Panetti was, in fact, competent enough for death (Ables 
ruled Panetti had "the ability to understand the reason he is to be executed"). 
Upon review, federal District Judge Sam Sparks found the state court's 
reasoning "constitutionally inadequate" but ultimately ruled against Panetti, 
citing the 5th Circuit of Appeals' "test for competency to be executed," which 
requires a person "know no more than the fact of his impending execution and 
the factual predicate for the execution."

In 2007, Panetti's case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The majority determined 
that condemned inmates must have some "rational understanding" of why they're 
being executed, and sent the case back to the district court for a fuller 
consideration of Panetti's mental state. Judge Sparks ruled that Panetti was 
sane enough to be executed. A 2nd appeal to the 5th Circuit proved unsuccessful 
in Aug. 2013. Early last month, the Supreme Court refused to consider a final 
appeal. A state district judge signed a warrant on Oct. 16 to set a Dec. 3 
execution date. Panetti's attorney Kathryn Kase learned of the final decision 
when she read about it in the newspaper.

Kase filed an emergency court motion on Nov. 3, requesting that Panetti, who 
hasn't been evaluated in seven years, receive a final examination of his mental 
state. On Nov. 20, Kase and fellow attorney Gregory Wiercioch filed a motion 
asking that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals halt Panetti's execution due to 
his incompetency. On Nov. 25, that motion was denied. In recent weeks, former 
congressman Ron Paul and former Texas governor Mark White (who oversaw 19 
executions himself), in addition to many other health officials and Christian 
leaders, have stepped forward to oppose the execution. A petition started by 
Panetti's sister asking for clemency has accumulated more than 77,000 
signatures. If their efforts are unsuccessful, Panetti will become the 12th 
inmate executed this year, and the 520th since the reinstatement of Texas' 
death penalty in 1976.

The Soffar Case

Meanwhile, the fight to save terminally ill death row inmate Max Soffar 
continues this month with the submission of a petition, containing over 116,000 
signatures, asking Governor Rick Perry to release the 58-year-old. Soffar was 
arrested in 1980 for a Houston bowling alley murder of three teenagers, though 
his lengthy interrogation was notoriously aggressive and yielded only a limited 
audio recording. Soffar, who's long suffered from brain damage, and had the 
mental capacity of an 11-year-old when he was arrested for the murders, 
maintains that he did not actually rob the bowling alley or commit the 
execution-style murder, but mishandled his implicating of a friend in an 
attempt to receive a $15,000 reward. Soffar was diagnosed with liver cancer in 
2013. In September, attorney Brian Stull reported that Soffar isn't expect to 
live past Feb. 2015, though he's yet to receive an execution date - 33 years 
after being arrested for the murder.

Rodney Reed

Supporters of Rodney Reed, who was scheduled to be executed on Jan. 14, 2015, 
came out for an evidentiary hearing in Bastrop on Tuesday, Nov. 25. Reed's 
lawyers have repeatedly sought additional DNA testing in the case - it's been 
widely speculated that Stacey Stites, whom Reed was convicted of killing in 
1998, was actually murdered by her fiancee, former police sergeant Jimmy Lewis 
Fennell, who's currently serving a prison sentence for the 2007 kidnapping and 
rape of Connie Lear. The judge denied the motion for more testing, but 
rescheduled the execution for March 5, 2015.

(source: Austin Chronicle)






FLORIDA:

Alex Chery case: Trial in teen's death may not come until 2016


It could be more than a year before a jury decides the fate of Sanel Saint 
Simon, the man accused of beating his girlfriend's 16-year-old daughter to 
death and dumping her body in the woods in July.

Attorneys in the case against Saint Simon, 44, discussed scheduling for his 
trial in Alexandria Chery's death during a hearing Wednesday morning at the 
Orange County Courthouse.

Prosecutor Ryan Vescio asked Circuit Judge Renee Roche to set a trial date for 
October 2015. He estimated a 2-week trial, with more than 50 witnesses expected 
to testify for the state.

Without a trial date, "this is a case that could easily string out for 2 to 3 
years, which I think is inappropriate," Vescio argued. But Roche called his 
timeline "ambitious" and likely unrealistic.

"I would be stunned if this case could go to trial in October," Roche said.

A trial in the "1st quarter of 2016" is more likely, she said. Saint Simon is 
charged with 1st-degree murder, and Vescio recently filed notice indicating he 
plans to seek the death penalty.

Assistant Public Defender Peter Schmer said extra time will be needed to 
prepare Saint Simon's defense, as prosecutors have already listed several 
expert witnesses the defense may need to counter.

He also cited the difficulty of obtaining background records for Saint Simon, a 
recent immigrant from Haiti: "Records procurement is going to be a nightmare," 
Schmer said.

Authorities say Saint Simon, the live-in boyfriend of Alexandria's mother, 
killed the teen July 28, then used a car he borrowed from his uncle to drive 
her to an area near the Osceola-Polk county line.

Though records show her DNA was found in the car and on his clothing, Saint 
Simon has denied any role in the girl's killing. He is being held without bail 
in the Orange County Jail

(source: Orlando Sentinel)






OHIO:

Prosecutors consider seeking death penalty against man accused of killing his 
ex-wife and trying to light himself on fire


Cuyahoga County prosecutors are considering whether to seek the death penalty 
against a man accused of stabbing his former wife to death and then trying to 
commit suicide by running in front of a truck and setting himself on fire.

Prosecutors this week told Common Pleas Judge Steven Gall that an internal 
panel of the office plans to examine the case of Hugo Ramos on Dec. 18 and 
recommend whether he should be charged with the death penalty. Prosecutor 
Timothy McGinty will make the decision.

If McGinty decides to file the death penalty, it would mark the 4th time he has 
used death penalty charges since he took office in 2012. One of Ramos' 
attorneys, John Pyle, declined to comment.

Ramos, 28, of Cleveland, is accused of aggravated murder, kidnapping, felonious 
assault, domestic violence and child endangering. He has pleaded not guilty to 
the charges. He is being held on $3 million bond.

Prosecutors accused him of stabbing his former wife, Glorimar Ramos-Perez, 25, 
on Sept. 15 and then fleeing from her Newark Avenue home in Cleveland with the 
couple's three children, ages 7, 4 and 1.

The Plain Dealer reported that Ramos then drove to Lorain County, where he 
pulled to the side of U.S. 20 in Pittsfield Township and walked in front of a 
semi-truck.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol said Ramos made it back to his car after being 
hit, but he then grabbed a container of gasoline and doused himself, trying to 
light himself on fire. The patrol said a truck driver, who was driving behind 
Ramos, saw what took place and helped extinguish the fire.

State troopers who responded to the scene contacted Cleveland police, who then 
found Perez dead in her home. Court records show she was stabbed repeatedly in 
the neck. The 3 children were not injured, and they were taken into the custody 
of children services officials.

Since McGinty has taken office, he examines three issues when deciding whether 
to seek the death penalty after a slaying: Does it fit the letter and spirit of 
the law? Would a reasonable jury return a guilty verdict? And would it be worth 
the resources to spend 15 to 20 years fighting the issue in appellate courts?

One of the key issues for McGinty will be Ramos' mental state. He is expected 
to be examined by several different mental health experts before he goes to 
trial. A trial date has not been set.

Since 2012, McGinty has pushed the death penalty 3 times. 2 cases -- that of 
Hernandez Warren and James McAlpine -- ended in guilty pleas, with the men 
being sentenced to life in prison. Warren was convicted in May of killing 
14-year-old Gloria Pointer in 1984, while McAlpine was convicted of 2 slayings 
in 2012.

The other case involves Michael Madison, who is charged in the deaths of 3 
women in East Cleveland. His case is pending.

(source: cleveland.com)


KANSAS:

Man faces capital murder charge in South Ida homicides


Steven Wade Edwards II closed his eyes as he listened to the lengthy list of 
serious charges filed against him Wednesday morning in Sedgwick County District 
Court.

Capital murder.

2 counts of 1st-degree murder in the alternative to capital murder.

Aggravated burglary.

2 counts of theft.

Burglary.

Criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Judge Joe Kisner set Edwards; bond at $1 million.

Edwards, 20, is accused of killing Martha Lopez Moreno and Godofredo 
Moreno-Lopez on Oct. 16 in the couple's home in the 600 block of South Ida. 
Because more than 1 person was killed in the crime, Edwards could face the 
death penalty.

After the short hearing, Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett said he 
did not know yet whether he would seek the death penalty against Edwards.

Court records indicate Edwards is also accused of stealing liquor, watches and 
a handgun from a victim identified by his initials.

A 17-year-old arrested in connection with the killings of the Wichita couple 
has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder and 1 count of 
aggravated robbery, court records show. As of now, he is being charged as a 
juvenile; he will turn 18 in January, according to records.

Bennett said he did not know yet whether the 17-year-old would be tried as an 
adult.

The Morenos' son found their bodies on a bedroom floor of their home in the 600 
block of South Ida, just southeast of Kellogg and Washington. Police said they 
had been shot multiple times and that the motive was robbery. Godofredo Moreno 
was 72; Martha Moreno was 71.

The robbery charge against the 17-year-old accuses him of using a handgun to 
rob the couple of the SUV, which police said was found on fire in a field in 
southwest Sedgwick County about five hours after the bodies were discovered.

Up until Wednesday's hearing, Edwards had been jailed on a warrant accusing him 
of violating his probation by being seen on video driving the couple???s stolen 
Kia Sorento at 1:19 a.m. Oct. 16, about 9 hours before the discovery of the 
couple's bodies was reported to police.

The warrant also accuses him of violating his probation for a 2013 robbery by 
having a stolen cellphone on Oct. 16 and admitting during an Oct. 20 interview 
with police that he drank half of a Bud Light on the date of the killings.

Edwards' preliminary hearing in the death of the Morenos was set for Dec. 10, 
but Bennett said it would be "months" before the hearing takes place.

In a financial affidavit filled out for the court, Edwards indicated he had 
been unemployed for 2 years but had not filed to receive unemployment benefits.

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

Defendant in Fairmount Park attack now charged with capital murder


The Wichita man accused of raping, beating and setting a woman on fire in 
Fairmount Park earlier this month is now facing an amended charge of capital 
murder.

Cornell McNeal, 26, appeared in Sedgwick County District Court on Wednesday 
morning to hear the amended charge.

Letitia "Tish" Davis died Saturday, a day after McNeal was formally charged 
with attempted capital murder, rape and arson in the Nov. 14 attack at the 
park, just south of the Wichita State University campus.

Davis, 36, suffered burns on more than 1/2 of her body and cuts on her head.

Judge Joe Kisner told McNeal that his bond is being raised from $750,000 to 
$1.25 million.

McNeal said little at the brief appearance and showed no emotion as he stood 
with his public defenders. McNeal wore an orange jail jumpsuit and was in wrist 
and leg shackles.

District Attorney Marc Bennett, who will be on the team of prosecutors handling 
the charges against McNeal, said it is too early to say whether he will seek 
the death penalty against McNeal.

With the charge amended from attempted capital murder to capital murder, 
McNeal, if convicted, would face the death penalty or life in prison without 
parole, Bennett said.

Although McNeal technically faces a preliminary hearing on Dec. 9 under the 
automatic scheduling process, it will be several months before the hearing 
occurs, Bennett said. A preliminary hearing is where prosecutors have to show 
enough evidence to convince a judge that the case should go to trial.

Bennett said it could be two years before the case is resolved.

The park attack is 1 of 4 pending capital murder cases Bennett's office is 
prosecuting.

What qualifies the park attack as a capital murder case is that it is a murder 
committed during the course of a sexual assault, Bennett said.

With the amended charge, court documents show, McNeal now faces 4 counts: 
capital murder, murder in the 1st degree as an alternative, rape and arson. The 
arson charge involves a detached garage in the 1600 block of North Erie set on 
fire on Nov. 14.

(source for both: The Wichita Eagle)






CALIFORNIA:

Gruesome deaths of mom, 3 kids could mean death penalty for killer


The grisly deaths of a Lancaster woman and her 3 children -- who were killed 
because they witnessed their mother's murder -- are in the spotlight as jurors 
begin to hear testimony to decide whether the killer should be sentenced to 
death.

Jurors in Los Angeles County will begin hearing testimony next week to decide 
whether 24-year-old Corey Lynn King should be put to death.

On Tuesday, a jury convicted King of 4 counts of murder with enhancements of 
multiple killings and torture in the 2008 stabbing and beating deaths of Sonya 
Durfield Harris and her 3 children.

King, a family friend, was inside Harris' home on Sept. 9, 2008. She was 
stabbed more than 50 times; her 14-year-old daughter, Ebony Horton, was stabbed 
more than 60 times; 11-year-old Melinda Harris was beaten and stomped to death; 
and Kayla Clark, 9, was strangled to death.

Prosecutors said King then visited a nearby gas station, filling several 
bottles with gasoline used to set the home on fire. Prosecutors said he killed 
the children because they witnessed their mother's murder.

Their bodies were discovered by firefighters. Harris' car was found at a nearby 
Wal-Mart. Hours after the fire, King called authorities and asked to meet with 
them. By the next day, he was taken into custody.

The slayings account for 1/3 of the homicides in Lancaster in 2008.

(source: Los Angeles Times)

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

Thomas Gonzalez, Conrad Diaz eligible for death penalty


2 suspects in a Coachella homicide are eligible for the death penalty if 
convicted, although prosecutors haven't decided what type of sentencing they 
may pursue.

Thomas Gonzalez and Conrad Diaz are accused of killing Jose Zaragoza on Nov. 
11.

Investigators say the men laid in wait and fired from a vehicle, which 
classifies the case as a special circumstance murder and qualifies them for the 
death penalty, according to the Riverside County District Attorney's office.

The shooting happened in an alleyway between Harrison Street and Tripoli Way. 
Zaragoza, 18, was shot but opened fire on the suspects as he fell to the 
ground, according to court documents.

Gonzalez, 19, was shot in his head and was treated at Desert Regional Medical 
Center in Palm Springs. He was later arrested, but his medical condition 
prevented him from being arraigned Monday in Riverside County Superior Court.

Diaz, 31, was in court for a bail hearing. He was arrested Nov. 14 and has been 
held without bail.

His attorney, Naomi Coady, argued he should be held on bail because he doesn't 
have a history of convictions involving gunfire and that "he's the alleged 
driver and not the alleged shooter."

Superior Court Judge Victoria Cameron opted for Diaz to remain in custody 
without bail. He is scheduled to return to court on Dec. 4.

Gonzalez was rescheduled to appear on Monday and again on Dec. 4 to begin the 
process of having a joint trial for the suspects.

"We don't know if he'll be medically cleared to come on the 4th, but that is 
the end game," Deputy District Attorney Lisa DiMaria said.

The gunfight was reported about 7 p.m. Deputies from the Riverside County 
sheriff's station in Thermal rushed to the alleyway, where they encountered 
witnesses.

According to the court documents, witnesses reported Zargoza was attacked while 
drinking beer in the alleyway with several other people. A Jeep Grand Cherokee 
slowly approached them with its headlights off.

Witnesses heard someone in the SUV say "We got you," then saw an arm holding a 
gun extend out the front passenger window. One witness said the gun was only a 
few inches from his head and he pushed the weapon away from his face just 
before shots were fired.

People at the scene took Zaragoza to John. F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital in 
Indio, where he died.

Shortly after the shooting, a woman called deputies after a man with gunshot 
wounds appeared in front of her home. They found Gonzalez sitting in the SUV, 
which had a shattered window and bullet holes in its side, according to the 
documents.

Diaz was at the scene and had blood coating his hands. He identified himself to 
investigators, but then fled and was later arrested, according to the 
documents.

(source: The Desert Sun)






USA:

Judge sets deadline for death penalty decision in soldier's slaying


A federal judge has given the Justice Department until Dec. 29 to declare 
whether it intends to seek the death penalty to either of 2 people charged with 
murder in the 2013 slaying of Spec. John Joseph Beans Eubank on Fort Stewart.

Eubank, 29, was killed Nov. 30 after he was lured into the woods at Holbrook 
Pond Recreational Area near his home on Fort Stewart, according to an 
indictment returned last year.

His wife, Lillie Mae Eubank, 39, and her brother, Carl Evan "Cowboy" Swain, 43, 
of Jasper, Ala., are indicted on charges of 1st-degree murder, conspiring to 
commit murder for hire and conspiring to murder with "special findings," the 
latter of which triggers a possible death penalty in federal court.

The U.S. Attorney General must authorize prosecutors to seek the death penalty 
in federal court.

Both defendants have pleaded not guilty and remain in federal custody without 
bond.

U.S. District Judge William T. Moore Jr., in an order filed on Monday, said 
that under a protocol established by the Justice Department in death-penalty 
cases, a defendant has the right to present mitigating evidence in an effort to 
influence the attorney general's decision on whether to authorize the death 
penalty.

Moore said that Eubank did so on Aug. 4; Swain on Sept., 15, and the attorney 
general decision has been pending since that time.

"Meanwhile the court has delayed setting a trial date in this case in 
anticipation of the Attorney General's decision," Moore said, adding that the 
government has until Dec. 29 "to provide notice of its intent to seek the death 
penalty" against either or both defendants.

The government charges that the victim choked on his own blood after his skull 
was crushed with a wooden baseball bat.

The indictment charged that Eubank and his wife were married on Dec. 15, 2008, 
in a relationship characterized by "severe financial problems" stemming from 
Lillie Eubank's "excessive spending" and incurring debt beyond Eubank's ability 
to pay.

As a member of the Army, Eubank had a $400,000 life insurance policy in 
addition to a $100,000 death gratuity payable immediately upon his death, the 
indictment stated.

According to the indictment, Lillie Eubank and her brother began planning in 
July to murder Eubank to obtain the benefits of the combined $500,000 death 
benefit, a plan that resulted in the fatal beating.

As a result, Lillie Eubank would use the Internet to buy a Greyhound Bus Line 
ticket for Swain, using the alias of David Walker, to travel from Alabama to 
Georgia to murder Eubank, the indictment charged.

After Eubank was slain, the defendants would travel to the Greyhound Bus 
Station in Savannah so Swain could return to his Alabama home, the indictment 
charged.

As part of the scheme, the defendants discussed "various weapons and means" to 
kill Eubank and agreed that Lillie Eubank would pay her brother $160,000 of the 
death benefit to kill Eubank, the indictment said.

Lillie Eubank, accompanied by her husband, traveled to Wal-Mart in Hinesville 
on Nov. 15 to purchase a "heavy wooden 't-ball' bat."

On Nov. 30, 2013, the defendants lured Eubank to the Holbrook Pond area to go 
"animal tracking."

There, Swain attacked Eubank, repeatedly beating him "about the head with the 
bat," before leaving him in the woods, barely alive without identification or 
cellphone.

The defendants then rushed to Eubank's home to pack Swain's bloody clothing and 
bat "into a military-issue duffel bag belonging" to the victim, the indictment 
charged.

At an earlier bond hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Cameron Heaps Ippolito told 
U.S. Magistrate Judge G.R. Smith that Lillie Eubank planned to use the 
remainder of the $500,000 benefit to pay her bills and open a business.

(source: Savannah Morning News)