[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, S.C., LA., KY., ARIZ.

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 29



TEXAS:

Delusion and Execution


Can the State execute a person who is insane to the point of delusional? In 
1986, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Ford v. Wainwright that the Eighth 
Amendment forbids the execution of the mentally ill, questioning "the 
retributive value of executing a person who has no comprehension of why he has 
been singled out and stripped of his fundamental right to life." However, the 
Court left the standards for defining the required "comprehension" unclear in 
some respects. And despite strong insistence from the Court that medical expert 
opinion be heeded, the State of Texas and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
have been nothing if not determined to push the outer bounds of the Eighth 
Amendment to permit execution of the insane. When the Court reviews petitions 
for certiorari next week, it will consider the case of Scott Panetti, a case 
that will hopefully put this important question to the test for the second time 
in a decade.

The insanity defense was the only one Panetti raised at his trial in 1992. It 
seemed like a textbook case. Panetti, a schizophrenic had been 
institutionalized repeatedly before the murder of his in-laws in 
Fredericksburg, Texas. He had brutally shot his in-laws with a hunting rifle, 
right in front of his estranged wife and his daughter. He told police that a 
character named "Sarge," 1 of his 4 or 5 personalities, who he would regularly 
hallucinate about, made him do it. At a separate initial trial on the issue 
whether he was competent, he was medicated with massive doses of antipsychotic 
drugs. The 1st jury hung; after a surprise change of venue a 2nd jury found him 
competent to be criminally tried. At his death penalty trial, he represented 
himself, without taking his antipsychotic medication, wearing a purple cowboy 
suit, and requesting the opportunity to examine witnesses such as John F. 
Kennedy, Pope John Paul II, and Jesus Christ. His standby lawyer called his 
trial performance "bizarre," "scary," and "trance-like."

When his habeas petition reached federal court, the judge initially rejected 
his claims out of hand. Facing an execution date, he filed again. This time the 
state court stepped in appointing a psychiatrist and psychologist, but 
ultimately conducting no hearing and finding him competent. The federal judge 
now let Panetti actually hire and present his own experts. The experts 
concluded that Panetti believed that the death penalty was a Satanic plot, with 
the State "in league with the forces of evil," and trying to "prevent him from 
preaching the Gospel." The judge found he lacked a "rational understanding" of 
the reason for his execution, but noted that the forgiving (and not at all 
medically informed) standard that the Fifth Circuit was using at the time 
required only some "factual awareness" of the reason he was to be executed. 
Unsurprisingly, the Fifth Circuit agreed.

In 2007, in Panetti v. Quarterman the Supreme Court reversed, stating that 
Fifth Circuit was applying an inadequate standard and following inadequate 
fact-finding. A person's delusions are relevant to whether the person can 
"reach a rational understanding of the reason for the execution," and although 
this was a question with real "complexity," more expert evidence was needed to 
carefully assess Panetti. The Court was clear that an actual "psychotic 
disorder" and suffering "gross delusions" should bar execution - and the Court 
was clear that there was "much in the record to support the conclusion that 
petitioner suffers from severe delusions." The Court cited to a brief by the 
American Psychological Association describing the routine and reliable 
competency determinations made by mental health professionals.

This time, after a 2nd hearing and new expert evaluations (despite the Supreme 
Court's emphasis on the need to develop the record, the court repeatedly 
rejected requests for additional expert funding), the federal judge concluded 
that Panetti had "thought about the death penalty and its moral and political 
implications."

If only the federal courts would do the same. In 2013, the Fifth Circuit again 
concluded that Panetti was competent to be executed since he had a "rational 
understanding" of the reason why he was to be executed. After all, the State's 
expert thought that Panetti had no mental illness at all and was just trying to 
"imitate" Schizophrenia. And recordings of Panetti's conversations with his 
parents seemed "generally responsive." No matter that the entire team of 
defense experts disagreed, and the federal judge concluded that he was 
"seriously mentally ill." After all, Panetti could rationally believe his 
execution would be unjust because he was insane when he committed the murders.

None of that had anything to do with what an informed medical opinion would 
look like. The analysis by the Fifth Circuit neglected the direction from the 
Supreme Court in Panetti v. Quarterman that assessing delusional beliefs be the 
center of the inquiry. On a related question, the Supreme Court emphasized in 
its 2014 ruling in Hall v. Florida that courts cannot arbitrarily define 
intellectual disability using an IQ score cut-off, because such a legal rule 
runs contrary to medical practice. Courts like the Fifth Circuit are not even 
applying an arbitrary cut-off; they are entirely failing to apply a medically 
informed standard.

Now the Supreme Court has an opportunity to make clearer than it did already in 
Panetti's case years ago that the Eighth Amendment forbids the state to execute 
individuals who are medically diagnosed as psychotic. If the Court does not 
accept Panetti's petition, the issue will continue to be litigated with urgency 
and frequency. Unless medically informed evaluation of psychosis is relied 
upon, the death penalty will continue to be irrationally applied to execute 
utterly deluded individuals who cannot understand what is happening to them. 
Such executions turn capital punishment itself into a grand delusion.

(source: by Brandon L. Garrett, Professor of Law, University of Virginia School 
of Law. Since the 2011 publication of Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal 
Prosecutions Go Wrong, Professor Garrett has written widely on issues of 
criminal procedure, scientific evidence, corporate crime, and the law. This 
fall, Harvard University Press will publish his new book, Too Big to Jail: How 
Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations----American Constitution Society)






SOUTH CAROLINA:

Death penalty given 2nd time for killer of Warwick-born police officer


Luzenski Cottrell, the man who killed South Carolina Police Officer Joe 
McGarry, a native of Warwick, RI, was sentenced to the death penalty on 
Saturday.

The man who killed South Carolina Police Officer Joe McGarry, a native of 
Warwick, RI, was sentenced to the death penalty on Saturday.

Luzenski Cottrell will be put to death on November 24th after killing McGarry 
in December of 2002.

Yesterday's verdict a long time in waiting for McGarry's family. After Cottrell 
was convicted and sentenced to the death penalty a 1st time, that verdict was 
overturned by the South Carolina Supreme Court in 2012.

This decision an emotional one for McGarry's parents, Joseph and Anita McGarry.

"I've been waiting a long time for justice for Joey," said Anita.

"I'm elated with the death penalty," said Joseph. "I can't thank the jury 
enough. I can't thank the prosecutors enough."

Officer Peter Leclerc of the Cranston Police Department was a good friend of 
McGarry and tells NBC 10 that he's grateful for the jury's decision.

"I'm happy for Anita and Joe McGarry," said Leclerc. "For twelve years, they've 
had an uncertain verdict and hopefully within the next few months, they'll have 
closure."

A plaque still hangs on the wall of the Cranston Police Department where 
McGarry worked as an intern prior to his career.

(source: NBC news)






LOUISIANA:

Louisiana commission looking at death penalty costs


New Orleans Senator JP Morrell leads a new study commission trying to determine 
how much Louisiana agencies spend on the death penalty. Morrell, a Democrat, 
says the idea came to mind when the current combination of drugs used for 
lethal injection became unavailable and seeing what happened in other states.

"The chemical composition that they were basically making on the fly to try and 
replace the existing protocols led to botched executions, exposing those states 
to millions of dollars in liability under the Constitution for cruel and 
unusual punishment."

Morrell says they want to find out if it is too expensive for the state to 
enforce the death penalty. He says several factors must be considered when 
determining the cost of the death penalty.

"What's the price tag on putting someone on death row, running through all the 
various appeals, and, ultimately, what's the cost of executing them?"

He says, right now, when the state budget is so bad, the actual cost of 
enforcing the death penalty should be considered.

Views differ widely on the topic. Morrell says prosecutors will say the cost of 
executing someone is negligible, while defense attorneys say it cost millions 
of dollars.

"And we're really just trying to get an accurate number as far as what that 
cost actually is."

(source: WWL news)






KENTUCKY----new death sentence

Man Receives Death Penalty for Rape and Murder


More than 30 years after a woman was raped and murdered, a man has received the 
death penalty for the crime.

A Louisville TV station reports Larry Lamont White was formally sentenced 
Friday. A jury recommended the death penalty after finding White guilty in the 
death of 22-year-old Pamela Armstrong back in July.

The mother of 5 was raped and shot twice in the head in the summer of 1983. 
White was already convicted of killing 2 other women in the 1980s.

The defense says they have grounds to appeal the case.

(source: lex18.com)



ARIZONA:

Jodi Arias trial, 48 lies in '48 Hrs', former juror reveals the truth about 
bias


Today will be the 1st day of the retrial of the penalty phase of the Jodi Arias 
trial. The family of Travis Alexander has been waiting for this for a very long 
time. From the moment they were notified of the death of Travis Alexander they 
have been waiting. They have patiently waited every agonizing day of testimony, 
every grueling hour of verdict watch, every motion to quash, every sealed 
hearing, venue request change, camera ruling, and more, for this moment. This 
is the moment that they are hoping will be the beginning of the end, finally. 
Jury selection will begin in a Maricopa County Superior Cout room for the 
retrial of the sentencing phase of the State versus Jodi Arias, trial for the 
murder of Travis Alexander. CNN reported September 27 that the defense team for 
Jodi Arias has been in contact with the foreman of her jury from 2013, William 
Zervakos. Some interesting information has come to light in that regard.

The jury foreman from last year's Jodi Arias trial has been known to create a 
significant controversy with the public. Many supporters of Travis Alexander 
believe that Jodi Arias would already be on death row if it were not for him. 
That information has come to light that he is now helping the defense 1 year 
later, does not do much to sway the public opinion of William Zervakos. 
Interestingly enough, the Toronto Relationships Examiner has received word that 
another juror that sat with William Zervakos in May 2013 has revealed some 
interesting information. This information corroborates the public opinion of 
what happened with the May 2013 verdict.

In 2008 Jodi Arias took a road trip. The road trip lasted almost all night 
between Yreka, California and Mesa, Arizona. She made sure she wouldn't have to 
stop for gas, and she made sure she wasn't spotted on cameras once. Within 24 
hours, Travis Alexander would be knifed over 20 times, fatally stabbed in the 
heart, and then shot in the head after he bled out. His family wouldn't know 
for 5 days.

In May 2013 a jury found her guilty of 1st degree murder. Unanimous votes in 
both the guilt and the aggravation phase led to a deadlocked jury in the 
penalty phase. Today the first 300 people will be paneled for jury selection 
for the retrial of this penalty phase. Their task will be to determine whether 
or not Jodi Arias deserves life in prison, or the death penalty.

Will this jury be any different? The general consensus from legal experts 
appears to be that Jodi only has to convince 1 person. But is this really the 
case? Jodi Arias doesn't exactly have an exceptional history of "handling it 
well" when anyone disagrees with her. Whether that's 1 person, or 12.

If someone doesn't agree with Jodi Arias, or her desire to stay alive, they are 
immediately labeled in the category of "haters." There are a few schools of 
thoughts on this. Oh the irony. Some would argue the very use of the word 
"hate" makes one a hater.

But think about it. If someone referred to you as "Stabby Hodi Skank" and 
actually wanted you to die, and watch, wouldn't you call them a "hater" too? Of 
course. Who wouldn't?

So in that respect, Jodi Arias falls in the range of normal behavior. She does 
feel something. That makes her human. "Hate" is the word that she chooses to 
use to describe how she relates and emotes in life, but that is her choice. We 
know she can feel something, and in some respect this places her in the range 
of normal behavior.

She's going to need to be a little more open minded when she approaches this 
jury, however. Is she capable of that? Or is she too busy trying to sell her 
story?

The lying is something that people just can't get past. The evidence, the 
brutal evidence, is horrifying and traumatizing for some to even just hear 
about. But that evidence has never changed since day one.

The conviction had everything to do with the evidence. The aggravating factors 
that made her eligible for the death penalty had everything to do with the 
evidence. Guilty and guilty were really the only choices. It was when her 
mitigating factors of being a human being, made things a little murky in the 
penalty phase.

It wasn't a slam dunk either way. The jury was deadlocked. Some said yes to the 
death penalty and weren't moving on that, and some said no and weren't moving 
on that. The jury foreman himself has told CNN that the biggest reason that 
happened was because, "She was her own worst enemy." Why? The lies, and it was 
the lies that never ended that people have a really big problem with.

The only time she wasn't lying in the history of this crime was when she 
described how amazing Travis Alexander was. So we know she is capable of 
telling the truth sometime. Also, in the range of normal behavior. This is one 
of the biggest reasons why it will be very difficult for her to sell that she 
was abused.

It all goes back to those media interviews that she needed so badly. They could 
be the very things that send her to Death Row. Not because the facts have 
changed in the evidence since then and now, but because the only thing that has 
changed in the period between then and now is her story.

Now it's abuse. Had she not told those 48 lies in 48 Hrs while she media 
shopped her cover up game, she might not be in the position she is today. Even 
Detective Flores said he would be able to help her, if she just told the truth. 
And because she didn't, it hasn't stopped messing her over. Will this time be 
any different?

She has to overcome some pretty big whoppers in order to do so, especially if 
the rumor mill is right that abuse allegations are going to take center stage. 
She has been preparing rather vigorously to drag Travis Alexander's name 
through the mud, after telling the entire world over, and over, and over again 
just what ann amazing man he was.

Those words came right out of her mouth. All of the Bishops and the brothers 
and the sisters and the room mates and life long friends in the world can and 
will say how amazing he was. And so did the killer. And if there isn't anything 
that adds strength to the testimony of the greatness of a man, than when his 
own killer gives him glowing reviews, then what is? But she did. And now she 
wants to change that story too. How is she going to escape the death penalty 
with a defense of abuse? She needs to overcome some whoppers.

What were those 48 lies in 48 hours? Here are just a few. When describing the 
late afternoon hours of June 4, 2008 to "48 Hrs.", the day after her infamous 
road trip, here is what Jodi said as one of her first lies told on this airing.

"My name is Jodi Arias. I am being accused of murdering my friend Travis 
Alexander...there were 2 individuals walking towards us, and I just heard a 
loud bang, and Travis screaming. It was the scariest experience of my life, it 
was just like a movie unfolding, a horrible movie. I could think only, was 
there some way I could get to Travis, and get us out of there, but it just 
seemed impossible, he couldn't even move."

How many lies can you find in those statement? She also told "48 Hrs",

"I've cried thousands of tears for him since his passing."

Note, she did not say "murder" or "killing", she has non-verbally minimized an 
event that was the "scariest experience" of her life, and also her role in it. 
She also did not say her tears were of grief.

When she describes Travis Alexander, the man that she slaughtered, her tone and 
her non-verbal cues change. This is an interesting statement in so many ways, 
because not many abuse survivors would say out loud that they cried for their 
abuser.

Her voice softens, her eyes fill with the memories that she shared with him, 
and with the goodness that she shared with someone who was clearly a great man. 
Here, the lies fade away. Here, the goodness of Travis Alexander shows in her 
smile, her instant sparkle, her eyes, and her words.

"You couldn't not like Travis. He was a really cool guy. He was a good 
conversationalist, he's really good looking, he has green eyes, he was very 
handsome. There was nothing not to like about him ....Travelling with Travis 
was like traveling with your own personal comedian. Great person to travel 
with, he had an enthusiasm, a lust for life. He was the 1st person to share the 
gospel with me. He was a member of the church, a very determined person. I 
admire that. I respected his opinion. He could bring me up or down, but mostly 
he brought me up."

She also said, "He was such a powerful motivational speaker that he could move 
us to tears." When asked by reporters at the infamous jailhouse press 
conference why they broke up months before the murder, abuse and violence were 
not the words she used. Instead she cited "breach of trust" as the cause of 
their breakup. When asked who she thinks killed Travis Alexander,

"I have no idea ... ... .I've done many things that are shameful. This is not 
one of them ... ... My faith commands us to forgive one another. I don't know 
that I would be able to forgive the person that did this."

These were all statements that she also said to Detective Flores on the day 
that she was indicted. He said to her, "You need to make this believable 
because this is not believable to me right now. I can not believe this [story 
you are telling me]."

When talking to "48 Hrs." she told the now famous Ninja story. She referred to 
them as "white Americans."

Meaning, she could tell the Ninjas that didn't exist were American just by 
looking at them. Because they were white? Because that fit in well with the 
story? Because it was all a lie and she couldn't think of other pertinent fake 
details to include to make it sound credible? The "white Americans" terminology 
was strange.

She also said, "I would never hurt Travis, would never harm him physically."

And yet we know that she did. And when she said that, she knew that she did 
too. Is that something an abuse survivor would say of their abuser? When 
speaking with ABC 15 in the infamous "post-verdict" interview, more lies, or 
statements without evidence came forward. These statements were specific to her 
abuse allegations.

"If I had documented everything beforehand, I would not be in this position 
right now."

Really? What about the 1800 text messages between Travis and Jodi during their 
relationship? When was there time to enter domestic violence into that 
relationship, when there was 1800 text messages over a year's time? They didn't 
even live near each other. Ever. Nothing in those messages showed Travis to be 
an abuser.

What she's saying is then over a year's time, that's say 6 messages on average 
a day, between 2 people with 2 full time jobs, and 1/3 of the day spent 
sleeping or eating in 2 different states, meeting basic needs, that after all 
that, there was time for Travis to fit in undocumented domestic violence.

This is what she stated as her biggest regret. That she didn't document 
"abuse." Did she really mean, I wish I had started "creating" evidence a little 
bit sooner? This is what she expects her new jury to believe.

But the truth is, she doesn't even believe it herself. She even said so 
herself, that there was nothing not to like about Travis. Abusers aren't often 
described that way. Jodi Arias made this statement about Travis multiple times, 
in multiple interviews.

Jury selection begins tomorrow, and it is arguably the most important part of 
this trial. These 12 humans will determine the fate of another human being, 
whether that person lives or dies. It is an incredible responsibility. The 
State, the defense team including mitigation specialist Maria de la Rosa, will 
all be there to panel the potential jurors.

Jurors in Arizona are required to indicate that they are death penalty 
qualified before they sit on a death penalty case. According to the Death 
Penalty Information Center, a 2002 Supreme Court ruling on the case of Ring v. 
Arizona 536 U.S. 584, capital juries are essential fact finders in death 
penalty cases, and must be death qualified. The Death Penalty Information 
Center defines a death qualified juror as one that comes to the jury selection 
without bias. During jury selection, a "voir dire" occurs where potential 
jurors are questioned in their position on sentencing. Jurors are not 
considered qualified and will be struck if they have a bias either for the 
death penalty, or against it. The Death Penalty Information Center says,

"In order to be death qualified to serve on a capital jury, a person must be 
willing to consider all of the sentencing options ??? usually death and life 
imprisonment without parole. If their opinions would prevent them from 
considering any of the sentencing options, then they are not death qualified 
and are stricken from serving on the jury."

In other words, anyone with an agenda has a low chance of making it on the jury 
for obvious reasons. The State and the defense are both very skilled in this 
kind of selection, it's what they do. But were they successful in avoidng a 
bias the first time around? A former juror in the Jodi Arias trial says, no.

When word was broken yesterday that the jury foreman William Zervakos that was 
on the panel of 12 that convicted Jodi Arias was helping the defense, many 
supporters of Travis Alexander were very upset. To many, this looks like a 
bias.

We have received word from an individual close to another of the jurors that 
deliberated on the May 2013 verdict in the Jodi Arias trial. That juror has 
confirmed that the public is correct. It does not just "look" like a bias, this 
jury foreman had an actual bias. The juror used words like "agenda", and noted 
this was evident from the very 1st day of jury selection, that the bias was 
obvious.

This juror also believes that the jury foreman William Zervakos bias would 
assist in leading to a deadlock when it came to sentencing. Was that juror 
right? Well, that is what ended up happening, isn't it.

Will it happen again? One of our sources that is close to the defense has 
confirmed there will be some surprises come this death penalty retrial. We 
understand that there is a strong likelihood that some witnesses for the 
defense have had a change of heart this time around.

Witnesses that were reportedly "scared off" in the previous trial, such as 
Patty Womack and Matthew McCartney, may have reconsidered their position when 
it comes to testifying for Jodi Arias this time. We also know that Jodi will 
not be taking the stand. Our source says,

"We do what we do to survive, so who am I to judge Jodi, not being privy to all 
that happened between them that day? One thing is for sure, Jodi won't take the 
stand but will only make a closing statement before jury deliberations."

(source: The Examiner)