[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OKLA., NEB., ARIZ., CALIF., WASH., USA

[Rick Halperin]

April 16



OKLAHOMA:

Justice isn't served by secrecy about death penalty


A trial judge has allowed Tulsa World's open records lawsuit against Oklahoma 
Gov. Marry Fallin and Commissioner of Public Safety Michael Tompson to 
continue. Tulsa World sued the state for refusing to disclose transcripts and 
emails about the investigation into the botched execution of Oklahoma inmate 
Clayton Lockett. Almost a year ago, on April 29, 2014, Lockett died of a heart 
attack caused by experimental lethal injection drugs, not by the lethal 
injection itself. As the Los Angeles Times reported, "Lockett's pulse had 
hardly stopped before national condemnation of his execution arose."

Lockett's horrific death was not isolated, as 2014 proved to be the year of 
gruesome executions. That May, the Supreme Court of Georgia refused to provide 
Warren Lee Hill with facts about the compound drugs that would be used in his 
execution, drugs known to cause seizures and blood clots before death. In July, 
Arizona inmate Joseph Wood gasped for nearly 2 hours before his lethal 
injection drugs took effect - 13 times longer than the average lethal 
injection.

Wood's case also marks the 1st time a federal appellate court recognized an 
inmate's First Amendment right to obtain data about the drugs, processes and 
personnel involved in an execution. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit prevented Wood;s execution. But just 1 day later, the U.S. Supreme 
Court allowed Wood's death to proceed in grisly fashion.

But the dreadful results of the last year are no surprise. Lethal injections 
are increasingly unsafe. That's partly because the American Board of 
Anesthesiology, in response to national public opposition to the death penalty, 
now prohibits its certified members from participating in lethal injections. As 
a result, the personnel in arguably the best position to ensure a safe 
execution are wholly absent from the process. During Lockett's execution, for 
example, underprepared prison officials administering the lethal injection 
failed to notice signs that the procedure had gone off course. American and 
European pharmaceutical firms have also reacted to public opposition by 
refusing to supply well-known and effective drugs. In a bind, states are 
turning to experimental combinations of substandard drugs manufactured by 
compounding pharmacies not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to hear the case of Oklahoma 
inmate Richard Glossip. Glossip and other inmates oppose Oklahoma's use of 
midazolam as an anesthetic. It's the same drug used in the executions of 
Lockett, Hill and Wood. According to a court record, the FDA doesn't approve of 
midazolam as an anesthetic because it "cannot maintain a deep, comalike 
unconsciousness." Oklahoma admits that use of the lethal drugs on a conscious 
person "would cause intense and needless pain and suffering," but that it chose 
midazolam "because of availability."

The risks involved in lethal injections threaten inmates' Eighth Amendment 
rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Unlike Lockett, Hill, and 
Wood, Glossip was able to obtain information about his lethal injection drugs 
and appeal to the highest court for relief from another potentially botched 
execution.

A First Amendment right of access to this information enables inmates to learn 
about their impending executions and appeal their cases if they feel their 
constitutional rights will be violated. This right allows courts to maintain 
the balance of the scales of justice by ensuring that criminal punishments are 
carried out in a constitutional way. It also encourages the public to engage in 
free and full debate about the use of experimental drugs in lethal injections. 
But a lack of discussion about the risks involved in modern executions 
eliminates the possibility of finding a solution to the problems posed by the 
use of compound drugs.

Members of the press have long had a First Amendment right to view executions. 
But the First Amendment also demands a right of access to information in the 
government's hands. This right extends to information the government holds 
about compounding pharmacies and the drugs they manufacture. No matter one???s 
view about the death penalty, without this right of access to information, 
justice is not being served.

(source: Emma Morehart is a Senior Research Fellow at the Marion B. Brechner 
First Amendment Project at the University of Florida in Gainesville. The views 
expressed here are her own and do not represent the views of the University of 
Florida----Tulsa World)






NEBRASKA:

Latest attempt to repeal death penalty in Nebraska may pit Republicans against 
one another


9 conservative lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors of a repeal measure the 
Nebraska Legislature will begin debating Thursday. One of their key platforms: 
Repealing the death penalty makes good fiscal sense.

"If capital punishment were any other program that was so inefficient and so 
costly to the taxpayer, we would have gotten rid of it a long time ago," said 
Sen. Colby Coash of Lincoln.

Gov. Pete Ricketts didn't wait for the debate before trying to pre-empt the 
cost argument. He pointed out that a fiscal analysis attached to Legislative 
Bill 268 found that the measure would result in no substantial savings.

"The costs of litigating the appeals that are filed in death penalty cases are 
negligible to the state and in no way offset the death penalty's usefulness in 
sentencing the worst criminals," Ricketts said Tuesday in his weekly column.

Nonetheless, the fact that 6 conservative Republicans stood side-by-side at a 
press conference organized by Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty 
underscored that opposition to capital punishment no longer falls solely in the 
realm of liberal politics.

Supporters of LB 268, introduced by Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, will probably 
need at least 33 votes to cut off an expected filibuster. Ricketts also has 
promised to veto a repeal bill, which the Legislature would need 30 votes to 
override.

The bill would replace lethal injection with a maximum sentence of life in 
prison without possibility of parole for 1st-degree murder. Because the 
Legislature will be in recess Friday, the death penalty debate will probably 
carry over into next week.

Also on Wednesday, the ACLU of Nebraska released the results of a poll in which 
29.9 % of respondents said the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for 
those convicted of murder. A total of 58.5 % said they favored some form of 
life in prison, while 11.6 % said they were unsure.

The poll of 2,129 people with landline home telephones was conducted by Prism 
Surveys. It had a margin of error of 2.12 %.

As for the bill, death penalty supporters have filed 12 amendments, including 1 
by Sen. Bill Kintner of Papillion that would replace lethal injection with the 
firing squad. Kintner said Wednesday that he won't be swayed by fellow 
Republicans coming out for repeal.

"Liberals spend all kinds of money fighting an execution and then they come 
back and say the death penalty costs too much," he said.

Marc Hyden is coordinator of the national conservatives group working to repeal 
the death penalty in other states. He said there are about 2 dozen studies 
showing that prosecuting and defending capital cases cost substantially more 
than noncapital cases.

Last year, a study requested by the Kansas Legislature found that trying death 
penalty cases cost an average of $470,000 versus $121,000 for non-death penalty 
murder cases.

In 2010, a bill that would have studied the cost of the death penalty in 
Nebraska was defeated in the Legislature.

Another argument against capital punishment mentioned Wednesday was that 
Nebraska has not carried out an execution for 18 years, when the method was the 
electric chair. The state currently has no way to use lethal injection because 
the necessary drugs have expired and obtaining a new supply has become 
difficult.

Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson said this week that his staff is 
working to restore the viability of a lethal injection protocol. He did not, 
however, predict when executions could resume.

Peterson also released numbers Wednesday from 2003 to 2012 showing that capital 
punishment cases annually represented no more than 1 % of the criminal 
appellate caseload for the office. Since 1973, capital cases have usually been 
assigned to 1 attorney, but no more than 2 lawyers, at any given time.

Sen. Tommy Garrett, a Bellevue Republican, said he believes public money is 
wasted on pursuing a punishment that research shows does nothing to deter 
crime. But he also explained that his objections stem from his religious 
beliefs.

"I may be old-fashioned, but I believe God should be the only one who decides 
when it is time to call a person home," he said. "The state has no business 
playing God."

Sen. Al Davis of Hyannis said he became concerned about the death penalty in 
the wake of a 2006 double homicide case in Murdock, marked by a false 
confession and planted DNA evidence. Had the real killers not been found and 
convicted, Davis said he's convinced that 2 innocent men would be sitting on 
death row today.

11 men live on Nebraska's death row. One has been there for 35 years.

Chambers lost 1 conservative co-sponsor last month after he made comments 
comparing police to Islamic terrorists. That prompted speculation about whether 
the comments might spark a backlash against the repeal bill.

Sen. Brett Lindstrom of Omaha, who removed his name from the bill, said 
Wednesday that he still intends to vote for repeal. Before he began studying 
the issue as a newly elected state senator, he supported the death penalty. But 
he's now convinced that executing inmates costs more than keeping them in 
prison.

That's not to say he is any less disturbed by Chambers' anti-police statements.

"You have to do what you think is right," Lindstrom said. "You have to look at 
the bill itself, not who brought the bill."

(source: omaha.com)






ARIZONA:

Prosecutor: Man accused of killing 6-year-old wasn't insane


A prosecutor urged jurors Wednesday to reject an insanity defense from a 
Phoenix man charged with killing his brother over a drug dispute and then 
gunning down a witness - the brother's 6-year-old son.

The defense, meanwhile, maintained the normally upbeat college student was 
having a break with reality at the time, after shaving his head and acting 
erratically for weeks.

Christopher Rey Licon, 24, claims to have had a psychotic episode in December 
2010 when his half brother Angel Jaquez and nephew Xavier Jaquez both were shot 
in the back of the head.

Sanitation workers doing garbage pickup found the child's body in an alley.

Prosecutor Laura Reckart said Licon was well aware of his actions when he 
carried out the killings and took steps to protect himself, such as breaking 
into an apartment where a handgun used in the crimes was stashed.

"These were the actions of a man who was doing damage control," the prosecutor 
said during opening statements at Licon's trial.

At the time of the deaths, Licon was a construction management student at 
Arizona State University and allegedly had an illegal drug business with 
Jaquez.

Authorities say Licon shot his half brother in the back of the head as Jaquez 
watched TV at their Phoenix townhome. Xavier also was in the home and likely 
was killed because he either saw or heard his father get shot, investigators 
said.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. Licon's lawyers tried unsuccessfully 
to have it taken off the table due to the mental illness they say he had at the 
time.

Defense attorney James Wilson told jurors that Licon's psychological condition 
was deteriorating in the weeks before the killings. His erratic behavior, 
including shaving his head, concerned relatives, Wilson said.

Licon's family members will testify it was bizarre for him to appear 
emotionless after the two deaths, because he's usually an outgoing person. "He 
was always wearing his emotions on his sleeve," Wilson said.

Licon told investigators he was studying at a Tempe library when his half 
brother was killed, and he came home to find his body on a sofa. But 
authorities said Licon's alibi quickly collapsed after they interviewed 
neighbors and gathered other evidence.

Investigators said 2 key pieces of evidence were found inside the car Licon 
used to bring the boy to the alley: a 9 mm bullet casing that matched a casing 
found at the townhome and a toy from a Burger King kid's meal.

Xavier' was found in the alley next to a Burger King kid's meal that was 
missing its toy.

Prosecutors say Licon acknowledged selling drugs in the months preceding both 
deaths.

Authorities also say that while in jail awaiting trial, Licon told his cellmate 
he shot Jaquez in anger during a fight over drug profits. Police say they found 
drugs in a cupboard at the brothers' home.

Licon's attorneys have questioned the credibility of the cellmate, who was 
sentenced to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to abusing his 2-year-old 
son.

They also say there were no signs of bad blood between the brothers, and there 
was no evidence Xavier witnessed his father's death.

(source: Associated Press)






CALIFORNIA:

Dial Eme For Murder: How Prosecutors Teamed With Mexican Mafia In Death Penalty 
Case----Prosecutor Wagner defending questionable DA moves in pending death 
penalty case


It's odd when both the Mexican Mafia and the Orange County district attorney's 
office (OCDA) want the same guy dead. It's remarkable when 2 assumed-enemy 
outfits work together to achieve a mutual goal. But that is what happened to 
Anthony R. Navarro Jr.

The Mexican Mafia put Navarro on its "hard candy list," marking him for death. 
OCDA simultaneously worked to hand him capital punishment. In the process, a 
church-going prosecutor and an unsavory disciple of Eme bosses collaborated in 
a Santa Ana courtroom. As a result, Navarro today sits on San Quentin State 
Prison's death row.

The 48-year-old hoodlum admits he's no angel. At the age of 12, he became a 
gangster, 2 years later landing in the California Youth Authority for 
manslaughter. He inked his body with underworld tattoos, took the moniker 
"Droopy" and became a leader of the Pacoima Flats Gang in the San Fernando 
Valley. During a prison stint for robbery, the smooth-talking car enthusiast, 
small-time methamphetamine dealer and $19-per-hour Warner Bros. studio extra 
won prized Mexican Mafia associate status.

But troubling issues linger about the 2007 trial in which a jury convicted 
Navarro of ordering the murder of David Montemayor, a Buena Park man who ran a 
trucking company. It's possible he is guilty; prosecutor Dan Wagner gathered 
weighty circumstantial evidence. But Navarro could be innocent; the 
government's case was hardly airtight. It is certain, however, the prosecution 
team cheated.

The trouble for Wagner begins with a question: Does it make sense for Navarro 
to alert cops of a pending hit he was orchestrating and supposedly would later 
execute?

Long before Montemayor's Oct. 2, 2002, killing near Knott's Berry Farm, Navarro 
reached out to Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent James Starkey and Los 
Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officer Rod Rodriguez. He relayed sketchy 
information: A woman tied to the Mexican Mafia wanted a crew to kidnap or kill 
a man in Orange County. The officers asked for the target's identity. Navarro 
didn't know the man's name, so no investigation resulted. Navarro claims he was 
in Las Vegas while Pacoima Flats Gang soldiers--Armando Macias, Alberto 
Martinez and Gerardo Lopez--took Montemayor's life.

At trial, Wagner ridiculed Navarro's law-enforcement calls as a ploy to deflect 
culpability. Yet the defendant's police ties weren't imaginary: The FBI was the 
first agency to recruit Navarro as a confidential informant in 2000. Records 
hail his contributions. He described Mexican Mafia hierarchies; provided 
intelligence about gun and dope sales; helped agents hunt an Israeli mobster; 
and thwarted five murder plots, including one against an LAPD officer.

Navarro also exhibited bravery. For the FBI's San Diego branch, he took an 
"extremely dangerous" mission to infiltrate Tijuana's lethal Arellano-Felix 
Cartel. For the agency's LA bureau, he supplied Mexican Mafia bosses with 
vehicles equipped with surveillance devices. He attended Eme meetings wearing a 
tiny camera embedded in his shirt and carrying a doctored pager that 
transmitted audio after batteries had been removed.

Navarro's reward? Cops ignored his petty dope deals, saved him from a 
weapons-possession case and paid his government-housing rent. In 2001, his 
compensation totaled $30,000. Navarro's lawyer, H. Russell Halpern, asked his 
clients' FBI handler, Curran Thomerson, if the agency got its money's worth--to 
which Thomerson replied, "Yeah."

Appreciative police outside of Orange County argued that if guilty in the 
Montemayor case, Navarro deserved nothing worse than life in prison without 
parole. But Wagner wanted his first death-penalty win. The strength of his case 
rested on cellphone records that seemingly link the killers to Navarro before, 
during and after the crime. The defendant admitted ties to the incriminating 
number, but he said he'd stopped using that particular gang phone weeks before 
the murder.

The prosecutor called Pico Rivera resident Edelmira Corona as his star witness. 
Corona worked for Montemayor and his sister Deborah Perna, who allegedly wanted 
to take over the family business. After her arrest in connection with the 
murder, she told police Perna sought people willing to kill her brother. So 
Corona contacted her drug dealer: Navarro. Sometime between April and June 
2002, she handed him a note with Montemayor's address. For nearly 5 months, the 
plot remained idle, except Navarro tipped his ATF and LAPD handlers.

Meanwhile, Corona repeatedly visited Pelican Bay State Prison to meet Mexican 
Mafia leadership as a gang courier, according to court records. Under oath, the 
woman denied the observation, saying she had no clue her friends were gangsters 
and describing their relationships as "pen pals." Wagner accepted her claim 
that contacts with Eme bosses were coincidental to the murder. He gave her a 
sweetheart, 14-year term in exchange for fingering Perna and Navarro.

But Corona had no credibility. On the stand, she told wild tales and, during 
cross-examination by Halpern, confessed she was a prolific liar. She couldn't 
explain her frequent trips throughout the United States and Mexico on a pretax 
income of $200 per week. She gave implausible stories about meetings with 
Navarro. You have to wonder if Corona even needed him to carry out the crime; 
one of her sex partners, Macias, gunned down Montemayor.

Yet Wagner maintained the fibber was Navarro, who testified he couldn't have 
ordered the hit because the gang soldiers were under orders to kill him for 
being a snitch. In the weeks after the murder, Navarro deposited money into his 
co-defendants' jail-commissary accounts. The prosecutor saw the transactions as 
proof he was "very friendly" with the killers. Navarro insisted the funds were 
meant to avert his demise.

Before a February 2003 pretrial hearing, Orange County Sheriff's Department 
deputies learned the co-defendants wanted Navarro dead and later said they 
accidentally placed the four men--Navarro being the only one restricted by body 
chains--in the same cell. Montemayor's unshackled killers slammed shanks into 
Droopy's body 10 or 11 times while calling him "a rat." Miraculously, he 
survived.

The attack didn't dissuade the deputy DA from mocking the defendant's kill list 
claim. Cops know mob leadership must approve execution of another high-ranking 
hoodlum. But Wagner wanted no Mexican Mafia ties to his case. His theory? The 
soldiers must have been angry Navarro tricked them into believing the gang 
ordered Montemayor's hit and took it upon themselves to stab him.

Fate didn't aid Wagner's cause. A Sept. 23, 2007, raid on Martinez's jail cell 
recovered Eme's "hard candy list" wrapped around a large shank. The gang 
document demanded Navarro's death.

The law requires prosecution teams to surrender crucial evidence to the 
defense, but that's not what happened. 2 days after the raid and in front of 
jurors, Wagner lampooned the notion the Mexican Mafia wanted Navarro killed. In 
his closing arguments on Oct. 15--22 days after the raid--he called the defense 
stance "ridiculous." Another month lapsed with the government continuing to 
hide the evidence. That's when a jury of 7 men and 5 women wrongly believed it 
fully understood the case and sent Navarro to death row.

Nowadays, Wagner says he can't remember how he undermined the defense. But the 
duplicity didn't stop with Navarro. Seth Tunstall, who took possession of 
Martinez's hit list, is the same deputy a judge blasted in March for hiding 
evidence and committing perjury in Wagner's current death-penalty case: People 
v. Scott Dekraai. OCDA hasn't filed charges. In fact, court records show 
prosecutors continue to work closely with Tunstall, a signal that recent reform 
proclamations by District Attorney Tony Rackauckas are a sham.

(source: Orange County Register)






WASHINGTON:

Carnation murderer details killings for jury deciding his fate


Convicted killer Joseph McEnroe spent the entire day on the witness stand 
Wednesday describing how he and his girlfriend murdered 6 members of her family 
on Christmas Eve 2007 in Carnation. The jury that convicted McEnroe is now 
deciding whether he will spend the rest of his life in prison or get the death 
penalty.

Prosecutor Scott O'Toole went step by step through the killings, pushing 
McEnroe to describe each one and the role he played. O'Toole tried to point out 
the numerous opportunities that McEnroe had to prevent the murders.

The details were so chilling, friends and family of the victims in the 
courtroom were visibly upset.

McEnroe said Erica and Scott Anderson did what they could to protect their 
children.

"Erica and Scott were very heroic," he told the jury. "Erica at the end was 
like, you don't have to do it."

McEnroe and the prosecutor battled over what could be heard on a 911 tape that 
was played. During the killings, a wounded Erica Anderson called 911. The 
prosecutor and McEnroe disagreed about what could be heard during the brief 
call.

"Erica Anderson screamed 'no, not the kids, no' correct?" O'Toole asked.

"That's not what it sounded like to me on the replay. I don't remember her 
screaming that," McEnroe responded.

McEnroe sat through the disturbing call a 2nd time, but maintained he didn't 
remember hearing Erica Anderson beg for her children's lives. McEnroe will 
return to the stand Thursday morning.

(source: KING news)






USA:

ICYMI: Sister of Marathon Bomber Victim Opposes Death Penalty----Jennifer L. 
Lemmerman wrote that her brother's murder only strengthened her principles 
against capital punishment.


As the April 21 start date for the penalty phase of convicted Boston Marathon 
bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's trial looms, one individual with a singular 
perspective on the tragedy has advocated for Tsarnaev to spend the rest of his 
life in a jail cell, instead of being put to death.

"Whenever someone speaks out against the death penalty, they are challenged to 
imagine how they would feel if someone they love were killed," wrote Jennifer 
L. Lemmerman, sister of late Somerville police officer Sean Collier in a 
since-removed Facebook post, according to the Boston Globe.

"I've been given that horrible perspective, and I can say that my position has 
only strengthened."

Last week, Tsarnaev was convicted on 30 counts related to the infamous 2013 
attack, including Collier's murder. Collier was killed in Cambridge 4 days 
after the bombing, while Tsarnaev and older brother Tamerlan were on the run 
from authorities.

Collier was working as an MIT patrol officer at the time, and was posthumously 
sworn into the Somerville Police Department.

Along with the reported majority of Massachusetts residents, Lemmerman - who 
serves as an alderman in Melrose - would receive little satisfaction from 
Tsarnaev's demise.

"I can't imagine I'll ever forgive him for what he did to my brother, to my 
family, and I'll have to live with that for the rest of my life, whether he is 
on this earth or not," she wrote.

"But I also can't imagine that killing in response to killing would ever bring 
me peace or justice. Just my perspective, but enough is enough. I choose to 
remember Sean for the light that he brought. No more darkness."

(source: patch.com)

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

Death penalty only fuels a cycle of violence


Nearly 2 years after the Boston Marathon Bombings, a tragic murder that stole 
the lives of 3 people and injured more than 260, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found 
guilty on all 30 charges brought against him. Among the charges: murder and use 
of a weapon of mass destruction.

With the guilty verdict out of the way, no one expected the jury to find 
Tsarnaev innocent, the jury now moves to the next phase of the trial. The panel 
of 12 will decide whether to sentence the then 19-year-old to death. If I were 
on that panel, Tsarnaev would live out the rest of his days in a cell.

The death penalty accomplishes nothing, save for fueling a cycle of violence 
and hatred. While it might satisfy those directly affected by the person to be 
put to death, the positives of execution stop there. The only thing gained from 
the death penalty is revenge.

What difference does it make if Tsarnaev is dead or behind bars? Either way 
he'd never be seen again in the world outside of prison. He might as well be 
dead to the common person, as time will do what time does and soften our 
powerful memories and emotions the thought of Tsarnaev and the bombings bring. 
To those directly affected by the bombings, leaving Tsarnaev alive and in a 
cell gives them a chance to let go of their very understandable anger and 
hatred in a positive way. Having the young man killed by lethal injection will 
not bring back all they've lost.

In an ideal world, spending years behind bars changes who Tsarnaev is as a 
person. He may learn to feel sorrow for the heinous crimes he committed, making 
peace with himself and perhaps even earning forgiveness in the eyes of the 
people he attacked. While he may never truly seek forgiveness, there is no 
reason not to at least give him a chance to. Ending his life removes all 
possibility of forgiveness.

If one argues in favor of the death penalty because death is the ultimate 
punish, I'd argue that death pales in comparison to life in prison. The thought 
of spending each day, for years on end, doing nothing but thinking about the 
crime that put you in a cell is terrifying. The 18th century Italian 
philosopher Cesera Beccaria puts it best when he wrote in his book 'On Crimes 
and Punishments', "It is not the terrible yet momentary spectacle of the death 
of a wretch, but the long and painful example of a man deprived of liberty, 
who, having become a beast of burden, recompenses with his labors the society 
he has offended, which is the strongest curb against crime."

Disagreeing with an 18th century philosopher is easy, but it's a little tougher 
to say you disagree with the arguments of Gandhi. Perhaps his most famous 
quote, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," serves perfectly as 
another argument against the death penalty. If everyone returned violence with 
violence, there would be no peace.

I use Tsarnaev's case often when debating the death penalty because it 
showcases a truly evil crime. No matter how he tried to justify it, Tsarnaev 
killed 3 people and attempted to instill fear in the hearts of millions. It's 
hard to imagine a more horrific crime, but no one has the right to take another 
person's life. Even if that person took the lives of others.

(source: Tyler Kelbaugh, The (East Carolina University) East Carolinian)

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

Aurora Theater Shooting Jurors Include Columbine Survivor


A union plumber, a schoolteacher and a survivor of the 1999 Columbine High 
School massacre were among the 19 women and 5 men chosen as jurors in the death 
penalty trial of Aurora theater shooter James Holmes.

The 12 jurors and 12 alternates were picked Tuesday after a selection process 
that began Jan. 20 and was among the largest and most complicated in U.S. 
history, experts said.

Holmes is charged with killing 12 people and wounding 70 others in the July 
2012 attack in suburban Denver. His attorneys don't dispute that he pulled the 
trigger but say he was in the grips of a psychotic episode when he slipped into 
the packed movie theater and opened fire.

Jurors will decide whether he was legally insane at the time. If they find him 
guilty, they must also decide whether he should be put to death or sentenced to 
life in prison without parole.

THE JURORS

All 24 will sit through the entire trial. Neither the group nor the public will 
know who is a primary juror and who is an alternate until the case is handed 
over for deliberations.

The jury also includes a Denver Public Schools employee, a person with 
depression and a businesswoman who cares for her elderly parents.

LINE OF QUESTIONING

Attorneys on Tuesday questioned the 93 remaining jurors about their 
interpretations of the law, how they would gauge witnesses' and experts' 
credibility, and whether they could handle serving on such a high-profile 
trial.

District Attorney George Brauchler characterized it as a "4- to 5-month roller 
coaster through the worst haunted house you can imagine."

He asked prospective jurors if they could serve even if they hear no evidence 
of a motive because prosecutors are required to prove only the 165 charges 
against Holmes - not why they believe he committed the crimes.

Holmes' attorney, Tamara Brady, focused on perceptions of Holmes and whether 
the candidates could be objective given the litany of charges against him and 
the public scrutiny they will face. She asked how they felt listening for 
nearly 2 hours as Judge Carlos A. Samour Jr. read the charges, including each 
victim's name. She wondered if prospective jurors would be too sympathetic to 
survivors.

She said she was nervous "about whether Mr. Holmes can get a fair trial in this 
case or whether it's just too big."

JUROR CONCERNS

Potential jurors told attorneys they worry about what their neighbors might 
think if they reach an unpopular verdict and whether reporters would harass 
their families.

One man said he was reassured when the judge told him steps were taken to 
shield his identity. And many pledged they would not let their decision-making 
be influenced by concern about what others think.

Other candidates expressed trepidation about hearing graphic testimony and 
perhaps being overwhelmed by emotion.

WHAT'S TAKEN SO LONG?

Some prospective jurors have asked the judge why it has taken nearly 3 years 
for the case to come to trial.

Samour has said it's not an unusual amount of time for a trial this complex. 
The death penalty and insanity plea introduced complicated and time-consuming 
legal requirements.

After nearly 3 months, and almost 3 years since the mass shooting, the jurors 
were chosen from among hundreds who filled out written questionnaires, then 
returned for 1-on-1 sessions, where they were questioned about their views on 
the death penalty and mental illness. Court officials initially summoned an 
unprecedented 9,000 people.

WHAT ABOUT OTHER LARGE TRIALS?

In the amount of time it has taken so far in Colorado, federal jurors in Boston 
have convicted marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Tsarnaev's admission that he participated in the April 2013 bombings and that 
his brother, Tamerlan, was the mastermind accelerated the case.

The Texas trial for the killer of a former Navy SEAL depicted in the movie 
"American Sniper" was complicated by publicity about the film. But jury 
selection moved quickly because it didn't involve concerns about the large 
number of people affected by the crime.

WHAT'S NEXT?

The Colorado jurors will report to court April 27 for opening statements.

(source: Associated Press)