[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----IND., ARK., ORE., USA

[Rick Halperin]

April 17



INDIANA:

Corcoran death sentence still stands----Fails latest appeal to 7th Circuit 
Court



4 times, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has heard the case of convicted 
quadruple-murderer Joseph Corcoran.

This time, in a decision handed down this week, the court upheld the decisions 
of lower courts, paving the way for Corcoran's execution.

And in this most recent ruling, the higher court appears to admit it got it 
wrong in earlier rulings, by not giving enough deference to the Indiana Supreme 
Court's opinions in this case.

Corcoran's case has exhausted state court remedies - including the Indiana 
Court of Appeals and the Indiana Supreme Court - and made its way back and 
forth through the U.S. courts. It has been heard twice by the U.S. Supreme 
Court, in addition to the now-4 times before the federal appeals court.

Allen Superior Court Judge Fran Gull sentenced Corcoran to death in 1998 after 
his convictions for the murders of 4 people at a home on Bayer Avenue. Corcoran 
killed his brother, James Corcoran, 30; his sister's fiancee, Robert Scott 
Turner, 32; and 2 of his brother's friends, Timothy G. Bricker, 30, and Douglas 
A. Stillwell, 30.

Since his incarceration, Corcoran has bragged about killing his parents with a 
shotgun in Steuben County in 1992 - a crime for which he was charged and 
acquitted.

The issues considered in Corcoran's most recent appeal were whether Gull 
improperly considered factors against Corcoran in his sentencing that were 
prohibited by law, or conversely, whether she failed to consider evidence in 
his favor.

The state of Indiana can request the death penalty if a defendant is found to 
have committed murder with at least 1 aggravating circumstance, such as the age 
of the victim, multiple victims, while committing another crime or killing a 
law enforcement officer.

In Corcoran's case, Gull found that 1 of the aggravating circumstances existed, 
specifically the multiple victims.

But when she sentenced Corcoran to death, she cited a number of factors against 
him - the innocence of the victims, the heinousness of the crime and the 
likelihood Corcoran would kill again.

She also cited some factors to be considered in his favor but gave them less 
weight than what she considered against him.

In 2000, Gull rewrote her sentencing order, carefully explaining what she 
considered and what she did not. The order reaffirmed the death penalty, and it 
has been upheld by the Indiana Supreme Court.

In 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Jon DeGuilio upheld Gull's order, after 
Corcoran's attorneys filed a writ of habeas corpus asking for another review of 
the sentence.

DeGuilio denied their request but allowed them to appeal to the 7th Circuit 
Court of Appeals in Chicago, which they did in the fall of 2013. It was on 
Corcoran to show the appellate court that Gull's sentence was unreasonable.

"He has not carried that burden," Appellate Judge Diane S. Sykes wrote.

Corcoran's attorneys urged the 7th Circuit to follow its opinions in an earlier 
ruling, in which they disagreed with Gull.

But in their most recent ruling, the judges of the 7th Circuit said they had 
not given the Indiana Supreme Court's decision upholding Gull with the 
"deference it was due," according to court documents.

"In short, the state court's decision was not unreasonable," Sykes said.

In this new ruling, the court cited a 1996 law, the Anti-terrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act, which affected the number of federal reviews for 
state death penalty cases.

Sykes wrote that the appellate court did not "hew as closely as it should have 
to the deferential standard of review" mandated by that law in its earlier 
rulings.

A message left seeking comment from Corcoran's Missouri-based attorney, 
Laurence Komp, was not returned Thursday afternoon.

Corcoran will be 40 years old Saturday and is housed in the Indiana State 
Prison in Michigan City. No execution date has been set, according to Indiana 
Department of Correction officials.

(saource: Journal Gazette)








ARKANSAS:

Attorneys argue before Arkansas Supreme Court about mandatory life sentences 
for juveniles



The Arkansas Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in 2 cases that will decide 
whether more than 50 inmates who were sentenced to mandatory life in prison 
without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles will get new sentences.

The court is considering an appeal from the Arkansas attorney general's office, 
asking it to overturn a circuit court decision made late last year to 
resentence any prisoner given such a sentence. In its 2012 Miller v. Alabama 
opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court barred mandatory life without parole sentences 
for juveniles, but states have been deciding whether to apply that decision to 
inmates who are already serving those sentences.

The court heard arguments in the cases of Aaron Hodge and James Grubbs, both of 
whom were charged with murder at age 17. If the court finds in their favor at a 
later date, attorney Jeff Rosenzweig said the remaining 54 inmates serving 
those mandatory sentences for juvenile crimes would also be resentenced.

Rosenzweig told the court Thursday that an "illegal" sentence can be changed at 
any time, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling should be applied retroactively, 
The Baxter Bulletin reported (http://bit.ly/1aBTY1v ).

"You simply cannot prohibit giving weight to mitigation," he said. "Is this a 
case that deserved a life without parole sentence? No mitigating evidence was 
provided."

When Hodge, Grubbs and the other mostly young men were sentenced for capital 
murder convictions, the charge carried a mandatory life without parole or death 
penalty sentence. Since the U.S. Supreme Court had previously ruled the death 
penalty was not allowed for juvenile defendants, the juries were not given the 
option to sentence the defendants to anything but life without parole.

But Assistant Attorney General Valerie Glover Fortner told the court that many 
laws that have changed because of court decisions have not been retroactively 
applied. She cited the example Thursday of the court's Miranda v. Arizona 
ruling, stating that anyone arrested must be read their rights.

"I will remind the court that inequality exists in the law. What could be 
considered a more fundamental departure than the decision of Miranda, and 
Miranda was decided not to retroactively apply," Fortner said. "I have to 
imagine there were many individuals who would have benefited from Miranda."

The court will rule at a later date. Ten other state supreme courts have 
already applied the Miller v. Alabama standard retroactively, and the U.S. 
Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Louisiana case arguing in favor of 
retroactivity later this year.

The Arkansas arguments come just 2 days after Kuntrell Jackson, 29, became 
eligible for a parole hearing. Jackson's case was heard as a companion to 
Miller v. Alabama, and the court ordered that he be resentenced.

Jackson was convicted of capital murder for the shooting of a video store clerk 
during an attempted robbery. Jackson, who was 14 at the time, did not pull the 
trigger.

Hodge was convicted of capital murder in the shooting deaths of his stepfather, 
stepsister and mother. Grubbs was convicted of capital murder in the death of a 
classmate whose body was found bound, beaten and submerged in a creek.

(source: Associated Press)








OREGON:

Movie 'True Story' recounts life of Newport murderer----Movie about Ore. 
murderer concerns Newport residents



A new movie, "True Story" is bringing back some painful memories along the 
Central Oregon Coast.

The film, which opens in theaters on Friday, is based on the case of Christian 
Longo. The Oregon man killed his wife and their 3 children in Newport, then 
fled to Mexico.

"I think it is going to bring back a lot of hurtful feelings," said long-time 
resident Jeanna Bixler. "A lot of people were heartbroken over it."

The movie will not be shown at Newport Cinemas.

Some locals complain it shouldn't have been made in the first place.

"I think it is going to make a lot of people really sick," said resident Kay 
Eldon. "Money talks so Hollywood is going to make a movie about something that 
is going to sell."

The movie revolves around disgraced journalist Michael Finkel, who was fired 
from the New York Times for making up a story. While on the run, Longo told 
people he was Michael Finkel. Finkel later wrote a book about the case.

The movie, which stars James Franco and Jonah Hill, was not shot in Oregon.

"I would be curious to see if it is well made," said resident Rhonda Jantzen. 
"I would be curious to see if it follows the facts as I remember."

Christian Longo will not profit from the film. The family of his deceased wife 
won a civil judgment allowing them to collect his assets.

Longo is now sitting on death row at the Oregon State Penitentiary.

(source: KGW news)








USA:

Most Americans support the death penalty. They also agree that an innocent 
person might get put to death.



A majority of Americans support the death penalty, even though that level of 
support has been dropping fairly consistently for about 2 decades.

However, while there are sizable differences in how various groups view capital 
punishment - with big gaps divided by gender, race and political views - 
Americans seem to agree on one thing: There is still some risk that an innocent 
person will be put to death.

A new Pew Research Center poll found that seven in 10 Americans feel this way, 
with just 1/4 of people saying there are enough safeguards in the system to 
prevent the execution of an innocent person.

This feeling is remarkably consistent among every group of people, even as 
there are solid divides found in the way people of different races and with 
different political beliefs view the system.

Yet regardless of other disputes over the death penalty, everyone seems to 
agree that the country's capital punishment system carries with it an inherent 
risk of executing the innocent. Majorities of every group polled by Pew agreed 
that there is a danger that this will happen.

Death penalty opponents point to this danger as one of the main reasons they 
object to the practice. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said earlier this 
year he opposes the death penalty because "the ultimate nightmare" is that 
someone will be executed in error. And because death sentences are handed out 
as part of a system that ultimately relies on the judgments of human beings - 
people can, and do, make mistakes - such a failure is "inevitable," he said.

"There's always the possibility that mistakes will be made," Holder said. 
"Mistakes and determinations made by juries, mistakes in terms of the kind of 
representation somebody facing a capital offense receives ....There is no 
ability to correct a mistake where somebody has, in fact, been executed."

This concept - an innocent person who is still found guilty and given the most 
severe sentence possible - is obviously not theoretical. Since the early 1970s, 
more than 150 people sentenced to death have been exonerated, according to the 
Death Penalty Information Center. Meanwhile, a record 125 people were 
exonerated in the United States last year, and 6 of those people had been 
sentenced to death, the National Registry of Exonerations said in its report.

In Louisiana last month, a former prosecutor publicly apologized for helping 
put a man who turned out to be innocent on death row. The prosecutor argued 
that the situation with Glenn Ford, the exonerated man who was eventually 
released, showed how easily the system could be manipulated by an eager 
prosecutor and questionable evidence.

"This case shows why the death penalty is just an abomination," Marty Stroud, 
the former prosecutor, told The Post last month. "The system failed Mr. Ford, 
and I was part of the system." He added: "All it is is state-assisted revenge. 
We can't do it. It's arbitrary, it's capricious. And I believe that it's 
barbaric."

The case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed by Texas in 2004, remains 
both in the news and in the court system. Willingham was put to death for 
setting a fire that killed his 3 daughters. Yet fresh doubts linger in this 
particular case more than a decade later, as the jailhouse informant who 
testified against Willingham later said he lied on the witness stand to reduce 
his own prison sentence. The prosecutor in the case was formally accused of 
misconduct in court last month.

It may seem odd that so many people would support the death penalty while also 
acknowledging that innocent people could very well be put to death. Part of 
that may be accepting the inherent risk that accompanies something as 
irreversible as death, but a part of it may also simply be that people are not 
paying that much attention to capital punishment. Executions in this country 
are generally carried out at night inside heavily guarded prisons with just a 
small handful of witnesses, so the public rarely takes note of them.

Nearly 1/2 of Americans told Pew they think the number of people put to death 
has remained steady or increased over the last decade. In reality, the number 
of executions has fallen in recent years, dipping last year to the lowest 
number in two decades. As we noted last year, support for the death penalty did 
not really budge after high-profile botched executions, and it was unclear how 
many people paid much attention to these incidents or the people who were 
exonerated.

So why do people still support it? Well, most people - a little more than 6 in 
10 - say that the death penalty is morally justified when someone commits a 
crime like murder. About half as many people say it is morally wrong. The same 
number of people who think it is morally justified also do not believe that the 
death penalty can deter serious crimes.

Among people who do support the death penalty, 9 out of 10 of them say it is 
morally justified in cases like murder. That is far and away the largest gap 
among the 4 categories viewed in the graphic above, highlighting what would 
appear to be the biggest gulf between supporters and opponents.

As for who actually supports the death penalty and who is opposed to it: More 
men support it than women (64 % to 49 %), a gap that has grown significantly 
over just the last 4 years, as more women have turned against it.

There is also a considerable divide among people over whether or not the death 
penalty is racially imbalanced.

A majority of white people support the death penalty (63 % support, 33 % 
opposition), basically a flipped image of the way black people feel about the 
issue (34 % support, 57 % opposition). Hispanic people are more evenly split, 
but opposition (47 %) narrowly edges out support (45 %) among them; they aren't 
as opposed to it as black people, but they are not nearly as supportive as 
white people.

Still, about 1/2 of people overall think minorities are more likely to get a 
death sentence than a white person who committed a similar crime. Death-penalty 
opponents are very likely to view the system as being racially unfair: 7 in 10 
opponents say the sentencing is racially unfair, while about 4 in 10 supporters 
say the same thing.

Among black people, these opinions are even more pronounced, as more than 3/4 
of black respondents told Pew white people are less likely to receive the death 
penalty. Meanwhile, white people are split between that opinion and seeing no 
racial disparity.

This is also the area where the biggest split can be seen based on a person's 
level of formal education. While support for or opposition to the death penalty 
is not that dramatically different for people who have graduated from college 
versus those did not, college graduates are much more likely to think the death 
penalty is racially imbalanced (60 %) than people who did not attend college 
(44 %).

Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans to think that white 
people are less likely to get a death sentence. This has accompanied a big 
overall shift in the way Democrats view the issue. In 2011, more Democrats said 
they supported the death penalty (49 %) than opposed it (43 %). Now, after a 
big swing in opinion, a majority of them oppose the death penalty (56 %), while 
a smaller number support it (40 %).

Opinions among Republicans are basically the same over the same period (a 
little more than 3/4 of them support it), while most independents still support 
it (a number that dipped to 57 % now from 64 % then).

The Pew survey is based on telephone interviews conducted last month.

(source: Washington Post)

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

To end the anguish, drop the death penalty----In Bill and Denise Richard's own 
words



The past 2 years have been the most trying of our lives. Our family has 
grieved, buried our young son, battled injuries, and endured numerous surgeries 
- all while trying to rebuild lives that will never be the same. We sat in the 
courtroom, day after day, bearing witness to overwhelming evidence that 
included graphic video and photographs, replicated bombs, and even the clothes 
our son wore his last day alive. We are eternally grateful for the courage and 
life-saving measures of first responders, Boston Police, the Boston Fire 
Department, and good Samaritans on April 15, 2013. We also thank the FBI and 
other law enforcement agencies, the Department of Justice, and the 
Massachusetts US Attorney's Office for leaving no stone unturned during the 
investigation and trial. But now that the tireless and committed prosecution 
team has ensured that justice will be served, we urge the Department of Justice 
to bring the case to a close. We are in favor of and would support the 
Department of Justice in taking the death penalty off the table in exchange for 
the defendant spending the rest of his life in prison without any possibility 
of release and waiving all of his rights to appeal.

We understand all too well the heinousness and brutality of the crimes 
committed. We were there. We lived it. The defendant murdered our 8-year-old 
son, maimed our 7-year-old daughter, and stole part of our soul. We know that 
the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued 
pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving 
the most painful day of our lives. We hope our two remaining children do not 
have to grow up with the lingering, painful reminder of what the defendant took 
from them, which years of appeals would undoubtedly bring.

For us, the story of Marathon Monday 2013 should not be defined by the actions 
or beliefs of the defendant, but by the resiliency of the human spirit and the 
rallying cries of this great city. We can never replace what was taken from us, 
but we can continue to get up every morning and fight another day. As long as 
the defendant is in the spotlight, we have no choice but to live a story told 
on his terms, not ours. The minute the defendant fades from our newspapers and 
TV screens is the minute we begin the process of rebuilding our lives and our 
family.

This is a deeply personal issue and we can speak only for ourselves. However, 
it is clear that peace of mind was taken not just from us, but from all 
Americans. We honor those who were lost and wish continued strength for all 
those who were injured. We believe that now is the time to turn the page, end 
the anguish, and look toward a better future - for us, for Boston, and for the 
country.

(source: Boston Globe)