[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----N.C., FLA., NEB., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

August 2



NORTH CAROLINA:

Machinery of death


If the Republican majority in the General Assembly gets its way, not only will 
officials acting on behalf of the people of North Carolina be able to resume 
putting people to death again in the middle of the night at Central Prison, 
they will be able to hide information about how they are killing them.

That's one of the provisions in the offensively named "Restoring Proper Justice 
Act" that is on its way to the desk of Gov. Pat McCrory, that the state can 
keep secret the name of the company that manufactures the drugs used to carry 
out executions.

Another provision would exempt the Department of Public Safety from the public 
rulemaking process when developing what is commonly referred to as the 
"execution protocol," or how we kill people. That would be developed in secret 
too.

Supporters of the bill defend the secrecy provision as a way to shield the 
company that makes the drugs from litigation and public protests, which makes a 
complete mockery of the public records laws. The new mantra appears to be that 
only information about state activities that doesn't reflect badly on selected 
people or institutions should be released.

The bill also allows medical professionals other than doctors to monitor the 
execution process because doctors, who take an oath to do no harm, refuse to be 
there.

There's a reason the death penalty supporters want more secrecy in how the 
state puts people to death. Gruesomely botched executions in other states have 
called into question the drugs used in the procedure and prompted more calls to 
take a longer look at what Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun famously called 
the machinery of death.

The legislation is part of the longstanding effort by current House and Senate 
leaders to resume executions as quickly as possible. Rep. Leo Daughtry 
complained to a House committee recently that some people have been on death 
row for 20 years.

That's an especially bizarre comment to make in the wake of the exoneration 
last year of death row inmate Henry McCollum, who spent 30 years awaiting his 
execution for a rape and murder he did not commit before he was released along 
with his half-brother Leon Brown after DNA evidence found that another man 
committed the crime.

Surely Daughtry and his colleagues are glad they didn't resume executions 
before McCollum's exoneration.

The folks running the General Assembly for the last 5 years have passed several 
bills they claim would speed up executions including a repeal of the Racial 
Justice Act, a law enacted to provide another avenue to address the racial bias 
that infects the capital punishment system.

The obsession with the jumpstarting death penalty is a hard one to understand.

The public is increasingly uncomfortable with the state putting someone to 
death. An ABC News poll last year found that a majority of Americans favored 
life in prison without parole instead of the death penalty for 1st degree 
murder.

Then there are cases like McCollum's, shocking reminders of the flaws in the 
system that determines who lives and who dies. The death penalty does not deter 
crime and it costs more than a system of life in prison without parole.

And it demeans us all for our government to intentionally take a human life in 
our name to show that taking a human life is wrong. That's why many countries 
abolished capital punishment years ago and why the legislature in Nebraska 
abolished it earlier this year.

Executing people in the middle of the night in a secret process with secret 
drugs from secret companies has nothing do with "restoring proper justice."

But we need more than just a veto from Gov. McCrory.

It's time to shut down the machinery of death in North Carolina for good. The 
state should simply not be in the business of killing people.

(source: Chris Fitzsimon is the founder and director of N.C. Policy Watch, a 
liberal public policy think tank and a project of the N.C. Justice 
Center----reflector.com)






FLORIDA:

Case Targets Florida Death Penalty Sentencing


The U.S. Supreme Court this fall will hear arguments in a challenge to the way 
Florida sentences people to death - a challenge backed by 3 former Florida 
Supreme Court justices and the American Bar Association.

The case, which stems from the 1998 murder of an Escambia County fast-food 
worker, focuses on the role that juries play in recommending death sentences, 
which ultimately are imposed by judges.

Attorneys representing death row inmate Timothy Lee Hurst, including former 
U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, contend that Florida's unique sentencing 
system is unconstitutional.

Supporting that position in friend-of-the-court briefs are former Florida 
Supreme Court justices Harry Lee Anstead, Rosemary Barkett and Gerald Kogan, 
along with the American Bar Association and seven former Florida circuit 
judges.

Part of the argument centers on what are known as "aggravating" circumstances 
that must be found before defendants can be sentenced to death. Hurst's 
attorneys argue, in part, that a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling requires that 
determination of such aggravating circumstances be "entrusted" to juries, not 
to judges.

Also, they take issue with Florida not requiring unanimous jury recommendations 
in death-penalty cases. A judge sentenced Hurst to death after receiving a 7-5 
jury recommendation.

"Florida juries play only an advisory role," Hurst's attorneys wrote in a May 
brief.

"The jury recommends a sentence of life or death based on its assessment of 
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, but that recommendation has no 
binding effect. Moreover, the jury renders its advisory verdict under 
procedures that degrade the integrity of the jury's function. Unanimity, and 
the deliberation often needed to achieve it, is not necessary; only a bare 
majority vote is required to recommend a death sentence."

But in an earlier brief, attorneys for the state argued that the U.S. Supreme 
Court and the Florida Supreme Court have repeatedly denied challenges to the 
sentencing process, including the Florida Supreme Court rejecting Hurst's 
challenge. The state attorneys argued that a jury, in recommending the death 
penalty, has found facts that support at least one aggravating factor - which 
can be the basis for sentencing a defendant to death.

"Therefore, because the jury returned a recommendation of death, this court may 
infer the jury did find at least 1 aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable 
doubt," state attorneys wrote in a January brief in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court this week scheduled oral arguments in the case for Oct. 
13, according to an online docket. The court agreed in March to take up the 
case.

Hurst, now 36, was convicted in the 1998 murder of Cynthia Lee Harrison, who 
was an assistant manager at a Popeye's Fried Chicken restaurant where Hurst 
worked. Harrison's body was discovered bound in a freezer, and money was 
missing from a safe, according to a brief in the case.

In sentencing Hurst to death, a judge found 2 aggravating circumstances - that 
the murder was committed during a robbery and that it was "especially heinous, 
atrocious or cruel," according to the brief filed by Hurst's attorneys. That 
brief, along with others in the case, were posted on an American Bar 
Association website and on SCOTUSblog, which closely tracks U.S. Supreme Court 
proceedings.

Much of the October hearing could focus on how to apply the 2002 U.S. Supreme 
Court decision - a major case known as Ring v. Arizona - to the Florida law. 
Hurst's attorneys contend that the 2002 decision held that "findings of fact 
necessary to authorize a death sentence may not be entrusted to the judge." 
They said Florida's system undermines the juries' constitutional "functions as 
responsible fact-finder and voice of the community's moral judgment."

The brief filed on behalf of Anstead, Barkett and Kogan raised similar 
arguments and said there is "no assurance that Florida death sentences are 
premised on a particular aggravating circumstance found by the jury."

"And because jury unanimity is not mandated during the sentencing process, 
there is no assurance that a Florida jury's death recommendation represents a 
reliable consensus of the community," the brief said.

"As a consequence, (the former justices) believe that the jury's role is 
impermissibly denigrated and that there is an unacceptable risk that Florida 
death sentences are erroneously imposed, in violation of the Sixth and the 
Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States."

(source: Space Coast Daily)






NEBRASKA:

Death penalty group 'cautiously optimistic' about signatures


Organizers of a campaign to reinstate Nebraska's death penalty say they're 
cautiously optimistic that they'll gather enough signatures to place the issue 
on the 2016 ballot, triggering a showdown with opponents who pledge to wage a 
strong campaign of their own.

Nebraskans for the Death Penalty has less than a month remaining to gather 
about 58,000 signatures before the Aug. 27 submission deadline. The group was 
launched on June 1, with heavy financial backing from Gov. Pete Ricketts and 
his father, TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts.

"I don't want to discount the sheer magnitude of what it takes to get out and 
collect signatures, but it has gone well," said Chris Peterson, a spokesman for 
Nebraskans for the Death Penalty. "We're cautiously optimistic that we're going 
to be successful."

Peterson declined to release the specific number collected but said the 
campaign has received signatures from all counties except Sioux County in 
northwestern Nebraska.

Peterson said the campaign has relied on several hundred petition circulators, 
both paid and volunteer. The volunteers include the parents of Andrea Kruger, 
one of four people fatally shot by Nikko Jenkins in Omaha in 2013, and Vivian 
Tuttle, whose daughter Evonne Tuttle was murdered during a botched 2002 bank 
robbery in Norfolk. Lincoln Strategy Group, an Arizona consultant hired by the 
group, is managing the campaign's paid circulators.

If the measure reaches the ballot, voters could repeal a law approved by the 
Legislature in May, when senators overrode Ricketts' veto by the narrowest 
possible margin. Nebraska was the 1st traditionally conservative state to 
abolish the death penalty since North Dakota in 1973.

To prevent the law from going into effect before the 2016 election, Nebraskans 
for the Death Penalty would have to collect about 115,000 signatures. In either 
case, the signatures must come from at least 5 % of the registered voters in 38 
of Nebraska's 93 counties.

Peterson said petition circulators have worked at county fairs, concerts, 
parades, rodeos, ice cream socials and sporting events, and set up tables 
outside of courthouses and other government buildings. Some events have 
generated hundreds of signatures, he said, while others turned out to be duds.

"Last weekend we had volunteers at a county fair, and they got nowhere," he 
said. "Then they went to a fair in a neighboring county and did great."

State Sen. Mike Groene of North Platte, a volunteer with Nebraskans for the 
Death Penalty, said circulators in Lincoln County have already gathered 
signatures from about 12 % of the county's registered voters, placing them well 
over the minimum threshold if those signatures are deemed valid.

Groene said the group is seeking more to account for signatures that are 
declared invalid, and to demonstrate strong support in favor of letting voters 
decide the issue. Groene said he has circulated petitions in seven western 
Nebraska counties, and plans to travel to Chase and Dundy counties in 
mid-August.

"People run to us when they see us," he said. "We want to send a strong 
message."

Death penalty opponents said they have sent observers to petition sites to 
watch for fraud and ensure that circulators are following state law. They also 
will campaign against the death penalty if the issue is approved for the 
ballot, said Danielle Conrad, who is leading the Nebraskans for Public Safety 
campaign against the referendum.

"Our campaign has received an incredible positive outpouring of support from 
conservative leaders, faith groups, victims' families and traditional death 
penalty opponents that allows us to prepare a strong and competitive effort for 
a general election campaign if needed," said Conrad, a former state senator and 
current executive director of the ACLU of Nebraska.

Another group, Nebraskans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, is working to 
appeal to voters with arguments that the death penalty system is broken, too 
expensive and runs counter to pro-life values. Nebraska hasn't executed an 
inmate since 1997, and has never carried out an execution with the current 
lethal injection protocol because of appeals and problems obtaining the 
required drugs.

"We'll definitely continue as long as necessary," said Matt Maly, a group 
spokesman who represents anti-death penalty conservatives. "If (death penalty 
supporters) are able to get the required number of signatures, it will be a 
full-on campaign."

(source: Associated Press)






CALIFORNIA:

Stanislaus County judge removes himself from death penalty case


A Stanislaus County judge has removed himself from a death penalty case he has 
presided over for the past 6 years, but it's not exactly clear why he's 
recusing himself now.

A minute order filed July 24 indicates Superior Court Judge John Freeland will 
no longer participate in any proceedings involving the case of Mark Edward 
Mesiti, who is accused of killing his 14-year-old daughter, Alycia Mesiti.

Authorities on March 25, 2009, discovered the girl's body buried in the 
backyard of a Ceres home where Mesiti's family lived when the girl disappeared 
in August 2006. He had already moved to Southern California when the girl's 
remains were found.

Along with the capital murder charge, Mesiti is charged with more than 40 
counts of sexually abusing his daughter, as well as sexual abuse charges 
involving 2 other girls, according to a criminal grand jury indictment. The 
defendant has pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied all special 
circumstances allegations.

Freeland on Friday did not comment about his recusal. Court Executive Officer 
Rebecca Fleming said the state's judicial ethics code prohibits him from making 
any public comment about his decision. The filed minute order only indicates 
that the judge is recusing himself but not his reason for doing so.

Martin Baker, one of Mesiti's attorneys, on Tuesday filed a formal request, 
asking the court - specifically Freeland - for a written statement indicating 
the judge's grounds for recusal. The defense attorney also is asking the court 
when Freeland realized when he could no longer preside over the case.

It was unclear Friday how the court will respond to the defense???s request. 
Court officials said there is no other document filed by the judge that 
provides his reason for leaving the case.

The filed minute order refers to a portion of Code of Civil Procedure as the 
basis for the judge's recusal. That portion of the civil code allows recusal 
when the judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity 
to be impartial, or when a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain 
a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

The case has been mired in numerous postponements, requests for new defense 
attorneys, legal challenges by the Sheriff's Department over jail issues, the 
removal of the lead prosecutor and her reinstatement in the case, and reviews 
by an appellate court.

Freeland came under scrutiny in fall 2013 when prosecutors disqualified the 
judge more than 500 times in a few months, moving their cases out of his 
courtroom. By spring 2014, Freeland had been reassigned to civil court.

Fleming has said the District Attorney's Office's actions had nothing to do 
with Freeland's transfer to civil court. She explained that Freeland's previous 
experience as a civil case attorney made him perfect to replace a retiring 
civil court judge.

District Attorney Birgit Fladager has said Freeland had upset her prosecutors 
for too long, so she ordered them to reject Freeland in all new criminal 
matters, which is an attorney's right to be exercised only when cases begin. 
She also has said her office's response to Freeland's performance might have 
played a role in the decision to move him out of criminal court.

Judge Ricardo Cordova has spoken in support of his colleague, telling The 
Modesto Bee that Freeland does plenty of research before making a ruling and 
works hard to be fair to both sides.

"Judge Freeland is one of the most conscientious judges we have," Cordova said 
in March 2013. "He does his best to do the right thing. This criticism of him 
is unwarranted."

While Freeland has been handling civil cases for more than a year, he continued 
to preside over the Mesiti murder case. Court officials said Freeland would 
stick with the Mesiti case because the defendant faces the death penalty.

A few months after the girl's body was found at her Alexis Court home in Ceres, 
prosecutors filed charges against Mesiti. Freeland was then assigned as the 
judge in the case.

The defendant and the rest of his family by then had moved to Los Angeles, 
where he was arrested and later convicted in 2011 of manufacturing 
methamphetamine. Prosecutors here waited 2 years before Mesiti's case in Los 
Angeles concluded, and he was returned to Stanislaus County to face charges in 
his daughter's death.

Judge Freeland in August 2013 removed Chief Deputy District Attorney Annette 
Rees from the case. The judge said at the time that defense plans to call Rees 
as a witness in the trial presented a conflict of interest.

About a year later, a 3-judge appellate panel determined that Freeland erred in 
his decision to remove Rees and reinstated the prosecutor. The appellate court 
said a conflict of interest does not exist if Freeland doesn't believe Mesiti's 
claims are true. The defendant testified in an evidentiary hearing that Rees 
was reluctant to prosecute another man accused of molesting Alycia. That man, 
Gregory Joseph Ulrich, later pleaded no contest to molesting Alycia in 2005.

Several attorneys have been appointed to represent Mesiti; some have asked to 
be removed from the case because of conflicts of interest. Mesiti has asked the 
court to replace his attorneys several times, which result in lengthy 
closed-door court hearings so that the judge can learn why the defendant wants 
new attorneys.

Mesiti is currently legally represented by Baker and Doug Maner. State law 
allows defendants in death penalty cases to have two court-appointed attorneys. 
Rees remains the lead prosecutor in the case.

After Freeland's transfer to civil court, the hearings in the Mesiti case were 
held in whatever courtroom was available in the afternoon.

Each time, he would leave the civil courthouse on H and 10th streets in 
downtown Modesto and head over to the criminal courtrooms on 11th and H 
streets. After a series of delays, the judge instructed court staffers not to 
call for him until all the attorneys in the Mesiti case were in the courtroom 
and ready to proceed.

In March, Baker told Judge Freeland that jail officials were depriving Mesiti 
of his "constitutional right to meaningfully participate in his own defense." 
Mesiti wanted jail officials to unshackle him while he meets with his attorneys 
inside the jail. His attorneys have argued it's difficult for Mesiti to review 
thousands of documents relating to more than 50 criminal charges listed in the 
indictment.

On April 1, Freeland ordered the jail's staff to unshackle Mesiti's writing 
hand after his other shackles are secured to the floor inside the room. Because 
this is a death penalty case, the judge said the defendant needs to be able to 
point to and refer to the thousands of documents in his case.

The judge, however, said his ruling only applied to the Mesiti case. He told 
the attorneys he would have made a different decision in a case involving less 
serious charges and possible punishment.

On April 20, the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department filed an appeal. On May 
5, Freeland reversed his ruling on the shackling issue, and the state's 5th 
District Court of Appeal dropped the matter because the judge had already 
vacated the order. Freeland said he reconsidered his initial ruling after 
determining that handcuffing both of the defendant's hands is a valid jail 
security regulation, according to court documents.

Prosecutors obtained a criminal grand jury indictment against Mesiti, so the 
case would skip the preliminary hearing phase and move straight to trial. 
Nearly 2 years passed before Mesiti was arraigned on the indictment.

Mesiti's trial cannot be scheduled until his attorneys have a chance to 
challenge the evidence presented to the grand jury behind closed doors. The 
attorneys will get that chance on Aug. 25 in a hearing with Judge Thomas Zeff.

Court officials on Friday said Judge Dawna Reeves has been assigned to handle 
all other matters in the Mesiti case, including the trial. The defendant is 
scheduled to return to court Thursday for a hearing in Reeves' courtroom. 
Mesiti remains in custody at the jail.

(source: Modesto Bee)






USA:

Death penalty by the numbers


The historic roots of capital punishment in America date back to the colonial 
period. The first recorded execution took place in 1608, when Captain George 
Kendall was executed by a firing squad for mutiny. At the outbreak of the 
Revolutionary War in 1775, all 13 colonies had the death penalty. In 1787, the 
newly formed United States of America established a constitution that 
acknowledged the death penalty.

The Fifth, Eighth, and 10th Amendments have all been interpreted by various 
courts to support capital punishment and to allow each state to decide whether 
or not to use the death penalty. In 1790, the First Congress passed the 
Punishment of Crimes Act making certain federal crimes punishable by death. The 
crimes included treason, counterfeiting, murder, robbery, among others. The 1st 
federal execution occurred on June 25, 1790, in Massachusetts.

M. Watt Epsy Jr. and John Ortiz Smykla spent 32 years assembling information on 
the history of state-sanctioned executions in America from 1608 through 2002. 
To say the least, their findings are fascinating. At times they are also quite 
disturbing. Let's take a look at some of the statistical highlights.

Over the 394 years covered by the study, there were a total of 15,269 
executions at both the state and federal levels. The racial breakdown was as 
follows: 50.5 % black; 43.5 % white, 2.5 % Hispanic; 2.5 % Native American; 1 % 
Asian.

The top 5 occupations of those executed were: 11.5 % slaves; 3.8 % general 
laborers; 2.4 % farmhands; 2.2 % farmers; and 1.1 % farm laborers. Among other 
occupations the list includes 118 soldiers, 92 seamen, 68 pirates, 50 
housewives, 31 clergy/preachers, 19 doctors, 12 attorneys, and 11 policemen.

The breakdown of the top five crimes committed is as follows: 81.8 % murder; 
6.7 % rape; 1.9 % slave revolt; 1.7 % home break-in; 1.1 % robberies. Other 
noteworthy crimes included piracy, arson, horse stealing, forgery, aiding a 
runaway slave, concealing a birth and adultery.

The manner of the executions between the years 1608 through 2002 were: 61.3 
percent hanged; 29% electrocuted; 4.1 % lethal injection; 4 % gas chamber; 1 % 
firing squad; 0.4 % burned; 0.1 % bludgeoned on wheel; and 0.1 % 
gibbeted/hanged in chains. One person was pressed between 2 heavy objects.

To give you an idea of how the manner of executions has changed over the years, 
between the years 1900 to 1999 the breakdown is: 53.6 % electrocution; 33.4% 
hanged; 7.3 % gas chamber; 5.3 % lethal injection; and 0.4 % firing squad.

Of the 15,269 people executed, the ages of 7,311 were recorded and were: 44 
percent 20 to 29; 27.5 % 30 to 39; 13.5 % 40 to 49; 8 % 12 to 19; 5.2 % 50 to 
59; .3 % 70 to 79. Two individuals between the ages of 80 to 89 were executed. 
Of those executed 97.6 % were men and 2.4 % were women.

The statistical breakdown for the 5 states that executed the most prisoners 
during the 394 years is: Virginia 1,361; New York 1,130; Pennsylvania 1,043; 
Texas 1,031; and Georgia 976.

To indicate more current trends, between the years 1992 to 2002 the breakdown 
for the 5 states that executed the most prisoners is: Texas 238; Virginia 73; 
Missouri 50; Oklahoma 50; Florida 27.

The racial breakdown of those executed by the 5 states that executed the most 
prisoners is as follows:

Virginia: 82.2 % black; 16 % white; .5 Hispanic; 0.2 % Native American; 1.1 % 
unknown

New York: 68.8 % white; 20.1 % black; 1.8 % Hispanic; 0.9 % Asian; 0.7 % Native 
American; 8 % unknown

Pennsylvania: 65.5 % white; 21.2 % black; 0.3 % Asian; 0.35 Native American; 
12.2 % unknown

Texas: 52.9 % black; 33.9 % white; 10 % Hispanic; 0.5 % Native American; 0.2 % 
Asian; 1.6 % unknown

Georgia; 75.25 black; 22.8 % white; 0.6 % Native American; 1.4 % unknown.

The June 8 edition of Time ran an article on capital punishment that provides 
some updated information. The vast majority of states, 32, still permit capital 
punishment. However, from Jan. 1, 2014, up through June 8, 2015, only 5 states 
carried out the 49 executions. The list includes Texas, Missouri, Florida, 
Oklahoma and Georgia.

The process of determining guilt and executing an inmate is very slow. Of the 
14 people executed between Jan. 1, 2015 and June 8, 2015, 5 were on death row 
20 to 30 years, 5 others from 15 to 19 years, and the remaining 4 for at least 
10 years.

The year 2014 witnessed the fewest number of executions in 20 years.

Although there are 60 inmates on federal death row, only three federal 
prisoners have been executed over the past 50 years. The last federal execution 
took place 12 years ago.

Since 1975, because of improved scientific testing, more than 150 prisoners 
sitting on death row have been exonerated and set free.

According to a 2014 Time poll, 63 % of Americans continue to support the death 
penalty while 33 % oppose it.

Next week, we'll look at the arguments in favor of capital punishment.

(source: Bill Pesch is a family law attorney with the Guam Family Law Office in 
Hagatna----Pacific Daily News)