[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----KAN., OKLA., NEB., COLO., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 19



KANSAS:

Cross leaves some potential jurors in tears


Some potential jurors left the courtroom in tears Tuesday after a white 
supremacist questioned them.

Prosecutors will continue jury selection Tuesday in the capital murder trial 
against the man accused of murdering 3 people in a hate-fueled rampage.

Frazier Glenn Cross, an avowed white supremacist, has admitted that he went to 
the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City and Village Shalom 
retirement home with the plan to kill Jews since he is dying from a lung 
disease.

Jury selection continued Tuesday in the Jewish community shootings that left 3 
dead.

Frazier Glenn Cross, who ran for office in Missouri as Glenn Miller, has 
admitted that he went to the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City and 
Village Shalom retirement home with the plan to kill Jews since he is dying 
from a lung disease. He wound up killing 3 Christians.

He is acting as his own attorney in his trial, which means he can directly 
question potential jurors about their beliefs.

Prosecutors say they will seek the death penalty if he is found guilty, and 
Cross wants to use the trial to promote his brand of hate.

Because of the extensive coverage of the case, an unusually large pool of 200 
potential jurors has been called. Jury selection is expected to take about a 
week.

Eventually, 17 jurors will be chosen. That includes 5 alternates. The trial is 
expected to last at least 2 weeks.

Cross questioned potential jurors on Tuesday after their political beliefs and 
even their thoughts on World War II.

Some were clearly frustrated by the questions.

Those who believe Cross is guilty were dismissed and those morally opposed to 
the death penalty were also dismissed. Cross attacked the patriotism of a woman 
who is against the death penalty, saying she must not be a law-abiding citizen 
because it's the law of the land.

Among the questions that Cross posed today was whether the "white race has the 
right to survive." He also wanted to know whether jurors believe the money 
spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was to protect America or Israel.

Cross has chronic emphysema and has been using a wheelchair and oxygen during 
courtroom proceedings since his April 2014 arrest in the shootings.

All 3 of the victims of the April 13 rampage were Christians who were active in 
their churches. William Lewis Corporon, 69, his 14-year-old grandson, Reat 
Griffin Underwood and 53-year-old Terri LaManno were killed.

They potential jurors have been asked if they have an extreme hardship that 
prevents them from serving, like a vacation that is already paid for, medical 
issues, a work-related trip or will be out of town.

(source: kctv5.com)






OKLAHOMA:

US appeals court upholds death penalty in double homicide


A federal appeals court has upheld the death penalty of an Oklahoma man 
convicted in the shooting deaths of 2 men.

In a divided opinion Tuesday, a 3-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of 
Appeals upheld the death sentence of 51-year-old Phillip Hancock of Guthrie. 
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals previously upheld Hancock's 1st-degree 
murder convictions and death sentence.

An Oklahoma County jury convicted Hancock of the April 27, 2001, shooting 
deaths of 37-year-old Robert L. Jett Jr. and 58-year-old James V. Lynch. 
Defense attorneys had argued Hancock was in a fight with the victims and shot 
them in self-defense.

Among other things, the federal appeals court rejected assertions that the 
trial court misled Hancock's jury with what Hancock's attorneys claimed were 
unwarranted legal instructions on self-defense.

(source: Associated Press)

****************** Faith leaders appeal to Fallin to stop Glossip execution


Faith leaders from Oklahoma and Louisiana are trying every legal and religious 
move they can muster to prevent the state-mandated execution of Richard 
Glossip.

Glossip, now 51, has contended for the past 17 years he did not kill or hire 
anyone else to murder Barry Van Treece, owner of 2 motels in Oklahoma City and 
Tulsa.

Although prosecutors and the homicide detectives who worked the case firmly 
believe in Glossip's guilt, faith leaders like Sister Helen Prejean are just as 
convinced the former motel manager is innocent. Glossip was employed as the 
night manager for the Best Budget Inn which Van Treece owned. Prejean told Red 
Dirt Report that Pope Francis is aware of the Glossip case and is "praying for 
everyone in Oklahoma," including Gov. Mary Fallin.

Fallin issued a statement last week that she would not consider any more stays 
of execution for Glossip, a comment that drew criticism from capital punishment 
foes.

Prejean befriended Glossip and has visited and prayed with him several times on 
Oklahoma's death row in McAlester where he is scheduled to die by lethal 
injection on Sept. 16. Prejean, an outspoken critic of capital punishment, said 
Glossip was convicted twice because of ineffective attorneys and an overzealous 
district attorney in Bob Macy, who is deceased. The 1st conviction in 1998 was 
overturned because of ineffective counsel. He was convicted a 2nd time 7 years 
later.

The 2 assistant district attorneys who prosecuted Glossip - Connie Smothermon 
and Gary Ackley - did not return phone calls for comment. Ackley retired from 
the DA's office and Smothermon is now a law professor at the University of 
Oklahoma.

While Glossip was given the death penalty in the alleged murder-for-hire 
scheme, Justin Sneed worked a deal with prosecutors and was sentenced to life 
in prison without parole for beating Van Treece with a baseball bat at the Best 
Budget Inn in Oklahoma City.

"The jury only heard from Justin Sneed who was a jailhouse snitch and the man 
who actually killed Barry Van Treece. They relied solely on his testimony," 
Prejean said in a telephone interview from her New Orleans home. "Then, if you 
don't have a good defense attorney you don't get your message out there and 
evidence is made to disappear after all these years."

Without speaking directly about the Glossip case, the Most Rev. Paul S. 
Cloakley, Archbishop for the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, called upon 
Oklahoma's political leaders to abolish the death penalty.

"Our faith impels us to call for the building up of a culture of life where 
every human life is valued from conception to natural end. The use of the death 
penalty, in any form, diminishes us all, and oftentimes provides little comfort 
to families and survivors who have suffered through these violent acts," he 
said. "We cannot substitute vengeance for justice."

Members of the Oklahoma Conference of Churches reportedly are trying to meet 
with Fallin to share their concerns that an innocent man will be executed. No 
firm date has been set.

Justice has been elusive for Glossip, Prejean said.

"But that's the justice system we have," she said, referring to police and 
prosecutors who want a quick arrest and conviction.

"Richard Glossip didn't have so much as a traffic ticket. He wound up on death 
row solely on the word of Justin Sneed. How we got to this point is 
outrageous," she said.

However, Prejean remains hopeful that either Fallin will grant Glossip a 
reprieve or the U.S. Supreme Court will order a special hearing.

"If neither of those happens, Richard Glossip [ an innocent man - will die on 
Sept. 16," she said. "That will be on everybody's head from (homicide 
detective) Bob Bemo to the prosecutors to the governor."

Brady Henderson, legal director for American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, 
said Glossip's scheduled execution is "most troubling" because the facts are 
undisputed that Glossip did not kill Van Treece.

"At least in the last 2 executions there was no compelling doubt they had 
killed. There was nothing left on the table in court. So when Richard Glossip 
is executed, Justin Sneed will be sitting in prison and will not be executed," 
he said. "The person who murdered Barry Van Treece will still be alive."

In this case, Oklahoma's legal system allows someone to be executed on evidence 
that is "ambivalent at best."

"Contrast that to the Colorado theater shooting case where the defendant is 
going to remain alive. That's a problematic issue surrounding the death 
penalty," Henderson said.

According to his own appeals attorneys and Prejean, Glossip lied to police 
during their investigation, a mistake that he has regretted the past 17 years. 
His supporters say Glossip should have told police early in the murder probe 
that Sneed, a handyman who lived at the motel, confessed to him about killing 
Van Treece.

After being pressured by homicide detectives, Sneed said he was paid by Glossip 
to kill Van Treece for fear the motel owner would fire both men because of 
missing motel receipts and money.

"There's no doubt you could say Glossip is guilty of serious violations after 
the murder occurred, but has he done things that allow him to be executed?" 
Henderson asked. "At this point, it's sad the legal system has let it go this 
far."

Glossip's appellate attorney Don Knight of Littleton, Colo., was out of town 
and unavailable for comment.

Sneed's daughter, O'Ryan Justine Sneed, wrote a letter in October 2014 
indicating that her father wanted to recant his testimony from the 2 trials, 
but feared reprisals from law enforcement officials.

"My father told me he said what he had to say to the police to stay in my 
life," she wrote in the letter. "He was backed into a corner, facing being 
charged with the death penalty, but was offered a plea agreement of life 
without parole to testify against Mr. Glossip. I feel he is holding important 
facts about Mr. Glossip's case in fear of losing his own deal."

The letter's last paragraph reads, "I'm writing today to ask for clemency for 
Mr. Richard E. Glossip, and to please not execute an innocent man. 1 innocent 
life has already been taken by my father's actions. A 2nd one doesn't deserve 
to be taken as well."

(source: reddirtreport.com)






NEBRASKA:

Former City Administrator Announces Legislative Run


Tuesday morning, former city administrator Zack Zoul announced he will be 
running for a legislative seat representing Grand Island and replacing Senator 
Mike Gloor.

"Today, I'm pleased to announce my candidacy for the Nebraska legislature to 
serve as Senator representing Grand Island," said Zoul.

He wants to focus on the state's economy, saying it needs to be diversified.

"Nebraska has one of the smallest outlays for economic development purposes, so 
I think we have to really put an emphasis on that," said Zoul. "And we need to 
use all of the tools that are at our disposal to accomplish that."

He's passionate about being the voice the city needs even when it comes to hot 
button issues like the death penalty.

"He differs with Mr. - our current Senator on the death penalty, and that's 
good because the death penalty is important to law enforcement. The death 
penalty is important to our county attorneys in Nebraska, and the governor's 
proven that," said Hall County Board of Supervisors supervisors Gary Quandt.

(source: nbcneb.com)






COLORADO:

Death penalty a deterrent, or distraction?


The recent James Holmes death penalty case presented a huge conundrum.

His killing of 12 people and injuring of 70 others when he fired upon a crowded 
theater of movie-goers was profoundly terrible. And yet, to sentence him to 
death, a jury of his peers would have to make the same fateful decision that he 
did to take a human life.

Many people looked at the Holmes conviction and thought if ever there was a 
crime that deserved a death sentence, it was this one. But Colorado is not a 
state where heinous crimes often result in the death penalty.

Since the state reinstated the death penalty in 1975, Colorado has executed 
only 1 person.

Just 3 men are currently on death row in the state, and it may be a long time 
before any of them is put to death as they go through the lengthy appeals 
process. Another man who was sentenced to death is now serving a life sentence 
after an appeals court ruled that jurors improperly looked at an outside 
material - the Bible - when making the decision for death.

The cost of such cases is staggering. The Death Penalty Information Center 
estimates the cost of the Holmes trial has reached $5.5 million so far. The 
Coloradans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty Foundation says that death 
penalty case costs are difficult to accurately account for but can be 20 times 
the cost of prosecuting a similar case where the death penalty is not sought. 
It also costs more to house a prisoner convicted in a death penalty case, that 
group says.

Death penalty cases also can make celebrities out of defendants.

Gov. John Hickenlooper, in calling for public discussion this fall of the 
future of the death penalty in Colorado, said "you create two-bit celebrities 
out of killers and a platform for copy-cat behavior."

It can also make celebrities out of prosecutors, as some Coloradans are now 
questioning the decision of Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler 
to pursue the death penalty against Holmes instead of accepting a plea deal 
that would have spared the state the cost of the Holmes trial and sent him to 
prison for life. Others are now watching to see if Brauchler runs for higher 
office.

Hickenlooper had suggested such a discussion 2 years ago, noting that the state 
should examine the cost of such cases, whether the death penalty is a deterrent 
against crime, what happens if the state executes someone later found to be 
wrongfully convicted (in 2011, Gov. Bill Ritter granted a full and 
unconditional posthumous pardon to Joe Arridy - convicted and executed as an 
accomplice to a murder that occurred in 1936 - saying the overwhelming evidence 
showed he was innocent), as well as issues of fairness (all 3 men currently on 
death row are black) and morality.

The Denver Post reported in 2013 that a review by University of Denver law 
experts of every 1st-degree murder case in Colorado over 12 years found that of 
500 cases meeting the state's criteria for the death penalty, prosecutors 
sought death in only 5, and a University of Colorado-Boulder study looked for 
particularly heinous cases where a death sentence could have been called for 
but was not and found many: "children who were kidnapped, raped and murdered. A 
cocaine addict who killed his wife and 16-month-old son."

The questions the governor raises about the death penalty are valid ones.

It's past time the state begin to talk about the issue.

(source: Editorial, Reporter-Herald)






CALIFORNIA:

Repeated Trial Delays in Grim Sleeper Murder Case Frustrates Families


For the past 5 years Porter Alexander and his family have driven from South Los 
Angeles to the criminal courts building in Downtown Los Angeles. Every 2 weeks, 
they have made the trip to attend pretrial hearings for Grim Sleeper serial 
killer suspect Lonnie Franklin Jr.

Franklin, a married father of 2 and former LAPD mechanic and sanitation worker 
for the city of Los Angeles, was charged in July 2010 with 10 murders and one 
attempted murder. He faces the death penalty for the alleged 23-year murder 
spree that began on Jan. 15, 1984, when Sharon Dismuke was discovered shot in 
the chest in the restroom of an abandoned gas station.

More than 5 years after his arrest, the trial has yet to start, despite pleas 
from victim's family members, including Porter Alexander whose 18-year-old 
daughter Monique was found dead on Sept. 11, 1988, in a South Los Angeles 
alley. She had been sexually assaulted, strangled and shot once in the chest.

"It is frustrating," says Alexander who blames the delays on defense stall 
tactics. "I don't quite understand how the judge is allowing the defense 
attorney to say and do the things he is doing and get away with it. I don't 
understand why the judge allows him to disrespect her and the court. Why are we 
letting him play games with us? It is mind-boggling."

At a court hearing Monday, the repeated trial delays took center stage, with 
Los Angeles prosecutor Beth Silverman criticizing Franklin's defense attorney, 
Seymour Amster, for failing to turn over key witness statements including 
psychiatrists who evaluated Franklin, in a timely manner, calling his tactics 
"pure gamesmanship."

"This is not gamesmanship," retorted Amster at one point during the contentious 
hearing that had victims' family members sighing in frustration. "This is not 
trying to do anything by ambush."

The latest court battle was prompted by Amster giving the prosecution team a 
list of 142 defense witnesses he may call to testify during the trial or 
penalty phase. The witness list includes friends of Franklin who appeared in 
the HBO documentary Tales of the Grim Sleeper, family members of victims of 
Chester Turner, one of several serial killers who preyed on young black women 
in South Los Angeles in the '80s and '90s, as well as people who are dead.

The back and forth bickering between the 2 attorneys caused Los Angeles judge 
Kathleen Kennedy to comment, "Well, apparently there is no love lost between 
you."

"Zero," responded Silverman.

"You know what, your honor?" said Amster. "I would stipulate to that one."

"And I would agree with counsel for the 1st time."

Most of Franklin's alleged victims were shot with a .25-caliber pistol while 
others were strangled. Their bodies were discovered in Dumpsters and alleyways 
along Western Avenue in South Los Angeles, an area known for its cheap motels, 
liquor stores, gambling parlors, auto salvage yards and storefront churches.

His youngest alleged victim, 15-year-old runaway Princess Berthomieux, was 
found strangled in an alley in Inglewood in 2002. He was tied to the cases 
through ballistics and DNA evidence.

Police suspect that he may have killed at least 6 additional women in addition 
to the 10 whose deaths he's charged with.

Franklin, a former corporal in the United States Army, was finally caught 
through familial DNA testing after his 28-year-old son, Christopher, was 
arrested for carrying a weapon in the summer of 2009 and had to give up a DNA 
swab. Once it was determined that Christopher was related to the killer, 
detectives followed the elder Franklin to a pizza place in Long Beach. As 
Franklin finished his meal, a detective who posed as a busboy collected a fork, 
2 plastic cups, a plate and a pizza slice left by Franklin. A few days later, 
DNA taken from the pizza slice came back as a match to DNA found on alleged 
Grim Sleeper victim Barbara Ware.

A new trial date has been set for Oct. 14.

(source: people.com)






USA:

No death penalty for alleged gang chiefs----U.S. decides not to pursue capital 
punishment in San Diego RICO case


The U.S. attorney general has decided it will not pursue the death penalty 
against 2 alleged San Diego gang chiefs accused of sanctioning the killing of a 
fellow gang member they believed was cooperating with police.

Randy Alton Graves and Terry Carry Hollins are charged along with 15 others in 
a wide-ranging racketeering conspiracy involving allegations of violent gang 
activity, from murder to armed robberies to sex trafficking.

The pair are accused of giving the go-ahead for lower-ranking gang members to 
"discipline" Paris Hill, who was shot to death outside a party on March 1, 
2014. Hollins had heard that Hill was talking to police about another killing, 
and called Graves asking what to do, according to the indictment. Graves 
replied that what Hill did was "in violation and violations get dealt with. 
Period. No ifs, ands or buts."

Jermain Gerald Cook and Donald Eugene Bandy are also charged in the killing.

The U.S. Attorney's Office announced last year it was considering making this a 
death penalty case, setting into motion a lengthy process that gives defense 
attorneys the opportunity to argue why their clients don't meet the threshold 
for the most extreme sanction. Death-penalty expert attorneys were appointed to 
aid in the process, and both local prosecutors and defense attorneys presented 
their arguments to the capital case unit at the U.S. Department of Justice in 
Washington, D.C.

On Friday, the government announced it won't be pursuing capital punishment 
against any of the 4 men charged in the killing. No further details were given.

"This should have never been a death penalty case and we're pleased they made 
the right decision," said Graves" attorney, Jeremy Warren.

Federal death penalty cases are extremely rare. The consideration process has 
been done twice in San Diego in recent memory, in 2006 and 2007, and both times 
the death penalty was declined.

(source: San Diego Union-Tribune)

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

State by state, the death penalty is losing ground


When the Connecticut Legislature abolished the state's death penalty three 
years ago, it explicitly left in place the death sentences of those who 
committed their crimes before the repeal. Abolition for future crimes, said the 
Legislature, not for past crimes.

But last week, in a landmark 4-3 decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court found 
that the death penalty violates the state's constitutional ban on cruel and 
unusual punishment, and that abolition must therefore extend to everyone. The 
11 prisoners on the state's death row, plus a 12th man facing a death sentence, 
have been spared.

Although the State of Connecticut vs. Eduardo Santiago ruling definitively bans 
capital punishment in Connecticut, it raises 3 key questions about the death 
penalty nationally.

The 1st question is for the U.S. Supreme Court: How many states must abolish 
the death penalty before the high court will strike it down for good? Whenever 
the high court next turns its attention to the validity of capital punishment, 
it will look to "objective evidence of contemporary values," something much 
discussed in the Santiago case. 19 states have abolished the death penalty. Are 
19 states - as opposed to, say, 26 - sufficient to tip the constitutional 
scales toward invalidation nationally?

The Connecticut Supreme Court's 92-page majority opinion suggests that the 
answer should be yes. "If the legally salient metaphor is the evolution of our 
standards of decency," write the Connecticut justices, "then a gradual but 
inexorable extinction may be as significant as the sociological equivalent of 
the meteor that, it is believed, suddenly ended the reign of the dinosaurs."

In short, abolition does not need a majority; 19 should do. This is especially 
true given that most states retaining the death penalty are retentionist in 
name only. "Of the 35 executions carried out in 2014," the Connecticut Supreme 
Court tells us, "approximately 90% occurred in just 4 states: Texas, Missouri, 
Florida and Oklahoma." These 4 states are the proverbial tail wagging the dog 
of our standards of decency.

The 2nd question is for state legislators throughout the country seeking to 
abolish the death penalty: What now? In many ways, the Connecticut justices 
have strengthened these legislators' arguments by writing far and away the most 
persuasive testimony in support of repeal.

But the court's decision has also complicated matters. Here's why.

Since 2007, 7 states have abolished the death penalty. Most have done so for 
future crimes only, leaving to governors and parole boards the hard question of 
what to do with prisoners currently on death row. Others are lining up to do 
the same, including Delaware, Kansas, Washington state, Colorado and New 
Hampshire.

According to the Connecticut Supreme Court, however, maintaining the death 
penalty after repeal is unconstitutional. If legislatures are going to repeal 
the death penalty, they have to do it for everyone, or the court will do it for 
them.

Nebraska public officials, meanwhile, have argued just the opposite. When 
Nebraska abolished its death penalty this year, for future and previous crimes, 
its governor and attorney general cried foul, saying that the Legislature's 
repeal of the death penalty for people on death row violated the governor's 
power to commute sentences.

Legislators are now in a pickle. According to Connecticut's high court, it is 
unconstitutional for a legislature to leave people on death row after repeal; 
it violates "evolving standards of decency." Nebraska's governor and attorney 
general argue, though, that it would violate the constitutional separation of 
powers for a legislature not to leave those convicts on death row.

Both can't be right. The Connecticut ruling has yielded a puzzle that 
legislatures, governors and courts will be sorting out for some time.

The 3rd question is for all of us: Do we, as a society, approve of vengeance? 
Supporters of the death penalty say that a legitimate desire for closure and 
restoration of moral order motivates the death penalty, not vengeance. But that 
is nonsense. The primary reason that Connecticut's Legislature retained the 
death penalty for those on death row in 2012, Connecticut's justices tell us, 
was "to placate the public's desire to exact vengeance" on 2 particular 
offenders, "the much reviled perpetrators of the widely publicized 2007 home 
invasion and murder of three members of Cheshire's Petit family."

The court noted in its ruling that one of Connecticut's state senators 
suggested they be lynched: "They should bypass the trial [in the Cheshire case] 
and take that 2nd animal and hang him by his penis from a tree out in the 
middle of Main Street."

This is the festival of cruelty that the death penalty incites. Do we approve, 
or have we evolved?

(source: Op-Ed; Kevin M. Barry is a professor of law and a civil rights 
attorney, specializing in legislative advocacy and litigation in support of 
death penalty abolition----Los Angeles Times)

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

Death Penalty Struck Down: Today Connecticut, Tomorrow The Whole Country?


Sometimes the most effective public interest lawyers wear robes.

12 years ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down an opinion 
in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that legalized same-sex marriage in 
Massachusetts. The lead opinion, penned by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and 
joined by 2 of her colleagues (with a 3rd colleague concurring), relied on the 
Massachusetts constitution's equal-protection and due-process provisions to 
extend marriage rights to same-sex couples throughout the Commonwealth. (The 
winning lawyer, by the way? Mary Bonauto.)

3 justices dissented. Justice Martha B. Sosman's dissent contained some 
language that, in hindsight at least, seems particularly interesting: "As a 
matter of social history, today's opinion may represent a great turning point 
that many will hail as a tremendous step toward a more just society. As a 
matter of constitutional jurisprudence, however, the case stands as an 
aberration."

Back then, some people (myself included) agreed with the Goodridge majority 
that there was no rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples; 
however, many - probably more - people shared the dissent's position that the 
lead Goodridge opinion appeared to be result-driven and was something of an 
analytical stretch.

Of course, the dissent's language is interesting in hindsight precisely because 
what might have been a jurisprudential "aberration" 12 years ago now applies to 
the entire United States, after the Supreme Court relied on the United States 
Constitution's Equal Protection and Due Process clauses to extend marriage 
rights to same-sex couples throughout the country.

Now perhaps that scenario - a state-court "aberration" becoming the law of the 
land - will repeat itself in a different context.

Just last week, the Connecticut Supreme Court handed down an opinion in State 
v. Santiago and eliminated the death penalty in Connecticut. The lead opinion, 
penned by Justice Richard Palmer and joined by of his colleagues, relied on the 
Connecticut constitution's cruel-and-unusual-punishment provision to strike 
down Connecticut's death penalty in toto, finding 3 that it "fails to comport 
with contemporary standards of decency" and "is devoid of any legitimate 
penological justifications."

3 justices dissented. Justice Carmen Elisa Espinosa's dissent contained some 
particularly interesting language:

"The majority's decision to exceed this court's limited power appears to be 
designed to eliminate capital punishment in this state. Rather than faithfully 
applying a true contemporary standards analysis, the majority applies only the 
appearance of such an analysis, selecting for consideration only those aspects 
of each factor that support its conclusion."

Some people (myself included) agree that the death penalty should be struck 
down as an Eighth Amendment violation, period. However, many - probably more - 
people share the dissent's position that the Santiago opinion appears to be 
result-driven and is something of an analytical stretch.

The basic parallels between Goodridge and Santiago are obvious. And additional 
context offers additional parallels: Goodridge came immediately on the heels of 
the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which made major strides in 
terms of affording same-sex couples due process protections; Santiago follows a 
15-year trend of restrictions on the death penalty by the Supreme Court, 
including Atkins v. Virginia (no death penalty for the intellectually 
disabled), Roper v. Simmons (no death penalty for children), and Kennedy v. 
Louisiana (generally no death penalty for crimes not involving a victim's 
death).

State courts of last resort take their cues from the Supreme Court, both in 
terms of trends like those and in terms of analytical approaches. Thus even in 
interpreting the Massachusetts constitution, the Goodridge opinion explicitly 
applied the Supreme Court's tests for assessing constitutionality under the 
Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was 
not really an aberration. And even in interpreting the Connecticut 
constitution, the Santiago opinion explicitly applies Supreme Court precedent 
assessing constitutionality under Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the 
Eighth Amendment. It is not really just the "appearance" of an Eighth Amendment 
analysis - it is such an analysis.

Because of this attention to Supreme Court trends and analysis, Santiago could, 
conceivably, serve as a detailed and persuasive amicus brief signed by 4 public 
interest lawyers wearing robes. Just like Goodridge did. And it could, 
conceivably, influence the Supreme Court. Or so say some commenters.

Eventually.

So, given the obvious parallels between Goodridge and Santiago, the next 
question is obvious too: is Santiago a sign that the end of the death penalty 
is near?

We'll see.

(source: Commentary; Sam Wright is a dyed-in-the-wool, bleeding-heart public 
interest lawyer who has spent his career exclusively in nonprofits and 
government----abovehtelaw.com)