[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----CONN., GA., ALA., OHIO, MINN.

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 21




CONNECTICUT:

Justices Had No Choice But to Abolish Death Penalty


Much of the recent criticism of the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in 
State v. Santiago, invalidating what was left of Connecticut's death penalty, 
follows a familiar path. In effect, the court is assailed for being a cabal of 
activist, unelected judges who arrogantly ignore the will of the people. Not so 
fast.

The Santiago decision is not only historically and doctrinally sound, but also 
it shows why judicial review is an indispensable feature of our constitutional 
democracy. The process of constitutional adjudication in the United States is 
unique. Most of the world's democracies subscribe to the notion of 
parliamentary sovereignty. In Great Britain, for example, ultimate lawmaking 
power is vested in a democratically elected parliament, which alone has the 
power to create or abolish any law. Whereas no court in London has the 
authority to invalidate an act of Parliament, we have long believed that 
unqualified deference to legislative enactments endangers constitutional 
rights, even when those rights are claimed by the worst of the worst in our 
society. Had this issue arisen in a country that subscribes to the notion of 
parliamentary sovereignty, no subsequent litigation would follow for parliament 
has spoken. We, on the other hand, recognize that political decisions must 
still square with constitutional principles and that unelected judges are best 
positioned to reconcile questions that intersect constitutional law and party 
politics. At the outset, it is important to note that the Connecticut Supreme 
Court did not invite the question of the continued constitutionality of the 
death penalty in this state. The legislature did when it prospectively repealed 
capital punishment for all crimes committed on or after April 25, 2012. Indeed, 
the Supreme Court previously upheld the constitutionality of the penalty of 
death, declaring that its continued viability in this state was a matter for 
the legislature to determine. In deciding that the death penalty no longer 
served the proper purposes of criminal punishment from April 25, 2012, forward, 
the legislature, I suggest, purposefully relegated the fate of the Cheshire 
killers and 9 others of lesser notoriety to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The 
court, in effect, was conscripted to do what the legislature lacked the votes 
to do spare the Cheshire killers while at the same time ending capital 
punishment in this state.

Even the most cursory analysis, however, shows that the Constitution spared 
these wretched individuals from execution, not a cabal of unelected justices of 
the Connecticut Supreme Court. And that is the great strength of judicial 
review. Faced with the question of whether it would violate the constitutional 
proscription against cruel and unusual punishment to execute death-sentenced 
prisoners after the repeal of the death penalty, the Supreme Court had little 
choice but to answer in the affirmative. And the legislature knew this. No 
state has ever executed a defendant after either the repeal of the death 
penalty itself or a change in capital punishment jurisprudence that would have 
made the defendant ineligible for the death penalty had the change occurred 
before the defendant's death sentence. The likelihood of Connecticut becoming 
an outlier in this regard hovered around zero.

In repealing capital punishment prospectively, the legislature created a legal 
anachronism. The courts have long recognized that a punishment, once accepted, 
could become cruel or unusual in the constitutional sense by dint of disuse. It 
follows that executing any of the men whose crimes predate the April 25 cutoff, 
while others who have committed equally atrocious crimes after April 25 never 
even face such a fate, would be unusually cruel. In effect, it would be little 
more than an act of state-sponsored vengeance, a basis for imposing punishment 
that is categorically rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ironically, had the death penalty been repealed prospectively in the 18th 
century, when the cruel and unusual punishment clause was written into the 
Eighth Amendment, there would be no question that previously sentenced 
prisoners would be relieved of their death sentences. 18th-century 
jurisprudence held that once a punishment is legislatively repealed, or is 
otherwise stripped of public authorization, it becomes a constitutionally 
prohibited unusual punishment. Should 21st century condemned prisoners in 
Connecticut have fewer rights in this regard than their 18th-century 
counterparts?

When the legislature repeals a punishment as unique and irreversible as death, 
it expresses the legislative judgment that state-sanctioned executions no 
longer serve the legitimate ends of the criminal law or satisfy valid societal 
interests. It follows that such profound legislative judgment cannot be applied 
on a prospective-only basis. Our legislature knew this. It simply required that 
our Supreme Court, in the exercise of its constitutional authority of judicial 
review, confirm it. This in turn would allow individual legislators the cover 
to tell their constituents that they did what they could to preserve the death 
penalty for the Cheshire killers but their hard work was undone by an activist, 
unelected court.

We should all take comfort in the fact that in our system, unelected judges 
ensure that political decisions square with constitutional principles, 
especially in extreme cases where the political winds are the strongest.

(source: Commentnary; Robert M. Casale is a criminal defense attorney in New 
Haven with more than 35 years experience in handling capital cases. He is also 
an adjunct professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law---- 
Connecticut Law Tribuine)






GEORGIA:

State to seek death penalty in Cochran case


Family and friends of Day Williamson gathered in the Macon County courtroom on 
Tuesday afternoon hoping to find closure through resolution of the case against 
Charles Andrew Cochran, the man charged with Williamson's murder. After a 20 
minute delay to begin court, and another 2 hour recess at the request of 
Cochran's counsel, Williamson's family learned that the state will now seek the 
death penalty.

Before court began, it was believed that the District Attorney's office and 
Cochran's counsel would be settling on a deal that would offer a life in prison 
sentence for Cochran instead of the death penalty, if Cochran were to plead 
guilty on Tuesday. The plea would avoid a trial and provide closure for the 
family of the victim. But moments before court began, Cochran's lawyer, David 
Belser out of Asheville, informed Superior Court Judge Bill Coward that a 
guilty plea was not possible at the time and requested an additional month to 
continue to work with Cochran.

District Attorney Ashley Welch informed Judge Coward that if Cochran did not 
want to plead guilty at the time, then she would petition the court to move 
forward with a Rule 24 hearing and that the option for no death penalty will no 
longer be available for Cochran.

Judge Coward attempted to address Cochran to ask him if he understood what 
Welch had said, and despite addressing Cochran several times, Cochran did not 
answer the judge's questions and instead stared blankly toward the floor.

A Rule 24 hearing is required to take place before a judge in first degree 
murder cases for the purpose of determining whether the state will seek the 
death penalty in the case.

As Cochran was indicted on 1st degree murder, 1st degree arson, assault by 
strangulation, felony larceny, larceny of a firearm, and possession of a 
firearm by a felon, a Rule 24 hearing was required.

Judge Coward allowed Cochran and his lawyer to meet for an addition 15 minutes 
to discuss Welch's directive of seeking the death penalty if an agreement 
wasn't reached. At 2:25 p.m. Cochran and his lawyer re-entered the courtroom 
and informed Judge Coward that a resolution was not able to be reached, at 
which point Welch formally declared the state would be seeking the death 
penalty.

The charges against Cochran began on July 30 shortly after 9 p.m. when he 
escaped custody at the Macon County Detention Center while taking out the 
trash. After escaping custody, Cochran was involved in a five-day crime spree 
that included the strangulation death of Day Williamson in her Burningtown 
home. Cochran also set fire to Williamson's house before stealing her vehicle 
and fleeing the scene. Prior to escaping custody, Cochran was being held at the 
detention center on non-violent crimes stemming from charges incurred in 
Colorado.

Judge Coward scheduled Cochran's next court appearance for November, at which 
time the court will ensure that Cochran's counsel had adequate time to review 
the 4,000 pages of discoveries in the case. Welch also hopes to be able to 
schedule the case for trial at that time.

(source: Macon County News)






ALABAMA----female gets death sentence

Heather Leavell-Keaton becomes 1st Mobile County woman sentenced to death


Heather Leavell-Keaton, the woman who murdered her common law husband's 
3-year-old son 4 years ago, has become the 1st woman in Mobile County history 
to be sent to death row.

Mobile County Circuit Court Judge Roderick P. Stout sentenced Leavell-Keaton to 
death by lethal injection on Thursday following about 75 minutes of remarks.

In his ruling, Stout said that Keaton failed to protect the children from 
"needless suffering and death and unexplainable malice."

Stout followed the prior sentence recommendation from the jury, which found 
that Leavell-Keaton intentionally killed Chase DeBlase in 2010, but only 
recklessly caused the death of his 4-year-old sister, Natalie DeBlase. 
Prosecutors allege that Leavell-Keaton cooked anti-freeze into the children's 
food.

Their father, John DeBlase, was convicted on multiple counts of capital murder 
in the children's deaths in late 2014 and sentenced to death. Two jurors from 
the John DeBlase trial and five jurors from the Leavell-Keaton trial attended 
the hearing.

Leavell-Keaton, who kept her hair in a braided ponytail, displayed no emotion 
during her sentencing.

The crime

According to prosecutors, the little girl was choked fatally in March 2010 
after being duct-taped and placed in a suitcase which was set in a closet for 
12 hours. Her body was later dumped in a wooded area near Citronelle.

Chase died in June 2010, having been taped to a broom handle and left in the 
corner of the couple's bedroom overnight. He was also choked to death, 
according to testimony, and his body was found in the woods outside Vancleave, 
Miss.

Corrine Heathcock, John DeBlase's ex-wife and the biological mother of both 
children, began to sob hysterically and had to leave the courtroom when Stout 
read the horrific facts of the case.

Following the hearing, Corinne DeBlase said that Chase and Natalie "are in a 
better place right now."

Prosecutors claimed that Leavell-Keaton was jealous of Natalie and bristled 
when friends and family members called her a princess. Chase was murdered 
shortly after he began asking where Natalie was.

"We believe that Heather Keaton ... is a domineering, manipulative, deceitful 
and morally unhinged woman," said Mobile District Attorney Ashley Rich. "Her 
actions are worthy of the death penalty."

'A death penalty is never required'

During the hearing, Rich and her co-counsel, Assistant District Attorney 
Jennifer Wright, kept a sculpture of 2 faceless children on their desk called 
"Sister and Brother." Rich said it was representative of Natalie and Chase 
during the sentencing phase of the trial.

Greg Hughes, Leavell-Keaton's attorney, argued that his client should be spared 
the punishment because "she's a spiritual person now."

"She's into reading the Bible and writing songs and poems and she keeps to 
herself," Hughes said. "She's not going to be someone causing problems."

He also added that Leavell-Keaton grew up in a dysfunctional family, developed 
bipolar disorder at a young age, and lived with a partial blindness throughout 
her life.

"A death penalty is never required no matter how atrocious, how horrible how 
anything is," Hughes said.

(source: al.com)

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

Request for new hearing in Colbert capital case denied


The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals denied a request from a Colbert County 
man sentenced to death in connection with the 2004 capital murder of his wife.

Kim VanPelt filed a Rule 32 petition in 2012 with the Court of Criminal Appeals 
seeking a new trial in his December 2006 capital murder conviction.

In a 104-page ruling, the appellant court denied that request on the basis 
VanPelt failed to meet the burden of proof in any of his claims.

"We're pleased with the ruling," Colbert County District Attorney Bryce Graham 
Jr. said. "He was asking for a new trial, but we felt all along he got a fair 
trial."

VanPelt, 54, of Tuscumbia, was convicted of killing Sandra Ozment VanPelt, 40, 
in order to collect a $300,000 life insurance policy. He was convicted in 
December 2006 and sentenced to death in March 2007.

The victim's body was found Nov. 24, 2004, at the edge of some woods close to 
Marion 53 near Hackleburg. An autopsy revealed she died from suffocation. 
Graham said the death sentence was appropriate for the crime VanPelt committed.

"This was one of the most senseless and heinous crimes we had ever had," Graham 
said.

In their ruling, the court judges pointed out VanPelt's conviction had already 
been upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeals in 2009, and the Alabama Supreme 
Court declined to review the case in 2011.

In the Rule 32 petition, VanPelt alleged the "state had suppressed evidence, a 
juror's untruthful response during voir dire violated his constitutional right 
to a fair and impartial jury, and that he had been denied effective assistance 
of counsel during both the guilt phase and the penalty phase of this trial."

In their ruling, the appellant judges said VanPelt "failed to plead sufficient 
facts" in support of the claim to "satisfy the requirements" of the petition.

The judges went on to say VanPelt's assertions on the issues amounted to 
nothing more than "bare factual allegations" without reference.

Testimony during the trial pointed out VanPelt met his wife on the Internet and 
lived briefly in Muscle Shoals before he reported his wife missing Nov. 22, 
2004.

Prosecutors argued VanPelt killed his wife to collect her life insurance 
policy, which brought the case to the level of capital murder. It also was an 
aggravating factor that, according to state law, made him eligible for the 
death penalty.

(source: Times Daily)






OHIO:

FDA warns Ohio not to illegally import execution drugs


The prison Ohio carries out executions in registered for a DEA license to 
import the drug last year for a "law enforcement goal", but until now it was 
unknown if the state actually intended to use the license.

"Since sodium thiopental is not available in the United States, we assume that 
this product would be purchased from an overseas source", the FDA letter 
stated.

FDA officials had learned that Ohio was looking for large amounts of the lethal 
injection drug, wrote Domenic Veneziano, director of the division of import 
operation.

In an email, state prisons spokeswoman JoEllen Smith declined to say whether 
her agency is still seeking sodium thiopental from outside the United States. 
"This process has included multiple options", Smith said.

BuzzFeed followed up with Ohio corrections department to find out if Harris was 
the planned supplier for Ohio as well.

The state halted use of a mix of midazolam, a powerful sedative, and 
hydromorphone, a painkiller, after Ohio's 1st-in-the-nation try with the drugs 
caused convicted killer Dennis McGuire to repeatedly gasp and snort in a 
26-minute lethal injection procedure.

Numerous 34 death penalty states have measures in place to hide the identities 
of their suppliers in order to protect them.

Berman noted some past court rulings that have blurred the ability of the 
federal government to stop state agencies from enforcing the death penalty, 
including a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Texas could execute a Mexican 
national despite objections from the Bush administration that it violated a 
U.S.-signed treaty. The FDA-approved manufacturer of sodium thiopental stopped 
making the drug in 2011 so that it couldn't be used for this objective.

The purchase of drugs for executions in the United States has become 
increasingly hard.

"Functionally, it can never be achieved under the system that requires them to 
have nonprofessionals using drugs from gray markets or markets that you should 
never be obtaining drugs from", he said. In May Nebraska announced that they 
had paid $54,400 for execution drugs from an Indian company.

(source: Press Examiner)






MINNESOTA:

Momentum growing to end death penalty


On the eve of Valentine's Day in 1906, in the basement of St. Paul's Ramsey 
County Jail, a trap door swung open and convicted killer William Williams, a 
rope cinched around his neck, fell through. The state of Minnesota was carrying 
out its 66th execution - and, as it would turn out, its last and one of its 
most gruesome.

Sheriff Anton Miesen, who attended a dinner party beforehand, had miscalculated 
the length of rope needed. So when Williams fell, his feet hit the ground and 
he was able to push himself back up a bit with his toes. As a result, he didn't 
immediately - or even quickly and certainly not humanely - die. Not even after 
a trio of sheriff's deputies scrambled to the top of the gallows to take turns 
pulling on the rope to strangle him.

Such a horrific moment has been brought to mind because, last week, the 
Connecticut Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion as Minnesotans did all 
those Valentine's Day eves ago, that the death penalty runs counter to state 
constitutional bans on cruel and unusual punishment, that it doesn't work to 
deter crime and that there's no place for it anymore in modern America.

Connecticut and Minnesota are among 19 states that have done away with capital 
punishment, raising the question, as law professor and civil rights attorney 
Kevin M. Barry did in yesterday's Los Angeles Times: When will the U.S. Supreme 
Court follow suit?

"Are 19 states - as opposed to, say, 26 - sufficient to tip the constitutional 
scales toward invalidation nationally?" Barry asked. "19 should do."

Nearly all of the 35 executions in the U.S. in 2014 were carried out in four 
states: Texas, Missouri, Florida and Oklahoma. They're "the proverbial tail 
wagging the dog of our standards of decency," Barry wrote. "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 3 members of Cheshire's 
Petit family.'"

The death penalty incites a "festival of cruelty," Barry argued. "Do we 
approve, or have we evolved?"

Evolved, of course, doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences for 
wrongdoing. Punishments still need to fit crimes. And though some might shudder 
at the thought of taking of a life to balance the loss of another, more others 
are unable to sleep soundly knowing their loved one's murderer still walks, 
eats and breathes.

As true as that may be, the reality is the threat of death fails to deter 
crime. In 2008, 14 states without capital punishment had homicide rates at or 
below the national rate, according to Amnesty International. Also, because 
humans make mistakes, there's always a risk of executing someone innocent. 
Between 1973 and 2012, 140 people were released from death rows in the U.S. 
while another 1,200-plus were executed.

So is it only a matter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court follows the 
justices in Connecticut as well as lawmakers there, and in Maryland, Illinois 
and Nebraska, who, in just the past 5 years, abolished capital punishment?

Each decision to do so helps to assure that the gruesomeness that played out on 
the eve of Valentine's Day in 1906 in the basement of the county jail in St. 
Paul is never repeated.

"Slowly the minutes dragged," the St. Paul Dispatch reported after the trio of 
sheriff's deputies began taking turns pulling on the rope to strangle Williams. 
"The surgeon, watch in hand, held his fingers on Williams' pulse as he scanned 
the dial of his watch. 5 minutes passed. There was a slight rustle, low murmurs 
among the spectators and then silence. Another 5 minutes dragged by. Would this 
man never die? ... The dead man's suspended body moved with a gentle swaying. 
The deputies wiped their perspiring brows with their handkerchiefs. ... Only a 
surgeon's fingers could detect the flow of blood now. 14 1/2 minutes. 'He is 
dead,' said Surgeon Moore."

And so was capital punishment in Minnesota.

(source: Duluth News Tribune)