[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OKLA., MONT., IDAHO, ARIZ. WASH., USA, US MIL.

[Rick Halperin]

Feb. 4



OKLAHOMA:

Glossip v. Gross: SCOTUS to Consider Oklahoma's Lethal Injection Protocol



On Friday 23rd January, 2015, the US Supreme Court granted 3 Oklahoma death row 
inmates certiorari to challenge the state's 3-drug lethal injection protocol. 
In Baze v. Rees 553 U.S. 35 (2008), it was held that an execution protocol 
which provided for an initial injection of a fast-acting barbiturate (sodium 
thiopental), then a paralytic agent (pancuronium bromide) which stops 
respiration, and finally a drug to induce a cardiac arrest (potassium 
chloride), did not violate the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment's Cruel and 
Unusual Punishments Clause.

Is lethal injection an irredeemable form of torture?

In Warner v. Gross, (No. 14-6244, 12 January, 2015) the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, denied a challenge to Oklahoma's adoption of 
midazolam as a replacement for sodium thiopental. As a result of the post-Baze 
decline in Food and Drug Administration licences to American pharmacological 
companies to supply drugs to state and federal prisons for the use in 
executions, and the contributory effect of international human rights law, such 
as the EU's Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1352 (2011), there has 
been a depletion of supplies of sodium thiopental for the use by American 
prisons in the death penalty.

The retentionist states have had to identify an alternative drug to formulate 
an execution. Whilst Baze acknowledges that "some risk of pain is inherent in 
any method of execution," and that "the Constitution does not demand the 
avoidance of all risk of pain in carrying out executions," a violation of the 
Eighth Amendment does occur when "the conditions presenting the risk must be 
sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering," and give 
rise to "sufficiently imminent dangers."

The current litigation has introduced substantial medical evidence that 
Oklahoma's use of midazolam produces adverse reactions. On 29 April 2014, 
midazolam was used in the execution of Clayton Lockett. He strained on the 
gurney in extreme physical pain, claiming, "something is wrong" and the "drugs 
aren't working." He was not in a "coma-like state" following the initial drug, 
and the execution team observed a large swelling at the IV access point. The 
White House released a statement that the execution, "fell short of humane 
standards."

There is significant doubt as to whether midazolam can effectively act as a 
sedative in compliance with the Baze criteria and the 3 questions the US 
Supreme Court will consider in Glossip v. Gross are:

1) Is it constitutionally permissible for a state to carry out an execution 
using a 3-drug protocol where (a) there is a well-established scientific 
consensus that the 1st drug has no pain relieving properties and cannot 
reliably produce deep, coma-like unconsciousness, and (b) it is undisputed that 
there is a substantial, constitutionally unacceptable risk of pain and 
suffering from the administration of the 2nd and 3rd drugs when a prisoner is 
conscious?

2) Does the Baze-plurality stay standard apply when states are not using a 
protocol substantially similar to the one that this Court considered in Baze?

3) Must a prisoner establish the availability of an alternative drug formula 
even if the state's lethal-injection protocol, as properly administered, will 
violate the Eighth Amendment?

The first 2 questions can be classified as normative constitutional issues 
within the assessment of the protocol. The 3rd question places upon the 
defendant the task of establishing to a degree of medical certainty that the 
sedative will not act in accordance with constitutional standards. It 
potentially will place the burden on the defendant to establish that there is 
an alternative protocol that if the state adopts, will produce an execution of 
the defendant that does meet the Baze criteria.

Are we going to see the Court establish a new rule that assessing the 
legitimate standards set out in Baze, for pain in punishment, shifts from the 
responsibility of the state to the responsibility of the prisoner? This would 
be a quixotic result. What the litigation concerning the Oklahoma protocol 
demonstrates is that there are still, and perhaps always will be, irredeemable 
consequences that renders lethal injection a form of torture.

(source: Author profile----Dr Jon Yorke is a Reader in Law at Birmingham City 
University. He is a Member of the Foreign Secretary's Expert Panel on the Death 
Penalty and has been a consultant for the United Nations and the European 
Union, advising on death penalty issues; ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk)








MONTANA:

Bill Would Abolish Montana's Death Penalty ---- Montana Republican Introduces 
Bill To Abolish The Death Penalty.



A bill draft that would ban the death penalty in Montana is now on the table. 
Republican Representative David Moore of Missoula is sponsoring House Bill 370 
and says the death penalty costs too much, and perhaps life in prison is a 
harsh enough penalty.

"Probably the worst thing would be life imprisonment without the chance of 
parole. To be locked in a cage. If we did away with the death penalty, there 
would be more money in the judicial system for victim help."

Opponents to previous bills to end the death penalty have argued that it's 
necessary to ensure someone doesn't escape or are released early. When asked 
about this fear, Moore says there is no good answer.

"It's a difficult issue, and I just said I'd carry the bill and introduce it 
and let each side explain their issues and let the committee decide."

This bill will brought to the Judiciary Committee once it receives a hearing 
date.

(source: Montana Public Radio)








IDAHO:

Idaho's execution secrecy bill is dead - at least for now



Idaho lawmakers will not hear a state-sponsored bill to bring more secrecy to 
executions due to concerns about the measure's language, IdahoReporter.com 
learned Monday.

Sen. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, said he plans to use his privilege as chair of 
the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee to hold the bill - effectively killing 
it for now.

"There were some concerns about the language," Hagedorn said. "There's more 
homework to be done on the issue."

The measure, officially Senate Bill 1005, would have shielded from public 
disclosure the names of companies that provide execution chemicals to the 
state. The bill also would have allowed the Idaho Department of Correction the 
authority and power to hide "any information" that would prevent the state from 
carrying out executions.

Idaho administrative rules, regulations with less force than law but plenty of 
power, already block reporters and residents from garnering access to the names 
of executive chemical companies, Jeff Ray, the agency's spokesman, told 
IdahoReporter.com last week.

Still, the agency sought to embed the protections into law to give them 
additional weight and strength.

Though Hagedorn's move takes the plan off the table for now, it could come back 
before lawmakers finish business this year. The Meridian senator asked the 
department to try again after changing the bill to account for lawmakers' 
concerns about overly broad wording.

Plus, Hagedorn won't hold the gavel of the committee for the session's 
duration. Sen. Patti Anne Lodge, R-Huston, is the panel chair, but she hasn't 
been around the Capitol for unspecified reasons.

Hagedorn said Lodge will have the right to bring back the legislation if she so 
desires upon her return.

If the proposal - in original form or modified - returns, it will face serious 
scrutiny. Unlikely allies raised concerns about the measure before Hagedorn 
shut it down. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Idaho Freedom Foundation 
and Conservatives Concerned about the Death Penalty each criticized the bill's 
open-ended language, as well as the state's desire to hide even more execution 
information from Idahoans.

Kathy Griesmyer, the ACLU's government relations coordinator, told 
IdahoReporter.com on Monday her organization is excited the bill met a 
difficult roadblock.

"We are happy to hear the chair of the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee 
along with the Department of Correction are rethinking their recently 
introduced bill that would limit transparency of Idaho's death penalty policy," 
she wrote in an email. "The public has a right to know what is being done in 
their name."

Griesmyer added that the state should promote accountability, not remove it.

"That means all aspects of the death penalty - including qualifications of 
personnel involved, procedures, and lethal substances used - need to remain 
open and accessible to the public so that if an error were to be made, there is 
a mechanism in place to hold those accountable responsible," Griesmyer said.

Jeff Ray, the agency's spokesman, said the department is willing participant in 
reworking the bill. "We asked Sen. Hagedorn to hold the bill so we could review 
the language further," Ray said.

"We had some stakeholders raise potential concerns about the language being 
broader in scope than intended. If we decide to bring the issue back this 
session, we'll offer it as a new RS (routing slip or not-yet-introduced bill)."

National limited-government website Reason.com highlighted the proposal just 
days ago, pointing out the the bill's troubling aspect. "The lack of 
transparency regarding executions and the provenance of the drugs used in 
lethal injection 'cocktails' has been a growing concern over the past year, 
following a string of gruesomely botched executions," the publication's Anthony 
L. Fisher wrote.

(source: IdahoWatchdao.org)








ARIZONA:

Arias retrial threatens to go longer than trial----Prosecutors prepare to bring 
psychologist to the stand in effort to get death penalty conviction



The Jodi Arias penalty trial has begun a 5th month with no clear end in sight.

Nearly 2 years ago, a crowd in the thousands cheered on the steps of the 
Maricopa County Courthouse as a jury handed down a 1st-degree murder conviction 
for Jodi Arias.

That trial lasted 5 months and was a media circus. The media has been kept from 
broadcasting the trial live this time around and Judge Sherry Stephens has 
banned all but still photographs from being released on a daily basis.

Neither of those changes has kept the penalty phase retrial from dragging on. 
This retrial is threatening to last longer than the original trial.

Tuesday, prosecutors will call a psychologist to the stand in their effort 
convince the jury to hand down a death sentence, something the 1st jury failed 
to agree upon.

This witness follows the final testimony late Monday of a prosecution witness 
who knew the victim, Travis Alexander, through their relationship with the LDS 
Church.

Alexander's former bishop was called to the stand so prosecutors could fight 
allegations made by the defense that Arias' dead lover was into child 
pornography and violent with a former girlfriend.

Their effort has to fight the defense strategy that also helped keep this trial 
going at a snail's pace.

It's unclear how much longer the prosecution will need to reinforce what it 
began in October.

(source: azcentral.com)








WASHINGTON:

If a Black Man Kills a White Cop, Can He Ever Get a Fair Death-Penalty 
Trial?----New Research Suggests That the Jury-Selection Process Results in More 
Racist Juries



No one denies that Christopher Monfort, who is black, shot and killed Seattle 
police officer Timothy Brenton, who is white, in 2009. But was the act 
aggravated murder or insanity? That's up to a jury of Monfort's peers.

In order to select that jury, King County Superior Court spent months narrowing 
down a pool of 3,000 potential jurors to 12 final jurors and 4 alternates. In a 
death-penalty case, jurors have to be willing not only to consider guilt, but 
willing to consider giving someone a death sentence. If a potential juror would 
never sentence anyone to death for any reason, he or she is disqualified, just 
as a juror who would always sentence a person to death would be disqualified.

Lawyers call this part of the process of jury selection "death qualification." 
Capital-defense lawyers have long argued that death-qualified juries tend to 
exclude more black jurors than white jurors. And research has shown that death 
qualification does indeed exclude a greater proportion of black jurors than 
whites. But it's been only in the last few years that social scientists have 
found new tools to look at how death qualification primes juries to sentence 
black defendants to death.

"It is the essential unfairness of the death penalty," says Ben Cohen, a lawyer 
at the Promise of Justice Initiative in Louisiana. "[Death qualification] 
transforms Seattle into a suburb of Dallas, Texas, because everyone who opposes 
the death penalty is gone."

The way Cohen explains it, the history of American racism, the process of death 
qualification, and the death penalty are inseparable. One of the first recorded 
instances of a jury made to pass a death-qualification test was in 1859, when 
the point was to make sure those opposed to slavery and Quakers - whose 
religious beliefs led them to object to the death penalty no matter what - 
didn't get in the way of the execution of rebel abolitionist John Brown. In the 
end, Brown was found guilty of murder, treason, and conspiracy, and he was 
hanged.

In the Monfort trial, which is under way right now, defense attorneys tried to 
use new research on death qualification to get the death-penalty option thrown 
out. In early October, Monfort's defense team arranged for University of Hawaii 
law professor and death-penalty social scientist Justin Levinson to fly to 
Seattle. In King County Superior Court, Levinson explained why jurors who 
wouldn't even be aware of their biases might make decisions based on the 
automatic assumption that black lives are less valuable than white ones.

Levinson has been a pioneer in this arena. 6 years ago, Levinson sat 67 
students at the University of Hawaii in front of computer screens. He primed 
the students by asking them to sort digital images of light-skinned male faces 
and dark-skinned male faces into categories of "Black" or "White." Then 
Levinson instructed the students to hold their fingers over the "D" and "K" 
buttons on their keyboards, and the students sorted words like "fault," 
"convict," "innocent," "wrongfully accused," and "perpetrator" into the 
categories of "Black," "White," "Guilty," and "Not Guilty" as fast as they 
could.

The computers measured the students' reactions in milliseconds. The student 
test subjects were undergoing something called the implicit-association test 
(IAT), a tool social scientists have been using since the late 1990s to try to 
illuminate pre-conscious biases in people's brains. Other IATs had measured how 
people linked race to "good" and "bad" qualities, but Levinson was the 1st to 
try to see how implicit bias - judgments that people may not even be aware that 
they make - might affect the presumption of innocence in a courtroom.

Not only did Levinson find that the students implicitly linked "Black" and 
"Guilty," he also discovered that those biases predicted how students would 
judge evidence as mock jurors in cases against dark-skinned defendants. But 
that wasn't even the strangest or most disturbing part of the University of 
Hawaii experiments. When Levinson asked the same students to rank the "warmth" 
of their feelings toward black people, the implicitly racist students actually 
rated friendlier feelings toward black people than the students who held less 
bias.

"People have come to understand that expressing racist and racially biased 
attitudes and stereotypes is not socially appropriate," Levinson says. "So this 
trend has emerged at the same time that social-science research that has 
figured out ways to measure automatic biases, and that research established 
again and again that implicit biases are strong and pervasive."

In 2013, Levinson published a study in the NYU Law Review, this one looking at 
how covert racism might affect sentencing in death-penalty trials in 
particular. He and his colleagues asked 445 jury-eligible citizens to imagine 
themselves as jurors studying evidence inspired by an actual case. This IAT, 
conducted online, measured how the race of a defendant might affect a person's 
judgment on the value of that person's life. This time, the test found that 
mock jurors associated "White" with worth and "Black" with worthless.

Death-qualified mock jurors, the ones who had answered questions about their 
ability to consider the death penalty and weren't excluded, displayed even 
stronger implicit and explicit racial biases than the general study sample. 
Stronger racial bias, Levinson found, also predicted more death sentences for 
black defendants when the victim was white. "The higher the level of bias on 
the Value of Life IAT, the more likely they were to vote for death when the 
defendant was black," Levinson says.

After Levinson testified about all of this, the King County court had to 
decide: Would jury selection in Monfort's trial taint the judicial process 
itself? King County prosecutors rebutted Levinson's testimony by filing a 
response poking holes in his studies. Implicit bias doesn't necessarily affect 
group decision making, they argued, and Levinson had never tried out his 
theories with a real jury. Prosecutors also tried to discredit the legitimacy 
of the IAT, despite the fact that the IAT is widely regarded as a credible 
scientific tool.

The prosecution went one step further, too. They argued that Levinson had a 
wider agenda of discrediting criminal justice altogether by highlighting 
implicit racism throughout the system. And they flipped the racism allegation: 
"The assertion that members of a particular minority group cannot and should 
not be held criminally responsible for their actions in the way that other 
citizens are is demeaning and insulting to them, and serves to increase racial 
suspicion, resentment, and bias throughout our nation's diverse population," 
the prosecutors claimed.

"I would never suggest that anyone shouldn't be held responsible for their 
criminal actions," Levinson argues back. "The whole point of this research is 
to move toward fairness in the criminal justice system."

King County prosecutors declined to be interviewed for this article, as did the 
judge in Monfort's trial, Judge Ronald Kessler. But court documents speak for 
them. Judge Kessler ended up dismissing the defense's motion to get rid of the 
death-penalty option based on Levinson's testimony. (Judge Kessler accepted 
another of the defense's motions to get rid of the death penalty for the case, 
but it was subsequently reversed by the state supreme court.)

Monfort's attorneys, however, still argue that death qualification impacts 
death-penalty juries, including the jury that is now hearing Monfort's case. 
(The trial began January 20.) The whole process of jury selection is wrong from 
the get-go, argues public defender Stacey MacDonald, "because you're focused 
on, before he's found guilty or not, can you kill him or not."

But even if courts do select for implicitly racist juries, is that enough to 
call the practice of death qualification unconstitutional? "No court has 
decided that," says Jim Lobsenz, an adjunct professor at the Seattle University 
School of Law and vice president of Washington Coalition to Abolish the Death 
Penalty. "It's a pretty cutting-edge kind of question. You have to be more like 
a philosopher to wrestle with this question."

The judge makes the ultimate decision as to whether jurors can be disqualified 
because of their feelings about the death penalty. In that way, the 
death-qualification process could be read as one of the few ways judges are 
able to make sure a jury is fair. The quality of the judge has an impact on the 
makeup of the jury.

But sussing out a juror's life-and-death philosophy can be a pretty circular 
task. When asked about the death penalty, one of the candidates who didn't end 
up as a Monfort juror wrote that he or she had taken a Buddhist oath not to 
kill. "But on the other hand," the juror wrote, "my spiritual beliefs tell me 
that death is not that big of a deal."

Even with a good judge, a jury might not be made up of a defendant's peers - 
depending on how you define "peers." If a juror of a different race than the 
defendant lacks insight into the experience of racism that the defendant has 
lived, is that juror a peer or not?

Levinson's work strongly suggests that death qualification "transforms the 
jury," says Cohen, of the Promise of Justice Initiative. And Cohen backs up 
this finding anecdotally: "You can see that just by watching death 
qualification, and seeing African Americans looking over at an African American 
defendant and understanding a history of lynching in the United States, that 
they're uncomfortable with the use of the death penalty, and white people 
feeling the exact opposite, and watching how race plays out. Justin's work 
proves what you would understand just by watching."

King County prosecutors would probably disagree - but they already got what 
they wanted: a death-qualified jury.

(source: The Stranger)

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

36th District Democratic Rep. Reuven Carlyle has introduced legislation to 
outlaw the death penalty since he started in the Washington legislature. 
----Rep. Reuven Carlyle introduces bill to replace death penalty



Local lawmakers last week introduced House Bill 1739, a measure to abolish the 
death penalty and replace it with a life sentence with no opportunity for 
parole.

The bill is a bipartisan effort and was introduced by 36th District Democratic 
Rep. Reuven Carlyle. The bill was co-sponsored by Reps. Chad Magendanz 
(R-Issaquah), Maureen Walsh (R-Walla Walla) and Tina Orwall (D-Des Moines).

"I've introduced this to the legislation each year, and I feel like it is 
important to our civic dialogue to address societal issues that go to the core 
of our value system. To me the death penalty is below us as a civilized 
society," said Carlyle. "I think on the policy front it's clear that there's no 
preventative impact or effect. On the implementation front it's clear there is 
great disparity in how it's applied across the counties of the nation. On the 
financial front, it's dramatically more expensive than life in prison. And on 
the moral front it is unreflective to what a moral society can be."

House Bill 1739 would also require those convicted to pay restitution to 
victims and their families.

"We are including a new provision that requires those convicted of offenses to 
work within prison, as appropriate per the Department of Corrections, to 
contribute towards restitution for victims' families," said Rep. Carlyle. "I 
think it's a very important principle to honor families and victims, not in 
terms of amount but in time and effort contributed to show restitution to 
families. It's an import ingredient in the dialogue."

The bid to outlaw capital punishment has failed in the Washington State 
legislature in previous years, but after Gov. Jay Inslee imposed a moratorium 
on capital punishment last February, supporters are hopeful. Inslee noted the 
economic costs to Washingtonians and the unreasonable discretion of the death 
penalty as factors for the moratorium.

"Equal justice under the law is the state's primary responsibility. And in 
death penalty cases, I'm not convinced equal justice is being served. The use 
of the death penalty in this state is unequally applied, sometimes dependent on 
the budget of the county where the crime occurred," said Inslee. Rep. Orwall 
spoke to the timeliness of the measure. "We believe there has been a shift in 
thinking about the death penalty including recognition of the impact of DNA 
testing, cost to taxpayers, and lack of support for victims' families in a 
drawn-out process," said Orwall. "This year is the right time to seriously 
consider this legislation, and we deeply respect the openness of colleagues and 
families that have been touched by violence as our state thoughtfully discusses 
this issue."

The same day the bill was introduced (Jan. 26), Mayor Ed Murray and all 9 
Seattle City Council members, along with City Attorney Pete Holmes, signed a 
letter that urged lawmakers to find alternatives to the death penalty.

"There is no credible evidence showing that the death penalty deters homicide 
or makes our communities safer," the letter stated. "Instead, pursuing capital 
punishment diverts precious resources from critical public safety programs, 
delays final resolution for victims' families and has serious implications for 
racial and social equity."

Currently the federal government and 32 states, including Washington and 
Oregon, authorize the death penalty. Along with Gov. Inslee's moratorium, 
Oregon's Governor, John Kitzhaber, also said there would be no execution during 
the remainder of his term. Up to date, eighteen states have abolished the death 
penalty.

"We realize this is a painfully difficult and profoundly serious public issue, 
and we ask our colleagues and the public to join us in a constructive dialogue 
about our state's approach,??? Carlyle said.

On top of moral motivation for the bill, the bipartisan group emphasized the 
fiscal factors in the policy change. The capital penalty process, though it 
occurs infrequently in Washington, is costly for the state. A recent Seattle 
University Study reported the death penalty costs $24 million for each of the 5 
executions Washington has carried out since 1981. In addition, even seeking the 
death penalty costs on average $1 million more than cases not seeking it. 
Furthermore, the study determined that in Washington, 75 % of cases involving 
death sentences have been reversed.

"The hope is that we as a civic society can thoughtfully and genuinely explore 
better ways to have a meaningful and effective criminal justice system," said 
Rep. Carlyle.

(source: Ballard News Tribune)








USA:

Cost of Colorado theater shooting case exceeds $5 million months before opening 
arguments----Lawyer salaries and security top expenditures, records reveal



The criminal court case against Colorado theater gunman James Holmes has 
already absorbed at least $5.5 million in public monies, according to records 
obtained by Yahoo News.

That's $2 million more than the estimated average cost of a completed Colorado 
death penalty trial - and the contentious Holmes proceeding is still months 
away from opening arguments.

"Keep adding it up, this isn't ending anytime soon," said Justin Marceau, a 
professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law who has studied the 
costs of capital murder trials.

Holmes first appeared in court on July 23, 2012, three days after police say he 
assailed a packed suburban Denver movie theater, killing 12 people and injuring 
70, as they were watching a midnight showing of the Batman film "The Dark 
Knight Rises."

In the 2 1/2 years since that initial court appearance, primary personnel 
involved with the case - prosecutors, defense attorneys, the judge, court 
reporter, trial investigators and victims' advocates for the district attorney 
- have been paid approximately $4.5 million.

A spokeswoman for the Arapahoe County district attorney said only 1 prosecutor 
has been dedicated to the Holmes case full time. But legal observers say a 
proceeding already involving nearly 1,700 motions, orders and hearings - with 
possibly hundreds of witnesses expected to testify at trial - would require the 
undivided attention of a team of lawyers.

Other top expenses so far include $463,000 on additional security from July 
2012 through the end of 2014. Experts hired by the prosecution have received 
more than $220,000 to date. More than $90,000 was used to install a 
closed-circuit television system in the courtroom. It cost $20,000 to print 
9,000 juror notices and questionnaires.

Information on the expenditures was derived from figures released under the 
Colorado Open Records Act by the district attorney, the Colorado Judicial 
Branch and the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. The state public 
defender's office - Holmes' taxpayer-funded lawyers - declined to disclose any 
costs, citing attorney-client privilege and a court order limiting pretrial 
publicity. But information on pay for key members of the defense team was 
eventually obtained through the state personnel office.

Even without the public defender releasing its expenses, it's safe to say 
they've matched the prosecution's $220,000 on experts, according to Stan 
Garnett, the district attorney in Boulder County, Colo.

"It's kind of a nuclear arms race on both sides where you are trying to make 
sure you're staying ahead of the latest weapon the other side has come up 
with," Garnett said.

Furthermore, the figures turned over to Yahoo News are likely just scratching 
the surface of the actual amount, legal experts said. Many resources used in a 
trial are materials and personnel that already exist - or never appear as line 
items in a budget, like transcript and discovery expenses.

"It's really hard to get your arms around the full costs of these things," 
Marceau said. "There are lots of things going on behind the scenes."

Holmes has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity - his lawyers say he was in 
the throes of a psychotic episode at the time. Twice the judge has ordered him 
to be transferred to a state hospital for testing to determine if he was 
mentally capable of understanding the crime he committed. A court spokesman 
said invoices for the exams have not been received.

"Psychiatrists aren't cheap," Garnett said. "Mental state is a very complicated 
issue to sort out ... and it's going to cost a lot on both sides."

'Exponential effect'

Garnett has been an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, maintaining that 
the time and money needed for a trial make it an impractical punishment. In 
2013, Marceau co-authored a study which found that on average a death penalty 
prosecution takes 6 times longer in court than when a sentence of life without 
parole is sought.

"Everything has the exponential effect because we want more precision in the 
death sentence," Marceau said. "Lots more procedures, lots more experts, lots 
more costs, lots more time, because those cases get reviewed."

Holmes offered to forfeit the costly trial in March 2013 for life in prison 
without parole if he could avoid the death penalty. Prosecutors, however, 
strongly rejected any notion of a pending deal, saying the defense had refused 
to give them the information they wanted to evaluate the plea agreement.

"It is my determination and my intention that in this case, for James Eagan 
Holmes, justice is death," Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler 
said in court.

A handful of Colorado prosecutors, including Brauchler, testified in 2013 
against an attempt (which failed) to abolish the state's death penalty. 
Longtime El Paso County District Attorney Dan May told lawmakers that estimates 
on costly death penalty prosecutions were "overblown" because the personnel 
involved aren't new hires.

"The cost to my taxpayers wasn't any different in my office," May testified.

In the Holmes prosecution, Michelle Yi, spokeswoman for the Arapahoe County 
district attorney, said only 1 lawyer has worked the case exclusively since the 
beginning.

"The remaining four attorneys, the 2 investigators, and 1 paralegal have had 
substantial other duties outside the prosecution of this case, so the inclusion 
of their salaries ... should not be taken to represent actual total costs 
expended on this prosecution," Yi wrote in an email.

Brauchler began his position in 2013 and also has responsibilities as an 
elected official. As chief prosecutor he will earn $156,000 this year, almost 
$10,000 less than 2 of the public defenders trying to spare Holmes' life.

The district attorney's office provided a list of nine trials in which 
Brauchler has appeared as counsel or made arguments while also working the 
Holmes case. Yi said determining the caseload for others on the prosecution 
team would be cumbersome and "almost certainly be under-inclusive." Judge 
Carlos Samour - currently earning $145,219 a year - previously averaged 250 
trials annually, but has been exclusive to Holmes since taking over the case in 
April 2013, according to a court spokesman.

Holmes is charged with 166 counts of 1st-degree murder, attempted murder and 
weapons charges. Opening arguments through sentencing could last 4 to 6 months 
- which itself will cost the court $137,000 to $205,000 in juror pay (the 24, 
including alternates, earn $50 a day).

With a trial of that magnitude, Garnett said it isn't possible for the 
attorneys to be involved in other cases.

"Getting ready for a trial like this would be all-consuming," he said.

Funding from federal inmates

Not all prosecution, court and security costs will be paid from state and 
county coffers. About $2 million has come from a Department of Justice grant 
that assists the victims of extraordinary domestic terrorism. Funds for the 
program are derived from federal criminal fines, forfeitures and fees collected 
in U.S. courts and prisons.

There were 421 people in the theater when police said Holmes ambushed it with 
guns and tear gas. Dozens more patrons and employees were in other parts of the 
movie complex. The former neuroscience doctoral student also left his Aurora 
apartment booby-trapped with explosives for first responders. In all, 
prosecutors say some 1,300 people were directly or indirectly victimized.

Nearly $1.2 million of the DOJ funds allowed the prosecutor's office to hire 4 
full-time staffers, including 2 victims' advocates and Deputy District Attorney 
Lisa Teesch-Maguire. Colorado law requires that victims - among other things - 
be consulted about case developments, assisted in preparing to testify and 
afforded the opportunity to attend all hearings if they wish.

Marcus Weaver, who survived being shot but lost his friend Rebecca Wingo in the 
attack, said Teesch-Maguire and her team have been a godsend.

"That federal money is well spent," he said. "If I called her at 12 o'clock at 
night she would answer. She's just that dedicated."

Weaver said victims and their families receive almost daily updates from the 
district attorney. About $65,000 from the DOJ was earmarked for supplies and 
communications equipment, including the ability to send phone alerts and host 
webinars with up to 1,000 participants.

With the courtroom seating only 110 people, the closed-circuit television was 
needed so victims could watch from other parts of the courthouse - another 
expense covered by the federal grant.

Nearly $140,000 of the DOJ money is paying for eight additional deputies to 
escort survivors to their cars. 5 to 6 officers are usually in the room when 
court is in session. For key hearings, officers with rifles are perched on top 
of the courthouse. In a 2012 grant letter, an administrator wrote that security 
staffing and overtime will cost "in excess of $1 million ... through the 
duration of this case."

"I know it's an alarming cost," Weaver said. "It's just the cost of justice due 
to the size of this case."

As for Holmes, his heavily redacted application for a public defender was 
approved the same day as the massacre. It was signed by Daniel King, 1 of his 
lead attorneys, who currently earns $165,756 and may be eligible for a raise 
just as the trial gets going. Under state law, Holmes could be ordered to pay a 
$25 processing fee after the verdict.

Weaver accepts that Holmes deserves his day in court, but the irony isn't lost 
on him.

"We're not only victims, but we're paying for his representation," he said. 
"We're actually paying for somebody who killed my friend and shot me in my 
arm."

(source: Yahoo News)

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

2,000 unneeded jurors released from selection of Aurora movie theater trial



Jury selection for the trial of James Holmes, the man accused of killing 12 
people and wounding 70 more inside a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, 
in 2012, took an unexpected step forward this week when the court released 
2,000 unneeded prospective jurors.

The trial's jury pool of 9,000 people was the largest ever in U.S. history when 
the first of three phases in the selection process began on Jan. 20. For the 
past 2 weeks, groups of about 250 jurors have arrived at the courthouse in 
Centennial, Colorado, to fill out an 18-page questionnaire on various topics, 
including the death penalty and insanity. Court officials expected the 1st step 
to take at least a month. But since the court is excusing 2,000 potential 
jurors who aren't needed for the trial, the initial phase of the process will 
end on Feb. 9. Judge Carlos Samour, who is presiding over the case, had planned 
for the questionnaire phase to end on Feb. 13, The Associated Press reported.

Lawyers ultimately will choose 12 jurors and 12 alternates to decide if Holmes 
was mentally ill when he allegedly killed a dozen people and wounded scores 
more. Beginning on Feb. 11, lawyers will call back the individuals who weren't 
part of the 2,000 recently let go and weren't excused on the basis of their 
answers to the questionnaire. From there, individual interviews will narrow the 
pool to about 120 jurors, a phase officials reportedly expect to last through 
the spring. An eventual 2-day group questioning will mark the 3rd step and thus 
end the jury selection process.

Holmes, now 27, is charged with multiple counts of 1st-degree murder and 
attempted murder after he allegedly opened fire at a midnight premiere of "The 
Dark Knight" inside the Century Aurora 16 movie theater in July 2012. He 
pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity; it was 1 of the deadliest mass 
shootings in American history. Last April, prosecutors made public their plans 
to seek the death penalty against Holmes. He was a graduate student at the 
University of Colorado prior to his arrest.

If jurors find Holmes guilty, they will then decide if they wish to recommend 
the death penalty. If they find him not guilty by reason of insanity, Holmes 
will enter a state institution that provides treatment for the mentally ill.

The initial jury summons previously were cut to 7,000 notices when a couple 
thousand were deemed "undeliverable" or excused.

The jurors who are ultimately picked for the case will be expected to serve for 
as many as 6 consecutive months, on a wage of $50 per day. They were all 
summoned from the state's Arapahoe County. The jurors, lawyers, and potential 
witnesses are forbidden from speaking with the media.

Holmes's trial was postponed multiple times in the 2 1/2 years since the deadly 
shooting, including the time it took for attorneys on both sides to debate 
whether he should undergo a second mental health evaluation.

Opening statements for the months-long trial are expected to begin by June. The 
trial could last through October.

(source: msnbc.com)

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

Boston bombing trial jury selection could wrap up next week: court



Jury selection for the trial of the accused Boston Marathon bomber could wrap 
up by the end of next week, despite stormy weather that has delayed the 
process, officials at U.S. District Court in Boston said on Tuesday.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 21, could face the death penalty if he is convicted of 
killing three people and injuring 264 with a pair of homemade bombs at the 
race's crowded finish line on April 15, 2013.

Some 1,350 potential jurors were summoned to Boston's federal court early last 
month to fill out questionnaires intended to determine whether they were 
eligible to sit on the jury. U.S. District Judge George O'Toole and attorneys 
in the case will resume in-person follow-up questions for candidates on 
Wednesday.

The court has been screening about 20 jurors a day, fewer than the 40-a-day 
goal O'Toole initially set.

A total of 18 people, 12 jurors and 6 alternates, are needed for the jury. To 
be eligible, jurors may not be too close to anyone injured in the largest 
mass-casualty attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, must not have formed a fixed 
opinion as to Tsarnaev's guilt and need to be willing to consider voting for 
the death penalty if he is convicted.

The death penalty is an option in the case because Tsarnaev is being tried 
under federal law. Massachusetts has no capital punishment under state law and 
the death penalty is unpopular with many in the liberal-leaning state.

Jury selection was halted on Monday and Tuesday because of a snowstorm that 
dumped more than a foot of snow (30 cm) on the city, the 2nd large snowfall in 
7 days. The process was also suspended 2 days last week because of a storm.

"Barring further weather delays, it is reasonable to think that the voir dire 
process may be completed by the end of next week," court officials said in an 
email.

The trial itself is expected to take 3 to 4 months.

Prosecutors contend that 3 days after the bombing, Tsarnaev and his older 
brother, Tamerlan, fatally shot a university police officer as they prepared to 
flee the city. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died later that night following a gunbattle 
with police.

(source: Reuters)








US MILITARY:

Fellow soldier says Bergdahl should get death penalty



A decision is expected anytime on whether Bowe Bergdahl will face military 
charges. Bergdahl reportedly left his post in Afghanistan nearly 6 years ago. 
The Pentagon said its investigation is in its final stages. Many fellow 
comrades said it is already clear Bergdahl is a deserter.

Sergeant First Class Nathan Botts spent 22 years in the US Army. He was in the 
same battalion as Bergdahl. He said it was clear from the get go that Bergdahl 
had deserted his post. He hopes that the military will punish Bergdahl as a 
traitor.

Botts served 3 tours in Afghanistan. He said tensions were high there every day 
but nothing like the day Bergdahl vanished from his post. He was in the unique 
position of passing information between Bergdahl's unit and the battalion 
commanders.

"I was getting information directly from the platoon, and also from the 
company, of what was going on. And I was briefing the brigade S-3 and also the 
brigade commander himself," said Botts.

Botts said everything stopped that day in June 2009 and the only mission at 
hand was finding Bergdahl. He said it was very clear he left.

"Everybody knew that he left. You don't just fold up all your clothes and your 
armor, and put it in a neat pile on your bed and then be abducted. He left. 
Plain and simple," said Botts.

He said the Army never stopped looking for Bergdahl. Assets were reassigned and 
units were tasked everyday with asking locals where he might be. He said when 
men is his own battalion started getting killed in the search was when the true 
impact of Bergdahl's decision hit hard.

"He still needs to be held accountable for his actions. He's still responsible 
for his actions. And his actions caused a lot of damage," said Botts.

Botts feels his actions are worthy of the military's highest punishment, the 
death sentence. He said he is not the only one who feels Bergdahl never should 
have been traded in the prisoner exchange that released 5 Taliban fighters back 
onto the front lines.

"I'm sorry. A deserter is not worth that. He's not," said Botts.

Bergdahl could still face jail time under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 
Many speculate he could be discharged from the military with credit for time 
served in Taliban captivity.

(source: KREM news)