[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OKLA., NEV., ARIZ., WASH., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Feb. 13


OKLAHOMA:

Kill death row inmates 'with a bag of gas over their heads': Official in 
Oklahoma suggests method of execution to stop state paying for gas chamber

Death row inmates in Oklahoma could be executed by having a bag put on their 
head which is then filled with poisonous gas.

Lethal injections will soon be phased out in the US state of Oklahoma after the 
necessary drugs have become difficult to obtain.

Senators have now approved plans for inmates facing the death penalty, which is 
legal in the state, to instead be executed using nitrogen hypoxia gas.

But Mike Christian, a Republican representative in the Oklahoma legislature, 
said the state could avoid paying for a gas chamber, which would cost around 
200,000 pounds, by using a mask or a bag over an inmate's head.

Whichever technique is used, the senate agreed that gassing prisoners with 
nitrogen hypoxia was less cruel.

Mr Christian said inmates would experience an effect like that felt by pilots 
whose oxygen supplies fail at high altitude, adding: 'The people who have 
experienced it to the point of unconsciousness said it was a euphoric feeling. 
I'd say it's more humane.'

Drugs such as sodium thiopental, used to sedate prisoners, have been difficult 
and expensive to get hold of since the EU introduced a ban on exporting 
substances intended for lethal injections in 2011.

Until now the method of execution in Oklahoma has involved anaesthetising the 
inmate with sodium thiopental, before injecting them with muscle relaxant 
pancuronium bromide then potassium chloride, which stops the heart beating.

Attempts to substitute scarce drugs with other substances have seen botched 
executions take place in Oklahoma and other parts of the US. Last year Clayton 
Lockett, who was convicted of murder, rape, and kidnapping in 2000, was given 
an untested cocktail of drugs via injection including the sedative midazolam. 
He was left writhing in pain for 45 minutes and died of a heart attack.

Last month the execution of Charles Frederick Warner in Oklahoma lasted 18 
minutes, during which he said: 'My body is on fire.'

Warner, 47, was put to death for killing an infant in 1997. He was originally 
scheduled to be executed in April on the same night as Clayton Lockett, but 
state officials suspended executions in Oklahoma until an investigation was 
completed into what went wrong.

Warner was injected with rocuronium bromide and potassium chloride, which is 
said to cause suffocation and burning sensations, as well as a paralytic which 
prevented him from moving.

(source: Daily Mail)

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

Oklahoma Wants To Reinstate The Gas Chamber, And Experts Say It's A Bad Idea



Facing dwindling supplies of lethal injection chemicals and increased legal 
scrutiny of the practice, some states are considering a return to antiquated 
execution methods like firing squads and gas chambers -- and Oklahoma is 
considering using a new type of gas. But experts warn the problem with both new 
and old methods is the same: They may violate the Constitution's ban on cruel 
and unusual punishment.

"States have painted themselves into a corner with lethal injection and are 
trying to bring back these old methods," Richard Dieter, executive director of 
the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that distributes information 
about capital punishment, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. "There is no 
painless method."

Allegations of torture and cruel and unusual punishment surfaced in the wake of 
botched lethal injections last year, like those of Oklahoma inmate Clayton 
Lockett and Arizona inmate Joseph Wood. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court 
delayed execution for 3 Oklahoma prisoners while it reviews the state's 
protocol.

In response, Oklahoma legislators recently advanced bills that would authorize 
"nitrogen hypoxia" -- which causes death by depleting the oxygen supply in the 
blood -- as a gas chamber alternative to poisonous hydrogen cyanide gas.

Rep. Mike Christian (R-Oklahoma City), who sponsored the House bill on nitrogen 
hypoxia, told The Huffington Post via email that "nitrogen hypoxia is a 
painless form of capital punishment that is simple to administer, doesn't 
depend upon the aid of the medical community, and is not subject to the supply 
constraints we are faced with when using the current 3 drug cocktail protocol." 
(Supply for the 3-drug lethal injection cocktail was disrupted after its 
European manufacturer refused to further supply the drug to the U.S. for 
executions.)

Christian noted the idea for nitrogen hypoxia came from a 2014 Slate article on 
the subject. No countries in the world use nitrogen gas as a state-sanctioned 
execution method, according to the article.

Oklahoma state Sen. Anthony Sykes (R-Moore), who sponsored the state Senate 
version of the nitrogen hypoxia bill, told the Associated Press the method is 
"recognized as the most humane by those who oppose the death penalty," adding 
that "it causes a very quick and sudden loss of consciousness and of life 
almost simultaneously." Sykes did not cite a specific expert or entity in his 
claim and did not immediately respond to The Huffington Post's request for 
comment.

But Fordham Law Professor Deborah Denno, one of the nation's foremost death 
penalty experts, said such claims are similar to ones death penalty supporters 
made about lethal injection in the 1970s.

"If you look at all the statements and newspaper clippings made in 1977 when 
lethal injection was introduced [in Oklahoma], they sound very similar," Denno 
told The Huffington Post. "You would read comments about how this would be 
painless and immediate."

Dr. Joel Zivot, assistant professor of anesthesiology and surgery at Emory 
University School of Medicine, told HuffPost it's ethically impossible for a 
doctor to conduct tests -- and therefore reach conclusions -- on execution 
procedures.

"No physician is an expert in killing, and medicine doesn't position itself 
intentionally in taking a life," Zivot said. He added, "There's no therapeutic 
use of nitrogen gas, and there's no way to ethically or practically test if 
nitrogen gas is a humane alternative."

Meanwhile, Utah is considering a measure to bring back firing squads if it's 
unable to maintain its supply of lethal injection drugs. In May 2014, Tennessee 
lawmakers authorized a re-use of the electric chair as a back-up to lethal 
injection. Months later, Tennessee inmates sued the state and called the chair 
an unconstitutional "torture device."

Lethal injection rose to prominence in the early 1990s and is the primary 
method of execution in the 32 states that still allow the death penalty. Other 
methods may still be used, typically at the inmates' discretion. 8 states still 
have the electric chair, 4 have the gas chamber, 3 still permit hanging and 2 
allow firing squads on certain technicalities. The last use of the gas chamber 
was in Arizona in 1999.

Both experts and capital punishment abolitionists have criticized the secretive 
nature of many state executions. States are less than forthcoming about many 
details of the procedure, including protocols; the identity of drug 
manufacturers; the identity of prison personnel involved in executions; and 
what personnel training for executions entails. (Medical professionals are 
ethically barred from participating in executions and are only present to 
declare time of death.) In 2014, The Guardian, The Associated Press and 3 
Missouri newspapers sued Missouri for withholding such information. Similar 
lawsuits were filed by Ohio death row inmates last year.

Denno said since execution methods don't have trial runs, any new or adjusted 
protocol is effectively an experiment on the inmate.

"You can't ask a person who was executed if their death was cruel," Zivot said.

Denno added that what little research is available has suggested that the gas 
chamber is the most painful form of punishment. "There's been a bit of a 
consensus that lethal [cyanide] gas has been the most egregious [method]," she 
said. "There's no question that people are dying a slow death in a very painful 
way."

While gas chamber victims slowly suffocate, Denno said, electrocution imparts 
an extra indignity by leaving its victims "mutilated."

"Some people scream out when the electricity is first being applied, but you're 
essentially burning to death," Denno explained. "Your body fluids are boiling. 
One's eyeballs can pop out -- that's why they put a cap over people's head."

In other instances, like that of the 1997 Florida execution of Pedro Medina, 
the head, skin or hair can catch on fire mid-execution.

Ironically, Denno said, firing squads are perhaps the most effective execution 
method. "We've had 3 firing squad executions in the modern area -- since the 
'70s -- that have gone off without a hitch," she said.

Zivot criticized Oklahoma as having shown "a lack of seriousness" about 
determining whether its methods meet both ethical and constitutional 
requirements.

"You're left with the state declaring this to be safe and a form of execution 
that's not needlessly cruel," Zivot said. "I would ask the state, 'Prove 
that.'"

(source: Kim Bellware, Huffington Post)








NEVADA:

DA to seek death penalty in Las Vegas couple slaying case



Prosecutors in Las Vegas are seeking the death penalty against a 52-year-old 
man who pleaded not guilty Thursday to killing a couple in their 80s, hiding 
their bodies in storage for more than 10 years and cashing their Social 
Security benefits.

A judge set trial in October 2016 for Robert Dixon Dunn on murder, robbery and 
theft charges in the slaying of Joaquin Sierra and Eleanor Sierra.

Prosecutor David Stanton says Dunn kept drawing benefit checks totaling 
$200,000 or more from the Sierras after they were last seen in February 2003.

Dunn's public defender, Amy Feliciano, declined to comment.

Stanton calls Dunn an accomplished con man, and says investigators aren't sure 
if he had victims in places including Southern California, northern Oregon, 
central Pennsylvania and upstate New York's southern tier.

(source: Associated Press)








ARIZONA:

'I'm willing to bet my life' - Defendant in death penalty case wants trial



Robert W. Wiesner, facing the death penalty in a murder trial, said Thursday, 
Feb. 12, in court that he isn't interested in a possible plea deal the state 
might offer, and said he thinks a jury will find him not guilty at trial.

Wiesner, 56, of Scottsdale, is accused of shooting to death Lorraine Long in a 
Seligman house she owned on Aug. 6, 2010. A Sheriff's Office spokesman said 
Wiesner called 911 at 4:30 a.m. to report a shooting. When deputies arrived, 
they found Long dead and Wiesner with a minor gunshot wound.

In a court appearance in which Yavapai County Presiding Judge David Mackey 
sought to explain to him what life would be like on death row as he awaited his 
death penalty, Wiesner said he understood that it would be very unpleasant.

His lead attorney, Bob Gundacker disagreed.

Citing a "cognitive deficit," he said, "(Wiesner) does not understand the 
difference between death row and life (in the general prison population)." He 
listed some of the difficulties Wiesner could face, including the fact that 
"the people there are crazy. It's a place where you can get stabbed by people 
who hate you."

"I want you to understand there are certain restrictions that come with prison 
life versus the 20 years or so it may take to impose the death penalty," Mackey 
said.

"You're still locked up... it's still hell any way you look at it," Wiesner 
said.

Mackey agreed that was true but said, "While you are on death row for the 
20-plus years, you will be in maximum security. The death row cells are 
12-feet-by-8-feet. You're not allowed to have contact with other inmates." He 
ticked off other conditions: showers three times a week, three times a week use 
of the recreation yard - alone. No computer use. All mail, in and out, 
inspected.

"That's generally what your life would be like," Mackey said. "Life would be 
more bearable" if he were with the general population.

Wiesner said, "I believe because I got shot first I don't believe the jury will 
give me death. I'm willing to bet my life on it."

The only offer Chief Deputy County Attorney Dennis McGrane has made, 
informally, was life without the possibility of parole.

"I'm willing to avoid a trial, but for not life with no parole," Wiesner said. 
"I'm willing to gamble."

Gundacker, frustrated said, "His brain doesn't let him think in two dimensions. 
This conversation in court today is a joke. You cannot get through to him."

When Mackey asked how close the defense was to being ready for trial, 
Gundacker, by way of his answer, went on the record about delays caused by 
Wiesner's previous 2 lawyers, William Feldhacker, who passed away in April 
2013, and Tom Kelly, who is no longer on the case.

"Mr. Wiesner was represented by Mr. Feldhacker for all those years and made not 
1 physical visit with him (in jail), ever, not 1. Mr. Feldhacker did not get 
it," Gundacker said.

Then, he said, "Mr. Kelly came on board, visited him one time in the jail and 
the sole topic of conversation was why he should take the plea. His new 
attorney built no trust and tried to shove a plea down his throat."

Gundacker said it's taken time to build that trust. He also pointed out that 
delays have been caused by the uncertainty - he said he's unwilling to commit 
the Public Defender's Office to spending "multiple tens of thousands of 
dollars" on a case that he believes could be settled.

Gesturing at McGrane, he said, "Just give him a term of years and let's get rid 
of this case."

"The state has never made an offer," McGrane said, although he was willing to 
offer life without possibility of parole.

"I'm not very hopeful, frankly," he said, noting that he would take the matter 
up with County Attorney Sheila Polk.

Mackey gave Wiesner and Gundacker some time to discuss an offer that Wiesner 
might make to McGrane, but there was no resolution. A new court date is March 
3.

(source: The Daily Courier)








WASHINGTON:

Effort to abolish death penalty disappointing



Although I was not surprised, I was disappointed to read in the U-B about 
Maureen Walsh's efforts to abolish the death penalty in the state of 
Washington.

Although the "progressives" are working hard, and I'm sorry to say, making 
progress in their efforts to reshape this nation, I believe it is still a 
republic. As such, Ms. Walsh, as an elected official, still works for us.

However, her behaviors in the last few yeas belie that fact. I do not remember 
her ever asking me if I supported gay marriage.

Her aborted effort to write some kind of outrageous gun control bill, I must 
say, sent me over the edge. I most certainly do not remember her asking for 
public opinion about the death penalty.

I am all for the death penalty. I do not care if it deters further crime or 
not. That person is gone and unable to harm anyone else.

In this liberal state, one has to "really" work at getting a death penalty and, 
in that case, it is more than warranted.

It was mentioned in the paper that Ms. Walsh believed the expense of the death 
penalty is a "system of appeals that racks up a ton of bills."

I would agree with that assessment. Change it. An automatic appeal to the Court 
of Appeals and then a possible appeal to the state Supreme Court is more than 
adequate.

I believe she also has the belief they should "rot in jail?" From 1980 
throughout 2008, 65.5 % of homicides were conducted by males between the ages 
of 18 through 34, 37.5 % were conducted by males between 18 and 24 years of 
age. How much does it cost each year to house a convict and how long are they 
going to live?

I would argue that is a significant amount of money we should not be spending 
on those who have earned their ride out of life. I have voted against Ms. Walsh 
the last 2 elections and continue to ask myself how she continues to be 
re-elected.

Chris Leyendecker

Walla Walla

(source: Letter to the Editor, Union-Bulletin)








USA:

The 13th Juror: Is this a trial or a remake of 'Groundhog Day'?



The trial of accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was supposed to 
have started 3 weeks ago. But now it's anybody's guess when this highly 
anticipated trial will begin.

We're buried in snow and juror questionnaires. So far, we've had 14 days of 
jury selection and 6 snow days. It's like "Groundhog Day" meets "The Shining."

No cameras are allowed at the Tsarnaev trial. But CNN's Ann O'Neill will be 
there every day. Think of her as The 13th Juror, bringing insights here weekly. 
And follow @AnnoCNN on Twitter daily.

The walk to the courthouse, along streets where snow is piled higher than one's 
head, inspires a sense of kinship with rats searching for the cheese at the end 
of a maze. The blind quest becomes your everything.

U.S. District Court Judge George A. O'Toole wants the cheese.

Tsarnaev's defense, as well as the opinion makers at the local paper of record, 
The Boston Globe, believe there's no way O'Toole will be able find an unbiased 
jury to hear the case. People here have their minds made up about Tsarnaev's 
guilt, they take the marathon bombing personally, the publicity has been 
overwhelming, and nobody here can agree on the death penalty -- or so the 
arguments go.

But other factors are at play, too, including the length and likely gruesome 
nature of this trial, says Valerie Hans, a professor at Cornell University Law 
School and one of the nation's leading experts on juries.

The bombings and manhunt, she said, also seemed to touch nearly every 1 of the 
5 million people who live in or near Boston -- or a classmate, a relative, a 
colleague, a friend or a friend of a friend.

O'Toole is determined to prove the naysayers wrong. He seems confident he will 
find 12 objective Bostonians able to judge Tsarnaev only by what they hear in 
court. The defense has asked him 3 times to move the trial from Boston, saying 
the bias against their client is so pervasive it's impossible to find an 
impartial jury in Boston.

So many of the jury prospects say the same thing: Yes, I think he's guilty. No, 
I'm not sure I can vote for death penalty.

Next week, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will consider a defense 
request to move the trial to another city. By then, the judge has indicated, he 
might be close to identifying a pool of 64 people he believes have what it 
takes to serve on Tsarnaev's jury.

The government opposes moving the trial, saying no matter where you hold it, 
people have heard of this case. It's a point made in a recent article in the 
Columbia Journalism Review: In the digital age, is it possible to find jurors 
who haven't had some media exposure in big cases of national interest?

It hasn't been easy here. Potential jurors were handed questionnaires on 
January 5 and started returning in groups on the 20th, each to take a solo turn 
in the hot seat. Because this is a high-profile death penalty case, the judge 
and lawyers wanted to go deeper with the prospects to ferret out any bias.

The prospects are brought in one by one and grilled on everything from time 
spent on Twitter to their deepest thoughts about crime and punishment, life and 
death.

What was supposed to be 2 weeks of juror interviews has stretched into 4, with 
at least 1 more week to go. Weather permitting.

Why is it taking so long? Is this the longest jury selection ever?

Nobody seems to keep track of such things, said Teresa Saint-Amour, a 
researcher at the Harvard law library. She couldn't find a single database and 
steered me to a study of the state courts. An analyst for the organization that 
conducted the study said it likely was outdated.

And so, I turned to the original 13th Juror.

Jo-Ellan Dimitrius has worked as a jury consultant for 30 years. But she's not 
just any jury consultant. She helped pick juries for some of the most famous -- 
or infamous -- cases of our time: the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the Rodney 
King police beating case, the McMartin Preschool sex abuse case.

"I think in actuality, your trial is as it should be," she said of the Tsarnaev 
jury selection. "I'm not surprised it's taking this long. I'm not surprised the 
death penalty questions are taking as long as they are. The death penalty is 
something people aren't comfortable talking about. For some of these people, 
it's the first time they've thought about it since they were in school."

Massachusetts isn't a place to be comfortable about the death penalty. The 
state hasn't had capital punishment on the books in a generation. The last time 
anybody was executed was 1947. The death penalty simply hadn't been on people's 
radar until this case.

But United States vs. Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev is a federal case, as O'Toole 
reminds his potential jurors every morning.

And in this case, there's no way the feds could have a death penalty statute on 
the books and not ask jurors to use it, Dimitrius says. But the federal 
government isn't exactly California. Or Texas. Or even Florida.

Federal authorities win death sentences in just one of every three cases where 
they seek it. There are just 61 people on the federal death row, according to 
Death Penalty Focus. Compare that with the 1,400-plus people sentenced to die 
in those 3 states.

And federal executions are relatively rare. Only three people have been 
executed under the federal death penalty since 1988: Oklahoma City bomber 
Timothy McVeigh, drug smuggler and killer Juan Raul Garza and Louis Jones Jr., 
a decorated Gulf War vet who kidnapped, raped and murdered a young Army 
recruit.

I catch myself wondering why in the world the defense would want to leave a 
place that seems to have moved beyond, as one jury prospect put it, "an eye for 
an eye."

O'Toole seems to be growing impatient with Team Tsarnaev. He said he has no use 
for its "serial briefing" on moving the trial. And then came this judicial 
zinger: "The third motion to change venue has even less, not more, merit than 
the prior ones."

This judge remains confident he can find a jury. Yes, it is taking longer than 
he expected, but the questioning of individual jurors proves to him there are 
people who can be impartial. He points to 1 juror in particular, a human 
resources professional who said her job had trained her to "keep her judgment 
suspended until she had all the necessary information."

Most trials, even death penalty trials, wrap up jury selection in a week, 2 
tops. Though nobody seems to keep track of things like "longest jury selection 
ever," Dimitrius remembers what she thinks might well be the longest jury 
selection of them all.

It took 9 months to find a jury to hear the capital murder case of Richard 
Ramirez, known as "the Night Stalker." His spree of serial murders, rapes and 
home invasions terrified Los Angeles and San Francisco in the mid-1980s. He was 
sentenced to death for 13 murders but died of cancer in prison.

It also took months to pick juries to hear the murder trials of O.J. Simpson 
(1994) and Scott Peterson (2004). Simpson didn't face the death penalty, and 
his jury selection lasted about 3 months. Peterson is on death row, and it took 
about 4 months to seat his jury.

It took 47 days to empanel a jury in Connecticut to hear one of the most 
horrific death penalty cases in recent memory, the so-called Cheshire murders. 
2 ex-cons were convicted and sentenced to death for the 2007 home invasion 
murders of the wife and daughters of a prominent endocrinologist.

Casey Anthony's jury was seated in 10 days. People seemed to think she was 
guilty, too, but she was acquitted of committing the crimes with which she was 
charged. George Zimmerman's jury was picked in a day -- 6 women who acquitted 
the night watchman of charges he intentionally killed Florida teenager Trayvon 
Martin.

There has been talk among the lawyers in Boston of "stealth jurors," people who 
give all the right answers so they can get on a jury and carry out an agenda. 
Like 2 of the jurors in this case, they seem on the level until betrayed by 
what they post on social media.

1 juror gave straight answers, but the defense rooted out this profane tweet 
from the day of Tsarnaev's capture in a boat in Watertown: "WOOOOOHOOOOOO YOU 
GOT TAKEN ALIVE B****!!!!! DONT F*** WITH BOSTON!!!!!"

And, in what played like a scene from a TV courtroom drama, defense attorney 
Miriam Conrad confronted a juror over his Facebook humor. Asked if he ever 
posted anything about Muslims, Juror 251, a middle-aged, working-class Joe, 
replied, "Probably."

Conrad pulled out a copy of a cartoon -- Calvin from the old "Calvin and 
Hobbes" comic strip -- urinating on an ISIS flag.

"It was funny when I got it and I sent it back out," he said. The questioning 
continued, became pointed. The man grew defensive.

"There's a lot of funny stuff on there," he protested. "I'm a funny guy. It's 
Facebook."

The defense has also been quick to flag jurors who seem too eager to serve. But 
for every one of those, there are probably a dozen who simply want to get out 
of it.

Most of the 183 people who have come before O'Toole say they think Tsarnaev, a 
21-year-old former college student, is guilty. The jury prospects who grasp 
that the legal world is nuanced will acknowledge that they don't yet know the 
specifics of the charges against him. They haven't seen or heard the evidence. 
But he was there, they say. He was involved with the bombing near the finish 
line of the Boston Marathon.

He's guilty of something.

Many jurors struggled with what is probably the toughest question of them all: 
Can you vote to give him the death penalty? What's going on in Courtroom 9 of 
the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse serves as a pretty good snapshot of the 
state of justice in Massachusetts -- and across the country.

TV shows and social media feed the notion that most people charged with crimes 
probably did it. But we are on the fence when it comes to the death penalty. 
Some quote the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not kill." Others ask, what if I'm 
wrong?

The most honest answers seem to be, "I don't know how I'll feel until I'm in 
that position." Those jurors, Dimitruis said, are "probably the best you're 
going to get."

We met Juror 353 on the 12th day, a Friday. I doubt he'll make the panel, which 
seems perfectly fine with him.

He cut to the chase as he sat in his gray sweater at a conference table in the 
middle of the courtroom, surrounded by a dozen lawyers, court staffers and the 
judge. From the media peanut gallery, all we could see on the closed-circuit 
feed was the bald spot on the back of his head.

He spoke in an animated, gravelly voice. And he was Boston, through and 
through:

"I'm just absolutely against the death penalty. I don't know how many thousands 
of rounds were shot at that boat," he said, referring to Tsarnaev's April 19, 
2013, capture in a boat parked in a backyard in Watertown.

"You couldn't kill him then. I'm not gonna kill him now."

With that, 353's questioning came to an abrupt halt. He was out the door, and 
within minutes, someone tweeted, "Je Suis Juror 353."

(source: Ann O'Neill, CNN)