[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ARIZ., ORE., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Jan. 25



ARIZONA:

Prosecutors and Defense Psychologist Get Into Heated Exchange About Arias's 
Relationship Status In Death Penalty Trial



Day 28 of the Jodi Arias sentencing retrial continued on Thursday as 
prosecutors once again attacked defense witness psychologist Dr. Robert Geffner 
during another testy cross-examination.

When first called to the witness stand by the defense on Tuesday, Dr. Geffner 
delivered a graphic testimony that painted the murder victim, Travis Alexander, 
as an emotionally abusive and manipulative boyfriend. He also focused on the 
sext messages that Alexander sent to multiple women while seeing convicted 
killer Jodi Arias.

According to analyst Beth Karas, Geffner's testimony supports the defense's 
"position that Travis Alexander treated women a certain way, presented himself 
to the Mormon community one way, but he was a highly sexual person, a little 
bit manipulative and controlling of women," reports KPHO.

Karas added that the new revelations about Alexander's interactions with other 
women "may help the jury understand where Jodi Arias was coming from. It's not 
a defense to the murder; she's guilty of the murder, but it might convince some 
of them she doesn't deserve to die" for the murder.

Geffner also said that Alexander lied to women about being a 30-year-old virgin 
in order to coax them into sleeping with him.

However, on Thursday, Geffner endured another day of tense and awkward 
questions from prosecutor Juan Martinez, who poked holes in his testimony and 
made note of the inconsistencies found in Arias' stories to different 
psychologists.

Martinez pointed out that Arias is a well-documented liar to discredit the 
psychologist's testimony. He also attacked Arias' claims that her ex-lover 
slammed her and broke one of her fingers, reports KPHO.

At one point, Martinez and Geffner had a heated exchange over the different 
dates Arias gave the psychologist as to when she and Alexander began dating. 
The 2 then began a big debate over what constitutes "official" dating and 
whether Arias and Alexander were in a real relationship, reports USA Today.

Martinez also pointed out that Geffner and other psychologists only have 
Arias's word and journal to prove that they were really in a relationship, ABC 
15 reports. Plus, he burned holes in allegations that Alexander was abusive and 
consumed pornography.

Although Arias was found guilty of 1st-degree murder last May in the death of 
her ex-boyfriend, in her 1st trial, jurors failed to reach a unanimous decision 
on her sentencing. As a result, the retrial will determine whether she should 
be sentenced to death, life in prison or life with a chance of release after 
serving 25 years.

According to medical examiners, Arias stabbed Alexander 27 times, primarily in 
the back, torso and heart in his Phoenix home. She also slit Alexander's throat 
from ear to ear, nearly decapitating him, and she shot him in the face before 
she dragged his bloodied corpse to the shower and took pictures of him.

(source: Latin Post)








OREGON:

Trial in killing of toddler delayed till 2016



The trial of a Washington state woman charged with drugging and killing her 
2-year-old daughter at an Oregon coastal resort has been put off a year.

It also has been scheduled for the summer in the expectation of testimony from 
the surviving daughter, who at 13 is attending school for the first time.

The decision Thursday from Judge Cindee Matyas means Jessica Smith, 41, of 
Goldendale is scheduled to stand trial beginning in late June 2016.

The trial, expected to last 3 weeks, had been scheduled to begin in July.

Smith has pleaded not guilty to an aggravated murder charge that could result 
in the death penalty, as well as to a charge of attempted aggravated murder for 
the slashing that nearly killed the 13-year-old.

Smith and her husband were divorcing and involved in a custody dispute over the 
children.

Smith's lawyers told the judge they couldn't prepare for a July trial because 
they have other aggravated murder trials in Multnomah and Clackamas counties 
this year. They said they could handle an April 2016 start.

Greg Smith, the father, said by telephone at the hearing that he'd prefer a 
trial as soon as possible. But if the trial were to be put off until spring 
2016, it would be better to delay it further to make sure the girl doesn't miss 
classes, Greg Smith said.

Jessica Smith told the judge that the date nearly 2 years from the time of her 
arrest was acceptable. She is being held without bail.

One of her lawyers, William Falls, said he expects to file a motion about 
mental health issues, a possible defense.

The 2-year-old was found dead Aug. 1. She had been sedated with an 
over-the-counter antihistamine, according to the state medical examiner. 
Asphyxiation by drowning was the main cause of death, and the drug was listed 
as a contributing cause.

(source: The Register-Guard)








USA:

'Death-Qualified' Juror Search Slows Marathon, Theater Cases



1 prospective juror was brutally frank when asked whether he could consider a 
sentence of life in prison for the man accused of bombing the Boston Marathon.

"I would sentence him to death," he said, then added: "I can't imagine any 
evidence that would change how I feel about what happened."

Another prospective juror said he couldn't even consider the death penalty, 
telling the court, "I just can't kill another person."

The 2 men are on opposite sides of the capital punishment debate, but both 
unlikely to make it on the jury for the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: to be 
seated for a death penalty case a juror must be willing - but not eager - to 
hand down a sentence of either life or death.

The process of finding "death qualified" jurors has slowed down jury selection 
in federal case against Tsarnaev, who is charged with setting off 2 bombs that 
killed 3 people and injured more than 260 during the 2013 marathon. It is 
expected to do the same in the state trial of James Holmes, the man accused of 
killing 12 people and injuring 70 others in a suburban Denver movie theater in 
2012.

The process is designed to weed out jurors who have strong feelings for or 
against the death penalty. A 1985 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court said a 
juror can lawfully be excused if his or her views on the death penalty are so 
strong that they would prevent or substantially impair their ability to follow 
the law.

But death penalty opponents have long said the process is fundamentally unfair. 
They argue that death-qualified juries do not represent a true cross-section of 
the community because they end up being made up of either death penalty 
supporters or people willing to impose it under some circumstances.

"You end up with a jury with less women, less blacks, less Democrats ... you 
end up with a jury that is skewed in ways that make it probably more 
conservative, more accepting of prosecution arguments, of state authority," 
said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information 
Center, a nonprofit organization that opposes executions.

The Capital Jury Project, a consortium of university researchers, interviewed 
about 1,200 jurors in 353 capital trials in 14 states beginning in the early 
1990s. The group's research has shown that death penalty juries are more likely 
to convict and that jurors often make up their minds about what punishment to 
hand down long before they're supposed to, said William Bowers, director of the 
project.

After reaching a verdict, a trial enters the penalty phase, when prosecutors 
present evidence of aggravating factors, such as the brutality of the crime, to 
argue in favor of the death penalty while defense attorneys present mitigating 
factors, such as abuse as a child, to argue against it. Juries are then 
supposed to weigh those factors when deciding whether a defendant should get 
life or death.

"The principal finding is that half of the jurors said they knew what the 
punishment should be before the penalty stage of the trial and another 1/4 of 
them said they were pretty sure," Bowers said. "The thing they don't recognize 
or seem to have overlooked is that they are not supposed to decide what the 
punishment is until they hear the evidence in the 2nd phase."

Death penalty opponents have argued that to get around this kind of 
pre-judgment, separate juries should be chosen to hear evidence in the guilt 
phase and the punishment phase. But that idea has not gained traction.

Another finding of the research was that death penalty opponents are also more 
willing to consider an insanity defense, something that will come into play in 
the case of Holmes, whose attorneys don't dispute opened fire during a midnight 
showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" but argue he was in the grips of a psychotic 
episode. He has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

Holmes' lawyers, citing data from the Capital Jury Project, argued that his 
jury should not be death-qualified, but Judge Carlos A. Samour Jr. rejected 
their challenge, saying he is bound by rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and 
the Colorado Supreme Court holding that death-qualification is constitutional.

In the Holmes case, an unprecedented 9,000 jury summonses were mailed. As of 
Friday, 210 prospective jurors had been excused over 4 days. Individual 
questioning is set to begin next month.

In the marathon bombing case, 1,373 people filled out juror questionnaires. 
Individual questioning of prospective jurors has been slowed as the judge has 
probed people at length about their feelings on the death penalty. The judge 
had originally said he hoped to question 40 jurors each day, but during the 
first 5 days only averaged about 15.

Capital punishment supporters say the current system of screening out strong 
pro- and anti-death penalty jurors is the only fair way to choose juries in 
death penalty cases.

"The process simply says that jurors must be willing to abide by the law," said 
John McAdams, a Marquette University professor who supports the death penalty.

"The law says that certain kinds of aggravated murders should get the death 
penalty," he said. "Jurors have to be willing to listen to the evidence and 
have to be willing to impose the death penalty if, in their judgment, the crime 
was sufficiently heinous to call for the death penalty."

(source: WBUR news)

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

The Supreme Court Lethal Injection Case Could Have Major Implications For 
Inmates Everywhere



Following a number of high-profile cases involving controversial death-row 
inmates, the Supreme Court has decided to weigh in on the use of lethal 
injections and whether such practices violate the Constitution's measures 
against cruel and unusual punishment. The decision to review the procedure 
marks the 1st time the high court has addressed the issue since 2008, when it 
unilaterally denied a challenge to the practice. Now, however, following a 
single-line issue published late Friday afternoon, the Roberts Court has agreed 
to hear a case brought forward by three inmates awaiting execution who say the 
lethal dosage of drugs is unconstitutional.

The lawyer representing the prisoners, Oklahoma-based attorney Dale Baich, told 
USA Today:

The time is right for the Court to take a careful look at this important issue, 
particularly given the bungled executions that have occurred since states 
started using these novel and experimental drugs protocols.

He refers to the controversial execution of convicted murderer Clayton Lockett, 
whose allegedly painful and inhumane execution brought into question the 
legality and humanity of the lethal injection procedure. Since then, however, 
the state has put to death convicted child rapist and killer Charles Warner 
without any claim of foul play. Still, some lawyers say, the usage of the fatal 
combination of drugs can be excruciating, especially if used in the wrong 
order.

In an earlier challenge presented by Oklahoma defense attorneys, NBC News 
reports, naysayers of the penalty and the lethal injection have noted:

There is a well-established scientific consensus that it cannot maintain a 
deep, coma-like unconsciousness. For these reasons, it is uncontested that 
midazolam is not approved by the FDA for use as general anesthesia and is never 
used as the sole anesthetic for painful surgical procedures.

According to these lawyers, their clients are acutely aware of intense pain 
during their final moments, making the entire procedure entirely unacceptable 
under the Constitution???s Bill of Rights. Attorneys have further claimed:

The lethal injection landscape has changed significantly since Baze v. Rees in 
2008. At that time, every state was using the same three-drug combination, 
which the lawyers in Baze conceded was humane if administered properly. Today, 
states are not using that 3-drug protocol and instead are using experimental 
drug combinations. The drug protocol used in Oklahoma is not capable of 
producing a humane execution, even if it is administered properly.

The Supreme Court is expected to come to a conclusion on the issue by late June 
at the latest after hearing the case in April. A number of the Court's more 
liberal justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia 
Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, have previously expressed reservations about the 
current policies in place regarding lethal injection executions. Following a 
recent decision to ignore a similar petition from an inmate in Missouri, 
Justice Sotomayor remarked,

The questions before us are especially important now, given states' increasing 
reliance on new and scientifically untested methods of execution. Petitioners 
have committed horrific crimes and should be punished. But the Eighth Amendment 
guarantees that no one should be subjected to an execution that causes searing, 
unnecessary pain before death. I hope that our failure to act today does not 
portend our unwillingness to consider these questions.

Now, these considerations are more salient than ever as the entire court 
prepares to hear a case that has the capacity to change the entire landscape of 
capital punishment in the United States. In the coming weeks, the scheduled 
executions of a number of death row inmates will be stayed while the Court 
begins to weigh arguments and evidence pertaining to the issue.

Many of the issues that have recently arisen around the drugs used in lethal 
injections followed the boycott of a number of European companies who refused 
to provide the necessary sedatives that, ostensibly, make the procedure more 
painless and humane. The United States, which remains one of the few "developed 
nations" that still makes use of the death penalty, has come under significant 
fire by other nations for the seemingly antiquated capital punishment system. 
Still, executions continue to happen by state jurisdictions, and in the states 
of Oklahoma, Florida, Ohio, and Arizona, the same apparently ineffective pain 
killer is used as the 1st of the 3 injections. Ohio, however, has announced 
that is will halt all executions until a superior alternative can be found.

(source: bustle.com)

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

Supreme Court agrees to review execution protocols?



The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Oklahoma's procedures 
on executing death row inmates, an action that opens the door to a ruling on 
how executions are handled across the nation.

The court's action comes after a year in which convicted murderers executed in 
Oklahoma, Arizona and Ohio appeared to suffer and took many minutes to die. In 
response, death penalty opponents went to court, asking judges to halt 
executions and to review the procedures used to carry them out. The executions 
also prompted supporters of capital punishment to suggest that states return to 
older methods of putting people to death.

The Supreme Court has ruled the death penalty constitutional, but questions 
remain about the methods used to carry it out. Here is a primer to 
understanding the issues involved.

What did the Supreme Court do?

The nation's top court decided that it would consider a challenge from three 
Oklahoma inmates who argue that the procedure and drugs used in lethal 
injections violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

It appears that 4 judges, the liberal wing of the court, voted to take up the 
issue even though the 5-jurist conservative majority had approved an execution 
in Oklahoma on Jan. 15. It takes only 4 of the 9 justices to agree to hear a 
case.

Why now?

Some of the justices have been eager to act after a year in which three 
executions in three states had serious problems, with inmates seeming to suffer 
while being put to death. In recent years, many states have had to scramble and 
change their procedures because they have had problems finding a supply of the 
right drugs.

What is the legal issue? Is it just a question of pain?

The 8th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, 
but exactly what that means is always open to interpretation. When the Supreme 
Court in 2008 last looked at lethal injections, Chief Justice John G. Roberts 
Jr. wrote that it takes more than pain to violate the Constitution.

"Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or 
as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of 
'objectively intolerable risk of harm' that qualifies as cruel and unusual," 
the justice wrote.

Does the current case have ramifications beyond Oklahoma?

The Supreme Court potentially could decide the national standards for the use 
of lethal injection, the primary method of execution used by the states and the 
federal government.

Right now the procedures vary. Many states use a three-drug combination with 
three injections: an anesthetic or sedative, followed by pancuronium bromide to 
paralyze the inmate, then potassium chloride to stop the heart. However, some 
states use a 1- or 2-drug combination that usually includes a lethal dose of an 
anesthetic or sedative.

How did we get to this point?

Before 2008, death-penalty states used sodium thiopental to induce 
unconsciousness.But the U.S. manufacturer of sodium thiopental stopped making 
the drug, and the European Union, where capital punishment is banned, 
prohibited the export of the drug to stop it from being used in U.S. 
executions. That meant that states had to find substitutes. Pentobarbital was 
used extensively, but its producer also objected to its use for executions.

As supplies of pentobarbital dwindled, states considered alternatives, 
including turning back to older methods, such as gas chambers. Oklahoma and 
other states turned to the drug midazolam.

Is there a problem with midazolam?

Opponents of the death penalty say yes.

"The drug protocol used in Oklahoma is not capable of producing a humane 
execution, even if it is administered properly," said Dale Baich, one of the 
attorneys representing Oklahoma death row prisoners who brought the case to the 
Supreme Court. 3 of the 4 states that use midazolam have had problems. Only 
Florida, the 1st state to use the drug, has not had a reported any difficulty.

Last April, Oklahoma executed Clayton Lockett, who witnesses said kicked his 
legs and grimaced before dying 43 minutes after the lethal injection began. A 
state investigation found problems with the way the execution team inserted the 
needle.

Oklahoma revamped its procedures, including a 5fold increase in the amount of 
midazolam. It used the new procedures to put Charles Warner to death earlier 
this month without incident.

Ohio had used midazolam months before Lockett was put to death, and the inmate 
in that execution, Dennis McGuire, gasped and choked before taking about 25 
minutes to die. Last July in Arizona, Joseph R. Wood gasped and snorted for 
more than 90 minutes before he died. Arizona and Ohio have said they won't use 
midazolam and other drug mixtures again.

What does Oklahoma say about the Supreme Court's action?

"Oklahoma's execution protocol has been affirmed as constitutional by 2 federal 
courts," Oklahoma Atty. Gen. Scott Pruitt stated on Friday. "We will continue 
to defend the constitutionality of this protocol in order to preserve [the 
Department of Corrections'] ability to proceed with the sentences that were 
given to each inmate by a jury of their peers."

What happens next?

The 3 death row inmates will ask for stays of execution, and will probably 
receive them. Prisoners in other states will also seek delays while the court 
hears arguments, probably in April, and issues a ruling, expected by June.

(source: Los Angeles Times)