[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----N.Y., GA., OHIO, KY., KAN., OKLA.

[Rick Halperin]

Jan. 27



NEW YORK:

Death Penalty Project Gives Real-World Experience to Undergraduates



The Cornell Death Penalty Project runs clinical programs at Cornell Law School 
in which students assist with the representation of capital defendants. The 
project is run by three professors, Prof. John Blume,law, Prof. Sheri Johnson, 
law, and Keir Weyble, law, all of whom are extremely experienced in the field 
of capital defense.

In my column this month, I wanted to introduce Sun readers to the meaningful 
work that the Cornell Death Penalty Project is doing, through my experience so 
far. As a student in the Capital Punishment Clinic run by the Cornell Death 
Penalty Project this semester, I spent a week in South Carolina over Winter 
Break working on the investigation of a new case for the clinic. After watching 
Professor Blume argue a capital case in front of the South Carolina Supreme 
Court for 1 of the clinic's clients (he informed us this was his 74th argument 
in front of that court, no big deal), we visited death row and met with 3 
clients.

Meeting with the client for whom I would be working for the rest of the week 
and potentially the rest of the semester was probably the most valuable aspect 
of the trip. Putting a human face to the name of a death row inmate and 
speaking with him about his life and his case put the gravity of the work into 
perspective. Normal coursework does not have such high stakes. Our conversation 
further impressed upon me that I must work as hard as I can in every aspect of 
his case, so that the very best effort is put forward to save his life.

For the rest of the week, I drove with a partner around rural Orangeburg 
County, South Carolina, to interview the jurors from our client's trial to 
better understand the full picture of what happened going into and at trial.

This was not easy work. We spent 8 hours a day in the car, confronting empty 
plots of land where it appeared a juror used to live, muddy dirt roads we were 
afraid of getting the rental car stuck in, barking unleashed dogs and skeptical 
home inhabitants trying to help jurors avoid us.

But when we found jurors, they were surprisingly willing to speak with us. 
Because we asked, they rehashed difficult memories of literally signing 
someone's death sentence. From them, we learned more about the details of the 
trial. We also learned about our jurors??? lives and relatinships and connected 
with them on a personal level. For example, when I shook one woman's hand to 
thank her for talking with us, I was informed that I have very cold hands, "but 
a warm heart."

I am very grateful to be part of the team working on these important cases, 
which literally mean life or death for our clients. If, like me, you are 
interested in law or the death penalty, you can get involved too. The Cornell 
Death Penalty Project provides the opportunity for students outside the law 
school to enroll in the course LAW 4501: The Death Penalty in America or the 
human development course HD 4140: Social and Psychological Aspects of the Death 
Penalty. I highly recommend that you take one of these courses before you 
graduate.

For more information about the Cornell Death Penalty Project, please visit 
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/death-penalty-project.

(source: Annie O'Toole, Cornell Daily Sun)








GEORGIA----impending execution----clemency denied

Parole board denies clemency for Hill



The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the State Board of Pardons and 
Paroles turned down condemned 2-time murderer Warren Hill???s request for a 
stay of tonight's schedule execution despite his claims that he is 
intellectually disabled.

With that loss, Hill has only 1 remaining option in his effort to stop his 
execution scheduled for 7 p.m., the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Parole Board did not give a reason for its decision to deny clemency. In 
addition to hearing testimony during the meeting Monday, the board thoroughly 
reviewed Hill's parole case file, which includes the circumstances of the death 
penalty case, his criminal history and a comprehensive history Hill's life.

The federal appeals court said Hill had already challenged Georgia's 
requirement that he prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not eligible 
for a death sentence because of his disability. He has an IQ of 70, which is 
widely recognized as being intellectually disabled. The court said heis not 
entitled to a second appeal unless there was new evidence.

Hill is scheduled to die this evening for the 1990 beating death of his 
cellmate, Joseph Handspike. Hill was serving a life sentence at a prison in Lee 
County for the 1986 murder of his 18-year-old girlfriend when he used a 
nail-studded board to attack Handspike, also a convicted murderer.

Hill's lawyer focused some of his argument before the Parole Board Monday on 
last spring's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that death penalty states could not 
solely use an IQ score to determine if a convicted murder is ineligible for 
execution. Though Georgia does not have such a benchmark, state law does 
require proof of intellectual disability beyond a reasonable doubt - the 
highest standard of proof and one that not other state requires.

That same issue is the focus of his pending appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.



5 questions on the Warren Hill death case

1. Why is Warren Hill on death row?

Hill beat a fellow inmate, Joseph Handspike, to death with a nail-studded board 
in 1990 at a state prison in Leesburg. At the time, Hill was serving a life 
sentence for the 1986 fatal shooting of his former girlfriend, an 18-year-0ld 
woman whom he shot 11 times. Prison authorities said he took the 2-by-6 board 
from a bathroom, where it was used to support a sink. He was convicted in the 
Handspike killing in 1991 and sentenced to death.

2. What is the principle of law at stake in the Hill case? What are people 
arguing about?

Death penalty defendants sometimes plead "intellectual disability" as a way to 
show they were not capable of understanding what they did and are therefore not 
responsible for it. It is illegal in the United States to execute an 
intellectually disabled inmate. Warren Hill has invoked that defense. But 
Georgia also maintains the highest possible standard of proof among the states 
that allow the death penalty: here, the defendant must show he or she is 
intellectually disabled "beyond a reasonable doubt." Most states use a lesser 
standard: intellectually disabled by "a preponderance of the evidence" - 
meaning more likely than not. The difference between the 2 is the difference 
between whether Hill lives or dies. The Vatican, the European Union, Desmond 
Tutu, the American Bar Association, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter and others are on 
record as opposing the execution.

3. What makes Hill's case stand out?

In Hill's case, 2 state court judges have found him to be intellectually 
disabled, only according to the lesser "preponderance of the evidence" 
standard. In addition 3 experts for the state who testified 15 years ago that 
Hill was not intellectually disabled have since changed their diagnoses. In 
sworn statements and in interviews with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, all 3 
said their evaluations were rush jobs and a better scientific understanding 
leads them to believe Hill is mildly intellectually disabled. Hill's prior 
appeals have been denied.

4. Hasn't he appealed this issue in the courts?

Yes. Here's a partial timeline:

2002: Superior Court judge in Columbus finds Georgia's strict threshold to be 
fundamentally unfair because it ensured the state would execute capital 
defendants who are more likely than not mentally disabled. That judge found 
Hill to be intellectually disabled by a preponderance of the evidence.

2003: Voting 4-3, the state Supreme Court overturns that judge's ruling. The 
court finds that exemptions from execution should be granted only to those 
"whose mental deficiencies are significant enough to be provable beyond a 
reasonable doubt." The dissenters argued the ruling meant the state may execute 
inmates who are "almost certainly" intellectually disabled.

2010: A 3-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Atlanta, by a 2-1 vote, 
finds Georgia's standard of proof unconstitutionally increased the risk that an 
intellectually disabled inmate would be executed.

2011: The entire federal appeals court, by a 7-4 vote, overturns the panel's 
decision. The court's majority said the state's death-penalty statute contains 
substantial safeguards to help jurors accurately determine whether a defendant 
is intellectually disabled.

2012: The U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Hill's appeal, triggering the 
scheduling of his execution.

2012: Hill's execution is temporarily stayed amid an argument over Georgia's 
plans to switch from a 3-drug mixture for executions to a single drug. The stay 
is later lifted and the execution is rescheduled for 2013.

2013: The federal appeals court calls off Hill's execution 30 minutes before it 
is to take place, saying it would hear arguments about his intellectual 
ability.

2013: The appeals court rules against Hill.

2014: Hill files a new challenge to the state's intellectual disability law in 
September in Butts County Superior Court (the county where he is being held on 
death row). The Butts County court rules against him in October, and his 
appeals to higher courts fail.

Jan. 27, 2015: The 11th circuit rules against Hill's appeal, saying he has 
already argued his case on intellectual disability grounds. The state Board of 
Pardons and Paroles also denies clemency. In a statement, Hill's attorney, 
Brian Kammer, said, "The clemency board missed an opportunity to right a grave 
wrong. It is now up to the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that an 
unconstitutional execution of a man with lifelong intellectual disability is 
prevented." Hill is scheduled to die this evening.

5. What are the roots of this argument?

In 1988, Georgia became the 1st state to ban the execution of the 
intellectually disabled. Passage of the law is widely attributed to the public 
outrage that accompanied the 1986 execution of Jerome Bowden, who, before being 
put to death in the electric chair, had been found to have the mentality of a 
12-year-old. In his final statement, Bowden thanked "the people of this 
institution for taking such good care of me as they have."

(source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)








OHIO:

Spencerville man to face death penalty in slaying of 17-month-old----Man faces 
execution in child's slaying



A man accused of killing a 17-month old child will face the death penalty.

Christopher Clayton, 20, was indicted on aggravated murder with a death penalty 
specification. Clayton is accused of causing the injuries that led to the Jan. 
16 death of Xavier Wurth.

Xavier suffered blunt-force trauma to the back of his head, a forensic 
pathologist who performed the autopsy ruled.

Clayton's arraignment is scheduled for Feb. 4. A death penalty specification 
can be added only under limited circumstances. In this case, Clayton is accused 
of being the principal offender in the death of a child under 13.

Clayton told a 911 operator the child choked on his own vomit. He said he 
believed the child suffocated. Those statements did not match the autopsy 
results and Clayton was arrested.

"We just woke up and I think our baby's dead," Clayton told a 911 operator.

Clayton told the operator he put the child to bed the evening before at 8 p.m. 
His call to 911 was placed at 11:57 a.m. the next day.

The child's body was found in an upstairs hallway, officials said.

The incident happened inside an apartment at 229 Wurster St., in Spencerville. 
Clayton, who is from St. Marys, was living in the home with the child's mother, 
Alexis Long. He had lived there less than a year, police officials said.

Spencerville Police Chief Darin Cook said it was clear by looking at the child 
at the scene that the death was suspicious. Cook immediately called sheriff 
detectives and the crime scene unit because his agency is small and does not 
have those resources.

(source: limaohio.com)








KENTUCKY:

Nunn plans appeal of judge's refusal to throw out guilty plea, sentence in 
Amanda Ross's death



Former state lawmaker Steve Nunn will appeal a Fayette County judge's refusal 
to throw out his guilty plea and life sentence in the shooting death of his 
onetime fiancee Amanda Ross, one of his attorney's said Monday.

Circuit Judge Pamela Goodwine rejected Nunn's requests to withdraw his guilty 
plea in a ruling she filed with the court earlier Monday.

Nunn, 62, argued his guilty plea should be overturned because he received 
ineffective legal advice. He contended that his lawyer, Warren Scoville of 
London, didn't fully explain the effects of his plea. Goodwine, however, ruled 
that Nunn entered the guilty plea of his own accord.

"Thus, having found that Nunn's guilty plea was freely, willingly, knowingly 
and voluntarily entered, and no sufficient basis being presented to this court 
to set it aside, Nunn's motion to vacate sentence ... is overruled," the judge 
said in her 17-page opinion filed Monday in the court clerk's office.

Krista Dolan, 1 of 2 public defenders representing Nunn, confirmed Monday 
afternoon that they plan to appeal Goodwine's ruling to the Kentucky Court of 
Appeals.

Nunn, the son of former Gov. Louie B. Nunn, pleaded guilty first-degree murder 
in June 2011. Ross was killed on Sept. 11, 2009.

Nunn was sentenced to life without parole. If the case had gone to trial, 
prosecutors had planned to seek the death penalty.

Nunn filed the challenge of his guilty plea in October 2013.

He claimed that he switched his plea to guilty because he had understood that 
if he did so, the Ross family would drop a wrongful-death civil lawsuit that 
they had filed against him.

But the civil lawsuit was never dismissed, and Nunn ultimately was found liable 
for $24 million in damages.

In a hearing last fall, Nunn blamed Scoville. Nunn said he would never have 
pleaded guilty if he had known the civil suit would remain in effect.

Goodwine systematically dismissed Nunn's arguments in her ruling.

The judge noted that Nunn had stated that he wanted to make the guilty plea to 
spare his own daughters and Amanda Ross's mother, Diana Ross, the emotional 
turmoil of a trial. He even said he would have pleaded guilty to the death 
penalty, Goodwine said.

She also dismissed as "without merit" Nunn's argument that Scoville had a 
conflict of interest because his firm was a party in the civil suit while he 
also was listed as counsel of record in the suit.

Scoville's law firm was a defendant from December 2009 to February 2010 in the 
Ross family's civil suit against Nunn, Goodwine said, but there was no 
discussion between Nunn and Scoville about a possible plea during that time.

Goodwine wrote that Nunn's own testimony indicated that he didn't tell 
Scoville's paralegal, Angie Tyree, about his desire to plead guilty until more 
than a year later, in May 2011.

The judge also focused on the question of whether a promise was made that the 
Ross family would dismiss its civil suit if Nunn pleaded guilty. There was 
conflicting testimony on the question during a hearing in October.

Scoville said there was a verbal agreement that the civil suit would be 
dropped. But attorney Burl McCoy, who represented the Ross family in the civil 
suit, insisted that there was no such deal.

In Monday's ruling, Goodwine said that she could find no mention in the civil 
suit record that Nunn thought that the lawsuit "was going to be dismissed once 
he entered his guilty plea."

"In Nunn's mind, dismissing the civil suits had nothing to do with punishment," 
Goodwine wrote. "The civil action was filed before Nunn was even indicted on 
the murder charges. Nunn's underlying reason ... were to spare his daughters 
and Mrs. Ross the emotional trauma of what would have likely been a rather 
sensationalized trial despite efforts to prevent same."

(source: kentucky.com)








KANSAS:

Rep. Becker wants to abolish death penalty




State Rep. Steven Becker, R-Buhler, filed a bill in the House Judiciary 
Committee on Monday that would abolish the state's death penalty and replace it 
with life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Becker said the bill is fiscally responsible and recognizes that wrongful 
convictions occur.

He also noted that Gov. Sam Brownback declared in his State of the State 
Address this month that "'from the beginning of life to the end of life, Kansas 
is the most pro-life state in America.'"

"How can we claim to be pro-life when we impose the death penalty?" Becker 
asked in a statement. "Every advocate for and champion of the sanctity of life 
knows that it applies to all life, not just innocence," Becker said.

A study last year determined a death penalty case incurs more costs than a life 
sentence. "Significant savings can be realized to the state general fund," 
Becker said, and the budget is an important issue this year.

Becker is a former Reno County district judge and sits on the House Judiciary 
Committee.

(source: Hutchinson News)


OKLAHOMA:

SCOTUS Lethal Injection Case Halts All Executions in Oklahoma; Prompts Appeals 
in Texas



The US Supreme Court is reviewing Oklahoma's execution protocol. The decision 
is prompting several Texas inmates to file emergency stays of execution, in 
hopes the court will halt executions in multiple states.

The drug in question is called Midazolam. It's used by Oklahoma and Florida as 
the 1st of a 3 drug protocol for executions. Friday, the US Supreme Court 
agreed to review it for cruel and unusual punishment.

The drug is supposed to cause unconsciousness, so the other 2 drugs that stop 
breathing and stop the heart won't be felt.

"I greatly fear that there will be more spectacular disasters when people are 
executed with Midazolam," attorney for Oklahoma death row inmates Mark 
Henrickson said.

The drug caused controversy during Clayton Lockett's execution last year. 
Witnesses say he writhed on the table and was able to sit up and speak after a 
doctor declared him unconscious.

"He doesn't want to be tortured to death like Mr. Lockett was," Henrickson 
said.

He is the attorney for Richard Glossip, who is convicted of killing his boss in 
1997.

He was supposed to be executed using the drug this week, but Monday, Scott 
Pruitt, Oklahoma Attorney General, filed an emergency stay to halt all 
executions in the state until the Supreme Court issues its decision, or the 
state finds a drug to replace Midazolam.

Texas death row inmates Garcia White and Robert Ladd are set for executions 
this week. They filed emergency stays Monday, asking the US Supreme Court to 
stop their executions until its decision in the Oklahoma case.

Attorneys for Lester Bower, a man convicted of killing 4 men in Sherman 30 
years ago, have also filed an appeal.

"We believe that the supreme court ruling will not have an impact in Texas," 
Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman Jason Clark said. "Texas uses a 
single, lethal dose of Pentobarbital."

Texas executed 37 inmates with Pentobarbital. Clark says all were without 
incident, though he is not surprised attorneys are using Oklahoma's protocol as 
a reason to question the one in Texas, despite being different.

"Attorneys for death row offenders will look at many different avenues and file 
their appeals based upon that," Clark said.

The US Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case in April and 
issue a decision in late June.

(source: KTEN news)

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

Oklahoma Asks Supreme Court to Delay 3 Executions



Oklahoma has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue stays of executions for 3 
death-row inmates scheduled for lethal injection this week because the justices 
are set to hear a challenge to one of the drugs the state uses.

Convicted murderers Garcia White, Richard Glossip, and Robert Ladd have 
execution dates for Wednesday and Thursday, but the high court won't rule on 
whether the lethal-injection formula is constitutional until the summer. The 
state believes that because the dates are already scheduled, only the court has 
the authority to put them on hold until a decision is made.

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed for the 1st time since 2008 to hear a 
challenge to lethal injections, but they didn't block any pending executions at 
that time. 7 years ago, executions across the country ground to a halt while 
the justices considered - and ultimately rejected - the earlier challenge.

The new case centers on Oklahoma's use of the sedative midazolam as the 1st 
chemical in a 3-drug combination. Defense lawyers say it's not strong enough to 
block the pain of the 2nd and 3rd drugs.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said executions in the state should be 
on hold until the court either OKs midazolam or an alternative is found. But he 
said the state is committed to putting the 3 men to death.

"It is important that we act in order to best serve the interests of the 
victims of these horrific crimes and the State's obligation to ensure justice 
in each and every case," Pruitt said in a statement.

"The families of the victims in these 3 cases have waited a combined 48 years 
for the sentences of these heinous crimes to be carried out. 2 federal courts 
have previously held the current protocol as constitutional, and we believe the 
United States Supreme Court will find the same."

Dale Baich, one of the inmates' lawyers, said in a statement: "We agree that it 
is appropriate that executions in Oklahoma should be stayed while the U.S. 
Supreme Court reviews the case."

(source: NBC news)