[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----UTAH, ARIZ., CALIF., USA, US MIL.

Thu Jan 29 14:30:04 CST 2015

Jan. 29

UTAH:

Attorneys argue over whether ex-wife can testify of alleged confession in Utah 
death penalty trial----Doug Lovell's aggravated murder trial is expected to 
start in March ??? nearly 30 years after Joyce Yost's murder.

In 1985, Douglas Lovell allegedly told his then-wife that he kidnapped Joyce 
Yost and drove her up to Causey Reservoir, where he strangled her, stomped on 
her neck and killed her.

Now, Lovell's attorneys are trying to keep his now-ex-wife, Rhonda Buttars, 
from testifying about the admissions at an upcoming trial.

Lovell's defense team argued in recently filed court papers that the 
defendant's admissions to Buttars should be barred from trial because the 
statements are protected under a "confidential marital communications 
privilege."

Defense attorney Sean Young wrote in court papers that Buttars should not be 
allowed to testify about how Yost accused her husband of rape, how Lovell said 
Yost "didn't deserve to live" and how Lovell planned to hire a hit man to kill 
Yost, then plotted to kill her himself.

But in court on Wednesday, Deputy Weber County Attorney Jeffrey Thomson argued 
that the statements should be allowed because Lovell made the alleged 
confessions either after their 1990 divorce, in the presence of a 3rd party, or 
while Buttars was aiding him in the commission of the murder.

Thomson agreed that a mere confession is a protected statement, but said that 
if a defendant tells his spouse that he murdered someone and needs her help 
hiding the body, it is no longer considered confidential.

Thomson also argued that Lovell not only confessed these details to Buttars, 
but also told his family, other jail inmates and pronounced them publicly 
during his own testimony at a 1993 sentencing hearing.

"There's no longer any privilege," Thomson argued. "It's destroyed ... it's not 
in confidence anymore."

Second District Judge Michael DiReda did not immediately rule on the issue, 
telling Lovell and the attorneys that he would take the matter under advisement 
and file a written ruling.

Lovell, who is now 57, pleaded guilty in 1993 to aggravated murder. During his 
sentencing hearing, he voluntarily took the stand and detailed how he sexually 
assaulted Yost and later murdered the 39-year-old woman to keep her from 
testifying at his rape trial, according to court documents.

His original plea deal with prosecutors spared him the death penalty, so long 
as he led authorities to where Yost was buried. However, despite trips to the 
Weber County mountains to search for her body, Lovell was unable to locate the 
woman's remains prior to his sentencing date.

Lovell was ultimately sentenced to death, but the Utah Supreme Court in 2010 
ruled he could withdraw the guilty plea because he should have been better 
informed of his rights during court proceedings.

Lovell's new death penalty trial is scheduled to begin on March 9 - nearly 30 
years after Yost's murder.

(source: Salt Lake Tribune)

ARIZONA:

Court's Final Decision - Life Sentencing or Death Penalty?

It was early days of June 2008 when a horrible murder happened. Travis 
Alexander was killed by his girlfriend, Jodi Arias. In her statement, she said 
that she did that out of self - defense. The court was not convinced and she 
was convicted of 1st degree murder nearly 2 years ago. Like most murder cases, 
this was a media favorite for quite some time.

Arias might be convicted, but one source believes that she is winning. Maybe 
not in the platform that we are thinking, but she is winning in other areas. If 
you can remember, the jury is still deciding if she will have a death penalty 
or a life imprisonment. Apart from that, new evidence and witnesses point that 
Alexander was some sort of a maniac with his pornographic collections. The 
allegation that Arias was physically abused by his then boyfriend is also 
getting stronger. Lastly, she is still breathing and Alexander is obviously 
not.

But the prosecutor has provided other witnesses which might pull Arias down. A 
source revealed that Deanna Reid shared that Alexander never abused him. She 
was dating Alexander before Arias. Also, one of Alexander's colleagues said 
that he and Arias made out. That could definitely tarnish Arias' reputation.

There are a lot of supporters for Alexander. Some think that he is really an 
inspirational and motivational speaker. One of his friends even told a report 
that everyone loves him. He grew up in a not-so-good environment. But according 
to his supporters, he is good and wanted the world to change for the better.

Like most murder cases, there will always be 2 sides of the story. The court 
needs to exert their effort in defining evidences that will reveal the truth. 
It is still puzzling and people already waited for 7 long years. That is long 
enough and dragging for everyone.

(source: Venture Capital Post)

CALIFORNIA:

Death penalty cases should be better analyzed

On Jan. 20, the Supreme Court took an unprecedented step in overruling a lower 
court in a death penalty case. In 1999, Mark Christeson was convicted of 
brutally murdering Susan Brouk and her 2 young children. He was then sentenced 
to death later that year. Death penalty experts who were brought in asserted 
that Christeson's lawyers failed to adequately represent Christeson by missing 
the deadline to submit a federal appeal. The lawyers refused to step down from 
the case and the lower courts refused the substitution. The Supreme Court was 
then forced to intervene, claiming that the lawyers had a conflict of interest 
and could not be expected to argue a case that could hurt their careers. 
Christeson's new lawyer, Jennifer Merrigan, said, "There were serious 
constitutional errors in his trial and those have never been listened to." 
Christeson's lengthy and messy case exemplifies why the death penalty should be 
reviewed more carefully in the United States.

The death penalty, despite its long legacy, is a troubling and divisive topic 
for many citizens. Though the United States remains an adherent to the death 
penalty, according to a October 2014 Gallup poll, nationwide support for the 
death penalty is at a 40-year low. This is due to findings revealing the 
absence of absolute certainty in the trial process.

It is also clear that the United States has struggled to find the appropriate 
method to both ensure fair trials in death penalty cases and perform executions 
in ways deemed "humane." Since 1976, 1,399 people have been executed in the 
United States, but there is no way of knowing how many of those executed were 
innocent because the courts do not usually entertain innocence claims after 
death. There are a few cases, however, with strong evidence pointing to 
innocence that have sparked controversy.

A key problem in prosecuting fair death penalty trials is eyewitness 
misidentification, which factored in 72 % of wrongful convictions overturned by 
DNA evidence. In this way, improper or missing forensics is also a essential 
piece of evidence that can be used to convict innocent defendants. According to 
the Innocence Project, a nonprofit organization that uses DNA evidence to 
overturn wrongful convictions, "In about 30 % of DNA exoneration cases, 
innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright 
confessions or pled guilty." These confessions are often the result of official 
misconduct by officials.

Pre-trial error exists even without mentioning possible trial error and 
executional problems. In Christeson's case, the mistakes made by 
court-appointed lawyers in the appeals process may cost Christeson his life. 
Often times, court-appointed lawyers don not have much of a stake in the 
outcomes of their clients' cases because of a lack of monetary incentive and a 
high volume of cases. The legal system is simply flooded with logistical and 
human errors. There is no doubt that death penalty cases have high stakes. If 
the death penalty is justified for serious, brutal crimes like murder, then the 
United States must ensure that it approaches the legal system fairly. The death 
penalty is undoubtedly cruel if it is not issued with extreme caution. 
Innocent, institutionalized execution cannot be tolerated in a so-called 
"humane" society. It is time for death penalty cases to be pursued with the 
presumption of innocence instead of the quest for conviction.

Interference by the Supreme Court in Christeson's death penalty case is a step 
that affirms the importance of death penalty cases. Getting it wrong is no 
longer acceptable for our criminal justice system. All cases that involve the 
lives of American citizens should involve all the resources that this country 
has to offer.

It is imperative, for the sake of this nation's integrity, that the American 
criminal justice system take further unprecedented action to prevent wrongful 
appropriation and execution of the death penalty.

(source: Morgan Bukdley; The (Univ. Southern California) Daily Trojan)

USA:

A Man Mocked and Ruled Guilty By a Judge in the Newspaper Will Now Face That 
Judge in Court----In 2002, a prosecutor defended the death sentence for a 
murderer. Now he's a federal judge and refuses to recuse himself in the same 
case.

A death penalty case now pending in Oklahoma raises an important question of 
judicial ethics and makes a federal appeals court judge look both sneaky and 
biased. The question is simple: What duty does an appellate judge have to 
disclose to the parties before him any definitive public statements he once 
made about the guilt of the defendant he's subsequently been asked to judge? 
Put another way: What right does a capital defendant have to know that one of 
the jurists sitting in judgment upon him once declared to the world that he was 
guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?

The story starts in 2002 when Julius Jones, a black man, was convicted of 
capital murder and sentenced to death for killing a wealthy white man in an 
apparent carjacking episode. Jones's co-defendant, a man named Christopher 
Jordan, testified against him at trial. Jones, for his part, argued that Jordan 
was the shooter. After the trial, Jones's lawyer, David McKenzie, decried the 
racial component of the trial, claiming there was no way his client could have 
received a fair trial free from bias or prejudice in the county.

Coming to the defense of the trial judge, and of the conviction, was Jerome A. 
Holmes, then deputy criminal chief in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 
Western District of Oklahoma. Holmes, who also is black, wrote an opinion 
column piece in the Daily Oklahoman, the state's largest newspaper, mocking 
McKenzie's claims of racial bias in the Jones's trial.

"[T]here was ample evidence for a rational jury to find that [Jones] gunned 
down an innocent stranger," Holmes wrote, "and that Jones deserved to die for 
his acts." Holmes then called out McKenzie, the lawyer, for making "factually 
unsupported claims of racial bias." It is odd that Holmes, a federal 
prosecutor, wrote such a pointed piece - and was allowed to do so by his 
bosses.

It is odd that Holmes, a federal prosecutor, wrote such a pointed piece - and 
was allowed to do so by his bosses.

4 years later, in part because of fiery missives like that one, , President 
George W. Bush appointed Holmes to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 
where he was confirmed after significant opposition by Democratic lawmakers, 
and where he has been ever since a staunch opponent of most civil rights 
issues. 9 years later, Jones's case moved out of the state courts and found its 
way to the 10th Circuit, Judge Holmes' court,. Jones's attorneys claim that 
McKenzie, the trial lawyer, had rendered his client ineffective assistance of 
counsel by failing to investigate a lead that a witness had heard Jordan, the 
co-defendant, claim he, not Jones, had been the shooter all along and that 
Jordan had framed Jones.

When Jones's current lawyers appealed this issue to the 10th Circuit they were 
randomly assigned a 3- judge panel. They were told the identifies of the judges 
about a week before oral argument in the case and did not conduct an 
investigation into whether any of the 3 judges had any conflict of interest 
that would render their participation in the case a breach of their judicial 
ethics. And why would those lawyers conduct such an investigation? Judge Holmes 
had an affirmative duty to recuse himself from a case where his impartiality 
could be reasonably questioned.

Yet Judge Holmes did not recuse himself. Nor did he even alert the lawyers in 
the case that he had written that piece in 2002, which then would have allowed 
Jones's lawyers to request the judge's recusal. Instead, Judge Holmes sat 
silent until the oral argument, which lawyers say he "dominated," and then 
ruled against Holmes (as did the other 2 judges who heard the case, the ruling 
was unanimous). It was only after this decision came out on December 5, 2014, 
that McKenzie, the original trial lawyer, noticed Judge Holmes's involvement 
and alerted Jones's current lawyers about the obvious conflict of interest.

Those lawyers last week filed a motion with the 10th Circuit requesting a 
rehearing of their case before a new panel of judges that does not include 
Judge Holmes. A federal judge has a duty to recuse himself, Jones's lawyers 
told the Court, in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be 
questioned or where "he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or 
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." 
The court now has ordered the state's attorney general to respond next week - 
although the problem has nothing to do with state prosecutors.

This is not a close case. At a minimum, a federal judge has an ethical duty, if 
not a legal one, to bring an evident conflict to the attention of the lawyers, 
which federal judges around the country do all the time. His failure to do 
this, alone, could arguably constitute the "bias" the law recognizes as a 
recusal reason. And, if not, the appearance of bias also merits recusal. The 
10th Circuit should do the right thing and reassign the case to a new panel. 
Judge Holmes should be required to explain why he sat silent about that opinion 
of Jones while he was sitting in judgment of Jones.

(source: The Daily Beast)

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

Deadly silence on death penalty

At least 3 horrifically botched executions last year - in Ohio, Oklahoma, and 
Arizona - heightened public alarm and revulsion at the risk of cruel and 
unusual methods of capital punishment. Short of abolishing the death penalty, 
the solution for states is to seek and ensure more humane methods. Instead, 
some are taking a sneakier, and constitutionally more suspect, route: dropping 
a veil of secrecy over executions.

The most recent example, and one of the most obnoxious, is legislation passed 
in a lame-duck session of Ohio's legislature last month following the 
shockingly bungled execution a year ago of Dennis McGuire, a convicted murderer 
who choked, gasped and writhed for 26 minutes before succumbing.

The law, signed just before Christmas by Gov. John Kasich, R, offers anonymity 
to compounding pharmacies that agree to manufacture the drugs used in state 
executions, as well as to others involved in carrying out executions. The bill 
would shield the identity of and public records pertaining to other medical and 
non-medical personnel who furnish supplies or administer the drugs used in 
executions.

The effect is to impose a gag order on potentially adverse reports that could 
inform the public debate over capital punishment. By making much relevant 
information secret, the law gives government accountability a black eye.

More than a dozen states have adopted similar laws and policies, and others are 
considering measures that are wildly overbroad.

A notable case is Virginia, where Gov. Terry McAuliffe's, D, administration has 
submitted a bill to the legislature that goes well beyond the Ohio law. The 
legislation, sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Richard L. Saslaw, D-Fairfax, 
would make practically everything about executions in Virginia a state secret - 
even the building in which they take place. The information would be exempt 
from the state's Freedom of Information Act and even off-limits to plaintiffs 
in most civil lawsuits.

It's hard to see the compelling need for that kind of blatant censorship, which 
in other states has been challenged by death row inmates, civil liberties 
groups and media outlets as an infringement on the First Amendment. Depriving 
the public of information on the dark side of capital punishment, and 
impoverishing the public debate, will not make botched executions any more 
palatable.

Taxpayers who provide the funds that pay for the drugs used in lethal 
injections deserve to know when mishaps occur. The fact that such mishaps might 
arouse public disgust does not justify granting anonymity to drug companies 
that enter into government contracts. If it did, states might conclude that any 
unpleasant news, and the resulting inconvenient public reaction, would occasion 
suspending the First Amendment.

The death penalty has been on a long and steady decline in America, with fewer 
states using it and those that retain it executing and condemning to death ever 
fewer prisoners. The fact that this trend has been impelled largely by public 
opinion is no excuse for shrouding ever-rarer executions under a cone of 
silence.

(source: Editorial, Washington Post)

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

Bishops use Supreme Court case to call for death penalty abolition

Several bishops in the U.S. have welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to 
re-examine death penalty protocols, and have called for the abolition of the 
death penalty.

"We pray that the court's review of these protocols will lead to the 
recognition that institutionalized practices of violence against any person 
erode reverence for the sanctity of every human life. Capital punishment must 
end," Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston, who chairs the U.S. bishops' pro-life 
activities committee, said Jan. 27.

Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami, who chairs the committee on domestic 
justice, said recent executions have shown "how the use of the death penalty 
devalues human life and diminishes respect for human dignity."

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will consider the case Glossip v. 
Gross, brought by 3 Oklahoma death row inmates, Richard Glossip, John Grant, 
and Benjamin Cole.

The inmates' lawsuit asks the court to reject the 3-drug protocol used in 
Oklahoma executions, saying it can cause extreme pain that violates 
constitutional bans on cruel and unusual punishment. Among the drugs in the 
cocktail is midazolam, a sedative.

The case was filed in response to the botched April 2014 execution of Clayton 
Lockett in Oklahoma, which took more than 40 minutes. Although sedated, his 
body writhed and he breathed heavily as he was being killed. He eventually died 
of a heart attack.

Oklahoma officials said Lockett's vein failed during the execution, which 
prevented the lethal drugs from working as intended. Other reports said 
officials failed to deliver the intravenous drug properly.

Following Lockett's execution, Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin had issued a 
temporary stay of the exeuction of Charles Warner. The federal government also 
investigated the execution practices.

Warner, who was 1 of the inmates listed as a plaintiff in the Supreme Court 
case, was executed in mid-January. Supreme Court justices, by a vote of 5-4, 
voted not to stay the execution of Warner, who was a convicted child rapist and 
murderer.

Glossip, was scheduled to be executed Jan. 29.

However, the Supreme Court granted a stay of execution Jan. 28 to all three 
living inmates who are plaintiffs in the case, writing that "it is hereby 
ordered that petitioners' executions using midazolam are stayed pending final 
disposition of this case."

It is disputed whether or not midazolam produces a deep enough sleep for the 
inmate to experience less pain when the other two drugs of the cocktail are 
administered.

The Supreme Court failed to stay not only Warner's Jan. 15 execution, but also 
the Jan. 27 execution of Warren Hill in Georgia. Hill's execution was being 
challenged on grounds of intellectual disability.

Catholic leaders have criticized the continued use of capital punishment.

Cardinal O'Malley said that society can protect itself "in ways other than the 
use of the death penalty."

"We bishops continue to say, we cannot teach killing is wrong by killing," 
Archbishop Wenski added.

The inmates' attorney, Dale Baich, characterized Oklahoma's new drug protocols 
as "novel and experimental."

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has defended the state's use of lethal 
injection, saying its constitutionality has been affirmed by two federal 
courts. Defending the constitutionality of the execution procedure will 
preserve the Oklahoma Department of Correction's ability "to proceed with the 
sentences that were given to each inmate by a jury of their peers," he said 
Jan. 23.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the inmates' case in April.

States that use lethal injections have faced increasing difficulty in obtaining 
the drugs used, mainly because the drugs' manufacturers refuse to sell them for 
use in lethal executions, NBC News reports.

In May 2014, Ohio's botched execution of inmate Dennis McGuire, which also used 
midazolam, also prompted calls to revisit the death penalty.

Several U.S. states have moved away from capital punishment in recent years. In 
total, 18 states have abolished capital punishment.

The U.S. bishops' conference cited Pope Francis' October 2014 call to abolish 
the death penalty "in all its forms." The conference is working with state 
Catholic conferences, the Catholic Mobilizing Network, as well as with other 
groups, to work to abolish the death penalty in the U.S. In 2005, the bishops 
launched the Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty.

(source: Catholic News Agency)

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

Loretta Lynch to Senate: I Won't Always Agree With Obama----The 
administration's nominee for attorney general appeared before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

It's the first day of Loretta Lynch's confirmation hearing, and Democrats want 
to make sure their Republican colleagues don't make it about something else.

"I hope we all remember that she is the nominee for attorney general," said 
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing 
Wednesday. "And that's why I'm focusing on her."

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York offered a similar sentiment. "The president's 
immigration policies are not seeking confirmation today," he said. "Loretta 
Lynch is."

Leahy, Schumer, and other Democrats knew what to expect from the GOP. Lynch 
faced tough questions from Republicans on the committee, who wondered whether 
she would be a stand-in for President Obama's policies, such as his executive 
action on immigration, or for the man she hopes to succeed: Eric Holder.

At the start of the hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck 
Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, said that the Justice Department is "deeply 
politicized" right now. "But that's what happens when the attorney general of 
the United States views himself, in his own words, as the president's 
'wingman,' " he said, referring to Holder. "I don't expect Ms. Lynch and I will 
agree on every issue. But I, for one, need to be persuaded Ms. Lynch will be an 
independent attorney general."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, wondered whether Lynch would follow in Holder's 
footsteps. "Let me for Sen. Schumer's benefit - you're not Eric Holder, are 
you?" he said, drawing laughter from the people in the room.

"No, I'm not," Lynch said.

Cornyn continued: "But Attorney General Holder's record is heavy on our minds 
now. I agree with the chairman about his concerns when the attorney general 
refers to himself as the president's wingman, suggesting that he does not 
exercise independent legal judgment, as the chief law-enforcement officer for 
the country. You wouldn't consider yourself to be a political arm of the White 
House as attorney general, would you?"

"No, senator, that would be an inappropriate use of the - "

"I'm sorry, you'd be willing to tell your friends 'no' if, in your judgment, 
the law required that?" Cornyn said.

"I think I have to be willing to tell not just my friends but colleagues 'no' 
if the law requires it," Lynch replied. "That would include the president of 
the United States." When Cornyn asked how Lynch would be different than Holder, 
she said, "I will be myself. Loretta Lynch."

Lynch is looking to offer a fresh start to a GOP-controlled Congress, casting 
herself as an alternative to Holder, whose liberal policies and outspoken 
personality have led to dramatic clashes with Republicans, culminating in 
Holder being the 1st DOJ head to be held in contempt of Congress. "I look 
forward to fostering a new and improved relationship with this committee, the 
United States Senate, and the entire United States Congress - a relationship 
based on mutual respect and constitutional balance," she said during her 
opening remarks.

If confirmed, her top priorities, Lynch said, would be strengthening 
relationships between the public and law enforcement, investigating and 
prosecuting terrorists, and enhancing the nation's defenses against 
cyberattacks.

In his questioning, Grassley wondered whether Lynch believed that Obama has the 
legal authority to stop deportations for millions of undocumented immigrants. 
Her answer was a measured, roundabout yes.

"I have had occasion to look at the Office of Legal Counsel opinion through 
which the Department of Homeland Security sought legal guidance there, as well 
as some of the letters from constitutional scholars who've looked at the 
similar issue. And certainly it seems to be a reasonable discussion of legal 
precedent. ... I don't see any reason to doubt the reasonableness of those 
views," Lynch said.

However, she said, "I found it interesting, as I was reading the legal counsel 
opinion that some of the proposals that were set forth, and asked about, the 
Office of Legal Counsel opinion did not, in fact, have a legal framework. And I 
don't believe that those were actually implemented. So I do think it is very 
important that as the Department of Justice, through any of its agencies, the 
Office of Legal Counsel, or in a direct conversation with the president, or any 
other member of the Cabinet, always ensure that they are operating from a 
position of whether or not there's a legal framework that supports the 
requested action."

Leahy mentioned interrogation tactics in his line of questioning. "The efforts 
to confront acts of torture carried out in our country's name - do you agree 
that waterboarding is torture?"

"Waterboarding is torture, senator," Lynch replied.

"And thus illegal?" Leahy followed up.

"And thus illegal," Lynch replied.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., wanted to know whether Lynch would emulate Holder's 
close relationship with Obama. "Just so you understand that your role is such 
that on occasion you have to say no to the person who actually appointed you to 
the job and who you support?"

"Senator, I do understand that that is, in fact, the role and the 
responsibility of the attorney general," Lynch said. "In fact, a necessary 
obligation on their part."

On Obama's new immigration policy, Sessions said, "I understand that you 
support the executive order. Is that correct?"

"I don't believe my role at this point is to support or not support it," Lynch 
responded. "My review was to see whether or not it did outline a legal 
framework for some of the actions that were requested. As noted, it indicated 
there was not a legal framework for other actions that were requested."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked about Lynch's opinion on the death penalty. 
"Do you support the death penalty?"

"I believe the death penalty is an effective penalty," Lynch said. "My office 
was able to achieve a death verdict there - " "How about yes?"

"So, we have sought it, yes," Lynch replied.

Lynch called the National Security Agency's surveillance programs 
"constitutional and effective." She said marijuana is "still a criminal 
substance under federal law," despite its legalization in several states. In 
response to a question from Sessions about Obama's view of marijuana as a "bad 
habit and a vice," Lynch spoke more forcefully.

"I can tell you that not only do I not support legalization of marijuana, it is 
not the position of the Department of Justice currently to support the 
legalization nor would it be the position should I become confirmed as attorney 
general," she said.

On Wall Street, Lynch said, "No individual is too big to jail."

Lynch currently serves as the U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn. If confirmed, she 
would be the 1st black female attorney general.

As lawmakers exited the room for a brief lunch recess, Leahy could be heard on 
his microphone saying, "I don't know that I've been so moved by any nominee on 
anything."

7 hours into the hearing, Grassley cracked a joke. "I hope when we're done here 
that you don't get this attitude that the way this chaotic place is run, why 
should you be working with the Congress of the United States? It doesn't always 
work this way. Little tongue in cheek."

"Well, senator, it's been a privilege to watch the peaceful transfer of power 
that's going on this afternoon," Lynch joked back.

(source: National Journal)

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

Deadly silence on death penalty