[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----UTAH, ARIZ., CALIF., USA, US MIL.
Rick Halperin
rhalperi at smu.edu
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
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 2 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)
US MILITARY:
Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan appears in court long after death sentence
An army psychiatrist who killed 13 people in a shooting rampage at a Texas army
base is set to appear in court.
Nidal Hasan is scheduled to attend a hearing Thursday at Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas, where he is being held on military death row. Army officials say the
judge, Colonel Tara Osborn, wants to review "routine matters" in Hasan's case.
Among those issues is who defends Hasan during his appeals. His lead defense
counsel is now an army judge but has continued to represent him.
Officials at Fort Hood have yet to review Hasan's case nearly 18 months after
he was sentenced to death.
That review is one of several mandatory steps in military death penalty cases.
(source: The Guardian)
More information about the DeathPenalty
mailing list