[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., GA., LA., ILL., NEB., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

July 7



TEXAS----2 new execution dates

Judge sets execution date for Fort Worth killer of 3


A Tarrant County judge on Monday set an October execution date for a Fort Worth 
man who killed 3 men in 2 days in 2005.

State District Judge David C. Hagerman ruled that Christopher Wilkins, 46, of 
Fort Worth will be put to death by lethal injection at 6 p.m. Oct. 28.

Wilkins took the witness stand in March 2008 and admitted to a string of crimes 
that included the killings, then told the jury that he didn't care whether he 
lived or died. But now, as he lives on death row, Wilkins may be having 2nd 
thoughts, said his attorney, Hilary Sheard.

"It would not be the only case that I've come across where someone has changed 
their mind," Sheard said outside the courtroom Monday.

Sheard argued that the court should not schedule Wilkins' execution so she 
would have more time to file appeals, and she said his previous appeals 
attorney had not adequately investigated his case.

Hagerman denied all of Wilkins' claims, saying the same arguments had been made 
to appeals judges and had been rejected.

During his 2008 trial, a jury of 5 women and 7 men deliberated for about 90 
minutes before deciding that Wilkins should die for his crimes. Several jurors 
cried as state District Judge Everett Young announced their verdict.

The jury convicted Wilkins of capital murder for fatally shooting Willie 
Freeman and Mike Silva on Oct. 27, 2005. A day earlier, according to 
prosecutors and Wilkins, he killed Gilbert Vallejo outside a south Fort Worth 
bar during a dispute about the pay phone.

In 2005, Wilkins said, he was released from a California federal prison to a 
halfway house in Beaumont, where his family lived. His stepfather got him a job 
making $23 an hour, and his grandmother gave him a Cadillac, he testified. But, 
he said, when Hurricane Rita struck, he was transferred to a halfway house in 
Houston, where his children and ex-girlfriend lived. He got a day pass and 
called his ex-girlfriend, wanting to see his 3 children, he said.

That didn't work out and, instead of returning to the halfway house, he went to 
a strip club. Later, Wilkins said, he stole a truck and drove to Fort Worth.

Wilkins then detailed for jurors how he killed Freeman out of revenge because 
Freeman ripped him off in a dope deal and laughed at him, and how he killed 
Silva, Freeman's friend, because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. 
He killed Vallejo, he said, because Vallejo made him mad.

Wilkins acknowledged that he also nearly killed 2 more people about a week 
later when he intentionally ran them down on a sidewalk in a stolen car because 
he believed that one of them had stolen his sunglasses.

After he was captured and charged with capital murder, Wilkins testified, he 
began plotting his escape from jail.

He said he also lied about committing other killings all over the country, 
hoping that police would continue taking him out of the jail for interviews. He 
planned to use a handcuff key that he bought from an inmate for $100 and 
reproduced to free himself and make a run for it, he said.

His plans were foiled, however, when the handcuff key was discovered.

(source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram)

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

Gilmar Guevara has been given an execution date for October 11; it should be 
considered serious.

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

Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----9

Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----527

Abbott#--------scheduled execution date-----name------------Tx. #

10----------July 16------------------Clifton Williams-----528

11---------August 12----------------Daniel Lopez----------529

12---------August 26----------------Bernardo Tercero------530

13---------September 2--------------Joe Garza-------------531

14---------October 6----------------Juan Garcia-----------532

15--------October 11----------------Gilmar Guevara-------533

16---------October 14---------------Licho Escamilla-------534

17---------October 28---------------Christopher Wilkins---535

(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)






PENNSYLVANIA:

Additional psychiatrist sought in death penalty trial of Ummad Rushdi


Death penalty counsel for accused baby killer Ummad Rushdi will be filing a 
petition seeking an additional $10,000 to pay for a new psychiatrist.

Rushdi, 32, is accused of killing 7-month-old Hamza Ali in August 2013 at his 
parent's home in the 6600 block of Chestnut Street, Upper Darby, then 
transporting the body elsewhere and burying it at an unknown location.

He has been charged with 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-degree murder, kidnapping and abuse 
of a corpse, for which he faces the death penalty. Deputy District Attorney 
Stephanie Wills is prosecuting.

Judge James Nilon has so far authorized up to $30,000 to pay for the services 
of a psychiatrist and death penalty mitigation specialist. He said he would 
happily authorize additional funds for another psychiatrist, with the 
understanding that payment would be rendered upon submission of an itemized 
bill.

Death penalty counsel Scott Galloway said he expects the additional 
psychiatrist to provide insight on issues of competency and legal insanity. 
Psychiatrist Dr. Muhamad Aly Rifai met with Rushdi for several hours following 
a status hearing last month and mitigation specialist Delores Andrews submitted 
a thorough and detailed initial report, said Galloway. Both are now awaiting 
additional information from the second psychiatrist before continuing in their 
evaluations.

Nilon also released a York County taxicab seized as part of the investigation 
back to its owner, as the vehicle itself had no evidentiary value. Defense 
attorney Mike Malloy said he had received copies of evidence collected from the 
cab and did not object to its being returned.

The next status date has been set for Sept. 14. The judge said he hopes to set 
a scheduling order at that time or shortly thereafter.

(source: delcotimes.com)

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

DA: Throw out mass murderer Michael Ballard's stay of execution


With the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the death penalty, Northampton 
County District Attorney John Morganelli has asked a judge to vacate a stay of 
execution for convicted mass murderer Michael Eric Ballard..

Morganelli said the June 29 federal ruling "should put to rest forever 
frivolous claims by death row inmates challenging execution methods." 
Meanwhile, the district attorney said, Ballard has already waived his 
post-conviction appeal rights and now the time has expired to pursue those 
appeals.

Bryan Freeman, then 17, David Freeman, 16, and a cousin, Nelson Birdwell III, 
18, were charged with bludgeoning and stabbing the Freemans' parents and 
younger brother in February 1995. All three are serving life sentences in state 
prison.

Just weeks after the Freeman murders, Jeffrey Howorth shot and killed his 
parents, Susan and George Howorth, then fled the Lower Macungie Township home 
to Missouri, where he was caught the next day.

"The Supreme Court specifically stated that while methods of execution have 
changed over the years, the court has never invalidated a state's chosen 
procedure for carrying out a sentence of death as violative of the Eighth 
Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment," Morganelli said in 
a statement Monday.

David Rudovsky, a lawyer spearheading a separate Pennsylvania case challenging 
the death penalty, could not be reached for comment Monday afternoon. Rudovsky 
said last month he believes the case, which Ballard has joined, provides 
grounds to delay Ballard's execution.

The Commonwealth Court case claims Pennsylvania's protocol for lethally 
injecting prisoners violates state law by changing the cocktail of drugs that 
are used. The protocol was rewritten in recent years due to the state's 
difficulties in securing the drugs from manufacturers, who have faced public 
pressure from death-penalty opponents.

Northampton County Judge Emil Giordano is scheduled to hold a hearing July 21 
on vacating Ballard's stay of execution. Morganelli laid out his legal argument 
in court documents filed Wednesday.

Ballard was sentenced to death in 2011 for savagely knifing to death his former 
girlfriend, Denise Merhi, 39; her father, Dennis Marsh, 62; her grandfather, 
Alvin Marsh Jr., 87; and Steven Zernhelt, 53, a neighbor in Northampton who 
heard screams and tried to help.

At the time of the June 26, 2010, massacre, Ballard had recently been paroled 
from prison, where he served 17 years for murdering an Allentown man nearly 2 
decades earlier. The state Supreme Court upheld Ballard's death sentence in 
2013, citing overwhelming evidence in support of it.

Just 3 men have been executed in Pennsylvania in the modern era of capital 
punishment, and all were volunteers who, in effect, asked the state to carry 
out their sentences. The last time an inmate was put to death against his will 
was in 1962.

(source: Morning Call)

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

Supreme Court decision paves way for Ballard execution, DA says----Michael 
Ballard execution bid renewed in Northampton Counthy


Northampton County's district attorney cites a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 
last week as proof that quadruple murderer Michael Ballard deserves to die.

District Attorney John Morganelli filed papers Monday urging Judge Emil 
Giordano to vacate his stay of execution for Ballard. A hearing on the matter 
is set for July 21.

Ballard, 42, had recently been released from state prison for an Allentown 
murder when he killed his ex-girlfriend, her father, her grandfather and a 
neighbor in Northampton in 2010. He was sentenced to death in 2011.

Ballard's execution is on hold due to a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania's 
execution procedures.

But as long as the death penalty remains the law of the land, there must be a 
means of carrying it out, according to Morganelli.

In the June 29 decision of Glossip v. Gross, the U.S. Supreme Court determined 
Oklahoma was justified in using the drug midazolam to sedate an inmate during 
execution.

According to Morganelli, the state typically uses sodium thiopental to sedate 
people being executed, a second drug to prevent muscles from moving, and 
potassium chloride to induce a heart attack.

Oklahoma switched to midazolam when drug companies refused to provide sodium 
thiopental, Morganelli said. The court found that the drug switch did not 
constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Ballard's appeal rights expired on June 23, Morganelli wrote.

Ballard's stay of execution was ordered by Giordano on Nov. 18.

(source: lehigvalleylive.com)






GEORGIA:

Hood apologized to woman he carjacked


The Athens man accused of killing one police officer and wounding another 
apologized to a woman he admits he carjacked that day.

Jamie Hood is accused of, and has admitted to, killing Athens Clarke County 
police Officer Elmer "Buddy" Christian and wounding Officer Tony Howard in 
March 2011. Minutes after the shooting, Hood carjacked Deborah Lumpkin a short 
distance away and stole her Geo Prism in an attempt to escape.

Since Hood is acting as his own attorney in this death penalty case, he gets to 
cross-examine witnesses including his alleged victims. Monday, he had a chance 
to cross-examine Lumpkin about the incident, but first, he apologized to her.

"I apologize for any heartache or pain I caused you, ma'am," Hood said. "I just 
wanted to let you know that before I proceed."

Lumpkin testified that Hood jumped into her car with a gun in his hand. She 
said he he was running from police and needed her to drive away. Seconds later, 
Hood changed his mind and ordered her out of the car.

Some of Hood's questioning was chilling as he talked about what could have 
happened but didn't.

"When I got in that car, did I hit you," Hood asked. She answered no.

"Did I put my hands on you?" he continued. Lumpkin replied no. "Did I shoot you 
with that gun?" Hood asked. She said no.

Hood's mother testified that she got a call from Hood while he was on the run 
from police and said Hood wanted to surrender 4 days after the shooting because 
he wanted to give Christian's family some closure.

(source: WSB TV news)

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

Death penalty case: Brandon Conner arraigned on charges stemming from double 
homicide


7 times Monday morning Muscogee County Superior Court Judge William Rumer asked 
Brandon David Conner how he pleaded to charges ranging from murder to arson in 
connection to the 2014 deaths of Rosella "Mandy" Mitchell and 6-month-old son 
Dylan Conner.

7 times, Conner, seated at the defense table and facing the possibility of the 
death penalty, answered in a clear, strong voice, "Not guilty."

Conner was arraigned on 2 counts of malice murder, 2 counts of felony murder, 
and 1 count each of aggravated battery, 1st-degree arson and using a knife to 
commit a felony.

Conner's accused of stabbing his 32-year-old girlfriend to death and killing 
the baby before setting the house afire. The charred bodies were found Aug. 21 
in their burned 1324 Winifred Lane home.

Conner, now 36, was indicted by the Grand Jury on April 14; and the Muscogee 
County District Attorney's Office announced its intention to seek the death 
penalty a week later. Conner is the only Musocgee County defendant facing a 
death penalty trial at this time.

Conner's indictment alleges he stabbed Mitchell in the throat and torso with a 
knife that had a blade longer than 3 inches. His malice murder charges allege 
he deliberately killed his girlfriend and child, and his felony murder counts 
accuse him of killing the mother and child while committing the felony offense 
of aggravated assault. The indictment does not specify how the child was 
killed.

In addition to the not guilty pleas, Rumer went through a litany of items 
required in death penalty cases. The most important was establishing Columbus 
attorneys Mark Shelnutt and William Kendrick as qualified to represent Conner. 
Shelnutt, the lead counsel, has been co-counsel on 5 death penalty cases. All 
of Shelnutt's death penalty experience came as a prosecutor when he was an 
assistant district attorney. Shelnutt and Kendrick are both taking required 
death penalty courses and should complete that requirement in the next 3 
months.

Multiple times during the hearing, Rumer asked Conner if he was satisfied with 
his legal representation. Each time, Conner answered in the affirmative. Conner 
has elected to hire Shelnutt and Kendrick rather than use a public defender.

The state turned over to the defense evidence it has gathered in the case. That 
includes witness statements, crime scene and autopsy photos, the police 
incident report, supplemental police reports, scientific reports, the 
Recorder's Court transcript, arrest warrants, and the Columbus Fire and 
Emergency Medical Services report.

"This is a very long process with a whole list of procedural safe guards 
propounded by the Georgia Supreme Court to make the death penalty 
constitutional," Kelly said.

After both sides get to review discovery, Rumer said he will schedule motion 
hearings, possibly later in the year. The judge discussed the possibility of 
taking the case to trial sometime next year.

"Everything for us depends on having the chance to really look at discovery," 
Shelnutt said.

Rumer scheduled a status conference for Aug. 7 at 1:30 p.m.

(source: Ledger-Enquirer)






LOUISIANA:

Will an accused cop killer really get the death penalty?


The man accused of shooting and killing a New Orleans police officer while he 
was being taken to jail has pleaded not guilty. The New Orleans District 
Attorney is seeking the death penalty for 33 year old Travis Boys.

Police say Boys managed to get his cuffed hands from his back to the front of 
his body and then shoot Officer Daryle Holloway from the back of the vehicle 
using a .40-caliber handgun on June 20. Although this may be the right case for 
capital punishment, legal analyst Tim Meche says its rare.

''It is rare, particularly in Orleans Parish to actually get a death penalty,'' 
Meche said.

Orleans Parish juries tend to lean for life in prison instead but even if 
everything worked, Meche says there are many barriers.

''There are a number of issues that can be raised and it takes forever to 
achieve so we have a long way to go in this case,'' Meche added.

The U.S. Supreme Court could also be close to banning capital punishment in 
this country, although Meche says that could be years away.

(source: WWL news)






ILLINOIS:

Why I want to restore the death penalty in Illinois


2 United States Supreme Court justices recently issued an opinion that 
challenges the constitutionality of the death penalty and asserts their opinion 
that it should be abolished. One has been quoted as saying, "At the very least, 
the Court should call for full briefing on the basic question" of the death 
penalty.

I am not writing to contest a U.S. Supreme Court Justice's opinion, but rather 
explain why I have filed legislation to reinstate the death penalty here in 
Illinois.

We need a mechanism in place to effectively deal with criminals who decide to 
commit heinous acts that result in violent deaths. That may sound like a 
familiar argument, but it is applied completely different within the language 
of the bill I filed. My legislation (HB 4059) eliminates the abolition of the 
death penalty passed in 2011, and instead creates the Capital Crimes Litigation 
Act of 2015.

The death penalty provision in my legislation is targeted at the worst of the 
worst. I am speaking of ironclad cases that are free of the flaws that have, in 
some past cases, led to wrongful convictions or discriminatory treatment. Under 
my legislation, the death penalty would be a sentencing option for criminals 
convicted of 1st degree murder of a child younger than age 12, the murder of 
multiple victims, murder on school grounds, murder as a result of terrorism or 
the murder of a first responder.

Restoring the death penalty as a sentencing option for the most heinous murder 
convictions is not only about consequences for the murderer, it's also about 
justice and closure for victims' loved ones. Families affected by these 
exceptionally brutal crimes deserve to work with prosecutors to seek the death 
penalty for their peace of mind and for the future safety of their community.

"Times have changed," stated 1 of the 2 Supreme Court justices in opposition to 
the death penalty. Unfortunately, he is correct. Heinous murders have become an 
everyday way of life; and in the worst cases, the death penalty is an 
appropriate way to deal with those who purposely, violently take innocent life.

Having recently been filed, my legislation is still in the early stages of the 
legislative process. The bill has both Republican and Democratic sponsors. It's 
currently sitting in the House Rules Committee, and I know that's where it may 
remain. Still, I believe this is an issue that deserves to be discussed, and I 
will continue to work with legislators on both sides of the aisle to move the 
discussion forward.

John Cabello, R-Machesney Park, is a state representative.

(source: Rockford Register Star)






NEBRASKA:

Nebraskans Continue Petitions for Death Penalty Ballot Issue


"Nebraskans for the Death Penalty" continue to collect signatures to put the 
issue to the vote of the people. Elkhorn State Senator Beau McCoy is a co-chair 
of the group and says the public has responded well.

He says if you have not yet been approached by a petitioner, you likely will 
soon as they get ready to hit the county fairs and other summer events 
throughout the state.

McCoy says he encourages those for and against the issue to sign the petition.

The group has until August 27th to turn in 57,000 valid signatures in order to 
get the issue on the ballot for voters to decide.

(source: WNAX news)


CALIFORNIA:

OC judge probes DA's use of jailhouse informants


Nearly 4 months after a judge removed the Orange County District Attorney's 
Office from prosecuting the worst mass killer in county history over alleged 
misuse of jailhouse informants, the county's top prosecutor Monday announced 
the creation of an independent committee to evaluate the use of such 
informants.

Members of the Informant Policies and Practices Evaluation Committee are 
retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Jim Smith, retired Los Angeles 
County Assistant District Attorney Patrick Dixon, former Orange County Bar 
Association President Robert Gerard and Blithe Leece, who was described by 
District Attorney Tony Rackauckas as a specialist in ethics law and 
professional responsibility.

Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson will serve as an adviser for the 
committee.

According to Rackauckas, his office has conducted a "thorough in-house 
investigation" into legal questions and concerns raised about the use of 
jailhouse informants since convicted mass killer Scott Evans Dekraai sought to 
have the D.A.'s office removed as prosecutor in his death penalty trial.

Attorneys for Dekraai, who pleaded guilty in May of last year, also filed a 
lengthy motion early last year requesting that the death penalty be taken off 
the table.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethal removed Rackauckas' office 
from prosecuting the 45-year-old Dekraai in the penalty phase of his trial. But 
Goethal did not remove the death penalty as a sentencing option.

In Dekraai's case, defense attorneys accused investigators of lying about how 
government informant Fernando Perez was placed in a cell next to Dekraai, where 
Perez got friendly with him and heard him "brag" about the Oct. 12, 2011, 
massacre of Dekraai's ex-wife and 7 others in and around Salon Meritage in Seal 
Beach.

The dispute over informants led prosecutors to cut deals with other defendants, 
including 1 who walked free, because of allegations that prosecutors withheld 
evidence from defense attorneys.

Leonel Vega, 35, pleaded guilty in February to voluntary manslaughter for the 
2004 killing of rival gang member Giovani Onofre and was sentenced to 15 years 
in prison. Vega, who was featured prominently in the Dekraai motion, was 
originally convicted in December 2010 and was sentenced to life in prison 
without the possibility of parole. He could be freed from prison in 4 years 
given the time he has spent in custody already.

Isaac John Palacios, whose case was also cited in the Dekraai motion, pleaded 
guilty to 2nd-degree murder and was released from custody after receiving 
credit for time served in jail. He had originally been facing life in prison 
without the possibility of parole.

Attempted murder and solicitation of murder charges were dropped against Joseph 
Martin Govey, another defendant featured frequently in the Dekraai motion, in 
September of last year because of similar issues raised about informants in his 
case.

The use of informants has also spilled over into the prosecution of accused 
double-killer Daniel Patrick Wozniak, who is also facing the death penalty and 
is represented by Dekraai's attorney, Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders.

Prosecutors hotly deny anything was done unethically or illegally in the 
Wozniak case, since Perez was not yet a government informant when he befriended 
Wozniak and solicited incriminating statements.

It is not illegal for prosecutors or investigators to use jailhouse informants 
unless the target is already represented by an attorney.

Sanders told City News Service he is skeptical the committee will lead to 
improvements in the system.

"I have enormous respect for those who would give their time to try to improve 
the situation moving forward," Sanders said. "But, of course, there remains the 
enormous problem of addressing decades of potential informant- related 
misconduct and evidence concealment, which is beyond the scope of this 
committee's review.

"The other issue is that the law regarding informants and evidence disclosure 
has been well settled and understood for decades," he said. "Those laws have 
been ignored because of a culture that overvalues winning, and changes in 
procedures - although welcomed - will not remedy this fundamental problem. 
Unfortunately, what I continue to experience on the ground is the OCDA 
continuing to minimize what has been learned, while portraying prosecutors and 
members of law enforcement as the victims."

Attorney Kate Corrigan, a founder and past president of the Orange County 
Criminal Defense Bar Association, was more optimistic.

"This is the 1st significant and meaningful action that the OCDA's office has 
taken to address the jailhouse informant problem," Corrigan said. "The 
committee is comprised of talented and respected members of the legal 
community.

It is my hope that the committee will be given unlimited and full access to 
files, records and information," she said. "More importantly, it is going to be 
critical that the committee be given unrestricted access to (Orange County 
Sheriff's Department) and OCDA personnel who were involved in the illegal use 
of jailhouse informants, and that those individuals provide candid, complete 
and truthful information to the committee. If the foregoing occurs, then we 
should finally learn the truth about who knew what and who did what to violate 
the constitutional rights of many incarcerated citizens."

Tom Dominguez, president of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, 
said his union supports improved training and education.

"Dealing with jailhouse informants is a very complex and involved process," 
Dominguez said in a statement released to CNS. "Deputies involved in the recent 
motion were not investigators, but rank-and-file deputies who were taking 
direction from the U.S. Attorney's Office as well as the District Attorney. The 
deputies are very hard-working and did their best to comply with the direction 
they were given.

"We believe that a thorough review will confirm improved education is 
necessary, and that there was no deliberate effort to avoid discovery 
compliance," Dominguez said. "As the motion testimony revealed, Operation Black 
Flag was being run by the United States Attorney's Office, and all discovery 
materials were presented to that office for review prior to release for 
discovery."

(source: Orange County Register)

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

Unabomber defense attorney receives appeals court award


Judy Clarke, the acclaimed attorney who fights the death penalty 1 case at a 
time, has been chosen as the recipient of a prestigious award from the 9th U. 
S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Clarke, who has represented defendants in 2 capital cases in Sacramento federal 
court - including Theodore Kaczynski, the notorious Unabomber - is the 2015 
winner of the John Frank Award, which recognizes an outstanding lawyer 
practicing in the federal courts of the western United States. The award will 
be presented Monday at the opening session of the circuit's annual judicial 
conference in San Diego.

The 9th Circuit is composed of nine western states and 2 Pacific island 
jurisdictions.

The late John Frank was a renowned Phoenix attorney who, over the course of a 
62-year career, argued more than 500 appeals before Arizona and federal courts.

In addition to teaming with former Sacramento Federal Defender Quin Denvir on 
behalf of serial bomber Kaczynski, Clarke has represented Olympic park bomber 
Eric Rudolph, child-murderer Susan Smith and Tucson mass shooter Jared Lee 
Loughner, all of whom escaped the death penalty. Her only failure to beat back 
the death penalty in a high profile case came recently when she represented 
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was found guilty and sentenced to death for his part in 
the Boston Marathon bombing.

In Sacramento, she also represented Tanh Huu Lam, who was charged with 
instigating a 1997 firebombing of a Carmichael home in which a 9-year-old girl 
burned to death. Negotiated deals called for Lam and Kaczynski to plead guilty 
and accept life in prison without parole after prosecutors took the death 
penalty off the table.

Clarke, 62, has been admired for many years within the nation's legal community 
but, in comparatively recent times, she has been discovered by the national 
press, despite her aversion to reporters.

In a 2011 New York Times story, Denvir was quoted as saying, "She has a great 
sense of how to put a case together to go for life instead of death."

A March Vanity Fair profile said, "She is at war with the state - in 
particular, with the state's power to impose death. She calls the death penalty 
'legalized homicide.''

May's Esquire piece explained Clarke this way: "By saving the worst among us, 
Clarke believes she's saving all of us. Whether we like it or not."

Clarke is based in San Diego, where she shares a practice with her husband, 
Thomas "Speedy" Rice.

(source: Sacramento Bee)

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

Jurors in trial for suspect in officer???s slaying will return to deliberate 
Tuesday after 1 day hiatus


The jury trial for a Fairfield man accused of the 2011 gunshot slaying of a 
Vallejo cop suffered another delay Monday when a juror in the case was 
unavailable after the long Independence Day weekend.

Jurors in the trial for murder defendant Henry Albert Smith Jr., returned to 
Solano County Superior Court Monday morning to begin their first full day of 
deliberations in the case. Smith is charged with murder and robbery in 
connection with the Nov. 17, 2011, gunshot slaying of veteran Vallejo police 
Officer Jim Capoot and an earlier bank robbery.

However, all but 1 juror reported for service Monday, having informed Judge 
Peter B. Foor over the weekend that car trouble had stranded her out of state 
after helping a family member move.

For various reasons, 3 jurors have left the jury panel in the last month, 
leaving only 2 alternates. On Monday, Foor decided to wait for the missing 
juror to return, anticipating she would be available today.

Solano County prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Smith in 
connection with Capoot's slaying.

Trial testimony indicated Capoot engaged in the high-speed pursuit of an 
alleged bank robber that afternoon. According to law enforcement testimony, 
Smith was seen driving the SUV Capoot chased that day, and after a PIT maneuver 
on Janice Street, Capoot was seen chasing Smith on foot before going out of 
view.

Moments later, Capoot was shot 3 times in the backyard of a home on Janice 
Street. 1 bullet struck him fatally from behind, according to testimony.

Smith was apprehended minutes later a few houses away. When police apprehended 
him, a loaded .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol was found in his pocket, police 
testified.

Forensic testing linked the firearm to the shell casings found in the backyard 
where Capoot was slain, according to prosecution witnesses.

Additionally, suspected evidence of the earlier bank robbery was located in the 
SUV allegedly driven by Smith.

If Smith is convicted of 1st-degree murder with special circumstances, the 
trial would move into a penalty phase in which jurors will be tasked with 
deciding whether he should receive the death penalty or life in prison without 
parole.

In that event, attorneys and jurors would be given a 2 or 3 day break before 
the 2nd phase begins.

Attorneys would again present testimony during the penalty phase, a process 
that could take another 3 to 4 weeks.

Smith is charged with murder of a peace officer with an enhancement for the use 
of a gun, robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Prosecutors 
have alleged special circumstances to include: murder during the commission of 
a robbery; murder to avoid lawful arrest; and murder perpetrated against a 
peace officer lawfully performing their duty.

He has pleaded not guilty and remains in Solano County Jail custody.

(source: Vallejo Times-Herald)






USA:

All life is worth saving


Just as in Clarence Darrow's day, the death penalty continues to be practiced 
in many American states. Yet around the world, the majority of nations no 
longer executes their prisoners, showing increasing support for the abolition 
of capital punishment. Recently, in December 2014, when the United Nations 
General Assembly introduced a resolution calling for an international 
moratorium on the use of the death penalty, a record 117 countries voted in 
favor of abolition, while only 38 nations, including the United States, voted 
against it. Indeed, falling just behind China, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, 
the United States is recorded to have the 5th highest rate of execution 
worldwide.

Since Jamestown settlers first executed Captain George Kendall in 1607, 
jurisdictions across the United States have approved the execution of 
approximately 16,000 people by various methods, including hanging, firing 
squads, gas chambers, electric chairs, and lethal injection. As these 
executions continued throughout American history, many prominent abolitionists 
have raised their voices against capital punishment, both in the past and the 
present. Dr. Benjamin Rush, an eminent physician, author, and civic leader who 
signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, was an early advocate for 
abolishing the death penalty, while many of the country's founding fathers, 
including Thomas Jefferson, favored limitations on the practice. Most recently, 
during the 20th century, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Supreme Court Justice 
Thurgood Marshall, and author Sister Helen Prejean all emerged as outspoken 
opponents of capital punishment.

Over the course of 400 years, the popularity of the death penalty has 
fluctuated, with some states abandoning their use of capital punishment earlier 
than others. In the mid-1800s, death penalty abolitionists achieved some 
success, thanks largely to societal changes that included prison reform 
movements, religious revivals, an influx of new immigrants, and the rise of the 
anti-slavery movement. People interested in these issues, however disparate, 
found in each other a common purpose, arguing that the use of capital 
punishment reflected how those in power treated the poor and powerless.

Falling just behind China, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, the United States is 
recorded to have the 5th highest rate of execution worldwide.

In 1847, Michigan became the 1st state to abolish capital punishment in the 
United States. Like some other states, Michigan had gradually been limiting its 
use of the death penalty in the preceding decades, and by the 1840s, its 
legislature featured many reform-minded lawmakers. Rhode Island subsequently 
abolished the death penalty in 1852 and Wisconsin followed suit in 1853, 
prohibiting capital punishment for all crimes.

Throughout different abolition periods, such as the early 1900s and the 
mid-twentieth century, opponents of capital punishment have raised a variety of 
arguments against the practice. Many question whether the death penalty serves 
any valid purpose, suggesting it does no more to deter crime than the threat of 
imprisonment. Others reason that the death penalty is inhumane and therefore 
inconsistent with religious principles. Most importantly, many abolitionists 
have highlighted the obvious fallibility of a system based on human juries and 
judges. Indeed, this argument has gained clout in modern times, as scientific 
breakthroughs in DNA testing and investigative techniques have led to the 
discovery of innocent people on death row. The question of race - whether the 
death penalty can be applied fairly and without racial bias - has also emerged 
alongside concerns that capital punishment targets society's most 
disadvantaged.

An important turning point arrived in the 1960s and 1970s, when the Supreme 
Court of the United States began to address the practice as a constitutional 
issue. In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Supreme Court Justices found that existing 
procedures for the death penalty violated the United States Constitution 
because of the broad discretion afforded to jurors, who were capable of 
arbitrary and racially discriminatory decisions.

Given the worldwide trend of countries prohibiting capital punishment, many 
observers predicted the case would end the death penalty in the United States. 
However, as part of a backlash against the Supreme Court, several state 
legislatures renewed their death penalty laws; and in 1976, the Supreme Court 
upheld some of these new procedures, reintroducing capital punishment as common 
practice and starting a new era for the practice.

Over the following decade, the Supreme Court evaluated another broad attack on 
capital punishment in McCleskey v. Kemp, in which Warren McCleskey's attorneys 
presented statistical evidence illustrating the racial bias of the justice 
system. The Supreme Court, rejecting this claim, thereby affirmed that any 
changes to death penalty laws would have to established through political 
processes.

Ever since the United States resumed executions after 1976, nationwide 
jurisdictions have sent approximately 1,400 people to their deaths. In the 
modern era, 1999 was notable for the highest number of executions, with 98 
death row inmates executed that year. While this number dropped to 39 in 2013, 
more than 3,000 people remain on death row across the country.

Recently, however, activists have found some success in illuminating the 
drawbacks of the death penalty through educational efforts. During the past 
decade, 7 states have repealed the practice of sentencing prisoners to death, 
including Illinois, the same state in which Clarence Darrow infamously defended 
murderers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb.

Presently, the federal government, along with 31 states, has upheld the use of 
capital punishment, whereas only 19 states (and the District of Columbia) have 
prohibited it. A Gallup poll in winter 2013 showed that the death penalty 
continues to be popular among American citizens - at least in theory - with up 
to 60 percent indicating their support for capital punishment in the case of 
convicted murderers. For some, the death penalty continues to serve as a 
fitting punishment and just retribution for society; for others, it continues 
to be justified by religion. Other advocates even assert that the death penalty 
may deter crime. Still, when asked to make a choice between capital punishment 
and life imprisonment without parole, support for capital punishment is shown 
to drop, as citizens are split equally between the two options.

In the past year alone, the debate surrounding the death penalty has been 
inflamed by botched executions, notably in the Arizona execution of Joseph 
Wood, who took 2 hours to die from lethal injection. There are also increasing 
concerns about the expense of the modern death penalty for taxpayers. In Texas, 
for example, the cost of a death penalty case today is thought to be nearly 3 
times more expensive than imprisoning someone in maximum security for 40 years.

Charged and complex, the public debate surrounding the death penalty has once 
again been brought to the fore, even spilling over into international territory 
as European manufacturers dicontinue their supply of lethal drugs to the United 
States. Because the death penalty in America is largely a state issue, the 
success of abolition efforts will most likely be gradual. However, the recent 
global trend against capital punishment has been encouraging to those who, like 
Clarence Darrow, believe that both logic and humanity demand an end to the 
practice of killing prisoners.

(source: Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier is a professor of law at City University of New 
York School of Law and the author of Imprisoned by the Past: Warrant McCleskey 
and the American Death Penalty----Oxford University Press blog)





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

Is the Death Penalty Unconstitutional?


On the heels of major decisions about same-sex marriage and health care, the 
Supreme Court closed the term that ended last week with one more extremely 
contentious case, Glossip v. Gross, which was about the death penalty. The 
narrow issue in the case was the legality of Oklahoma's most recent method of 
lethal injection, using a drug called midazolam. The court upheld that 
execution method in a 5-to-4 ruling, concluding that the challengers had not 
done enough to show that it was riskier than the alternatives. But the 
extensive opinions in the case confronted fundamental questions about the place 
of the death penalty in our constitutional system.

Marking the contentiousness of the issue, 4 justices announced their competing 
opinions aloud in the courtroom. It is uncommon for more than 1 justice to 
speak in a particular case. 4 is almost unheard-of.

The separate opinions of Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer, in 
particular, are worthy of note, as they express starkly opposing views of the 
death penalty's place under our Constitution. Justice Breyer basically called 
for the abolition of the death penalty, while Justice Scalia argued that the 
Constitution itself protected the death penalty from judicial invalidation. But 
both views are misguided; the best position lies in between them.

Let's start with Justice Scalia, who argues that the Constitution explicitly 
blesses the death penalty. The Fifth Amendment says that one cannot be 
"deprived of life ... without due process of law," and that "capital, or 
otherwise infamous crime" must proceed by grand jury. Justice Scalia contends 
that these provisions insulate the death penalty from categorical challenge 
because it is "obvious" that it "is impossible to hold unconstitutional that 
which the Constitution explicitly contemplates."

But this argument ignores the lesson of another constitutional amendment, the 
Ninth, which is designed to stop precisely the sort of inference that Justice 
Scalia is making here. The framers worried that codifying individual rights 
could be dangerous, because identifying specific limits on government power may 
imply that those are the only limits, with the government otherwise having a 
free hand. When Congress decided to propose a Bill of Rights nonetheless, James 
Madison included language to answer this objection - which ultimately became 
our Ninth Amendment - that warns that no specific right should be taken to 
preclude other possibly relevant rights.

Unfortunately, that is what Justice Scalia is doing. He considers the specific 
right to due process before execution and infers from it that the death penalty 
can never be a "cruel and unusual punishment," which the Eighth Amendment 
prohibits. To be clear, Justice Scalia is surely correct that the framers 
assumed that the death penalty could be imposed without being cruel and 
unusual, and their assumption may well turn out to be right. But that is an 
assumption that has to be tested by interpreting the Eighth Amendment by its 
own lights.

Next let's turn to Justice Breyer, who argues that it is "highly likely" that 
the death penalty as a whole violates the Eighth Amendment, because it is 
unreliable, arbitrary, slow and rare. This argument went well beyond the 
specific challenge to the use of the midazolam that was the focus of the case. 
Rather, Justice Breyer explained that he would stop trying "to patch up the 
death penalty's legal wounds one at a time" and likely bury the whole thing. 
Justice Breyer (whose opinion was joined here by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) 
is the 1st member of the current court to call for such a radical step.

We should not be too quick to embrace Justice Breyer's thinking. If his 
conclusion is something other than a personal moral intuition, it rests on 
deeply contested claims about the accuracy, goals and costs of the death 
penalty. And while Justice Breyer's dissent advanced extensive evidence for his 
claims, they are nonetheless claims that are hard for a judge, even a Supreme 
Court justice, to resolve dispassionately. Moreover, even if those claims are 
proved true, the more appropriate judicial course would be to invalidate the 
problematic parts of the system, not the system as a whole.

If we reject the broad legal claims of both Justices Scalia and Breyer, what is 
left? The court's job is to continue resolving the fact-specific claims that a 
given punishment is cruel and unusual, even if that means that the court must 
only "patch up the death penalty's legal wounds." And the bigger question that 
Justice Breyer would have us confront - whether our death penalty system is 
necessary or oppressive - is best left to the states and the people.

William Baude, a contributing opinion writer, is an assistant professor of law 
at the University of Chicago.

(source: Op-Ed, New York Times)

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

Great Controversy Is Usually the Exception for the Supreme Court


"The old chorus rises, as it is rising now," The New York Times editorialized 
almost 100 years ago, during yet another time of controversy over the Supreme 
Court. "It will die into silence, as it has died before ... Congresses have 
their little hour of strut and rave. The court stays."

The court is secure, in part, because it has learned to stay out of trouble. 
Over the short haul, the left wins some cases, the right others.

Controversy over the Supreme Court is as inevitable as death and taxes. Still, 
asking whether we would be better off without the court is like asking whether 
we would be better off without gravity or rain. It is part of the basic 
ecosystem of American governance.

The court is secure, in part, because it has learned to stay out of trouble. 
Over the short haul, the ideological left wins some cases, the right others. 
And so the court is left alone. It???s been a long time since there was any 
serious attack on the justices or their way of doing business.

Most cases get decided with little fanfare. They deal with mundane issues that, 
whatever their legal interest, hardly gain a toehold in the public's short 
attention span.

Don't deceive yourself that the justices stand up for individual rights when 
the chips are down. Their record in that regard is abysmal.

In a very, very few of the court's cases, people get riled up. Social movements 
mobilize against the decision. Gay rights. The death penalty. Race 
discrimination. Abortion. Really mobilize, because Congress can't just overrule 
the court: Either we amend the Constitution, or the justices reverse 
themselves.

And over the long haul, that mobilization causes the American people to come to 
some general conclusion of its own on the question. When the people do, the 
court usually follows. As with gay marriage, where the polls were squarely on 
the court's side. As with the death penalty, where the court took a stab at 
abolition and quickly retreated - in the 1970s - in the face of clear 
opposition. With abortion, where the court took a bold step in Roe v. Wade of 
protecting the right to choose abortion, then retreated in the face of 
opposition, leaving states freer to regulate - the effect of which is seen in 
many new state abortion laws. With child labor: In the early 20th century the 
court repeatedly struck down efforts to abolish it, until the justices 
recanted.

While we wait for the court to come into line, a lot of people can be unhappy, 
or even harmed, possibly a majority of the country. But like it or not, it's 
our way of doing business.

Barry Friedman the Jacob D. Fuchsberg professor of law New York University 
School of Law, is the author of "The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has 
Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution."

(source: Op-Ed, New York Times)

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

The Supreme Court Is Most Powerful When It Follows Public Opinion


The Supreme Court reflects shifting social mores at least as much as it 
influences them. Rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education and Obergefell 
were inconceivable until enormous changes in the surrounding social and 
political context had first occurred. Before Brown, President Franklin D. 
Roosevelt appointed the 1st black general in American history, President Harry 
S Truman issued executive orders desegregating the federal military and the 
civil service, and Jackie Robinson desegregated major league baseball. Even in 
the South, black voter registration increased from 3 % in 1940 to 20 % in 1950, 
and blacks began serving on juries and in local political offices for the 1st 
time since Reconstruction. Justice Sherman Minton noted "a different world 
today" with regard to race, during the Brown deliberations, and Felix 
Frankfurter remarked upon "the great changes in the relations between white and 
[black] people."

Justices often delay or minimize interventions to avoid causing powerful 
political backlashes when they are out of step with social attitudes.

Obergefell was rendered possible only by enormous shifts in attitudes and 
practices. The number of states forbidding discrimination based on sexual 
orientation increased from zero in 1980 to over 20 by 2015. In 1992, not a 
single Fortune 500 corporation extended benefits to the partners of gay 
employees, but in 2015 the vast majority of them do so. In 1990, fewer than 1 
American in 4 supported gay marriage; in 2015, 60 % of them do so. At the oral 
argument in the Defense of Marriage Act case in 2013, Justice Antonin Scalia 
noted a "sea change" in attitudes regarding gay marriage.

Judicial interventions can cause powerful political backlashes that retard the 
progress of social reform movements. The court's provisional ruling against the 
death penalty in 1972 generated tremendous support for capital punishment, as 
35 states quickly enacted new death penalty statutes. Similarly, Roe's 
aggressive defense of abortion rights fostered a right-to-life movement that 
fundamentally reshaped American politics and arguably made abortion reform more 
contentious and resistant to compromise.

Sensitive to the possibility of backlashes, justices often delay or minimize 
their interventions. In Brown, the justices hedged their remedial order - 
school desegregation was to take place "with all deliberate speed" - because 
they feared that ordering immediate desegregation would produce school closures 
and violence.

Even though state supreme courts began wrestling with gay marriage in the early 
1990s, the Supreme Court did not grant review in such a case until 2012 - then 
ducked the issue the following year. By the time of Obergefell, 11 states had 
enacted gay marriage by legislation or referendum.

By waiting until 2015 to issue a broad ruling in favor of marriage equality, 
the Obergefell majority probably will have managed to forestall significant 
backlash. Moreover, while Brown's opponents thought that sending their children 
to integrated schools would be cataclysmic and Roe's opponents regard abortion 
as murder, a marriage equality ruling will have little direct impact on 
opponents' lives.

Some state and local politicians - especially in the Deep South - may express 
outrage at the court's decision, but one cannot imagine a governor mimicking 
George Wallace and "standing in the courthouse door" in opposition to marriage 
equality.

Michael Klarman is a professor at Harvard Law School

(source: Op-Ed, New York Times)