[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ALA., TENN., NEB., COLO., CALIF.

[Rick Halperin]

July 26



ALABAMA:

Some relatives have followed the path to death row


It's possible, a district attorney said last week that, after a long legal 
trail, John Barry Hubbard could follow in the footsteps of his father, to 
Alabama's death row.

Hubbard and his cousin, Gary Wade Rowland, are both charged with capital murder 
in the kidnapping of Hubbard's ex-girlfriend and the shooting death of her 
sister Tuesday. Hubbard's father James Barney "J.B." Hubbard was executed by 
lethal injection in 2004 for the 1977 murder of a Tuscaloosa grocer.

If Hubbard and Rowland were sent to death row, however, it wouldn't be the 1st 
time in Alabama - or the nation - close relatives ended their lives among the 
condemned.

"It's not a common phenomenon but it does happen," said Robert Dunham, 
executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.

In Alabama, both Stephen and Robert Pilley ended their lives on death row.

Stephen Pilley, 53, died in 2009 of liver disease while awaiting execution. He 
and another man were sentenced to death in the 1994 execution-style murders of 
5 people at the Changing Times Lounge - 1 of the biggest mass slayings in 
Birmingham history.

Pilley's uncle, Robert S. Pilley, died in the electric chair in 1946 for 
robbing and killing George Nolan Goatley the night of July 11, 1944, at 
Goatley's sandwich shop at 1309 Tuscaloosa Avenue in Birmingham.

Other examples around the nation of relatives ending up on death row, either 
for the same or separate crime, included:

--Father and son Bruce and Josh Woodbury are on Oregon's death row for the 
deaths of two people in a bank bombing.

--In Pennsylvania, Freeman May was sentenced to death and is now serving life 
after his death penalty was overturned. But for a time both he and his son, 
Landon May, were on that state's death row. Landon and Freeman May were charged 
in separate offenses.

--South Dakota death row inmate Rodney Berget awaits execution for killing a 
prison guard with a pipe during an attempted escape. His older brother, Roger 
Berget, was convicted in 1987 of killing a man for his car and was executed in 
2000 after spending 13 years on Oklahoma's death row, according to USA Today.

--Brothers Robert and James Bryant were sentenced to death for separate murders 
committed in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, respectively. Both death sentences 
were later overturned, and both then received life sentences, according to the 
Death Penalty Information Center.

--Milton and Noel Montalvo were separately tried and sentenced to death for the 
same slaying in Pennsylvania. Both are still on death row, according to the 
Death Penalty Information Center.

--In Ohio, brothers Ronnie Bridgeman (now Kwame Ajamu) and Wiley Bridgeman were 
convicted and sentenced to death for the same offense and later exonerated, 
according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

--In North Carolina, intellectually disabled half-brothers Henry McCollum and 
Leon Brown were sentenced to death for the same offense. The 2 were released 
from death row in 2014 after being exonerated by DNA testing.

Why might close relatives end up on death row, particularly for unrelated 
crimes that happened years apart?

Dunham, who represented death row inmates in Pennsylvania for 20 years and 
taught at Villanova's law school for 11 years, said each case would have to be 
looked at individually. Factors could include a family history of violence or 
drug and alcohol abuse, he said.

Dunham noted some studies on epigenetics, the study of how gene traits can be 
turned on or off by a person's environment and passed on to another generation.

One Birmingham professor sees no link between DNA and the factors that might 
land 2 relatives on death row.

"There is no real evidence at this time of any link with DNA," said Jeffery T. 
Walker, professor and chair of the Department of Justice Sciences at the 
University of Alabama at Birmingham.

"It is probably more coincidence than anything else," Walker said.

Walker, however, said they researchers do know that certain behaviors tend to 
run in families. "For example, 'hot headedness' is a trait that is often common 
among family," he said.

"We do not know for sure if there is something psychological, biological, or if 
it is just growing up in that environment that does it; but it does happen. 
That may have some play in these instances," Walker said.

(source: al.com)






TENNESSEE:

Tenn. lethal injection trial continues with dueling experts


The Tennessee Supreme Court says the death penalty is constitutional, so there 
must be a constitutional way to carry it out. But attorneys for 33 death row 
inmates say lethal injection isn't one of them.

In a trial that began July 7, the inmates' attorneys have been trying to prove 
the injection of deadly chemicals into a prisoner's veins carries an 
unacceptably high risk of extreme suffering and can cause a lingering death.

The case comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Oklahoma's lethal 
injection procedure, which uses different drugs than Tennessee but considered 
some of the same broad issues.

Inmates' attorneys say the claim of lingering death is a novel one. It is based 
on the theory that an overdose of sedatives can put inmates into a death-like 
coma without truly killing them for hours.

One witness who is an expert in resuscitation told the Davidson County Chancery 
Court it might be possible to revive an inmate who had been declared dead half 
an hour later or more. Another witness who is an expert in anesthesiology 
suggested that an inmate could recover spontaneously.

Attorneys for the state say the idea of spontaneous recovery is pure 
speculation, and that there is no chance an inmate will be resuscitated once an 
execution has started. They say the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled inmates are 
not entitled to pain-free death. Nonetheless, they say that is what lethal 
injection generally provides.

Dr. Feng Li, Davidson County's acting chief medical examiner, offered testimony 
that a high dose of the sedative pentobarbital - Tennessee's current lethal 
injection drug - would leave a prisoner unconscious within seconds and dead 
within minutes. Once the inmate was unconscious, he or she would not feel any 
pain, Li said.

Experts for the two sides also have clashed over whether drugs made to order by 
a pharmacist are too risky to use. The only commercial producer of 
pentobarbital has placed restrictions on its distribution to prevent it from 
being used in executions.

The trial will continue on Aug. 3.

Tennessee has not executed an inmate for more than five years because of legal 
challenges and problems obtaining lethal injection drugs. In 2013 and 2014, 
state lawmakers tried to jump-start the process by moving from a 3-drug lethal 
injection method to a 1-drug method and reinstating the electric chair as a 
backup. But both of those changes brought new legal challenges, and all 
previously scheduled executions have been put on hold.

Faced with similar problems, Oklahoma enacted a law allowing execution by 
nitrogen gas as a backup to lethal injection. Utah reinstated the firing squad.

(source: Associated Press)






NEBRASKA:

Verifiable facts on the death penalty


In the July 12 Local View column, "Thoughts about the death penalty: Correcting 
the record," Bob Evnen's stated goal was to correct facts and figures 
concerning the death penalty. Evnen wrote, "Everyone is entitled to their own 
opinion but not their own facts." However, rather than correct any facts about 
the death penalty, he simply states his own opinions as facts to support his 
position.

Mr. Evnen makes the argument that the death penalty somehow saves money because 
when prosecutors seek the death penalty, defendants will always plead guilty 
rather than risk going to trial and receiving a death sentence. He then makes 
the assumption that without the death penalty "criminal defendants and their 
lawyers" will "roll the dice" and force prosecutors to have more trials. These 
assertions must be examined in light of recent history and verifiable facts.

The use of the death penalty as a prosecutorial "tool" to force individuals to 
plead guilty does not save money and leads to unjust outcomes. The now 
notorious case of the Beatrice 6 is a perfect example of this. The payments for 
the false convictions has been $2 million dollars.

In 2006, the same scenario almost repeated itself in Murdock, Nebraska, where 
Matthew Livers and Nicholas Sampson were suspected in a double homicide. Law 
enforcement used the threat of the death penalty to obtain a false confession 
which could have led to false convictions and possible death sentences, but for 
the stubbornness of defense attorneys and the hunch of an investigator which 
led to finding the real killers. That effort resulted in the complete 
exoneration of Sampson and Livers. The state entered a $1 million settlement 
with the two men. How did the threat of the death penalty save money here?

2 recent Nebraska cases also contradict Evnen's assertion. One is the case of 
Melicio Camacho in Dakota County and the other is that of Jose 
Oliveira-Coutinho, known throughout Omaha as "the Brazilian case." Camacho was 
accused of 1st-degree murder and the state sought the death penalty. He was 
accused of breaking into a home and suffocating a girl during a sexual assault. 
By Evnen's logic, the threat of the death penalty would mean Camacho would 
plead guilty to avoid the death penalty. In fact, evidence in Camacho's case 
showed he offered to plead guilty to 1st-degree murder without the death 
penalty but the state refused. The end result? Tens of thousands of dollars 
spent in litigation, a guilty verdict and a life sentence. How did the threat 
of the death penalty save money in his case?

In Oliveira-Coutinho's case, a Brazilian family -- a husband, wife, and 
7-year-old child -- went missing. Toward the end of a co-defendant's trial 
where the state was seeking the death penalty, the co-defendant confessed that 
he personally killed the family at the direction of Oliveira-Coutinho. As a 
result of cooperating, the co-defendant received a plea deal to 2nd-degree 
murder and a sentence of 20 years. The state charged Oliveira-Coutinho with 3 
counts of 1st-degree murder and sought the death penalty. However, this did not 
force a plea deal and he went to trial. The end result? Again, after tens of 
thousands of dollars in litigation, he was found guilty and given a life 
sentence. How did the threat of the death penalty save money in his case?

Evnen cites one case to show how the death penalty resolves cases and saves 
money. Michael Petersen shot his wife in Buffalo County and then went to Hall 
County and shot his former lawyer. Evnen states, "Rather than face the death 
penalty, the defendant pleaded guilty to the charges in both counties and was 
sentenced to life in prison." However, rather than providing evidence to 
support his theory, Evnen asserts facts that are not consistent with known 
facts about the case.

In Buffalo County, the prosecutor did not seek the death penalty. Petersen 
pleaded guilty to 1st-degree murder in April 2014 and was sentenced to life in 
prison in May 2014. As part of a plea agreement in Hall County, Petersen 
pleaded to 1st-degree murder, and the state dismissed a weapons charge and 
agreed not to seek the death penalty. Petersen was sentenced to life in prison 
on Aug. 19, 2014. However, to say Petersen pleaded guilty rather than face the 
death penalty is demonstrably false. At sentencing, his lawyer explained to the 
court that Petersen pleaded guilty to save his son from having to testify at 
trial and because he had already been sentenced to life in Buffalo County, not 
because he wanted to avoid the death penalty. Petersen had attempted suicide in 
jail while his cases were pending and succeeded in killing himself in prison on 
Sept. 22, 2015. These are not the actions of a man taking a deal to avoid a 
death sentence.

Evnen claims too much of the cost and much of the criticism of the death 
penalty is attributed to decades of appeals, and that we just need to limit 
individuals' rights to appeals in death penalty cases, like Virginia and Texas 
do. Limiting appeal rights would be little solace for those whose appeals were 
cut off before they could receive relief from the appellate courts. For 
example, in Nebraska, from 1976 to today, 33 individuals have been sentenced to 
death. Of those, 15 have had their sentences commuted or vacated through 
appeals. 8 of these waited over 10 years before appeals resulted in their 
sentences being commuted. 6 of these waited over 19 years. Which of the 15 
should have been denied the appeal that resulted in their removal from death 
row?

(source: Opinion; Christopher Eickholt is a Lincoln attorney----Lincoln Journal 
Star)

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

In death penalty crusade, Ricketts not as in sync as he thinks


Gov. Pete Ricketts says he draws on his Catholic faith for his positions on gay 
marriage (against), abortion (against) and the death penalty ... (for).

Wait, what?

Catholic leaders in the past 40 years have come out resoundingly against the 
death penalty, citing reasons from Jesus Christ to the uneven way the death 
penalty has been administered in this country. The same church that once handed 
over heretics to be burned at the stake has thrown out old reasons that it had 
used to justify the death penalty.

"A good Catholic today cannot say in good conscience that the Catholic Church's 
official teaching supports the death penalty. Because it does not," said the 
Rev. Jim Bretzke, a moral theologian based at Boston College.

The church is not as vocal or absolute on the issue as it is on, say, abortion. 
This may explain why Catholics are split on the death penalty and why some - 
like Ricketts - even find justification for it in church teaching.

The Nebraska governor says there's a Catholic basis for his zealous support. 
The lifelong Catholic lobbied hard against the Nebraska Legislature's landmark 
repeal of the death penalty this year. He vetoed the repeal law. And after 
senators overrode that veto, Ricketts poured his own money - $100,000, with 
more to come, he said - into a ballot measure to put the vote to Nebraskans.

Regardless of how the ballot initiative turns out, he's seeking to follow 
through with the executions of 10 men currently on Nebraska's death row.

Ricketts is the governor of a state, not a bishop of a diocese.

Even so, he says his position is compatible with church policy.

"The Catholic Church does not preclude the use of the death penalty under 
certain circumstances: That guilt is determined and the crime is heinous. Also, 
protecting society," Ricketts said in an interview. "As I've thought about this 
and meditated on it and prayed on it and researched it, I've determined it's an 
important tool."

But Catholic theologians say the church doesn't provide as much of an exception 
as Ricketts claims. The sole allowable circumstance, they say, is the 
protection of society when there's no other option; but even then, wrote 
then-Pope John Paul II in 1995, such situations today would be "very rare, if 
not practically nonexistent." It does not matter, says the church, how bad the 
crime is, or how much the criminal might deserve it, or how hurt the victims' 
families feel. Nor whether the death penalty would send a message to other 
would-be criminals.

"The death penalty can only be justified if it's the only way to defend 
society," said Julia Fleming, who heads Creighton University's theology 
department. "It's not a question of how heinous the crime is. The question is: 
Can you defend society by another means? And if you can defend society by any 
other means, then you can't use the death penalty." The church's position 
should have been clear to the governor. The Nebraska Catholic Conference 
lobbied to repeal the death penalty. Nebraska's archbishop and 2 bishops signed 
a joint statement calling for repeal. Omaha Archbishop George Lucas wrote in 
the Catholic Voice recently that "we cannot teach that killing is wrong by 
killing."

"We would not make Nebraska a better place," the archbishop wrote, "by a 
communal decision to take the life of man or woman - no matter how abhorrent 
their conduct - when justice can be served in another way."

Yet Ricketts is standing firm. In an interview, he tried to give a Catholic 
basis for his position.

He cited historical figures, such as St. Augustine (fourth century), who gave 
an early justification for war. And St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century), who said 
states had an obligation to cure the body if it meant cutting off a limb.

"If you look, almost without exception the church fathers believe the state has 
a right in certain circumstances to use the death penalty," Ricketts said.

Subsequent church leaders outlined situations - such as self-defense - when the 
taking of another life would be permissible. Some argued in favor of other 
justifications that included reform, deterrence and retribution.

Then times changed and societies became more adept at protecting themselves 
with prisons. In the 1970s, when the U.S. Supreme Court initially put a 
moratorium on the death penalty before eventually letting states decide, the 
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops came out against the death penalty.

They got rid of the old arguments, pointing out that you can???t reform someone 
you kill. They said it's doubtful that killing a killer stops future murderers. 
And when it comes to retribution, the bishops said, punishment is justified - 
but the death penalty is not.

"We maintain that this need does not require nor does it justify taking the 
life of the criminal ...," the bishops said. "Such a punishment might satisfy 
certain vindictive desires that we or the victim might feel, but the 
satisfaction of such desires is not and cannot be an objective of a humane and 
Christian approach to punishment."

Pope John Paul II's 1995 encyclical, "Evangelium Vitae," carried even more 
authority.

In it, the pope said that if a state can use bloodless means to protect 
society, then it must - because that is more in line with human dignity and a 
respect for life. Since 1997, the catechism has incorporated that message.

Most recently, Pope Francis has called for abolishing the death penalty 
altogether.

Creighton's Fleming said the current teaching does retain the death penalty as 
a last resort in certain circumstances.

Say you live in a primitive hunter-gatherer society, and there's a serial 
killer running rampant. The death penalty would be allowed by the church, 
Fleming said, if it were the only way to stop the killer.

"But we aren't living in a hunter-gatherer society," she said.

Ricketts said he doesn't relish the idea of putting people to death. He said he 
sees the death penalty as a way to keep Nebraska society - particularly 
corrections officers - safe.

He rejected the notion that prisons alone can do the job. He said life 
sentences do not always mean that.

Ricketts is far from the only Catholic to support the death penalty. In a Pew 
Research Center survey in March, support for the death penalty among U.S. 
Catholics was 53 %, mirroring support in the general population (56 %), despite 
trends that suggest support is dropping.

Nor is this the only issue where many Catholics aren't exactly in line with 
church teaching. (See contraception, artificial.)

Ricketts says his Catholic faith is important to him. He has children in 
Catholic schools. He has given to Catholic causes, notably helping Holy Name 
School keep its doors open. His father, Joe, who put $100,000 of his own money 
into the death penalty ballot initiative, is building a large Catholic retreat 
center.

But maybe the governor shouldn't try to give a Catholic argument for the death 
penalty.

Roger Bergman from the Justice & Peace Studies Program at Creighton University 
suggested that Ricketts just say this: I disagree with the church.

"He can say 'I agree on other issues, but not on this one,'?" said Bergman. 
"And most Catholics, if they're honest, would have to say the same thing."

(source: Column, Erin Grace, omaha.com)



COLORADO:

Theater Shooting Trial----The death penalty in Colorado: has there been enough 
conversation?


The death-penalty phase of a trial is underway in Centennial, and a 
dealth-penalty case is just beginning in Denver. Colorado clearly is having the 
conversation about capital punishment that Gov. John Hickenlooper sought when 
he granted a death-row inmate a reprieve.

But how much Hickenlooper contributed to the discussion is still up for debate.

What is not contested is that Colorado has long been reluctant to impose the 
death penalty. Only 1 person has been executed in nearly 50 years, and only 3 
inmates are sitting on death row.

That could change, though.

An Arapahoe County jury this month found James Holmes guilty of the Aurora 
theater massacre and now is deliberating whether to sentence him to life or 
death.

A Denver County jury on Monday began hearing testimony in the trial of Dexter 
Lewis, who is charged with killing 5 people at Fero's Bar & Grill. A 2nd person 
in the case could also face the death penalty.

Denver District Judge John Madden agreed to allow the media to film opening and 
closing arguments in the Lewis trial, despite protests by the prosecution and 
defense.

The judge said he thought the coverage would provide a contribution to the 
governor's call for the community to engage in a meaningful consideration of 
the death penalty, a discussion he does not believe is underway despite 
publicity over Holmes' trial.

But others say Hickenlooper's call for a conversation led to the formation of 
the Better Priorities Initiative, aimed at ending the death penalty, and a 
series on capital punishment at both the Denver Seminary and the Iliff School 
of Theology.

Among the events at the seminary are workshops in October looking at the pros 
and cons of capital punishment from a "biblical and theological perspective."

"The governor felt the faith community needed to be a vital part of the 
conversation," said the Rev. Jim Ryan, the former director of the Colorado 
Council of Churches.

Hickenlooper believes the conversation started in earnest 2 years ago with 
testimony during the 2013 session on a bill to repeal the death penalty. The 
Democratic-sponsored bill died after the Democratic governor indicated he 
didn't support it because he thought the issue should be raised with the people 
and not just with their elected representatives.

The issue exploded that May when Hickenlooper granted an indefinite reprieve to 
death- row inmate Nathan Dunlap, who killed 4 people and wounded a 5th 2 
decades earlier.

The decision did not affect the other two on death row, Sir Mario Owens and 
Robert Ray, who were convicted in the 2005 murder of 2 people who were going to 
testify at a trial. Any execution date that the pair may face, pending the 
exhaustion of all their appeals, is years away.

"It is likely that my decision in this case will continue the intense 
conversation Coloradans are having about the death penalty," Hickenlooper wrote 
in his executive order granting Dunlap the reprieve.

At the time, Hickenlooper said he would lead the discussion in town halls and 
statewide talks with local leaders.

"I'm not aware that's happened, and I think I would have been aware of it," 
Senate Minority Leader Lucia Guzman, D-Denver, said in a recent interview.

"What kind of conversation was Lucia looking for? What kind of conversation was 
she expecting?" Hickenlooper asked.

Kelly Maher, executive director of the conservative Compass Colorado, doesn't 
believe Hickenlooper lived up to his promise.

"He has yet to hold a single meeting about the issue, much less a statewide 
conversation," she said. "The loudest sound coming from the governor on this 
critical topic is a deafening silence."

That's in contrast, some believe, to Hickenlooper's efforts on oil-and-gas 
issues, where a task force was formed and met statewide after measures were 
pulled from the ballot.

Hickenlooper countered he has explained his position on the death penalty 
plenty in the last 2 years - including during his tough re-election bid in 2014 
- and has received lots of feedback.

"People said they appreciated the conversation," he said.

Attorney Phil Cherner, who was on Dunlap's appeal team, agreed that the death 
penalty was a hot topic during Hickenlooper's race against Republican Bob 
Beauprez, but said at other times it hasn't been.

"Some days the death penalty is closer to the front page than others," Cherner 
said.

Only Thursday morning, Hickenlooper lamented that one problem with 
death-penalty cases - which can string out for years, as Dunlap's did - is that 
"you create 2-bit celebrities out of killers and a platform for copy-cat 
behavior."

"Cases go on forever," Hickenlooper said. "Footage is pulled back up."

Just hours after the interview, a gunman opened fire in a Louisiana movie 
theater, killing 2 before killing himself. News stories mentioned the 2012 
Aurora theater shooting; footage compared pictures of the gunmen.

Hickenlooper also pointed to Nebraska's decision in May to override its 
governor's veto and repeal the death penalty. Conservatives there opposed 
capital punishment for religious, financial and practical reasons, making 
Nebraska the 19th state to ban capital punishment.

Guzman opposes the death penalty even though her father was murdered.

"I have never felt that it helps to kill someone who kills someone," she said.

Crime is also personal for Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora. It was her son, Javad 
Marshall-Fields, and his fiancee, Vivian Wolfe, who were gunned down in Aurora 
as they were set to testify in a pending murder case.

Although a death-penalty ban would not be retroactive, Fields believes 
outlawing capital punishment would make it easier for a governor to commute the 
sentence of her son's killers to life in prison.

"One of the fears I've had was after all that I went through, the trials, the 
juries, there was a lot of investigative work pursued for Javad and Vivian, and 
to have that undone, it would be difficult for me to bear that," she said.

Death row

The number of inmates on death row in various states:

Alabama: 201

Arizona: 124

Colorado: 3

Louisiana: 85

Oregon: 36

Tennessee: 73

Utah: 9

Wyoming: 1

[source: BetterPriorities.org]

(source: Denver Post)






CALIFORNIA:

Man convicted of killing teen during robbery attempt----Jury finds that 
Francisco Roy Zavala Jr. killed Eric Sargeant Jr. during the commission of a 
robbery, making him eligible for the death penalty. Closing arguments begin for 
co-defendant, Francisco Siordia.


After less than a day in deliberations, Francisco Roy Zavala Jr. on Thursday, 
July 23, was convicted of murder and a special circumstance that makes him 
eligible for the death penalty in the stabbing death of Hemet High student Eric 
Sargeant Jr. in 2013.

The same jury will hear evidence of aggravating and mitigating factors in a 
penalty phase trial starting Tuesday, July 28, that will help them evaluate 
whether to recommend a sentence of life in prison without parole or the death 
penalty to Judge Stephen Gallon, who is hearing the case in Southwest Justice 
Center.

The defendant became eligible for the death penalty after the jury found a 
special circumstance that the slaying occurred during the commission of a 
robbery.

Zavala is blamed for wielding a kitchen boning knife and stabbing Sargeant 
multiple times during what prosecutor Daniel DeLimon said testimony showed was 
a brazen after school cell phone robbery on Acacia Avenue in East Hemet.

His attorney, Richard Swanson, suggested his client was responsible only for 
non-life-threatening stab wounds, and that a knife a co-defendant admitted 
possessing was never found and may have caused the fatal wounds to the front of 
Sargeant's body. DeLimon reminded jurors an expert found that Zavala's knife 
could have been used to inflict all 7 or 8 wounds.

Several passers-by testified they saw 3 males chasing and beating the victim, 
and 1, later identified as Zavala, was seen stabbing the teen, who died later 
at a hospital. Sargeant gave a dying declaration to investigators in a taped 
interview played for the jury that described the robbery attempt.

A 2nd jury for co-defendant Francisco Atencio Siordia, 19, began hearing 
closing arguments in the case against him Thursday. The Hemet resident is 
charged with murder in commission of a robbery or attempted robbery. Because he 
was a juvenile at the time of the Jan. 14, 2013, crime, he is not eligible for 
the death penalty

His attorney, Stephen R. Sweigart, is expected to finish his presentation 
today, followed by rebuttal by DiLimon and deliberation by the jury.

While Siordia did not administer the fatal stab wounds to 16-year-old Eric 
Sargeant Jr., DeLimon told his jury that he should still be found culpable for 
the crime of murder because of the decisions he made.

The prosecutor recounted testimony that Siordia decided to go out in East Hemet 
with 2 others looking for someone to rob, exhibiting predatory behavior "like 
sharks;" participated in chasing and beating Sargeant; hid with the others; and 
called a friend to pick up the trio.

The 3rd defendant, Joseph Venegas, now 17, made a plea agreement with the 
Riverside County District Attorney's Office to testify against his 
co-defendants in exchange for a lesser conviction of voluntary manslaughter and 
an 11-year sentence, split between a juvenile facility and adult prison once he 
turns 18.

Siordia testified during the trial and Zavala did not.

Defense attorney Sweigart described the crime as senseless, committed against 
an "innocent 16-year-old child that did nothing, zero provocation." But he 
contended well-intentioned witnesses were mistaken and that while his client 
was present, he was in the middle of the street, trying to get young Joseph 
Venegas away from the scene of the assault.

He also disputed testimony by Venegas that there was talk in advance at the 
home where Venegas and Siordia lived about going out to rob someone.

Sweigart said there was testimony and Facebook messages to support a different 
scenario in which Siordia was leaving the house to meet up with his brother to 
get some marijuana.

(source: Press-Enterprise)

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

Engineer runs over man he suspected of having affair with wife ... then stabs 
him to death


Suspecting a dentist of having an affair with his wife, Sun Hongli ran him over 
with his car, then got out and stabbed him to death.

The engineer, 38, could now face the death penalty in the United States after 
he was charged with murder Tuesday last week. Sun is from Singapore, Chinese 
daily Shin Min Daily News reported.

The dentist, 54-year-old Liu Xuan, had last year hired Sun's wife to work at 
his dental practice in the city of Irvine, in California, local media said.

Sun and his wife had separated and begun divorce proceedings last year, only to 
change their minds and get back together.

Last week, Sun waited at a car park in his Mercedes-Benz SUV, then knocked Liu 
down when he turned up.

Liu survived, and tried to get up, but Sun got out of his car and stabbed him. 
Liu was later pronounced dead at the scene.

Sun also stabbed a female associate of Liu's who attempted to intervene, but 
she is expected to survive her injuries.

Local media also reported that Sun and his wife were married in Singapore 12 
years ago. They have an 8-year-old son.

(source: inquirer.net)