[Deathpenalty] death penalty news---PENN., DEL, VA., LA.

[Rick Halperin]

March 24


PENNSYLVANIA:

Hearing held for death row inmate appealing conviction and sentence



A former Uniontown man on death row for a 2002 quadruple murder appeared in 
Fayette County Court on Monday for the 1st day of an appeal hearing in which he 
is seeking a new trial and sentence.

Mark Duane Edwards Jr., 32, represented by attorneys James Moreno and Peter 
Williams of the Federal Community Defender's Office, made allegations of 
prosecutorial misconduct in a Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) filed in 2010, 
and claimed his trial counsel was ineffective. Additionally the attorneys 
contend Edwards' intellectual disability renders him ineligible for the death 
penalty.

A jury in 2004 convicted Edwards of killing Joanna and Larry Bobish Sr., as 
well as their pregnant daughter Krystal, and then burning down their North 
Union Township home. He was also convicted of attempted murder for shooting and 
stabbing Larry Bobish Jr., then 12 years old.

Former Gov. Tom Corbett signed Edwards' death warrant in December, but the 
execution was stayed the next month when a Fayette County judge found that the 
2010 PCRA was still pending.

Gov. Tom Wolf has since issued a moratorium on executions.

State police Cpl. John Marshall testified when he was investigating the Bobish 
murders, he recalled hearing that 1 of the neighbors reported seeing 2 people 
getting into a small red car shortly after the Bobish's home exploded, but he 
said the report didn't seem credible.

Moreno asked whether, in the course of a normal investigation, an officer would 
follow up and look for a red car.

Marshall said, 'We don't report negative reporting," meaning if they followed 
up and didn't find anything credible regarding the red car, the notes would not 
reflect that finding.

Moreno asked Marshall about whether he followed up with another man, Jeff 
Johnson, who prosecution witness Recardo Williams reportedly mentioned in 
connection with the Bobish murders. Marshall told the court he did not 
personally interview Johnson, but he understood Johnson was with Edwards for 
part of the night, eventually leaving him alone.

Edwards' trial attorney, Susan Harper, testified if she had been given 
information about statements allegedly made to police by 2 women who were 
present when Recardo Williams claims he heard Edwards make incriminating 
statements, she would have used it at trial to impeach Recardo Williams' 
testimony because the 2 women gave contradictory accounts.

Peter Williams asked Harper if she would have also questioned Recardo Williams 
statement under oath that he lived with his mother, when he had in fact been 
placed in a psychiatric hospital at the time of trial, and Harper said she 
would have used that to impeach the witness' credibility as well.

Moreno called forensic psychologist Dr. Lawson Bernstein to testify regarding 
his understanding of Edwards' mental capacity at the time of trial. Bernstein 
testified in Edwards' defense in the penalty phase of the trial.

Bernstein said he was never asked to evaluate Edwards for mental retardation, a 
term that has since been replaced with intellectual disability. In 2002 the US 
Supreme Court found that the criteria used for determining intellectual 
disability were too narrow, and that more than the defendant's IQ should be 
considered. Bernstein said he was not asked to evaluate Edwards according to 
the criteria set forth in that decision.

Bernstein said at the time he was unaware Edwards' father and uncle were 
intellectually disabled. He was also unaware Edwards' mother had consumed 
alcohol during pregnancy. Both, he said, would have been factors in the medical 
conclusions he drew at trial.

However, several diagnostic tests were performed before the trial, Bernstein 
testified. He said a scan of Edwards' brain then revealed abnormalities in his 
temporal lobes, the part of the brain that affects critical decision making and 
intellectual ability.

Bernstein added there were other factors contributing to Edwards??? 
intellectual deficiency. He came from a deprived household where he witnessed 
abuse and lacked a father, Bernstein said, and he suffered a clinically 
significant closed head injury when he was pistol-whipped in 2000.

Additionally, Edwards had been using drugs near the time of the killings, 
particularly PCP, formaldehyde and marijuana, Bernstein said, which would 
acutely and generally make his intellectual impairments worse.

Dianne Zerega, Edwards' court-appointed attorney for the penalty phase 
testified on Monday that Edwards' case was her 1st death penalty case.

Zerega said at the time she was not familiar with the scope of a forensic 
psychologist's expertise and failed to direct Bernstein to take specific 
actions regarding his evaluation. She said she didn't understand the relevance 
of investigating family background, for example, which would have revealed 
Edwards' mother's prenatal alcohol abuse.

"I was very unsure throughout the process," Zerega told the court.

She said Edwards was "always cooperative, always pleasant," but that he never 
appeared concerned about his case. She has represented other death penalty 
clients since then, Zerega said, and they tend to be interested in their cases, 
ask a lot of questions and give directions. She said that was never the case 
with Edwards.

Zerega said she had to explain the same concepts to Edwards repeatedly. "Over 
time, I began to notice he was using my words back," she said. "He wasn't 
explaining what was happening, he was parroting."

That's when she said she began to see that Edwards may have significant mental 
impairments and asked for Bernstein's help.

Assistant District Attorney Anthony S. Iannamorelli Jr. asked her if it was 
true that two experts said Edwards' IQ fell above 75, the threshold then for 
precluding a defendant from capital punishment, and Zerega said yes. Bernstein 
was the one who ordered another neuropsychological test, because he had 
concerns about the IQ, Zerega said.

Through further testing, Bernstein determined Edwards' IQ could be as low as 
72, according to testimony.

Testimony will resume at 9 a.m. before President Judge John F. Wagner Jr.

(source: Herald Standard)

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

IQ concerns resurface in Fayette County death sentence appeal



Former defense attorneys for a Fayette County man sentenced to death in 2004 
for killing three members of a North Union family 13 years ago were among 
numerous witnesses testifying Monday during an appeal hearing before Common 
Pleas President Judge John F. Wagner Jr.

Mark Edwards, 32, was convicted of 3 counts of murder for shooting and stabbing 
Larry A. Bobish, 50; his wife, Joanna,42; and their pregnant daughter, Krystal, 
17, during a burglary and arson at the family's home April 14, 2002.

The Bobishes' then-12-year-old son, Larry Jr., survived being shot and was able 
to escape the fire. A bullet remains lodged in his head.

Now 25, Bobish told the Tribune-Review last year that he has forgiven Edwards 
and does not want him to be executed.

During his 2004 trial, Edwards' defense attorneys contended he was mentally 
disabled and under the influence of drugs at the time of the killing, which 
prosecutors said occurred after Edwards stole several bottles of a drug called 
"wet" - PCP mixed with formaldehyde - from the elder Bobish several days 
earlier. When Bobish demanded payment for the drugs, Edwards decided to kill 
him, according to court records.

Then-Gov. Tom Corbett in November signed Edwards' death warrant.

Edwards was to be killed by lethal injection Jan. 13, but a motion seeking to 
stay the sentence was filed in December in Fayette County.

Attorneys James Moreno and Peter Williams are representing Edwards.

Williams asked Susan Harper, who defended Edwards at trial, about statements 
from witness Recardo Williams, then 15, who told the jury he heard Edwards 
planning the killings in Uniontown the night before.

Harper said she could not recall whether she was provided with the full names 
of 2 females allegedly present.

She said if she had been provided with statements from the females 
contradicting Williams' claims, she would have introduced them at trial.

Harper said she was aware Williams had criminal and juvenile records, but had 
no information that he was not living in the residence he said he was when 
Edwards allegedly announced his plans.

Attorney Dianne Zerega represented Edwards during the penalty phase, her first 
capital case, she said.

She said she requested a mental health evaluation because her client "seemed 
too calm."

"He did not react the way I would expect for someone facing the death penalty," 
she said.

Zerega said she obtained school and medical records for Edwards, but not those 
of his other family members.

She said she did not see any relevance at the time, but said it would have been 
helpful to know if there was a family history of mental disabilities.

Zerega said she met with members of Edwards' family for several hours. She said 
she has since learned that building trust with family members and obtaining 
complex information can take "multiple" meetings, which is her current 
practice.

While representing Edwards, she said, she came to believe that he did not 
understand what she was telling him and that he did not appreciate the 
seriousness of his charges.

"He was parroting what I said to him. I've never had a client who did not make 
suggestions about how to proceed. ... He never really asked any of that," she 
said.

In response to questions by Assistant District Attorney Anthony Iannamorelli, 
Zerega said she had 2 experts that said his IQ was above 75 at the time.

"I had a concern he had some mental issues," she said.

Also testifying at the post-conviction hearing was Pittsburgh neuropsychiatrist 
Lawson Bernstein, who evaluated Edwards before his trial.

At the time of the trial, Dr. Bernstein said Edwards had an IQ of 77.

IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, is a measurement of mental ability. Almost 70 
percent of the population falls between scores of 85 and 115.

Bernstein said Edwards' score put him in the 6th percentile, meaning his 
abilities put him behind 94 % of the population.

"I don't even think he could hold a fast-food job," Bernstein said at the time.

Complicating Edwards' limited reasoning abilities were his history of drug 
abuse and a brain injury he suffered in a pistol-whipping in August 2000, 
Bernstein said.

Bernstein said he was unaware at the time whether any of Edwards' family 
members suffered intellectual disabilities, or that Edwards may have suffered 
from fetal alcohol syndrome.

On Tuesday, he said a scoring error later determined Edwards' IQ possibly was 
as low as 72 and would have been a critical issue in death penalty 
consideration.

"I'm now aware of information I was not aware of then," Bernstein said.

Testimony will resume at 9 a.m. Tuesday in Courtroom No. 2.

(source: triblive.com)








DELAWARE:

Bill seeks to abolish Delaware death penalty----State troopers group opposes 
bill as proposed



Flanked by a bipartisan group of legislators, religious leaders from across the 
state and activists who oppose the death penalty, Senate Minority Leader Gary 
Simpson was 1 of nearly 2 dozen people calling for the abolishment of the death 
penalty in Delaware.

During a March 18 press conference in the Senate Chambers of Legislative Hall 
in Dover, Simpson, R-Milford, said he's long believed Delaware should end the 
death penalty.

The Senate minority leader said Gov. Jack Markell and his fellow legislators 
need to be brave and do the right thing.

Simpson said prosecutors throughout the country believe they've convicted the 
right person sitting on death row, but, he continued, innocent people have been 
put to death for crimes they did not commit.

"Until we can guarantee with 100 % accuracy that all of the people who are 
sentenced to death are guilty, I must support abolishing the death penalty," 
said Simpson.

Simpson is one of 21 legislative sponsors, and the only one from Sussex County.

Sen. Karen Peterson, D-Stanton, is the primary sponsor of Senate Bill 40. The 
bill mirrors a 2013 bill sponsored by Peterson that passed the Senate 11-10, 
but did not get out of committee in the House.

The legislation would end capital punishment in Delaware, except for the 15 
inmates already convicted and sentenced to death row.

If passed, Delaware would become the 19th state without the death penalty.

Peterson said since 1973, 150 death row inmates have been exonerated and 
released from prison. She said the death penalty is homicide, and "we're all 
accomplices."

Peterson said data shows eliminating the death penalty will save taxpayers 
millions of dollars because of the additional costs associated with a death 
penalty trial.

"We're not being tough on crime. We're being tough on taxpayers," she said.

Peter Schott, Eastern Sussex County Democrat board president, was in attendance 
representing the Unitarian Universalists of Southern Delaware.

Following the press conference, Schott echoed the speakers. He said statistics 
show the death penalty unequally affects people who are poor and can't afford 
proper representation.

"We believe the death penalty is immoral," he said.

Speaker of the House Rep. Pete Schwartzkopf, D-Rehoboth Beach, is a retired 
state trooper. He said if Peterson was willing to amend the bill to exclude the 
killers of police and correctional officers then he would vote in favor of the 
bill.

Legislative Hall is a house of compromise, said Schwartzkopf, and if the 
sponsors are willing to amend the bill, it might pass. He said he didn't think 
the bill has the votes if no changes are made.

Schwartzkopf said for the time being he'll wait until the bill makes its way 
through the Senate before getting too excited. When it does, he said, it will 
be put in a House committee and there will be some lively debate.

Thomas J. Brackin, Delaware State Troopers Association president, said he 
opposed the previous bill and opposes SB40. He said his association, local 
Fraternal Order of Police chapters, the Correctional Officers Association of 
Delaware and the Delaware Police Chiefs Council are all against the removal of 
the death penalty, and together the four groups have formed the Delaware Law 
Enforcement Coalition.

Brackin, a lieutenant in the state police, said the coalition believes that the 
death penalty is a necessary part of the punishment process in Delaware.

"We believe that for the worst of the worst, capital punishment is justified," 
he said.

Brackin said he's aware of the arguments made against the death penalty, 
because they're the same as 2 years ago. He argues that the costs associated 
with a death penalty case would be similar to ones associated with sentencing a 
person to life in prison because there would a similar exhaustive set of 
appeals.

Brackin said an additional problem would be the 15 death row inmates. He said 
there would almost be no way a governor would have them executed, knowing the 
law has changed.

Brackin said he believes the legislators in favor of abolishing the death 
penalty are acting on their own behalf and not on behalf of their constituents. 
He said he thinks the majority of constituents in Delaware are not in favor of 
abolishing the death penalty.

Brackin said at the end of the day, the majority of the people looking to 
repeal the death penalty feel that way because they've never been put in a 
situation calling for them to think about it.

It's a hard thing to accept, and there has to be a punishment, he said.

As of Thursday, March 19, the bill had not been officially introduced or 
assigned to a committee.

(source: CapeGazette.com)








VIRGINIA:

Gov. McAuliffe should impose a moratorium on the death penalty



The U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating whether a botched lethal injection 
execution in Oklahoma constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, 
Oklahoma, Ohio and Georgia have put scheduled executions on official hold while 
issues with lethal injection drugs are sorted out. In Utah, officials might 
reload the firing squad in order to continue clearing the death-row inmate 
inventory. Oklahoma is looking at inhaled nitrogen as an alternative.

Other than the defeated legislation in the General Assembly that would have 
shrouded companies that provide lethal injection drugs in secrecy, Virginia has 
been pretty quiet on the issue. Condemned inmates are given the choice between 
the electric chair and lethal injection. In January 2013, Robert Gleason chose 
the electric chair. A year later, given the lack of injection drug 
availability, the General Assembly considered using "Old Sparky," the state's 
electric chair, as the sole execution method, but the idea fizzled.

Virginia hasn't executed anyone since Gleason and has used the death penalty 
only twice since 2011. With Virginia's pace slowed, Oklahoma last year took 
over the No. 2 spot behind Texas. Virginia's slowdown can certainly be traced 
to the questions about, and the lack of availability of, lethal execution 
drugs.

Though Virginia's death row currently numbers eight inmates, there are no 
executions scheduled. Given the current unsettled status of capital punishment 
by lethal injection, as well as to formalize the legal status of capital 
punishment in Virginia, Gov. Terry McAuliffe should place an official 
moratorium on executions until the issue is straightened out. This is not 
something we need to be in any hurry about.

By 2013, death penalty states were consistently using a lethal combination of 3 
drugs - hence the term "cocktail." It included an anesthetic, sodium thiopental 
or pentobarbital; a paralytic agent to stop breathing, pancuronium bromide; and 
potassium chloride to actually stop the heart.

The drugs were mostly imported from countries in Europe where capital 
punishment is not supported or practiced. Though the drugs have other medical 
uses, the manufacturers who were exporting them for use in lethal injection 
were getting backlash from consumers, and the flow of the drugs rapidly 
diminished.

One of those drugs is pentobarbital, which is made in Denmark. Under Danish law 
its use for the death penalty is forbidden. Exports were halted. Pentobarbital 
was the 1st drug in Virginia's 3-drug protocol, and in its absence the state 
has looked at substituting the anesthetic midazolam. Faulty use of midazolam is 
the focus of the Oklahoma botched execution probe. The drug was being used in 
Ohio for the 1st time in a January 2014 execution that was unexpectedly 
prolonged.

All of these questions and uncertainties point to a practice that needs to go 
on official hiatus. The majority of Virginians are thought to support use of 
the death penalty, but certainly most of those would prefer that it be carried 
out properly and efficiently. An official, temporary ban makes sense.

(source: Editorial, Free Lance-Star)








LOUISIANA:

Former prosecutor's anti-death penalty letter is an indictment of Louisiana: 
Jarvis DeBerry



Last year, soon after Glenn Ford was released from Louisiana's death row, I 
arrived at the office of Resurrection After Incarceration to interview him only 
to learn that he hadn't been informed about the interview. His plan that 
morning was to go and obtain a picture ID. John Thompson, the founder and 
director of the Resurrection office, made a small pitch on my behalf. He told 
Ford that I had interviewed "just about all of us."

By "all of us," Thompson meant those men who had been let off Louisiana's death 
row when a court finally agreed that they had been put there unjustly. Consider 
what it means to live in a place where such a history defines a group of 
people.

Ford initially said OK to being interviewed, but then asked if he could back 
out. He just didn't feel like talking that day, he said. I can't say this with 
certainty because he didn't talk to me, but I got the sense that he was still 
trying to make sense of his surroundings, still trying to make sense of exactly 
what had happened to him and why.

One of the things that happened to him was that he ran into prosecutors who 
didn't want to consider the possibility that he was innocent. That's according 
to a former prosecutor who sent him to Death Row. "I was not as interested in 
justice, as I was into winning," A.M. Stroud III said in a letter that was 
originally sent to The Shreveport Times and then shared with NOLA.com | The 
Times-Picayune.

Stroud said he was too passive, that he had the person he thought was the 
killer and that he wouldn't allow himself to consider the stories he'd heard 
about folks committing the murder to be credible.

When you're so certain you're right, you find yourself more accepting of the 
obstacles that might prevent the other side from proving that you're wrong.

Ford was stuck with an attorney who had never tried a capital case. In fact, he 
was stuck with an attorney who had never tried a criminal case of any kind 
before a jury.

But that's OK, right?

Because he did it, right?, and even a skilled capital defense attorney wouldn't 
be able to get him off.

Wrong.

Even though Shreveport has a particularly violent racist history, Stroud also 
didn't think it problematic to have Ford, a black man, tried by an all-white 
jury.

"Pursuant to the review and investigation of cold homicide cases," Stroud 
writes, "investigators uncovered evidence that exonerated Mr. Ford. Indeed, 
this evidence was so strong that had it been disclosed during of the 
investigation there would not have been sufficient evidence to even arrest Mr. 
Ford!"

Stroud now believes that the death penalty should be abolished because it can't 
be fair and impartially imposed by fallible people.

I mocked Mr. Ford, (saying he) wanted to stay alive so he could ... prove his 
innocence." - A.M. Stroud III

"In my rebuttal argument during the penalty phase of the trial," Stroud writes, 
"I mocked Mr. Ford, stating that this man wanted to stay alive so he could be 
given the opportunity to prove his innocence. I continued by saying this should 
be an affront to each of you jurors, for he showed no remorse, only contempt 
for your verdict.

"How totally wrong was I."

Ford has stayed alive long enough to prove his innocence, but he's dying of 
cancer, a cancer he claims prison officials knew about but didn't treat.

Stroud knows he played a deciding role in everything that has happened to Ford. 
"I end with the hope that providence will have more mercy for me than I showed 
Glenn Ford. But, I am also sobered by the realization that I certainly am not 
deserving of it."

Let's be clear, Ford suffered as he did not because of an individual named A.M. 
Stroud III, but because of a system that too often prizes certitude over 
investigation and thinks the end result of the death penalty justifies any 
shenanigans that preceded it.

Imagine there not being enough evidence for your arrest and coming that close 
to execution.

Ford isn't the only one who has suffered in this way. If he were, Thompson 
could not have used the phrase "all of us."

(source: New Orleans Times-Picayune)