[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----UTAH, CALIF.

[Rick Halperin]

March 29


UTAH:

Reinstating firing squad signifies Utah's faltering moral standing



The death penalty by way of firing squad is the wrong option for dealing with 
criminals. Utah should stay steadfast in the moral sense as an example to other 
states and abandon this form of capital punishment.

Gov. Gary Herbert's signing of HB11, which reinstates the firing squad, 
represents the acceptance of a misleading sales pitch to Utah voters. That bill 
was neither needed nor based on sound policy reasons. It will cost taxpayers 
millions of dollars while doing nothing to deter crime. More importantly, the 
bill diminishes Utah's moral standing in the nation and in the world as 
reflected by the near unanimous rejection of the firing squad. Its time has 
come and gone.

Despite supporters' claims, re-implementing the firing squad is based on false 
premises. By even supporters' estimates, an execution could not possibly occur 
for another 4 years, and likely much longer. Regardless, several other states 
are litigating lethal injection protocols now. That litigation will sort out 
the legality of how executions are conducted. Until that litigation is 
resolved, no urgency exists.

Further contrary to supporters' claims, HB11 is not a simple housekeeping 
measure that will protect the state from protracted litigation. Legislators who 
have spoken in favor of the measure claim that the firing squad simply creates 
a contingency plan should drugs used for executions become unavailable. The 
fallacy in this argument is the false assumption that the firing squad would 
not be subject to legal attack and would, therefore, spare the state from 
litigation costs. The reintroduction of the firing squad would do just the 
opposite.

Under United States Supreme Court precedent, the death penalty is subject to 
"evolving standards of decency" as determined by common practices by the 
states. Only one other state (Oklahoma) relies on the firing squad in any form. 
The other 48 states have rejected it. Because the firing squad is a relic of 
the past and is infrequently used, it is vulnerable to constitutional 
challenge. Rather than avoiding litigation, reinstating this device guarantees 
protracted legal proceedings and enormous costs to the state.

Of even more concern, supporters' claim that reinstating the firing squad does 
not challenge the legitimacy of the death penalty itself is patently false. By 
supporting the firing squad as a tool of death, Utah endorses not only the 
killing of others by the use of an outmoded tool, but it also supports the 
taking of human life generally. International opposition to HB11 illustrates 
that reintroducing the firing squad in Utah endorses capital punishment itself. 
Indeed, in the few days since HB11 was passed by the Legislature, national and 
international journalists have accused Utah of cruelty and indifference to 
human life.

Utah risks losing its moral standing and influence among other states and 
nations by reinstating this cruel execution device. Utah leaders frequently 
portray Utahns (accurately so) as compassionate, caring and fair-minded. But 
the state's reliance on the death penalty stands in direct opposition to 
accepted principles of decency and enlightened thought. Utah should be a leader 
in the world on moral issues and not seek to turn back the clock to a more 
insensitive, debasing time.

Further, Utah's endorsement of capital punishment diminishes its role as a 
criminal justice reform leader. The Legislature's recent adoption of criminal 
justice reform reflects a growing awareness that current policies are failing 
the people of this state, including offenders, and waste millions of taxpayer 
dollars. The reform movement also reflects an awareness that research-based 
approaches to crime not only save money but also improve people's lives. In 
contrast to these policies, research shows that the death penalty does not 
deter crime and, in fact, costs far more money to administer than imprisonment. 
The death penalty and the firing squad rely on old ways of thinking that result 
in extraordinary expense and wasted human potential.

Utah should join the clear trend among other states to abandon the use of the 
death penalty and to identify more effective ways to prevent crime and deal 
with human frailty. Just in the past few years, several states have abolished 
the death penalty and more are lining up to do so. Utah will be left behind in 
this effort and become even more isolated morally. With so much to gain and so 
much to lose in the fight over capital punishment, the clear decision is to 
choose better ways to deal with violence.

(source: L. Monte Sleight is president of Utah Association of Criminal Defense 
Lawyers. Kent R. Hart is executive director; Deseret News)








CALIFORNIA:

Attorneys in death penalty case still seeking jury info, possible change of 
venue



With little more than two weeks before the start of a death penalty trial for a 
Fairfield man accused of killing a Vallejo police officer in 2011, defense 
attorneys continue to litigate numerous motions related to Solano County jurors 
and the possibility of moving the trial elsewhere.

Attorneys for Henry Albert Smith, Jr., accused of the Nov. 17, 2011, slaying of 
Vacaville resident and Vallejo Police Officer James Capoot, have been trying to 
obtain data related to Solano County's jury pool leading up to a separate 
argument in favor of moving the trial. Smith, who is set to begin a jury trial 
April 15, is accused by prosecutors of robbing a Vallejo bank before leading 
officers on a high-speed pursuit that ended with the gunshot slaying of Capoot.

Solano County prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Yet defense attorneys, who were previously denied in an attempt to distribute a 
1-page questionnaire given to prospective Solano County Superior Court jurors 
in unrelated cases, have not laid the issue to rest.

On Friday, Smith's defense team went before visiting Judge W. Arvid Johnson to 
get a ruling on their request for names of all prospective jurors in Solano 
County.

According to courtroom arguments, Smith's defense counsel would like the 
information to hire a private company to perform a survey of jurors, similar to 
a census.

1 of Smith's attorney's, Chief Deputy Public Defender Oscar Bobrow, had 
previously stated in court that an informal study revealed that 8 % of the jury 
pools in Fairfield appeared to have African Americans jurors, while 13 % 
appeared in Vallejo, he testified.

Smith is African American, and Bobrow has argued that the trial should be held 
in Vallejo, where the alleged crime occurred and where his client is more 
likely to receive a fair trial.

On Friday, it appeared Johnson would allow Smith's defense team to have the 
names and addresses of all potential jurors in Solano County based on a 2014 
list. The list of potential jurors is based off of voter registration 
information and DMV data.

However, attorneys for Solano County's jury commissioner objected to such a 
release.

"We don't know what's going to be said to these people," said Sarah L. Overton, 
attorney for the jury commissioner.

Overton expressed a scenario in which the jury pool in Solano County could be 
tainted by allowing the defense team to have contact with them prior to trial.

Johnson, in an attempt to minimize that possibility and protect the privacy 
rights of the jury pool, ordered that the 2014 list of all Solano County jurors 
would not be released until Smith's defense team provided the court and counsel 
with their proposed questionnaire.

If Smith's defense team chooses to do so, it would set up another round of 
legal arguments, one that may not be allowed to happen with a little more than 
2 weeks left before the start of trial, given statutory time periods for 
attorneys to respond in writing before coming into court.

"This motion should have been made a long time ago," Johnson said.

Another issue defense attorneys are preparing to argue is for a change of 
venue.

Smith's attorneys have indicated they are prepared to present testimony from a 
witness, Edward Bronson, a retired Chico State University professor and expert 
on change of venue motions.

Bronson and Judge Peter B. Foor, who is presiding over Smith's trial, are no 
strangers to change of venue motions in Solano County.

Perhaps coincidentally, Foor, as a Deputy Public Defender, worked with Bronson 
in the late 1980s on a change of venue motion that was granted.

Foor, at that time, represented Shawn Melton, a Vallejo man accused of the 
kidnap and murder of 6-year-old Jeremy Stoner.

In that case, Bronson surveyed jurors in Solano County, and the case was 
ultimately moved to Sacramento County, where 2 jury trials ended with hung 
juries.

The change of venue motion in Smith's case is set to be heard on April 1.

Smith, who remains in Solano County Jail without bail, has pleaded not guilty 
to murder, robbery and being a felon in possession of a handgun in connection 
with the case. He is alleged to have robbed a Bank of America branch on Springs 
Road, leading to a pursuit through the city that ended in North Vallejo, where 
Capoot, 45, is believed to have chased him into a back yard on Janice Street.

According to testimony at a November 2012, probable-cause hearing, arriving 
officers found Capoot lying on the ground in an open area of the yard, having 
been shot. Smith was apprehended down the street from where the shooting 
occurred with a .40-caliber Glock semi-automatic handgun in his left-front 
pocket that ballistics experts matched to shell casings found in the yard where 
Capoot was shot, police testified.

(source: The Reporter)