[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OKLA., KAN., UTAH, ARIZ., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

May 3


OKLAHOMA:

Death row inmate could become the 1st prisoner in US history to die by nitrogen 
gas



A death row inmate could become the 1st American prisoner to die by nitrogen 
gas after he launched a case to stop another controversial lethal injection 
being used.

Richard Glossip and 2 other prisoners who are scheduled to be executed are 
engaged in an appeal to the US Supreme Court against the use of the lethal 
injection drug Midazolam.

But it is likely that Glossip's execution will still go ahead even if he wins 
the case because the state of Oklahoma has already made alternative plans to 
kill him.

The drug at the heart of the case is a sedative called midazolam, which the 3 
convicted murderers - Richard Glossip (pictured), John Grant and Benjamin Cole 
- contend is unsuitable for use in executions because it cannot achieve the 
level of unconsciousness required for surgery.

Last month the Governor of Oklahoma signed a law that allows death row 
prisoners to be executed with nitrogen gas if lethal injection drugs are not 
available.

This means that even if officials cannot use Midazolam, they can turn to 
nitrogen gas as an alternative.

The case lodged with the Supreme Court against Midazolam came after convicted 
murderers - Glossip, John Grant and Benjamin Cole expressed opposition to its 
effectiveness.

They argued that midazolam is unsuitable for use in an execution because it 
doesn't achieve the level of unconsciousness required for surgery.

During an interview from death row in Oklahoma State Penitentiary Glossip told 
Sky News: 'If it's so humane then you have to explain what happened to the guy 
in Ohio who suffered.

'You have to explain what happened to the guy in Arizona who suffered for 2 
hours.

'You have to account for (Clayton) Lockett here in Oklahoma who suffered for 45 
minutes. If it's so humane why did those people suffer for so long.'

Robert Dunham, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Centre, 
told Sky News: 'You've got inmates who are conscious, you've got inmates who 
are gasping.

'One description is that an inmate was flopping around like a fish against the 
restraints.

'That's someone who is clearly experiencing high levels of pain and we know 
that the lethal drug is akin to being burned from the inside out.'

But Oklahoma's Attorney General Scott Pruitt said: 'The state of Oklahoma, 
since the late 1970s, was the state that gave birth, gave life to the lethal 
injection process, as the most humane way to carry out capital punishment.'

The drug has already been used in executions in Oklahoma, Florida,Ohio and 
Arizona.

However, despite the difference in opinion, it will now be up to the justices 
on the Supreme Court to decide what should be done.

The 9 justices will answer whether the use of midazolam violates the 
Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Justice Elena Kagan flagged up the description that 'It's like being burned 
alive.'

She said: 'We've actually talked about being burned at the stake, and everybody 
agrees that that's cruel and unusual punishment.

'So suppose that we said, we're going to burn you at the stake, but before we 
do, we're going to use an anaesthetic of completely unknown properties and 
unknown effects.

'Maybe you won't feel it, maybe you will. We just can't tell. And you think 
that that would be okay?'

The justices will present their ruling in June but they seem deeply divided.

Conservative justice Samuel Alito is known to be a staunch supporter of the 
death penalty.

Justice Alito said: 'This Court has held that the death penalty is 
constitutional. Those who oppose the death penalty are free to try to persuade 
legislatures to abolish the death penalty. Some of those efforts have been 
successful.

'They're free to ask this court to overrule the death penalty. But until that 
occurs, is it appropriate for the judiciary to countenance what amounts to a 
guerrilla war against the death penalty which consists of efforts to make it 
impossible for the States to obtain drugs that could be used to carry out 
capital punishment with little, if any, pain?'

The inmates are on death row after Glossip arranged for his employer to be 
beaten to death, Grant stabbing a correctional worker to death and Cole killed 
his 9-month-old daughter.

(source: Daily Mail)








KANSAS:

Kansas court puts capital case from sheriff's death on hold



Kansas' highest court has halted its review of the capital murder case stemming 
from a southeast Kansas sheriff's death because the U.S. Supreme Court is 
reviewing other death penalty cases from the state.

The Kansas Supreme Court issued an order this week stopping proceedings in the 
case of Scott Cheever, who was sentenced to die for the 2005 shooting of 
Greenwood County Sheriff Matt Samuels during a drug raid.

The Kansas court raised the issue itself earlier this month and said U.S. 
Supreme Court decisions in other state cases could apply to Cheever's case. 
Both the state attorney general's office and Cheever's attorney agreed in brief 
responses to the Kansas court that a delay was appropriate.

The nation's highest court has agreed to review Kansas Supreme Court rulings 
last year that overturned death sentences for 3 men, Sidney Gleason and 
brothers Jonathan and Reginald Carr.

The Carr brothers were convicted of killing 4 people in December 2000 in 
Wichita after committing other crimes against them and a woman who survived the 
ordeal. Gleason was convicted in Barton County for the February 2004 killing of 
Miki Martinez and Darren Wornkey in Great Bend. Martinez was a potential 
witness against Gleason in an earlier crime, and Wornkey was her boyfriend.

The Kansas court has not upheld any death sentence since the state reinstated 
capital punishment in 1994, and its last legal executions, by hanging, were in 
1965.

The state's highest court in 2012 overturned Cheever's capital murder 
conviction. It said Cheever's right against self-incrimination was violated by 
prosecutors who used a court-ordered mental evaluation from a different trial 
against him. But the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 overturned the decision, noting 
that Cheever's own expert raised the issue of whether methamphetamine use had 
damaged his brain. It ordered the Kansas court to review the case again.

(source: Associated Press)

- ***************

Change of venue sought in F. Glenn Miller Jr. trial for Jewish center killings



The battle for F. Glenn Miller Jr.'s life has begun in earnest.

Attorneys for the accused killer of 3 people outside Jewish facilities in 
Overland Park last year on Thursday filed 21 motions as they prepare for what 
could be Johnson County's 1st death penalty trial in more than a decade.

Among the motions is a request for a change of venue because of extensive 
pretrial publicity in the case.

Other defense motions cover issues including how jurors should be chosen, how 
police collected evidence and how courtroom spectators should behave.

Miller, 74, also known as Frazier Glenn Cross Jr., is scheduled to go to trial 
beginning Aug. 17. Attorneys have estimated that trial could last 6 weeks.

He is charged with capital murder in the shooting deaths of William Corporon, 
Reat Underwood and Terri LaManno on April 13 last year.

Corporon, 69, and Underwood, his 14-year-old grandson, were killed outside the 
Jewish Community Center. LaManno, 53, was killed a few minutes later outside 
the Village Shalom care center.

Miller, an avowed white supremacist and anti-Semite from southern Missouri, has 
stated publicly that he was trying to kill Jews. None of his victims was 
Jewish.

He has repeatedly stated in court hearings that he wants the opportunity to 
explain in open court the reasons for his actions, and one of Thursday's 
motions asked that he be given that chance.

Capital trials are conducted in 2 phases. If a defendant is convicted in the 
guilt phase, a 2nd penalty phase is held to determine whether the sentence will 
be life in prison or death.

In their motions Thursday, Miller's attorneys asked that he be given the chance 
to address jurors in the penalty phase without being put under oath or subject 
to cross-examination.

The defense also is requesting that jurors not be shown gruesome crime scene 
photos or photos of the victims before they were killed.

Another motion also seeks to have potential jurors questioned by attorneys 
individually. The defense also wants prosecutors to be precluded from striking 
potential jurors because of their religious views on the death penalty.

A hearing is scheduled for May 14 to begin taking up the motions.

(source: Kansas City Star)








UTAH:

No humane way to kill



I am a Democrat social-work student from California. For as long as I can 
remember, I believed in the death penalty, despite all the mounting evidence 
that the justice system is deeply flawed. Still, I had reservations because I 
thought: "We need to hold on to the death penalty for people who truly are 
guilty."

And then I read last month about Utah's reintroduction of the firing squad. 
Policymakers argue that it's just in case lethal injections are banned by the 
courts, or in case the injections are no longer available.

In fact, many proponents of the law in Utah claim that a firing squad is a more 
"humane way" of execution. The firing squad, in order to protect capital 
punishment, makes the case for why the United States must end its policy. The 
brutality of a firing squad is inescapably "cruel and unusual punishment."

We cannot continue to hold ourselves up as a just and righteous nation that 
fights for the rights of the marginalized and vulnerable in the world while we 
kill our own citizens when it fits our moral code.

Suzanne Campbell

Irvine, California

(source: Letter to the Editor, Deseret News)








ARIZONA:

Taxpayers deserve to know true cost of Arias prosecution



Recently, Dan Peitzmeyer of Death Penalty Alternatives for Arizona debated 
Maricopa County Bill Montgomery on "Arizona Horizon," a news show on KAET 
Channel 8. Both gentlemen did a commendable job in presenting their respective 
positions.

However, it was disconcerting when Mr. Montgomery flippantly claimed that the 
total costs for prosecuting Jody Arias was merely $133,000. His assertion is 
grossly misleading.

Mr. Montgomery previously refused to disclose how much the prosecution has cost 
his office, and has provided no documentation to support this $133,000 sum, 
despite the fact that it's public record.

I urge Mr. Montgomery to allow access to the records of his office so the 
taxpayers can know how much of their money was spent while pursuing the death 
penalty (unsuccessfully for Ms. Arias), in this case.

The total prosecution costs are still not in. More invoices are waiting to be 
submitted and the prosecutor's "paltry" sum of $133,000 was only for travel 
expenses and witness fees. It does not include the costs of any of the 
prosecution's staff as typically, each attorney is supported by an entire team 
of staff including investigators, paralegals, secretaries, clerks, law clerks, 
victim witness staff, etc.

Deputy County Attorney Juan Martinez was not an army of 1 in a case that has 
gone on since June 4, 2008. Costs were accumulated by the County Attorney's 
Office throughout those 7 years.

The case still is not over. Defense attorneys will appeal and the state will 
oppose, so costs for both sides will continue to rise. Also not included are 
the costs to the jail, law enforcement, courts and the 2 juries.

>From a fiscal point of view, we should be thankful that Ms. Arias did not 
receive the death penalty, especially in light to the massive cuts in spending 
because of our current fiscal crisis. Had she been sentenced to death, there 
would have been costs to the Department of Corrections, Attorney General's 
Office, court-appointed attorneys for all appeals and post-conviction relief 
petitions, costs associated with appeals and post-conviction relief at the 
federal level and costs to the federal courts and costs to transport the 
defendant back and forth to all of the court proceedings. All of these costs 
would have been paid by taxpayers.

The Arizona Republic estimated that Arias's defense alone cost taxpayers $3 
million - twice what it is estimated it would have cost the state to lock her 
up without parole if she lived 60 more years (EJ Montini column, March 12, 
2015).

It is time that we, the taxpayers, are fully informed as to how much the 
imposition of the death penalty costs us. I urge citizens, county officials and 
the Legislature to demand that Mr. Montgomery disclose the true cost to 
taxpayers. It is time we have a comprehensive study to discover how much of our 
hard-earned dollars are going toward the dubious expenditure of seeking the 
death penalty.

Whether you think the death penalty is morally wrong or right, the one thing 
that we can agree on is that these massive expenditures could be better 
utilized to benefit all of us, instead of being used to seek the punishment of 
one.

(source: Commentary; Tempe attorney Chuck Laroue, Esq., is a board member for 
Death Penalty Alternatives for Arizona----Ahwatukee Foothill News)

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

Man wants no restraints in his trial in Arizona girl's death



Prosecutors are opposing a motion that an Arizona man charged with killing an 
8-year-old Bullhead City girl be allowed to appear in civilian clothes and 
without restraint at all court proceedings including his trial.

Mohave County officials are recommending that Justin James Rector wear a stun 
belt or knee brace and be accompanied by 2 uniformed jail detention officers 
during all trial or jury proceedings.

Rector is scheduled to stand trial in October 2016 on 1st-degree murder and 
other charges stemming from the September 2014 strangulation of Isabella 
"Bella" Grogan-Cannella.

Her body was found in a shallow grave near her home.

Prosecutors say they plan to seek the death penalty if Rector is convicted of 
first-degree murder. He's also charged with kidnapping, child abuse and 
abandonment of a dead body.

(source: Associated Press)








CALIFORNIA:

Mother and stepfather sentenced to death for murder of their toddler after they 
beat him when he was scalded in the shower; Belinda Magana, 29, was sentenced 
to death for 1st-degree murder, child abuse and other charges----Hey boyfriend 
at the time, Naresh Narine, 43, also received the death penalty



A Southern California woman and her boyfriend were each given separate death 
sentences for beating and refusing to provide medical care for a toddler after 
he had been scalded by hot water.

Belinda Magana, 29, broke down as she described her son Malachi, but refused to 
admit she had caused her son's death.

'I just wanted to say to my family and everybody else that I'm truly sorry for 
the part that I did,' Magana said. 'Regardless of what anybody said, I didn't 
kill my son.'

Naresh Narine, 43, who was dating Magana at the time, was found guilty along 
with her back in January, with juries recommending the death penalty.

Both were sentenced for 1st-degree murder, torture, mayhem and child abuse.

The Press Enterprise reports that Riverside County Superior Court Judge Bernard 
Schwartz called the couple's actions in the days before their son's death 
'repulsive and disgusting.'

If Malachi hadn't been allowed to die in 2009, Schwartz noted, he'd be 7 or 8 
years old and 'would have been in school, playing with friends getting ready 
for summer vacation.'

No one spoke for Malachi during the time allotted for victim impact statements, 
though Senior Deputy District Attorney Daima Calhoun said 'the jury speaks for 
him' through their verdicts.

According to court testimony, Magana was out of the home when Malachi was 
scalded by a hot shower.

The only treatment Malachi received was some ointment rubbed on his burns.

Over the next 5 days, both Narine and Magana admitted, the couple hit the 
toddler because he was crying.

Blunt force trauma and complications from the burns were factors in the boy's 
eventual death.

The night of his death, the couple went to Apple Valley, about an hour's drive 
to the north, for a party before returning the next day and burying the body 
near a creek.

(source: Daily Mail)

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

No New Trial for RivCo Man Who Murdered Wife, 3-year-old Daughter to Collect 
Insurance Payout----The California Supreme Court rejected the convicted 
murderer's appeal this week.



A Riverside man sentenced to death for murdering his wife and 3-year-old 
daughter to collect life insurance proceeds on them will not get a new trial, 
the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously this week.

Kim Raymond Kopatz, 60, was convicted in March 2001 of slaying 35-year- old 
Mary Kopatz and his youngest daughter, Carley. The same jury that found him 
guilty of 2 counts of 1st-degree murder with special circumstance allegations 
of taking multiple lives in the same crime and killing for financial gain 
recommended the death penalty for Kopatz, and a Riverside County Superior Court 
judge affirmed the recommendation.

In his appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence given against him during 
his trial and penalty proceedings had a "cumulative prejudicial effect" that 
warranted a reversal of his conviction and sentence.

Kopatz cited an interview with detectives a few hours after the victims??? 
bodies were discovered, arguing he should have received an advisement of his 
rights prior to sitting down with the 2 investigators. However, the Supreme 
Court found the nature of the question-and-answer session was informal and not 
a "custodial interrogation," thus not establishing grounds for a Miranda 
warning.

Kopatz also argued that a witness' testimony about her now-deceased husband's 
statements regarding seeing Kopatz -- who insisted that he had never left his 
property -- walking around the morning of the murders was hearsay that should 
never have been admitted as evidence.

The justices were not persuaded, noting the witness gave the same testimony 
during a preliminary hearing at which he appeared shortly before his death.

The defendant decried the fact the victim impact statements given during the 
penalty phase of his trial were "so excessive and prejudicial that it resulted 
in a trial that was fundamentally unfair," according to the court's narrative.

7 of Mary Kopatz's relatives testified, describing how much they missed her and 
Carley and the pain they had endured after the murders.

"The family members??? testimony properly explained the nature of their 
relationship with the 2 victims, the immediate effects of the murders and the 
residual and continuing impact of the (killings) on their lives," Justice Ming 
Chin wrote.

The defense argued the Kopatz jury had been misdirected on the use of verdict 
forms, which contained several errors. The justices acknowledged one 
"technical" error, but noted it created a superfluity -- not a violation of the 
defendant's rights.

The court also rejected the defendant's contention that the death penalty 
violates "humanity and decency" to the point it should not be applied.

According to court papers, by April 1999, Kopatz had maxed out his credit 
cards, accruing $117,883 in debt playing the stock and commodities markets. The 
stay-at-home dad had plundered the family's bank accounts and was desperate for 
money. Life insurance policies on his wife and youngest daughter totaled 
$800,000, according to the court's narrative.

On the morning of April 22, the defendant strangled Mary and Carley Kopatz in 
the family's single-story home in the 9100 block of Garfield Street. He dumped 
their bodies in his van and partially disrobed Mary Kopatz to make the crime 
appear to be a random sexual assault, robbery-murder that occurred while the 
woman and child were running errands.

Kopatz parked the vehicle about a mile from his house. The bodies were 
discovered the same day, and following a weeks-long investigation, Kopatz was 
arrested and charged, according to court papers.

(source: patch.com)








USA:

Is Oklahoma's use of lethal injection cruel and unusual?



The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case challenging the 
use of the lethal injection in the United States, following a number of botched 
executions.

Lawyers for 3 death-row inmates in Oklahoma argued that the state's 3-drug 
protocol for executions violates constitutional bans on cruel and unusual 
punishment. The protocol includes the potentially unreliable sedative 
midazolam.

Midazolam was used in the controversial execution of Oklahoma inmate Clayton 
Lockett in 2014. Lockett's execution took more than 40 minutes. Although he was 
sedated, Lockett's body writhed and he breathed heavily during the execution. 
Lockett eventually died of a heart attack.

Midazolam was also used in 2 other prolonged executions last year in Ohio and 
Arizona in which prisoners appeared to suffer.

Justice Elena Kagan asked Oklahoma officials May 29 during the arguments in 
Glossip v. Gross how they could justify using midazolam, which has not been 
proven to protect inmates from feeling the effects of the potassium chloride, 
which she described as "being burned alive from the inside."

"So suppose that we said, we're going to burn you at the stake, but before we 
do, we're going to use an anesthetic of completely unknown properties and 
unknown effects," Kagan said. "Maybe you won't feel it; maybe you will. We just 
can't tell. And you think that would be okay?"

Justice Samuel Alito countered that Oklahoma and other states have been forced 
to use midazolam because opponents of the death penalty have pressured drug 
companies to not produce or sell more reliable sedatives.

"Let's be honest about what's going on here," Alito said. "Executions can be 
carried out painlessly ... is it appropriate for the judiciary to countenance 
what amounts to a guerilla war against the death penalty?"

The Supreme Court last took up the issue of lethal injection in 2008. In that 
case, Baze v. Reese, the court ruled that the standard 3-drug protocol did not 
violate constitutional bans on cruel and unusual punishment. However, the court 
clarified that the 1st drug in any protocol must prevent inmates from 
experiencing the intense pain cause by the second and third drugs. The standard 
protocol approved in 2008 included sodium thiopental rather than midazolam.

Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City reaffirmed his opposition to the death 
penalty in comments to CNA May 1.

"We don't end the cycle of violence by committing more violence," Archbishop 
Coakley said. "In all of these crimes, we lost a life, and the death penalty 
only serves to further devalue human dignity. When available, we should choose 
other non-lethal ways to ensure justice and protect society."

When the court announced plans in January to re-examine lethal injection 
protocol, Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston prayed that "the court's review of 
these protocols will lead to the recognition that institutionalized practices 
of violence against any person erode reverence for the sanctity of every human 
life."

"Capital punishment must end," said Cardinal O'Malley, who is also the head of 
the U.S. bishops' pro-life activities committee.

Archbishop Thomas Wenski, who leads the U.S. bishops' committee on domestic 
justice said the execution at the center of Glossip and Gross reveals "how the 
use of the death penalty devalues human life and diminishes respect for human 
dignity."

Pope Francis has also called for the abolishment of all forms of the death 
penalty.

There are several possible outcomes to Glossip v. Gross. The court could send 
the case back to the district court for re-evaluation, or issue a ban on 
midazolam or clearer guidelines for lethal injection.

The Supreme Court had already issued, on Jan. 28, a stay of execution for the 
plaintiffs in the case, pending its final outcome.

In light of the controversy over the use of midazolam, several states are 
revisiting other methods of execution, including the electric chair, firing 
squad, or gas chamber. In March, Utah adopted a law legalizing a 5-person 
firing squad as the official back-up method of execution for the state, should 
it be unable to obtain the 3 drugs necessary for lethal injection.

(source: The Catholic World Report)