[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OHIO, OKLA., MINN., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 2



OHIO:

Ohio high court accepts condemned killer's DNA test appeal


The Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal involving a death row 
inmate who sought DNA testing on a cigarette butt found near the scene of the 
1990 double murder that led to his sentence.

At issue is whether there is a constitutional appeals process for death row 
prisoners who have requests for DNA testing denied after a trial is over.

Defendant Tyrone Noling was convicted of killing Bearnhardt and Cora Hartig at 
their Portage County home in 1990, but he maintains his innocence.

Pretrial testing showed the 45-year-old Noling and his co-defendants hadn't 
smoked the cigarette, which was found on the Hartigs' driveway.

Noling contends technological advances make it possible to identify the smoker 
and determine whether that person was among other previously undisclosed 
suspects.

(source: Associated Press)






OKLAHOMA:

Lead investigator plans to attend Benjamin Cole's execution despite attorney 
general's stay request


The attorney general of Oklahoma is now asking to stay all scheduled executions 
indefinitely, including one planned for next week.

Benjamin Cole was sentenced to death in 2004 after he was convicted of killing 
his 9-month-old daughter in Claremore.

Tim Norris began investigating the death of Brianna Cole in 2002. Even though 
he's now retired from the Claremore Police Department, he still thinks about 
everything she didn't get to experience in life.

"Her 1st time to go to school, all the birthday parties and the Christmases she 
missed out on," Norris said, " and the fact that she's not going to have a 
life."

Norris said Cole's father almost immediately confessed to killing his daughter 
at the family's home in Claremore.

"He was in his bedroom playing a Nintendo 007 game," Norris said. "She started 
crying and wouldn't stop crying, and it made him angry because it was 
interfering his game."

Norris said the infant died after Cole snapped her spine and tore her aorta.

Cole's wife, Susan Gail Young, was later convicted for permitting child abuse. 
Norris said she did nothing to help the child even though the couple lived a 
block from a hospital.

"Any concerned mother, anybody that I've known would have grabbed that child up 
and ran that child across the street to the hospital," he said.

Norris got a letter on September 22 asking him to attend Cole's execution on 
October 7. He plans to go and expects the state to work out the issues it had 
this week during Richard Glossip's 2nd scheduled execution.

"It's not so much to see him die," Norris said, "but it's like a closure to the 
case."

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has not yet ruled on the attorney 
general's request to stay all scheduled interviews.

(source: KJRH news)

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

Attorneys For Oklahoma Death Row Inmate Seek Reconsideration


Gov. Mary Fallin will not intervene in the case of Richard Glossip, who is 
scheduled for execution tomorrow afternoon. 2 justices dissented, saying they 
favored a 60-day stay of execution for an evidentiary hearing on Glossip's 
claim of newly discovered evidence.

The Supreme Court filing came around the same time the Court of Criminal 
Appeals announced it would not reconsider its Monday decision to deny a stay of 
execution and order a hearing to discuss the new evidence.

Attorneys for an Oklahoma death row inmate are asking a state appellate court 
to reconsider its decision to allow the execution to proceed.

"The evidence merely builds upon evidence previously presented to the Court", 
it said in a majority opinion.

Glossip was convicted of orchestrating the fatal beating of a motel owner in 
1997. In addition to denying Glossip a temporary stay of execution, they also 
denied his request for a hearing to introduce newly uncovered evidence.

The execution will be the 1st in Oklahoma since a sharply divided U.S. Supreme 
Court upheld the state's 3-drug lethal injection formula in June. The Supreme 
Court said that the drug did not violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel 
and unusual punishment. Both trials ended with juries convicting Glossip and 
sentencing him to death.

They now know that it is entirely possible to execute someone who is 
potentially innocent, in a criminal justice system that is flawed.

Before the visit, she had said her goal was to help him 'be poised that 
tomorrow at 3 pm, he may die'.

Sister Helen Prejean, a prominent campaigner against the death penalty, said if 
the execution goes ahead it is "very likely that Oklahoma will add the death of 
an innocent man to this record of mistakes".

Another death row inmate - Benjamin Cole - is scheduled to be executed on 
October 7 for the 2002 killing of his 9-month-old daughter despite his 
attorneys' claims that he is insane and ineligible for the death penalty.

Glossip wasn't helped by his lawyers' performance in the courtroom. He was 
found guilty again in 2004 and sentenced to death.

Glossip's lawyers, a few of the top death penalty attorneys in the country who 
are working pro bono, have asserted that Sneed was an IV meth addict and have 
questioned the reliability of his testimony.

Coalition spokesman Rev. Adam Leathers said the Glossip case is especially 
disturbing based on the amount of new evidence that won't be considered in a 
courtroom.

In a last-ditch effort to save Glossip's life, his lawyers have filed 
affidavits from a variety of witnesses attesting to the unreliability of Sneed 
and alleged misconduct by the police.

They added Sneed has given contradictory accounts of the events. "Why would 
anybody do that?" asks Don Knight, Glossip's new lead attorney.

(source: celebcafe.org)






MINNESOTA:

Death row inmate to speak at Cornerstone Church Oct. 11


Cornerstone Church in Walker invites the community to a special event Sunday at 
10 a.m. to welcome guest speaker Billy Neal Moore, author of "I Shall Not Die: 
72 Hours on Death Watch; But God!"

Moore was on Georgia's death-row for 16.5 years. God spared his life as he came 
within 7 hours of execution, for the crimes of murder and armed robbery, for 
which he pled guilty and was sentenced to death without a trial.

While on death row. Moore represented himself for nearly 6 years, as well as 
earning a bachelor's degree in theology as well as ministering to his fellow 
inmates and working on their death penalty cases. Miraculously, doors began to 
open. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles commuted Billy's sentence of 
death to life in prison Aug. 21, 1990, due to the pleas of the victim's family 
as a result of Billy's apology, their extended forgiveness to him and 
acceptance of him into their family.

The Parole Board could not consider the possibility of parole until Moore 
served 25 more years of the new life sentence. Nevertheless, 13 months later, 
God once again opened the doors and allowed Moore to be paroled.

Moore speaks at Yale Law School yearly, teaches at Gerry Spence Trial Lawyer 
College, and participates in death penalty conferences and seminars around the 
country and world.

(source: The Pilot-Independent)






USA:

Feds still undecided on seeking death penalty in Emanuel AME Church shooting


A decision on pursuing Dylann Roof's execution on federal charges will be made 
by the U.S. Attorney General's Office, prosecutors said during a hearing 
Thursday.

It remains unclear, however, when U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch will make 
that call, Assistant U.S. Attorney Julius Richardson said, adding that it 
"requires input from an array of people."

In the meantime, attorneys for Roof, the white man accused of killing nine 
black parishioners at Emanuel AME Church, said they are moving forward with the 
"reasonable assumption" that the case will soon become a capital one.

Roof did not appear for the proceeding, during which attorneys and U.S. 
District Judge Richard Gergel also discussed scheduling for his case.

Gergel expressed concerns about potential scheduling conflicts that could arise 
if the decision on seeking the death penalty is delayed.

"There are a lot of wheels that move based on that decision," he said.

Roof has waived his right to a speedy trial in federal court, indicating the 
possibility of a prolonged fight if prosecutors choose to seek his execution, 
according to court documents filed this week.

David Bruck, an attorney for Roof, asked the judge to delay the trial to give 
the defense team time to examine a "voluminous" amount of evidence, including 
more than 15,000 pages of documents, recently provided by prosecutors.

Federal law dictates that a trial commence within 70 days of an indictment. A 
speedy trial, however, would not be fair to Roof considering attorneys must 
prepare for an added layer of "complexity" brought on by a potential death 
penalty case, Bruck argued.

Without that, "it would not be complex, and the case would be over almost 
immediately," Bruck told the judge.

Gergel agreed, granting a continuance in Roof's case to the next trial term, 
which is set to begin in January.

Roof, 21, of Eastover, faces 33 federal charges, including hate crime counts 
and religious freedom violations that make him eligible for the ultimate 
punishment.

The FBI said Roof was an avowed white supremacist who opened fire during a 
Bible study at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on June 17. 9 
worshippers, including pastor and state Sen. Clemeta Pinckney, died. 3 others 
in the church were spared.

Roof also faces murder and attempted murder charges in state court, where 
prosecutors already have announced plans to seek a death sentence.

Asked whether state and federal prosecutors have a preference on which case 
would be the 1st to go to trial, Richardson told Gergel that the issue has been 
discussed, but not resolved.

(source: Post and Courier)

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

Are death penalty decisions fair? 2 lawyers debate


Editor's Note: Paul Callan is a CNN legal analyst, a former homicide prosecutor 
and media law professor. He is "of counsel" to 2 law firms: Edelman & Edelman 
PC and Callan, Koster, Brady & Nagler LLP. Danny Cevallos is a CNN legal 
analyst and a criminal defense attorney practicing in Pennsylvania and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands. Follow him on Twitter: @CevallosLaw. The views expressed are 
their own.

News this week that a woman in Georgia was executed over the killing of her 
husband and a man sentenced to die in Oklahoma was given a 37-day stay on his 
execution has pushed the issue of capital punishment back into the spotlight. 
CNN Opinion asked 2 legal analysts -- former homicide prosecutor Paul Callan 
and criminal defense attorney Danny Cevallos -- for their take on the death 
penalty in America.

Danny Cevallos: In 24 hours, the state of Georgia has executed Kelly 
Gissendaner, and Oklahoma's governor has stayed the execution of Richard 
Glossip. The 2 death row inmates have one fact in common: they were sentenced 
to death ... even though they personally did not take a life.

Even if you are not persuaded by the Pope's opposition to Gissendaner's 
execution, then how about our society's growing opposition? Many states now 
limit the availability of the death penalty for felony-murder accomplices who 
neither kill nor intend to kill; doing so is no longer the majority rule.

Paul Callan: Good point, Danny. I agree that some states do limit exposure of 
the so-called "non-shooters." But even the states granting the execution 
exemption only do so where the non-shooter, stabber, etc. didn't know about nor 
plan or participate in the killing. That's not the case for Gissendaner.

Just look at the facts in that case. No, she wasn't the actual killer. But what 
she did was arguably even worse -- she plotted the murder of her husband for 
months with her lover and "hit man accomplice." Then she supplied the 
nightstick and knife to make sure her hubby was properly beaten and stabbed in 
the neck -- 8 times! After that she went dancing with her girlfriends, 
returning too late to the murder scene to inflict a fatal wound, but in time to 
make sure her husband was dead.

Sure, she looked very sympathetic prior to her execution, with even Pope 
Francis asking for clemency. But then again, the Pope would have supported 
clemency for Osama bin Laden, because he opposes all executions regardless of 
circumstances. The Pope is even against life imprisonment. (Although like I 
wrote last month, that's his personal opinion, not an "Infallible" doctrine of 
the Roman Catholic Church).

Cevallos: You sir, are a barnacle on my SS Good Point. We agree: what she did 
was particularly heinous. Plus, the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that an 
accomplice who neither kills nor intends to kill may still be constitutionally 
executed for his co-felon's homicides. It's true that accomplices in cases like 
these are equally guilty. But guilt is a separate phase from the sentencing 
phase, and one of the primary objectives of the sentencing phase is 
proportionality. Executing those who do not kill threatens the goal of 
proportionality -- the idea that our punishment should at least try to fit the 
crime.

Callan: Just trying to prevent The SS Good Point from becoming the SS Titanic 
... Do you know how bad the crime has to be for a woman to get the needle, the 
electric chair or the noose? Really bad, Chamber of Horrors bad. Between 1900 
and 1973, fewer than 1% of those executed in the United States have been 
female.

Most of those cases involve barbarity, cruelty and planning. The victim is 
almost invariably an intimate. This suggests, unlike killings of strangers, 
there was plotting, premeditation and motive rather than a momentary twisted 
impulse. If the voters insist on a death penalty, this is what it is for. And 
in the Kelly Gissendar case, she appears to have been more responsible for a 
death than the actual killer. It was her idea. She pushed the killer into 
committing the crime.

Cevallos: Paul, I agree with you -- and that's how you know you're right. Women 
are rarely executed. However, that's not because of some subtle gender bias. 
It's because women, as a group, commit crimes about as often as, say, 
octogenarians or fetuses. Women are 50% of the population. They are 6.7% of the 
population in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. And even if we do subconsciously 
give a death penalty break to someone because they are female, maybe it's just 
a quid pro quo for the break womankind has since the dawn of time given society 
on killings.

Can we trust the trigger man?

Callan: You are the master of statistical obfuscation. I know that you are a 
highly experienced criminal lawyer, and that you try many of your cases in 
federal court. You say the deal was unfair here because the non-killer got the 
death penalty while the actual killer got a break. But isn't it true that in 
federal cases, the 1st defendant who seeks to cooperate often gets the best 
deal?

Federal and state prosecutors always use the testimony of one bad guy to 
convict another -- these crimes aren't being committed at Sunday school. We 
pick a jury of the defendant's peers to carefully scrutinize the testimony and 
evaluate who is telling the truth and who is lying. If there was a deal, the 
law requires that the jury is told about all of the deal details and a defense 
attorney pounds away at the theme that the witness is a liar bought and paid 
for by the evil prosecution. Jurors figure out collectively who is telling the 
truth. The jury system is the core and heart of American justice. Then panels 
of highly experienced judges in our court system look at the evidence again and 
again in appellate proceedings that last as long as 20 years to make sure the 
verdict was correct.

Cevallos: And that's a big problem: the person punished the most is not always 
the most culpable -- he's often just the guy who wasn't approached by the 
prosecution with a sweet deal. How many of these culpable cooperating 
witnesses, with everything to gain by testifying, have put people on death row? 
These are often criminals who would testify against their own mother to knock 
off a few years. Letting triggermen testify against non-killing accomplices may 
accomplish the prosecutions' goal of more convictions, but it doesn't always 
accomplish fairness in sentencing.

Callan: So we aren't going to agree on Gissendaner. But how about another case? 
In Oklahoma on Wednesday, another death row inmate, Richard Glossip, won a 
37-day reprieve from his scheduled execution due to claimed problems with the 
availability of the appropriate death drugs. Death penalty opponents claim that 
this is an even stronger case of a non-killer being wrongfully sent to his 
death while the actual killer makes a deal and avoids a death sentence. 
Prosecutors convinced 2 Oklahoma juries that Richard Glossip, fearing that he 
would be fired for stealing from his boss, convinced a fellow worker to commit 
the actual murder. The down and out co-worker, Justin Sneed, says he feared the 
loss of his job and his room at the motel, which employed both men. He beat the 
boss, Barry Van Treese, to death with a baseball bat upon the orders and 
explicit suggestion of Glossip. Do you agree with Susan Sarandon and her crew 
of Hollywood celebs that Glossip deserves mercy because he didn't actually 
wield the bat?

Cevallos: Ah, your question is cleverly crafted. Glossip doesn't deserve mercy, 
he deserves proportionality, like other defendants before a sentencing court. 
Richard Glossip didn't personally kill the victim in this case; he wasn't even 
in the room when his former boss was slain inside an Oklahoma City motel. For 
non-killers convicted of murder, there's a big range in liability between 
merely associating with the actual killer, and ordering and facilitating a 
murder. Unfortunately for those defendants, the chief witness against them is 
the same guy who we know actually killed the victim. A cooperating witness has 
everything to gain by giving the prosecution the testimony they want, and 
everything to lose if he doesn't sing for his supper.

Would you trust a cooperating witness to babysit your kid? No? Then why, with 
such an inherently fallible system, would you listen to anything they say about 
their ex-friend on the stand? The point is, our system is inherently fallible, 
which is why the death penalty is an unnecessary constitutional risk.

Callan: We'll have to agree to disagree about much of the way the Glossip case 
has played out. But would you agree with me on one aspect of the case? This 
reprieve because of a drug shortage. Doesn't that demonstrate at best a 
miscalculation on the part of death penalty opponents?

One of the arguments opponents of capital punishment make is that the death 
penalty must be ended because the medications used to induce death by lethal 
injection are of uncertain reliability, and so may lead to a cruel and painful 
death in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This argument has resulted in a 
postponement of executions in several states, though it has yet to cause the 
U.S. Supreme Court to ban executions.

The inappropriate drug argument has been raised in Oklahoma in an attempt to 
delay the execution of Glossip. And although Oklahoma officials claim they will 
shortly have the proper drug combination available, in other cases it is clear 
that the unavailability of the drugs necessary for a painless death has been 
caused by death penalty opponents pressuring European pharmaceutical suppliers 
to stop producing the necessary ingredients for the traditional injection 
combination. A three-drug cocktail of drugs is frequently used in lethal 
injection executions: Sodium thiopental to induce unconsciousness, pancuronium 
bromide (Pavulon) to induce muscle paralysis followed by respiratory arrest, 
and potassium chloride to stop the heart.

Danny, couldn't it backfire for those worried about the "cruelty" of the death 
penalty if opponents cause the very drug shortage that makes a painless death 
difficult to produce? What happens next? A much more painful method? After all, 
the Supreme Court has previously upheld hanging, firing squads and the electric 
chair. Do we really want to return to those methods if proper drugs are not 
available for lethal injection And how does this affect the question of 
constitutionality?

Cevallos: When it comes to the Eighth Amendment, if you subscribe to Justice 
Scalia's view, the Constitution means today not what current society thinks it 
ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted. And if that's the case, 
then I think people in George Washington's time unquestionably would not have 
considered the death penalty unconstitutional. And there is the argument that 
the Supreme Court stepping in to abolish the death penalty would override the 
constituencies of many states who have chosen to enact it as law. My argument 
is more utilitarian: What are we getting out of the death penalty that's so 
much better than life in prison?

This goes to your drug argument: One way of looking at the shortage of drugs 
could be that death penalty opponents have effected the shortage. Another way 
is that pharmaceutical companies, and medical providers in general, are already 
averse to "tinkering with the machinery of death." After all, doesn't capital 
punishment itself undermine the basic tenets of medicine and pharmaceuticals? 
That we use an alcohol swab on a condemned man's arm before we give him a 
lethal dose of pentobarbital seems nonsensical. Ultimately, like nearly every 
legal question, I think that's what the death penalty comes down to: a 
balancing test. Does the additional benefit of killing a prisoner (instead of a 
life sentence) outweigh all the problems that come with it? It's hard to argue 
it does.

(source: Paul Callan and Danny Cevallos, CNN)