[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----VA., OHIO, KAN.

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 5



VIRGINIA:

EU Sharply Critical Of Prieto Execution In Virginia


The European Union has sharply criticized the execution of Alfredo Prieto in 
the US state of Virginia on October 1, 2015, despite indications that Prieto 
was suffering from a mental disability.

Numerous calls for clemency, including those of the EU, went unheeded.

According to a statement from the EU's External Action spokesperson, the 
execution of Prieto was "contrary to widely accepted human rights norms and to 
the minimum standards set forth according to international human rights law."

The statement noted that while, "We recognize the seriousness of the crimes 
involved and extend our sympathy to the families and friends of the victims ... 
the European Union is opposed to the use of capital punishment under all 
circumstances and aims at its universal abolition, seeking a global moratorium 
on the death penalty as a first step."

(source: European Union news)






OHIO:

Death penalty opponents walk to protest capital punishment


Death penalty opponents have begun a walk from the Ohio prison where inmates 
are executed to the Statehouse as part of a capital punishment protest.

The 7-day, 83-mile walk started Sunday at the Southern Ohio Correctional 
Facility in Lucasville and will end in Columbus.

The walk is sponsored by Ohioans to Stop Executions and other groups. They plan 
to finish the protest in Columbus on this coming Saturday, the annual World Day 
Against the Death Penalty.

Death penalty opponents speaking to participants along the way include Terry 
Collins, the former director of the Ohio prisons system who witnessed more than 
30 executions and now opposes capital punishment.

2 dozen Ohio inmates have execution dates but the state currently lacks the 
drugs to put them to death.

(source: Associated Press)






KANSAS:

With Carr cases, Court delving into Eighth Amendment


Editor's note: This is the 1st story in a 3-part series examining the Carr 
brothers' case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

On a Thursday morning in late September, four U.S. Supreme Court justices sat 
in the U.S. House chambers. The heavy eyes of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 
infamous for their inability to stay open during State of the Union speeches, 
began to close before Ginsburg received a nudge from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy listened intently as the 
speaker, fluent in 7 languages, slowly articulated words in English.

"Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for 
the abolition of the death penalty," Pope Francis told a joint session of 
Congress that day. "Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement 
to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never 
exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation."

Less than 2 weeks later, those 4 justices and their 5 colleagues on the high 
court will hear oral arguments in 2 companion death penalty cases, Kansas v. 
Gleason and Kansas v. Carr.

The guilt of Reginald Carr, Jonathan Carr and Sidney Gleason isn't in dispute. 
The Carr brothers were convicted on a long list of charges following a grisly 
weeklong crime spree in December 2000 that included robbery, rape, attempted 
murder and homicide.

The spree ended with the brothers shooting 5 victims in the back of the head at 
a Wichita soccer complex, killing 4.

Gleason was convicted of killing a young Great Bend couple in February 2004 for 
fear they would finger him in a recent robbery. A co-conspirator in the 
murders, Gleason's cousin Damian Thompson, is serving a life sentence for the 
crimes. At the time of the murders, Gleason was out on parole after pleading no 
contest to attempted involuntary manslaughter in an earlier shooting.

Gleason and the Carr brothers were all sentenced to death. However, their death 
sentences were reversed in a trio of Kansas Supreme Court rulings in July 2014.

At issue are jury instructions during the sentencing phase of the trials. The 
defendants argued, and five justices agreed, that a district court erred when 
it didn't instruct a jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitigating circumstances, details that may have led 
a defendant to commit his crimes, are introduced by defense attorneys in an 
attempt to receive a lesser sentence.

Anger over the Kansas Supreme Court's ruling prompted impassioned calls for 
removing 2 of the 7 justices. In her opinion, Justice Carol Beier wrote 
poetically of the difficulty the justices faced in making their decision.

"The facts of this case are so vivid, the wrongs done to the victims so 
callously inflicted, that any human cannot help to be tempted by the siren song 
of retribution," Beier wrote. "The song is what makes this case hard; it robs 
the sailor of reason. But it is the job of judges to resist making bad law, 
even when the siren's seductive power is at its height."

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an hour of oral arguments on 
whether the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that juries in 
capital murder cases be told that mitigating circumstances don't need to be 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The state of Kansas, represented by Attorney 
General Derek Schmidt, will have 30 minutes to argue their case, followed by 20 
minutes for an attorney representing Gleason and Jonathan Carr and 10 minutes 
for an attorney representing Reginald Carr.

The state of Kansas argues that the Eighth Amendment doesn't require specific 
instructions be given to juries regarding the burden of proof for mitigating 
circumstances. "Indeed, that holding stands in stark contrast to this Court's 
precedents, and is both legally and logically insupportable," the Kansas 
attorney general's office wrote in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the state argues that jurors understood no burden of proof exists 
for mitigating evidence and that the issue was largely moot because prosecutors 
didn't challenge much of the mitigating evidence presented by defense 
attorneys.

After arguments conclude on the matter of jury instructions and mitigating 
evidence, justices will delve into a 2nd hour of arguments centered on a 2nd 
question in the Carr case: whether the brothers should have been sentenced 
separately.

Reginald and Jonathan Carr were tried together, convicted together, and 
sentenced to die together. The use of a single trial before a single jury for 2 
defendants was appropriate during the trial, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled, 
but not during the sentencing phase because mitigating evidence wasn't 
identical for the brothers.

"The Eighth Amendment was violated in this capital case when the district judge 
refused to sever the penalty phase of the proceedings," the justices ruled July 
25, 2014, in Kansas v. Jonathan Carr.

Arguments on the severance question will involve 4 lawyers.

The state of Kansas, represented by Solicitor General Stephen McAllister, will 
have 20 minutes to argue the Kansas Supreme Court was wrong, an attorney for 
Reginald Carr will have 20 minutes to defend the court's ruling, an attorney 
for Jonathan Carr will have 10 minutes to do the same, and the U.S. solicitor 
general will have 10 minutes to argue in favor of conjoined sentencing 
hearings.

Gleason and Jonathan Carr are represented by attorneys with corporate law firm 
Sidley Austin LLP, public defender Sarah Johnson, and Sarah O'Rourke Schrup of 
Northwestern University. Reginald Carr is represented by the multinational law 
firm Hogan Lovells and public defender Debra Wilson.

The 2 Kansas cases are the only oral arguments Supreme Court justices will hear 
Wednesday. While some of the 6 Catholic and three Jewish justices may agree 
with Pope Francis, others may find themselves empathizing with Justice Beier's 
siren song of retribution.

(source: Garden City Telegram)