[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----CONN., PENN., VA., N.C.

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 9



CONNECTICUT:

Conn. Chief Justice Criticizes Colleagues for Deciding Not to Revisit Death 
Penalty Ruling ---- Chief Justice criticizes majority for not allowing state to 
present arguments


The Connecticut Supreme Court has rejected a request by the state's top 
prosecutor to reconsider its decision to completely eliminate the death penalty 
in the state.

The legislature in 2012 repealed the death penalty for future murder cases, but 
kept it for those already on death row. In August, the Supreme Court found the 
retroactive application of the death penalty unconstitutional, meaning the 11 
men on death row no longer faced execution.

Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane and his office then filed a motion for 
argument and motions to strike the 4-3 decision in State v. Santiago

On Oct. 8, the Supreme Court issued a 1-sentence decision on Kane's motion, 
"The motion of the state of Connecticut, filed Sept. 4, 2015, for argument, 
having been presented to the court, it is hereby ordered denied."

The remainder of the decision is a dissent by 3 members, including Chief 
Justice Chase Rogers and Justices Peter Zarella and Carmen Espinosa.

In the dissent, Rogers wrote: "By denying the state's motion for argument and 
reconsideration, the majority merely reconfirms my belief that it has not 
engaged in an objective assessment of the constitutionality of the death 
penalty under our state Constitution.

"Instead, the majority's conclusion that the death penalty is unconstitutional 
constitutes 'a judicial invalidation, without constitutional basis, of the 
political will of the people,'" Rogers added, citing her initial dissent in the 
case. "Unfortunately, with this final act denying the state an opportunity to 
speak on issues that it has had no prior opportunity to address, this 
regrettable episode in this court's history concludes."

Kane, in his motion, wrote that the majority and concurring opinions had 
addressed issues, undertook analysis and relied on materials that were never 
raised or presented by the defendant, and never subjected to any adversarial 
inquiry.

Mark Dupuis, a spokesman for the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, deferred 
comment to Kane, who was not immediately available for comment on the decision. 
Kane had cautioned during the legislative process that he doubted a 
prospective-only repeal of the death penalty would pass constitutional muster. 
In his motion, Kane said the majority of justices unfairly denied the Division 
of Criminal Justice the right to be heard and, therefore, has been unfair to 
the state. "Without the state's input, the majority made several legal and 
logical errors and misinterpreted the constitutional history it decided to 
explore," the motion claimed.

Kane claimed the majority misunderstood the state's constitutional history 
regarding the court's role in protecting against cruel and unusual punishment. 
The court has previously stated it could not abolish the death penalty because 
it is "an inherently legislative determination," the motion said.

Kane's motion also alleged that the majority disregarded assurances many state 
lawmakers relied on when they voted to eliminate the death penalty for future 
cases. When the death penalty abolition bill was debated, a number of 
legislators said they would not approve it if it meant sparing the lives of the 
2 men found guilty of the 2007 Cheshire home invasion murders.

"The majority failed to accord the proper respect for the legislature's express 
intent, and instead disregarded its prior assurance that the Court does not 
consider prospective repeal to be a rejection of capital punishment," the 
motion said. "Legislators justifiably could and should conclude that they were 
deceived."

Assistant Public Defender Mark Rademacher has said there was no point to 
rehashing what the Supreme Court decided in August. Following this latest 
decision, Rademacher said, "The dissent realizes it is over and any chance for 
review is exhausted."

"Now we can get on with our lives and accept that the death penalty is a 
regrettable part of our history," Rademacher said. "I think even a lot of 
prosecutors are breathing a sigh of relief. The death penalty takes a big toll 
on everyone, including prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and defendants. A 
great weight has been lifted from all of us."

David McGuire, legislative and policy director for the American Civil Liberties 
Union of Connecticut, issued a statement on the decision, "This closes the book 
on capital punishment in Connecticut once and for all. As the initial Supreme 
Court decision recognized, the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment 
that has no place in our state."

(source: Connecticut Law Tribune)






PENNSYLVANIA:

Death penalty withdrawn from prosecution of Beltzhoover man


Prosecutors announced Thursday that they will no longer be seeking the death 
penalty for Antoine Ward, the man accused of shooting a couple in a car in 
Knoxville last year.

They also asked that the jurors who had already been selected to serve during 
the trial, which was scheduled to begin next week, be dismissed because "issues 
arose during jury selection that made it likely that, assuming conviction, a 
2nd trial would be necessary," said Mike Manko, spokesman for the Allegheny 
County District Attorney's office.

Attorneys will select a new jury from a new pool of potential jurors.

Ward, of Beltzhoover, is charged with homicide for the slayings of Jason 
Eubanks and Cheralynn Sabatasso, both 36. The couple was found dead in a car in 
January 2014 that had hit a curb at the intersection of Zara Street and Grimes 
Avenue. Each had been shot in the head.

Authorities said Ward knew both victims.

Their families did not object when prosecutors decided not to pursue the death 
penalty, Manko said.

(source: triblive.com)






VIRGINIA:

What Happened When Virginia Executed Alfredo Prieto----The commonwealth of 
Virginia executed serial killer Alfredo Prieto a little past 9 p.m. Oct. 1 - 
while he still had a request to put his execution on hold pending at the 
Supreme Court.


Alfredo Prieto's execution on Oct. 1 took 11 minutes, from the time the 
Virginia Department of Corrections placed the IV lines in his arm until he was 
pronounced dead at 9:17 p.m.

A minute before the execution began, Prieto's lawyers filed a request for the 
Supreme Court to put the execution on hold. Corrections officials say, however, 
that neither Gov. Terry McAuliffe's office nor Attorney General Mark Herring's 
office - both of which were notified of the pending Supreme Court request 
before or during the execution - informed the Virginia Department of 
Corrections (VDOC) of the request before Prieto was declared dead.

"[T]he Department of Corrections was not notified of the SCOTUS filing (or the 
intention to file) at any time during the execution," Lisa Kinney, corrections 
spokesperson, told BuzzFeed News.

The unclear communications between Virginia government offices before and 
during Prieto's execution is only one issue raised by the case. The minutes and 
days that preceded and followed the serial killer's execution highlight several 
key issues surrounding implementation of the death penalty today: the 
difficulties states have in obtaining lethal injection drugs, the hurdles 
inmates and the public face trying to obtain information about execution 
procedures, the complexities of carrying out executions while protecting 
inmates' rights, and the questions about the adequacy of counsel available to 
those inmates facing death.

To the last issue, Herring's office says Prieto's lawyers never informed the 
AG's office of the Supreme Court filing. The office, all parties agree, only 
found out about the filing from the Supreme Court Clerk's Office, which 
informed Herring's office of the filing 7 minutes after the execution began.

"Mr. Prieto's counsel never notified OAG of the application," Herring spokesman 
Michael Kelly told BuzzFeed News, "nor was OAG ever served with it."

The state, which was conducting its 1st execution in more than 30 months, was 
under no legal obligation to delay the execution while the request was pending. 
Kinney previously noted that "[t]here was no court or gubernatorial order in 
place to stop the execution" at 9 p.m. when the death warrant became active. 
"When an offender has been given a sentence of death by execution, the 
Department is charged per Virginia code with carrying out the execution," 
Kinney added.

States generally do not proceed with executions, however, until requests to 
stay the execution have been resolved.

The same week as Prieto's execution, Kelly Gissendaner's execution in Georgia 
early on Sept. 30 began several hours late - it actually was scheduled for the 
evening of Sept. 29 - as appeals and requests for execution stays made their 
way through the courts. Before Prieto's execution, only Missouri had conducted 
an execution before the Supreme Court ruled on a final stay request since the 
beginning of 2014.

Herring's spokesman, however, pushed back against that practice a week after 
Prieto's execution, telling BuzzFeed News on Thursday evening that, for 
Virginia, there would be no waiting on execution stay requests - called 
applications at the Supreme Court - to make their way through the courts.

"We would have immediately informed DOC of any court order halting the 
execution," Herring wrote. "The filing of an application does not automatically 
halt the execution and DOC does not have discretion to stop it. Only the 
Governor or a court order can do that."

For Prieto, who also faced a death sentence in California, that certainly was 
the fact. Even when it did learn of the stay application, Herring's office 
didn't inform corrections officials that it had been filed.

McAuliffe's spokesperson, meanwhile, has not responded to repeated inquiries 
for comment since Prieto's execution.

On Sept. 22, Prieto's lawyers at the Virginia Capital Representation Resource 
Center (VCRRC) say that they found out through a Freedom of Information Act 
request that the commonwealth had obtained the supply of its execution drug, 
pentobarbital, from Texas. The discovery, made public 2 days later in a filing 
in an Oklahoma execution challenge, included images showing the pentobarbital 
vials included no information about their source.

On Sept. 25, Prieto's lawyers asked Virginia's corrections officials for more 
information about the pentobarbital. VDOC's lawyers responded on Sept. 29, 2 
days before Prieto's scheduled execution.

The next day, Prieto's lawyers filed a federal lawsuit against VDOC officials, 
including VDOC Director Harold Clarke, over "anticipated violations of 
Plaintiff's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by 
the Eighth Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." This 
is so, they claimed, because the commonwealth did not look into "the quality 
and authenticity of the purported pentobarbital" it received from Texas. 
Prieto's lawyers asked for a delay, or stay, of execution.

Prieto's lawyers said the claim was based on VDOC's response to a FOIA request 
for documents on attempts by state corrections officials to acquire compounded 
execution drugs during the course of the year. The VDOC responded: "The 
requested documents do not exist."

A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia granted a temporary restraining order, 
halting the scheduled execution and setting a hearing in the case for the next 
day.

The Attorney General's Office, representing VDOC officials, responded, asking 
the court to lift the restraining order and dismiss the case, arguing that 
"Prieto's filing with the Court is rife with supposition." It also gave 
significant additional information about how Virginia obtained the 
pentobarbital.

"On or about August 26, 2015, 2 VDOC employees arrived in Texas and accepted 
custody of the pentobarbital," the commonwealth's lawyers wrote. "The 
appropriate DEA paperwork was completed, and the VDOC employees personally 
transported the vials back to Virginia, maintaining chain of custody and 
appropriate temperature controls at all times." Texas also mailed "laboratory 
test results" on the drugs from April of this year to the Virginia AG's office. 
Meanwhile, the Herring's office also asked for the case to be transferred to 
the federal court in Richmond, closer to the area where the execution was set 
to take place. The judge in Alexandria agreed, and the case was reassigned to 
U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson, a tough-on-crime former prosecutor, on 
the morning of Prieto's scheduled execution. That afternoon, after a 2-hour 
hearing, Hudson ended the temporary restraining order, and just before 6 p.m. 
he dismissed Prieto's request for a preliminary injunction.

Prieto's lawyers notified the court that they would be appealing the decision 
to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Before 8 p.m., Prieto's lawyers asked the 
court to issue a stay of execution while the appeal was considered. A little 
past 8:30 p.m., the commonwealth responded, with the AG's office opposing a 
stay of execution.

The death warrant became active at 9 p.m. Oct. 1, and VDOC was able to begin 
the execution. 9 seconds after the death warrant became active, the 4th Circuit 
denied the stay of execution request. The AG's office, as the lawyers to the 
VDOC, would have received immediate email notice of the ruling from the court.

"[N]otice of the 4th Circuit Court's denial was received by DOC officials at 
9:02 p.m.," VDOC spokesperson Kinney said. "The Department was not made aware 
of Prieto's attorneys' intention to file with [the U.S. Supreme Court]."

3 minutes later, though, Prieto's lawyers did file a stay application with the 
Supreme Court, according to the Supreme Court Public Information Office. Unlike 
prior filings, and peculiar within the federal system to the Supreme Court, the 
filing is not immediately available through the online filing system in use by 
lower federal courts, which is accessible to all.

Prieto lawyer Robb Lee told BuzzFeed News that Gov. Terry McAuliffe's counsel, 
Carlos Hopkins, was initially informed at 8:50 p.m. of their intention to file 
a stay request at the Supreme Court.

McAuliffe's spokesperson, Brian Coy, did not respond to multiple questions from 
BuzzFeed News about the Prieto execution generally or about the messages Lee 
says were sent to Hopkins.

At the same time, the attorney general's office - VDOC's lawyer - was not 
informed about the filing by either Prieto's lawyers or, apparently, 
McAuliffe's office. Michael Kelly, the spokesperson for Herring, said his 
office was not told about the filing until 8 minutes after it was made.

"Mr. Prieto's counsel never served OAG with the application for stay of 
execution filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. At 9:13 p.m. the U.S. Supreme 
Court notified OAG via email that an application had been filed," Kelly told 
BuzzFeed News.

In an earlier filing in the case, the Herring's office raised a question, if 
not about the competence of Prieto's counsel, at least about the continuity of 
Prieto's counsel. While the VCRRC had previously represented Prieto in his 
state proceedings, the AG's office noted, VCRRC had declined to do so for his 
federal litigation. "Th[e Sept. 25] letter marked the 1st time, in recent 
months, that the Virginia Capital Representation Resource Center identified 
themselves as counsel for Prieto," the Herring's office wrote.

Lee, 1 of Prieto's lawyers and the executive director of the VCRRC, did not 
answer repeated questions about why Prieto's lawyers did not serve the attorney 
general's office with their client???s Supreme Court stay application. Instead, 
Lee and a spokesperson for Prieto's legal team repeatedly pointed to the fact 
that the Supreme Court informed the Herring's office of the filing at 9:13 p.m. 
- 7 minutes after the execution began.

As the legal dispute made its way to the Supreme Court, the corrections 
officials responsible for Prieto's execution say they were not told about the 
pending stay application at the Supreme Court before or at any time during the 
execution - between placing the IV lines at 9:06 p.m. and declaring him to be 
dead at 9:17 p.m.

Kinney, the VDOC spokesperson, told BuzzFeed News specifically that neither 
McAuliffe's office, which oversees the VDOC, nor Herring's office, which 
represents VDOC in court, informed corrections officials of the pending stay 
application at any point before or during the execution.

Asked why the attorney general's office did not inform VDOC of the pending stay 
application during Prieto's execution, Kelly, Herring's spokesman initially 
only said the Supreme Court "did not notify the OAG of the application until 
after the execution had already begun. Mr. Prieto's counsel never notified OAG 
of the application, nor was OAG ever served with it."

Nonetheless, a lawyer in the attorney general's office told the Supreme Court 
that a response to the stay application would be forthcoming. In emails 
provided to BuzzFeed News by Herring's office, the Supreme Court Clerk's Office 
at 9:13 p.m. notified the lawyer in the attorney general's office that the stay 
application had been filed and asked whether the state would be filing a 
response. The lawyer responded 2 minutes later, at 9:15 p.m., writing, "Yes. I 
will send shortly."

Beyond that, Kelly, Herring's spokesman, suggested remaining questions were 
best made to McAuliffe's office or to offices under the governor's control: 
"VADOC is an executive branch agency under the Governor and the Secretary of 
Public Safety and Homeland Security. I cannot speak to what, if anything, they 
may have known or told VADOC."

Pressed further, Kelly made the statement that a stay application "does not 
automatically halt the execution" and that his office "would have immediately 
informed DOC of any court order halting the execution." And while Kelly stated 
that VDOC lacked discretion to delay an execution, he also noted that 
McAuliffe, who oversees VDOC, did have that authority - and his counsel, 
according to Prieto's lawyer, was made aware of Prieto's plan to file a stay 
application at the Supreme Court twice before the execution began.

Earlier this year, Virginia officials were successful in completely shielding 
the state's execution manual from disclosure under a FOIA lawsuit at the 
state's Supreme Court, meaning that a description in the manual of how 
communications between the offices are supposed to work during an execution is 
not public information. Kelly did provide some information to BuzzFeed News, 
however, about the communication set-up in place during the Prieto execution.

"During this execution, attorneys from the OAG and members of the Governor's 
staff were present on-site and an attorney for Mr. Prieto had full access to 
them. There was never any indication from Mr. Prieto's on-site attorney to OAG 
that there would be a filing, nor did they give notice to OAG attorneys in 
Richmond, nor was OAG ever served with the application," Kelly wrote. "During 
an execution, OAG attorneys are also in constant contact with the Governor's 
Office apprising them of all relevant developments as we are made aware of 
them."

While the statement raises additional questions about the actions of Prieto's 
counsel, it also raises questions about what, if any, communication was 
happening between the state officials responsible for carrying out Prieto's 
execution.

The VDOC spokesperson says there was none, at least regarding the stay 
application; McAuliffe's spokesperson isn't responding to questions; and 
Herring's spokesman, Kelly, said that "communications between the OAG and the 
Governor, his staff, and/or the Department of Corrections would constitute 
attorney/client privileged communications, so I can't comment on any 
communications that may have occurred."

At 9:17 p.m. Oct. 1, 2015, Alfredo Prieto was pronounced dead.

At 9:20 p.m., the Virginia attorney general's office informed the Supreme Court 
Clerk???s Office, "I'm told the application is now moot as of 9:17."

Nearly 20 hours later, a little before 5 p.m. Oct. 2, the Supreme Court 
dismissed Prieto's final request: "The application for stay of execution of 
sentence of death presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the 
Court is dismissed as moot."

(source: BuzzFeedNews)






NORTH CAROLINA:

Death penalty arguments refuted


I refute the arguments in Patrick Gannon's Oct. 2 column, "Time for a serious 
death penalty talk," against the death penalty for 1st-degree murder:

1. Claim: Opposition to abortion logically requires opposition to the death 
penalty.

It is difficult to imagine a sin, much less a crime, which any unborn child has 
committed. But those on death row for 1st-degree murder have been convicted 
beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury and have had their cases reviewed by at 
least 47 judges over 10 to 25 years. The unborn child has had zero 
representation and has been charged with nothing.

2. Claim: Many people have been exonerated from death row.

In the modern era there have been 44 executions in North Carolina. Not a single 
one of them had any colorable claim to innocence.

3. Claim: There is no clear consistent evidence that the death penalty deters 
crimes.

There are dozens of peer reviewed academic studies showing clear deterrent 
effect for a death penalty for murder that is actually applied. The studies 
vary but a conservative estimate is that 25 innocent lives are saved by each 
execution of a guilty 1st-degree murderer in a state that actually applies the 
death penalty.

The death sentence for 1st-degree murder, carried out after thorough review, 
respects human life for victims in a way that a sentence of life in prison can 
never match. The innocent lives lost, for lack of a sufficient deterrent for 
1st-degree murder, cry out for justice.

REP. PAUL STAM

Speaker Pro Tem

N.C. House of Representatives

(source: Letter to the Editor, reflector.com)

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

Not all guilty on death row


Regarding the Oct. 7 letter "Refuting death penalty claims": Has Speaker Pro 
Tem Paul Stam missed the innocents that were on death row? Just because they 
weren't executed prior to the grievous mistakes being caught does not negate 
the fact they were on death row.

Or to simplify: "Better 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent 
suffer." - Sir William Blackstone.

Denise Bricker

Clayton

(source: Letter to the Editor, News & Observer)