[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----KY., MO., CALIF., ORE., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 13




KENTUCKY:

Conservatives in Northern Kentucky Form Group to Oppose Death Penalty


Self-described political and social conservatives in northern Kentucky are 
forming an organization opposed to the death penalty. Andrew Vandiver, who 
lives in Walton, is heading the effort. Vandiver says he approaches the death 
penalty from the pro-life view, that all human life is sacred.

"In the United States we have the option of life in prison without parole and 
given that we have that option I can't find a good basis for taking a human 
life," says Vandiver. Kentucky is among 31 states that allow executions.

Those in favor of capital punishment often say they support the idea because it 
can deter crime and bring closure to a victim's family. Vandiver says the 
group's main theme is the death penalty is not aligned with the conservative 
values and political principles of spending less and limiting the power of 
government.

"Everyone, and particularly conservatives, should recognize that we have 
limited resources and when we spend millions of dollars on an inefficient 
program like the death penalty that's taking away from other programs that we 
can support such as law enforcement that could actually deter crime," says 
Vandiver.

Al Kovacic, a high school teacher who lives in Union, believes capital 
punishment doesn't deter crime and doesn't bring closure to families of 
victims.

"The death penalty doesn't bring closure to people," he says.

"You know, the victim is still dead, the family is still mourning. Taking a 
life for a life doesn't seem to fix the problem. Murder rates in the states 
that have the death penalty are higher than the states that don't."

Kovacic says he's joining the network of northern Kentucky conservatives who 
want the state to make life without parole the maximum sentence. In his 
opinion, the death penalty is revenge, not justice.

"We don't burn down the homes of arsonists, for example, steal things from 
people who steal," says Kovacic. "So, it's not justice, it's retribution."

(source: Public News Service)


MISSOURI----impending execution

ssouri Sets Execution Ernest Lee Johnson


The Missouri Supreme Court has ordered the execution of a man who murdered 3 
people in the robbery of a Casey’s store in Columbia in February, 1994.

Ernest Lee Johnson is scheduled to die by lethal injection between 6 p.m. 
November 3 and 5:59 p.m. November 4 at the state prison in Bonne Terre.

Johnson was convicted of using a hammer to kill Mary Bratcher, Mable Scruggs, 
and Fred Jones. He was tied to the crime by several pieces of evidence, 
including money, checks, and a cash register receipt all tied to the store; 
bloody clothing; and a pair of tennis shoes that matched bloody footprints left 
at the scene.

Johnson has lost several appeals including one that sought a new penalty phase, 
based on arguments that his counsel was not effective and that an unqualified 
expert witness testified about an alleged mental deficiency.

Missouri is next scheduled to execute Kimber Edwards, who was sentenced to 
death for hiring another man to murder his ex-wife in 2000. His execution is 
scheduled for October 6.

(source: ozarksfirst.com)






CALIFORNIA:

Alleged drifter killers charged, face possible death penalty in Marin County


The three drifters accused of killing a backpacker in San Francisco’s Golden 
Gate Park before gunning down a dog-walking hiker on a trail near Fairfax three 
days later will stand trial for both slayings in Marin County, authorities said 
Monday.

All three defendants — Morrison Haze Lampley, 23, Sean Michael Angold, 24, and 
18-year-old Lila Scott Alligood — were charged with two counts of 
special-circumstances murder. If convicted, they face up to life in prison 
without parole or the death penalty, if prosecutors decide to seek it and a 
jury hands it down.

The three were expected to be booked into Marin County jail in San Rafael late 
Monday, and could appear in court as soon as Tuesday.

Lampley, Angold and Alligood were arrested Wednesday outside a Portland church 
soup kitchen and jailed in Multnomah County. Investigators said they tracked 
the suspects through a GPS device in a station wagon stolen from Steve Carter, 
67, a well-known tantra teacher and massage therapist who the threesome 
allegedly shot on a Marin County fire trail the evening of Oct. 5.

The body of Audrey Carey, a 23-year-old backpacker who was on her first solo 
trip to the United States, had been found in Golden Gate Park on Oct. 3. 
Authorities now say the defendants shot, beat and robbed her the night before, 
on the same weekend that hundreds of thousands of people flocked to the park 
for the Hardly Strictly Bluegrass Festival.

When they were arrested, the defendants were allegedly still in possession of 
Carter’s car, camping equipment belonging to Carey and the gun believed to have 
been used in both shootings. Police said the gun was stolen from a lock box 
inside an unlocked civilian’s vehicle in San Francisco on either Sept. 30 or 
Oct. 1.

The Marin County charges include robbery, vehicle theft, possession of stolen 
property and animal cruelty, a reference to the shooting of Carter’s Doberman 
Pinscher. The dog was badly wounded and found on a leash still attached to the 
Carter’s hand.

The special circumstances that are alleged and make the defendants eligible for 
the death penalty are multiple murder, lying in wait and committing murder in 
the course of a robbery. Lampley faces two additional counts: possession of a 
stolen gun and being an armed ex-felon.

(source: San Francisco Chronicle)


**********


Charges against young suspects in U.S. murder of Quebec woman could lead to 
death penalty


A California prosecutor said Monday he has filed murder charges that could lead 
to the death penalty for 3 young transients accused of gunning down a Canadian 
backpacker and a yoga instructor walking his dog.

The 3 were arrested last week in Oregon. They are expected to be booked in 
Marin County jail on Monday.

Marin County District Attorney Ed Berberian said each suspect is charged with 2 
counts of murder with special circumstances, including lying in wait. The 
suspects are 24-year-old Sean Michael Angold, 23-year-old Morrison Haze Lampley 
and 18-year-old Lila Scott Alligood.

They are expected to appear in court sometime this week. It’s unclear if they 
have retained lawyers.

The body of Audrey Carey, 23, was discovered in San Francisco’s Golden Gate 
Park the morning of Oct. 3. She was shot once in the head, police said.

Multnomah County Sheriff's Office/Portland police via APSean Michael Angold, 
Lila Scott Allgood, and Morrison Haze Lampley are suspects in the death of 
Quebec woman Audrey Carey in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park...

Investigators believe Carey was camping in the park, which was hosting a free, 
three-day bluegrass festival.

Tantric yoga instructor Steve Carter, 67, was found dead two days later along a 
popular hiking trail in Marin County, 20 miles (32 kilometres) north of San 
Francisco. He was still clutching the leash of his dog, the Marin County 
Sheriff’s Office said. The dog also was shot but is expected to survive.

San Francisco Police Commander Toney Chaplin said the same gun was used in both 
killings.

Authorities found the weapon when they arrested the suspects Wednesday outside 
a Portland, Oregon, soup kitchen, he said. The 3 also were found in possession 
of Carter’s car and some of Carey’s camping gear.

Chaplin said the gun was reported stolen from an unlocked car parked in San 
Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf neighbourhood.

(source: Associated Press)



OREGON:

Jurors to decide for 4th time whether Oregon serial killer Dayton Leroy
Rogers should die


For the 4th time in 26 years, a Clackamas County jury will decide whether 
Oregon's most prolific serial killer should die.

Dayton Leroy Rogers first faced the death penalty in 1989 after he was 
convicted of torturing and murdering six prostitutes and dumping their bodies 
in the forest east of Molalla.

But the Oregon Supreme Court has overturned his sentence 3 times.

The latest trial begins Tuesday in Clackamas County Circuit Court and is 
expected to last about three weeks.

Q. Who is Dayton Leroy Rogers?

A. The lawnmower repairman from Canby lived in obscurity until he was accused 
of killing Jennifer Lisa Smith in 1987. He nearly beheaded the 25-year-old. 
Witnesses chased Rogers when he fled the scene, a restaurant parking lot in Oak 
Grove. They provided information that identified him as the killer. Rogers was 
convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1988.

While awaiting trial in the Smith murder, police discovered the nude bodies of 
seven women in a forested area near Molalla. The women had been stabbed several 
times and their bodies showed signs of torture and mutilation.

In 1989, Rogers was convicted of killing six of the women and sentenced to 
death. No one has been charged in the death of the seventh woman, who was only 
recently identified. Rogers is a suspect in that case.

Q. How did we get here?

A. The Oregon Supreme Court first overturned Rogers' death sentence in 1992 to 
comply with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Oregon's death penalty 
statute.

A jury returned a death penalty verdict again in 1994, but the high court 
reversed the decision in 2000, ruling the judge should have let the jury 
consider sentencing Rogers to life without the possibility of parole, an option 
that didn't exist in his first trial.

Once again, in 2006, a jury sentenced Rogers to death. But the Oregon Supreme 
Court ruled in 2012 that erroneous "juror anonymity" procedures prevented 
Rogers and his attorneys from learning the identities of potential jurors, 
undercutting their ability to help pick an impartial jury in the 2006 trial.

The high court said the trial court judge also erred when he allowed testimony 
about a homosexual relationship Rogers had as a teenager. Prosecutors failed to 
introduce evidence demonstrating a link between that experience and the 
potential of future violence.

Q. What's changed since the 2006 trial?

A. More than a dozen witnesses have died, including several of 11 women who 
testified about their bizarre encounters with Rogers. Stand-ins will read 
transcripts of the dead witnesses' testimony.

Among the deceased is Dr. George Suckow, a psychiatrist who testified that 
Rogers would always pose a violent threat to others.

Victims' family members, for the first time, will be allowed to testify thanks 
to a recent change in the law.

Q. What will prosecutors tell the jury?
They're expected to argue what they have in the three previous trials: that a 
death sentence is the only appropriate punishment for Rogers, given the 
enormity of his crimes and his deep-seated sadistic tendencies.
Rogers hog-tied, tortured and stabbed many of his victims, cutting the feet off 
some.

Prosecutors will review Rogers' criminal history before his murder spree. In 
1972, at age 18, Rogers stabbed a 15-year-old Eugene girl after taking her to a 
wooded area to have sex. A year later, he attacked two girls and was sent to 
the Oregon State Mental Hospital for a year. In 1976, he was convicted in a 
Marion County case of coercion after hog-tying two teenage hitchhikers in the 
back of his car.

If he gets a true life sentence, Rogers would go into the general population. 
There's no guarantee that he wouldn't attack another inmate to satisfy his 
perverse needs, prosecutors have said.

Q. What will Roger's attorneys tell the jury?

A. At 62, Rogers is no longer a threat. He's been a model prisoner, an argument 
they have raised at prior trials.

Jurors will hear about Rogers' dysfunctional upbringing, how he was shaped by 
his offbeat religious training, harsh discipline and confusion about sexuality 
and violence.

Rogers was tormented by his father, who showed little affection and killed 
family pets by gassing them or running over them with a car, according to 
testimony at his 2006 sentencing.

Family members of some victims may ask that Rogers receive a life sentence so 
they can escape the seemingly endless cycle of legal maneuvering that requires 
them to periodically relive a nightmare.

The defense also is expected to argue that it's less expensive for taxpayers if 
Rogers gets a life sentence versus paying for years of appeals if he goes back 
on death row.

Q. How will the jury determine the sentence?

A. Jurors have three choices: death, true life and life with the possibility of 
parole.

Oregon law requires juries in death penalty cases to unanimously agree on four 
questions. If just one juror votes "no" on one question, Rodgers cannot be 
sentenced to death.

The questions: Did Rogers commit his crimes deliberately and knowing they would 
likely result in death? Is Rogers likely to commit future criminal acts of 
violence? Was Rogers' conduct in killing his victims unreasonable in response 
to the provocation, if any, by the deceased? Should Rogers receive the death 
penalty?

Q. If Rogers is sentenced to death, what is the likelihood he would be 
executed?
It's possible but unlikely to happen for years, if ever.His case automatically 
will be appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court -- the first step in a 10-step 
process that could take a decade or more to complete. So far, the case hasn't 
made it past the state's high court.

Gov. Kate Brown is continuing a moratorium on executions while she studies the 
issue.

(source: The Oregonian)



USA:

‘Costs’ article missed opportunity to educate


I am quite disappointed with your front-page article concerning the costs of 
“defending a killer.” (Oct. 11, Forum) The implication of your article was that 
we were spending too much money to provide a defense for someone on whom the 
government wishes to impose the ultimate penalty.

If your intention was to look at the costs involved in killing a defendant, 
rather than offering an opinion concerning whether we should have spent this 
money to defend Alfonso Rodriguez, then I think your article would have 
benefitted from a review of the statistical information available on the costs 
of the death penalty available from the Death Penalty Information Center. 
Anyone interested in learning the facts about the costs of the death penalty 
will find the information available at www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.

The facts are clear and have been clear for years. The costs of the death 
penalty are enormously greater than the costs of imposing a sentence of life 
without parole. The costs of defending a person not facing that penalty are 
significantly lower. In addition, it has been shown that the death penalty does 
nothing to deter crime, and that it is a huge waste of resources that could be 
much better spent in dealing with the causes of violent crime.

Finally, there is the real problem of innocent people being executed. Right now 
in Missouri, Richard Glossip is awaiting execution in an alleged “murder for 
hire” scheme where the only evidence against him was the testimony of the 
actual killer, a methamphetamine addict who has admitted to several 
individuals, including his daughter, that Glossip was not involved, and that 
the killer used him to avoid being put to death himself.

The recent visit of Pope Francis should remind all of us that life is precious 
and our government, which is far from perfect, should not be in the business of 
taking people’s lives. It is not worth the costs, and does not benefit anyone, 
and is morally wrong.

If we believe that human life is sacred, then let’s not be in the business of 
taking it.

(source: Letter to the Editor; William Kirschner is a Fargo attorney----Fargo 
Today)


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

A death knell for the death penalty?


In the 2 weeks since President Obama stood before the United Nations and 
declared that the United States will stand up for human rights, three people 
have been sent to the death chamber, making a mockery of his claims.

One of those people did not even commit the murder she was sentenced to die 
for. Another showed strong signs of intellectual disability. This ghastly 
juxtaposition speaks to the need to end this cruel, inhuman punishment once and 
for all.

Horrifyingly, the tally could have been 4 executions in just over 1 week’s time 
but for a bungling of the execution method. The state of Oklahoma was scheduled 
to execute Richard Glossip the week before last, despite a growing movement to 
further investigate his claim of innocence.

But Glossip’s assertion that he did not commit the crime isn’t what saved him. 
It was the state’s own incompetence.

Prosecutors like to say that capital punishment is reserved for the “worst of 
the worst,” but the reality is far more arbitrary and discriminatory.
Just minutes before the execution, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin issued a temporary 
stay of execution because state officials suddenly realized they had failed to 
procure the right mixture of drugs to kill him. The following day, the Oklahoma 
attorney general requested an indefinite stay on executions while his office 
investigates what went wrong.

The reality is that just about everything went wrong. Glossip’s case shows, yet 
again, how fundamentally flawed the capital punishment system is.

The night before Glossip was nearly executed, the state of Georgia ignored 
pleas from human rights groups, Pope Francis and many others, and executed 
Kelly Gissendaner. She became the 1st woman to be executed by the state in 70 
years.

Gissendaner was convicted in 1998 of the murder of her husband, Douglas, and 
sentenced to death. Her co-defendant, Gregory Owen, actually committed the 
murder and is serving a life sentence. He could be paroled in 8 years.
She’s dead.

At trial, Owen testified that she first raised the idea of murdering her 
husband and instructed him on how to carry it out. The prosecution signaled it 
would seek the death penalty and offered both defendants a plea deal: life in 
prison and no chance of parole for 25 years.

Owen took the deal and testified against Gissendaner. But she rejected it, 
apparently because she felt she was less culpable than Owen and deserved 
earlier parole eligibility.

Prosecutors like to say that capital punishment is reserved for the “worst of 
the worst,” but the reality is far more arbitrary and discriminatory. Many 
factors come into play, like race, class, geography, quality of legal 
representation and even the political aspirations of judges and prosecutors. 
That may help explain why 155 prisoners on death row have been exonerated since 
1973.

Despite the recent spate of executions – and more executions could happen this 
week – the death penalty is in decline in the U.S.

Executions have declined from a high of 98 in 1999 to 35 in 2014, the lowest in 
20 years. Last year, there were 72 death sentences handed down, the lowest 
number on record since 1976.

Since 2007 alone, 7 states abolished the death penalty, bringing the total 
number to 19 plus the District of Columbia. 7 other states have not carried out 
an execution in 10 years or more.

A small handful of states, on the other hand, are aggressively pursuing 
executions in stark contrast to the national trend. Texas, Oklahoma, and 
Missouri are moving further and further away from national standards of 
decency. Arkansas, which hasn’t executed anyone in a decade, recently moved to 
join these states by scheduling eight executions over the next 4 months. A 
judge has halted those efforts, at least temporarily, while prisoners challenge 
the state’s secrecy around lethal injections.

The United States – driven by only 7 states – executed the 5th most people, 
after Iraq and ahead of Sudan.

Only a tiny fraction of U.S. counties continue to produce the majority of death 
sentences and executions. Those counties that are home to the highest execution 
rates – like Los Angeles County and Harris County, Texas – are also home to the 
highest rates of reversal on appeal, not to mention the most egregious 
injustices.

Meanwhile, 85% of the U.S. population lives in counties that do not use the 
death penalty at all, either because it’s been abolished in law or abandoned in 
practice. Of course, those communities that don’t use the death penalty still 
help foot the bill for the few that do.

The death penalty is also in decline globally. As of today, 140 countries have 
abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Last year, only 22 carried out 
executions. China, North Korea and Iran executed the most people. The United 
States was in fifth place, after Iraq and ahead of Sudan.

As long as the U.S. is employing this ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading 
punishment, it can’t claim to be a human rights leader. For reasons moral and 
pragmatic, the death penalty is irrevocably broken and cannot be fixed. Now is 
the time to end it for good.

(source: Steven W. Hawkins is the Executive Director of Amnesty International 
USA; MSNBC)


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




The Death-Penalty Feud at the Supreme Court

The justices weigh a new set of cases and their implications for the Eighth 
Amendment and lethal injection


Last week, Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma admitted that her state had misled 
the United States Supreme Court.

In a brief statement issued hours before the scheduled execution of Richard 
Glossip, Fallin said that she was granting him a 37-day stay “due to the 
Department of Corrections having received potassium acetate as drug number 
three for the three-drug protocol.” The state last spring assured the Supreme 
Court that it stood ready to execute Glossip with a three-drug cocktail 
consisting of “midazolam, followed by vecuronium or recuronium bromide, then 
potassium chloride” a different drug with different effects. Glossip had 
challenged his planned execution on the grounds that the use of midazolam, a 
sedative, might not render him unconscious before the other two drugs are 
administered. That, he said, would make the execution “cruel and unusual” 
punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. “Oklahoma’s lethal injection 
protocol is not cruel and unusual,” the state argued, “but rather the most 
humane form of execution available to the State.”

A five-justice majority upheld the three-drug protocol Oklahoma said it was 
going to use. “We are not persuaded,” that the drugs at issue were likely to 
cause enough pain to render the execution “cruel and unusual,” Justice Samuel 
Alito wrote for the majority. After all, “12 other executions have been 
conducted using the three-drug protocol at issue here, and those appear to have 
been conducted without any significant problems.”

Or maybe not so much. When the state told the Court about its “humane” 
procedures, it didn’t even know what three drugs it had on hand. Shortly before 
Glossip’s scheduled execution, in fact, Fallin learned that an autopsy showed 
Oklahoma had already used the wrong drug to execute another condemned inmate, 
Charles Warner, in January. Warner was originally a petitioner in Glossip’s 
case. The Supreme Court denied him a stay, then accepted the case after Warner 
had been killed.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a separate opinion for himself and Justice Ruth 
Bader Ginsburg, announced in Glossip that, in his view, the death penalty could 
no longer be administered fairly, and thus was unconstitutional. That didn’t 
sit well with Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in a separate opinion that 
Breyer’s “argument is full of internal contradictions and (it must be said) 
gobbledy-gook.”

A week after Fallin’s revelation, the Court heard the first of the four 
death-penalty cases it has granted this term. The hard feelings in Glossip have 
apparently not healed.

Kansas v. Gleason and Kansas v. Carr challenge Kansas trial judges’ 
instructions to two juries mulling death sentences for murderers. Under 
existing precedent, the jury is supposed to consider a statutory set of 
“aggravating factors,” which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable 
doubt. The defendant may ask the jury to consider “mitigating factors” (such as 
a defendant’s limited mental capacity or history of mental illness, a past 
history of abuse, or anything else—including the desirability of mercy—that his 
lawyers can think of). Unlike the prosecution, the defendant doesn’t have to 
prove that these factors exist “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the jurors 
don’t have to find them unanimously.

Many states, and the federal government, explain these different burdens to the 
jury; but the courts in Gleason and Carr did not. Since those decisions, Kansas 
has changed the “pattern instructions” used by its judges; the Kansas Supreme 
Court ordered the two courts to go back and resentence the defendants using 
these instructions, because, it said, the instructions used might convince 
jurors that the defendant also had a “reasonable doubt” burden.

Soon after argument began in Kansas v. Gleason on October 7, Scalia used his 
best tell-frogface-to-pass-the-salt voice to ask Kansas Attorney General Derek 
Schmidt whether “Kansans, unlike our Justice Breyer, do not think the death 
penalty is unconstitutional and indeed very much favor it.” For that reason, he 
suggested (“I’m just speculating of course”) that the Kansas Supreme Court had 
actually lied by claiming that that the Eighth Amendment, rather than their own 
squishy liberal prejudices, required granting the defendants a new sentencing. 
Alito seemed to agree: “[P]resumably, the Kansas Supreme Court understood that 
it had the capability of basing its decision on Kansas law. But if it did that, 
it would have to take responsibility for the decisions in these cases, which 
involve some of the most horrendous murders that I have seen in my 10 years 
here.” The Kansas court, however, “didn't take responsibility for that. It said 
‘it's the Eighth Amendment, and we have to apply the federal Constitution.’”

On Tuesday, the Court will hear Hurst v. Florida, yet another challenge to 
Florida’s enthusiasm for the injection gurney. Even though the Supreme Court 
held 13 years ago that “aggravating factors” must be found by a jury, Florida’s 
Supreme Court validated a state system in which the judge, not the jury, finds 
the “aggravating factors”—and the jury’s verdict is, in fact, “merely 
advisory.” The “advisory” verdict also—unlike in the majority of states—need 
not be unanimous.

The scandal of Batson is that courts tolerate the flimsiest explanations for 
seemingly clear use of race by prosecutors.

After Hurst, the Court in November will hear Foster v. Chatman, which tests the 
Court’s requirement that all juries—in capital and non-capital cases—be 
selected without racial discrimination. That rule was announced three decades 
ago, in a case called Batson v. Kentucky. Under Batson, no party can use race 
as a basis for “peremptory strikes”—decisions by one side or other to exclude a 
potential juror. Ordinarily a lawyer need give no reason for a “peremptory”—it 
can be based on a gut feeling or a dislike of the social characteristics of a 
member of the pool. If the other party points to a racial pattern of 
“peremptories,” however, a court is supposed to hold a hearing at which the 
side using the strikes must explain a “neutral” reason for the strike.

The scandal of Batson is that courts tolerate the flimsiest explanations for 
seemingly clear use of race by prosecutors. A minority juror may be too old, 
too young, over- or under-educated, a former crime victim, or a former criminal 
defendant; almost anything will do.

Foster, however, seems to involve as smoky a gun as will ever be found. Tyrone 
Foster, an African American, was convicted in 1987 of capital murder for 
killing Queen Madge White, a white 79-year-old, as part of a burglary in Rome, 
Georgia. The prosecution had used its strikes to eliminate all four black 
potential jurors; when challenged, the state’s lawyers offered neutral 
explanations, and a Georgia trial court accepted them. In closing, the 
prosecution argued that the jury should order Foster put to death in order to 
“deter other people out there in the projects.”

Seventeen years later, Foster’s lawyers won the right to inspect the 
prosecution’s notes—and what they found indicated that the “neutral” 
explanations were a sham. The word BLACK on each black juror’s form was 
circled; they were coded “B1,” “B2,” etc., and highlighted in green. One 
investigator wrote on the forms that “[i]f it comes down to having to pick one 
of the black jurors, Ms. Garrett, might be okay.”

In 2013, a Georgia trial court rejected the Batson claim. “[T]he notes and 
records submitted by Petitioner fail to demonstrate purposeful discrimination,” 
wrote the (elected) judge. That result shocks the conscience; true, the 
prosecution did not write on the forms “MAKE SURE TO EXCLUDE THESE JURORS 
BECAUSE THEY ARE B-L-A-C-K AND LET’S NOT WORRY ABOUT VIOLATING B-A-T-S-O-N,” 
but the notes show everything short of that.

Whatever the justices decide, the “neutral” explanations in Foster seem a bit 
like assurances from Oklahoma; desperate attempts to shore up an institution 
that is in collision with what Chief Justice Earl Warren once called “the 
evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” 
Any criminal penalty that can’t be administered without the lies and 
incompetence that mark capital punishment today seems to me, well, cruel and 
unusual.

(source: Garrett Epps, The Atlantic)