[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, ALA., NEB., CALIF.

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 13


TEXAS----impending execution

Man convicted in Dallas officer's 2001 death faces execution


The 19-year-old was already wanted in Dallas in the fatal shooting of a 
neighbor when he got involved in a brawl outside a club, pulled out a 9 mm 
semi-automatic handgun and opened fire on police as they tried to break up the 
fight.

Licho Escamilla's bullets twice struck Christopher Kevin James, among 4 
uniformed Dallas officers working off-duty security that 2001 Thanksgiving 
weekend, knocking him to the ground. Escamilla then calmly walked up to James 
and pumped 3 more shots into the back of his head before running and exchanging 
shots with other officers, witnesses said. A wounded Escamilla was arrested as 
he tried to carjack a truck.

On Wednesday night, Escamilla is slated to become the 24th convicted killer put 
to death this year in the United States — with Texas accounting for 1/2 of the 
execution.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week refused to review the 33-year-old's case, the 
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles on Monday decided against a reprieve and 
recommending clemency and no new appeals were in the courts Tuesday.

"He's a really bad guy," trial prosecutor Fred Burns said Tuesday. "I think 
what happened is the guy already committed one murder and figures that's what 
(officers) were coming after him for."

A warrant had been issued for Escamilla in the shooting death of a West Dallas 
neighbor nearly three weeks before James' death on Nov. 25, 2001. Escamilla's 
trial attorneys told jurors he was responsible for James' slaying but argued it 
didn't merit a death sentence because James was not officially on duty, meaning 
the crime didn't qualify as a capital murder.

As the judge in October 2002 read his death sentence, Escamilla threw of 
pitcher of water at the jury, started kicking and hitting people and hid under 
the defense table until he was subdued by sheriff's deputies.

"It was a real scene," Wayne Huff, Escamilla's lead trial lawyer, said. "I 
don't think there was any real doubt he was going to be found guilty."

Testimony showed Escamilla bragged to emergency medical technicians who were 
treating his wounds that he had killed an officer and injured another and that 
he'd be out of jail in 48 hours. He also admitted to the slaying during a 
television interview from jail.

James, 34, had earned dozens of commendations during his nearly 7 years
on the Dallas police force after graduating at the top of his cadet class.
He was working the off-duty security job to earn extra money so he and
his new wife could buy a house. A 2nd officer wounded in the gunfire survived.

According to court documents, Escamilla and some older brothers were involved 
in gang activities and sold and used drugs from an early age. He was involved 
in 2 high-speed police chases and an assault on an assistant principal in 
school, where he dropped out after the eighth grade.

(source: Associated Press)




ALABAMA:

Death row attorney: Firing squad is a 'feasible' option



Alabama could easily form a firing squad – it has the bullets and the marksmen 
to do it - to execute Alabama death row inmate Tommy Arthur, an attorney for 
the condemned man states in a court filing.

Arthur's attorney, Suhana S. Han, on Friday filed a motion asking U.S. District 
Court Judge Keith Watkins to reconsider his Oct. 5 order that denied Arthur the 
chance to argue the firing squad as a feasible alternative to the state's 
three-drug lethal injection method.

"Mr. Arthur has alleged numerous facts showing that the firing squad is 
'feasible' and 'readily available'," Han stated in her motion.

Those facts, Han states, includes that Alabama would be able to supply officers 
to carry out an execution by firing squad, that numerous people employed by the 
state have the training necessary to successfully perform an execution by 
firing squad, and the state already has a stockpile of both weapons and 
ammunition.

Han also states that by adopting a firing squad protocol, "the State of Utah 
has shown that it is a practicable option."

Watkins had stated in his order that any suggestion of an alternate method had 
to be one that complied with the rules set out by the U.S. Supreme Court's 
ruling in an Oklahoma case this summer. That requires that the alternate 
execution method has to be already permitted by the state's law. Han argued 
that's not the case.

"The ease with which Alabama could implement a firing squad protocol, including 
by passing any necessary legislation, is properly the subject of discovery and 
adjudication on the merits after a full evidentiary hearing," Han argues in her 
filing.

If the judge doesn't want to reconsider his order, then Han asks that the judge 
allow his order be appealed on that one point regarding the firing squad.

Arthur is among at least eight Alabama death row inmates who have filed 
lawsuits  challenging Alabama's lethal injection method.

Attorneys for the inmates don't want their clients executed by any method, but 
based on the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in order to prevail on 
method-of-execution claims of cruel and unusual punishment, the inmates must 
name an alternative form of execution that is "feasible, readily implemented" 
and significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain.

Arthur's attorneys suggested the firing squad as one alternate method. The 
attorneys also suggested lethal injection by pentobarbital and sodium 
thiopental. State officials have argued that the state no longer has a supply 
of those two drugs.

Watkins stated in his order that Arthur's lawsuit could continue on the 
arguments that pentobarbital and sodium thiopental are alternate methods and 
his allegations concerning the constitutional inadequacy of the drug midazolam 
as used in the state's current three-drug lethal injection protocol. But the 
judge denied the suggestion of a firing squad because it is not permitted under 
Alabama law and therefore is not feasible.

Arthur was convicted in the 1982 murder of Troy Wicker of Muscle Shoals. The 
stay of Arthur's scheduled execution earlier this year marked the sixth time 
his execution had been postponed.

In another ruling last week, Watkins also rejected a suggestion by another 
death row inmate, Anthony Boyd, who suggested hanging or firing squad. The 
judge also dismissed Boyd's lawsuit challenging the state's lethal injection 
method because he did not provide any other alternative available in the state.

(source: al.com)





NEBRASKA:

Nebraska Republicans Are Fighting Their Own Governor Over Reinstating the Death 
Penalty


A rift among Republicans in Nebraska over whether the state should continue to 
allow the death penalty is expected to draw keen interest from national 
advocacy groups and funders over the next 14 months.

The overwhelmingly Republican state made history when its legislature voted in 
May to repeal a law that allows executions, becoming the 1st conservative state 
to outlaw capital punishment since 1973.

Governor Pete Ricketts, an heir to the Ameritrade fortune who had been in 
office for only five months at the time, vetoed the bill, but the legislature 
overrode it with a 30-19 vote. It was 1 of 4 vetoes that were overridden by the 
state's single-house legislature during his 1st term in office. Ricketts 
responded by digging in his heels.

Over the summer, the governor and his father, J. Joseph Ricketts, were the 
primary funders of a petition drive to gather signatures from Nebraska 
residents demanding that the repeal of the death penalty be suspended and put 
to a state referendum in November 2016, where the state's large Republican 
voter base could vote to reinstate it.

Last week, Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale's office said that the 
campaign submitted over 160,000 signatures to his office, some 120,000 of which 
have already been verified. Though this is more than the required 10 % of 
registered voters that is a bar for success, Gale said he would not
officially certify the petition drive until 125,271 signatures are verified. 
The drive also needs to eclipse a 10 % threshold in a minimum
of 38 of the state's 93 counties, which could happen this week.

If all goes according to plan, Nebraska voters will have a final say on the 
matter in November 2016. Ricketts said that he looks forward to the public 
weighing in on the issue directly.

"The death penalty remains an important tool for public safety in order to 
protect the law enforcement and corrections officers who protect us," he said 
in a statement. "Our citizens deserve the opportunity to vote on this issue in 
Nebraska."

Some political observers wonder why Ricketts has poured his own political and 
financial resources to persist with a fight that he already lost once.

"I'm sort of mystified why the governor is spending so much political capital 
on this," said Eric Berger, a law professor at the University of Nebraska. He 
suggested that Ricketts was stung by the override of his veto. "I think some is 
straight retribution and some is feeling like he ought to support law 
enforcement by going for the ultimate penalty in the worst cases."

Ricketts has emphasized his intent to carry out executions despite a national 
shortage of the drugs required for lethal injection and a ban by the Food and 
Drug Administration on importing them.

In response to the petition drive, anti-death penalty Republicans in the state 
have launched a counter-offensive, hiring political strategists and campaign 
managers with deep ties to the conservative community to run a campaign to 
convince voters to stick with the repeal.

One of those operatives, Dan Parsons of the group Nebraskans for Public Safety, 
said that his team will use all the tactics of a traditional media campaign — 
television and radio advertising, phone calls, door-knocking, and public 
polling — to encourage Nebraskans to think about whether they really ought to 
continue supporting the death penalty.

"I think generally speaking if you were to ask the average voter in Nebraska if 
they were for the death penalty, they would affirm yes," he said. "That's where 
most people think they should be."

His campaign will try to convince voters that the system has failed, is out of 
date, and is not effective. Parsons explained that many Republican state 
senators supported the repeal for a mix of moral, religious, and fiscally 
conservative reasons. The penal system is costly and hasn't actually executed 
anyone in close to a decade because of the shortage of available lethal 
injection drugs. Parsons said that his group will focus on convincing pro-life 
groups, fiscal conservatives, and faith communities, particularly the state's 
large population of Catholics.

Making headway with the latter could be helped by Pope Francis's recent US 
visit, during which he delivered remarks before Congress against capital 
punishment.

"Every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable 
dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those 
convicted of crimes," the pope said. "Recently my brother bishops here in the 
United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. 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."

The rift between Republicans in the state over the cost, effectiveness, and 
morality of the death penalty mirrors the changing national debate over 
executions, according to Berger.

"I think it's important in that it's a pretty heavily Republican state. So when 
the legislature repealed, that was a signal that the politics of capital 
punishment are changing," he remarked. "Obviously what happens with the voters 
on the ballot will be an important next chapter of that, in signaling if or how 
[the state's] politics change.... But it's symbolically important, and it might 
be a sign of people's changing minds."

Parsons also believes that the vote will be a bellwether for groups on both 
sides of the debate nationwide, who will be watching closely to see how the 
death penalty fares in this deeply conservative state.

(source: vice.com)





CALIFORNIA:

Death penalty opponents prepare for another ballot measure in2016


With public support for capital punishment declining, activists who fell just 
short of winning a voter repeal of California’s death penalty law in 2012 are 
preparing for another attempt in November 2016.

Death Penalty Focus, a San Francisco organization that was part of the campaign 
for Proposition 34 in 2012, has filed a proposed state constitutional amendment 
with election officials that would replace the death penalty with a sentence of 
life in prison without the possibility of parole. Once cleared for circulation 
next month, it would need 585,407 signatures of registered voters to qualify 
for the ballot.

The campaign would be led by actor and activist Mike Farrell, who stepped down 
as executive director of Death Penalty Focus so he could run the initiative 
effort. Farrell said organizers are making plans to circulate the measure but 
are awaiting word on fundraising prospects before making a final decision.

Polls and other indicators of the public mood “suggest that people now have a 
much more clear understanding that this is a system that doesn’t work and 
doesn’t serve us in any meaningful way,” said Farrell, 76, who headed Death 
Penalty Focus for 10 years. He played Army Capt. B.J. Hunnicutt in the 
television series “M*A*S*H.”

Prop. 34 received 48 % of the statewide vote in November 2012. By much
wider margins, the voters in 1972 had amended the state Constitution to 
reinstate the death penalty after the state Supreme Court struck it down, and 
expanded the law in 1978 to cover most first-degree murder cases.

“We’ve voted on it enough times that it should be regarded as settled, but that 
isn’t going to stop them,” said Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the 
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supports the death penalty. He said he 
expects another close vote next year.

There would be no need for a vote if higher courts uphold a federal judge’s 
July 2014 decision that declared California’s death penalty law 
unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney said a state legal system 
that takes 20 years or more to resolve cases, largely because of a lack of 
adequate funding, has led to arbitrary selection of a few inmates for execution 
while the others spend their lives in prison. An appeals court, however, 
appeared unlikely to sustain that ruling at a hearing Aug. 31.

Legislatures in 19 states have abolished the death penalty, although Nebraska, 
the latest to repeal its law, could reinstate it in a referendum that 
supporters of capital punishment have qualified for the November 2016 ballot. 
Only one state, Oregon, has overturned the death penalty by ballot initiative — 
twice, in 1914 and in 1964 — but each time, the state’s voters reversed course 
and restored the death penalty law, which remains in effect.

In California, a Field Poll in September 2014 found support for the death 
penalty at its lowest level in nearly 50 years. Asked if they favored keeping 
death as a punishment for serious crimes, 56 % of surveyed voters said yes, 34 
% said no and 10 percent had no opinion.

That majority — down from 68 % as recently as 2011 — has shrunk further in 
other surveys when voters were asked whether they would prefer death or life 
without parole for convicted murderers, and when costs were added into the mix. 
A 2011 study by a federal judge and a law professor said California taxpayers 
were spending $184 million a year on a death penalty system that has executed 
13 prisoners since 1992, and none since January 2006.

If the death penalty is back on the ballot next year, the outcome “will depend 
on the quality of campaigning on both sides, the advertising and the turnout,” 
said the Field Poll’s director, Mark DiCamillo. He said turnout is usually 
higher in a presidential election year, particularly among younger voters, who 
are generally less supportive of the death penalty than other age groups.

(source: San Francisco Chronicle)