[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.C., FLA., ALA., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 15


TEXAS:

Lawyer considers morality of death penalty


2 1/2 hours after her lecture concluded, one of Meg Penrose’s clients was 
executed for killing a police officer.

“Today is a somber day. It’s a difficult thing to talk about,” she said. 
“Tonight, as my client is executed, there are many people who will feel 
vindicated.”

Penrose, a professor of law at Texas A&M University and death penalty expert, 
spoke Wednesday evening at Eck Hall of Law about the moral debate surrounding 
death row, in a lecture titled “The Death Penalty, Dignity and Doing Justice.”

Meg Penrose, a professor at Texas A&M and Notre Dame law graduate, reflects on 
her experiences as a lawyer for people on death row at a lecture in Eck Hall of 
Law on Wednesday evening.Chris Collins | The Observer

Meg Penrose, a professor at Texas A&M and Notre Dame law graduate, reflects on 
her experiences as a lawyer for people on death row at a lecture in Eck Hall of 
Law on Wednesday evening.

“He’s been on suicide watch for about a month in his cell, and they keep him on 
camera watch, and they will take him to the place, and I presume he’ll have his 
last meal and perhaps he’ll have discussions with people close to him, perhaps 
a spiritual advisor,” Penrose said. “Members of the victim’s family will be 
driving down, and they’ll witness what they believe to be justice. But law and 
justice are not certainly the same thing.”

Penrose, a Notre Dame Law School graduate, said her client’s — 33-year-old 
Licho Escamilla — case moved through a number of courts before eventually being 
tried in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I was literally the last attorney this client was permitted to have,” she 
said. “My boss called me up and said, ‘Meg, I need you to take this client. 
He’s fired everyone else before this.’ I said that’s a pretty bad way to start, 
but I was his last option. He tried to fire me, but I was all he had.”

As Penrose’s client’s case moved through the various courts, she said the 
juries scrupulously looked at the evidence and the previous jury’s decision.

“We live in a society defined by laws, and the jury gave a sentence that was 
looked at several times,” Penrose said. “They actually sought the record, they 
wanted to actually look at the case.”

Penrose said this particular case caused her to continue discussing her ongoing 
personal conflict regarding the death penalty.

“I’m at a point in my career where I’m conflicted,” she said. “I don’t 
understand it from my religious background — I agree with the Pope. I don’t 
understand it from my moral perspective. But we need to find a just penalty 
that preserves the human dignity of the person.”

Penrose said her mother played a role in her decision to represent people who 
had committed heinous enough crimes to warrant the death penalty.

“I got this from my mother. She didn’t agree with the death penalty,” Penrose 
said. “She got it from Matthew, the verse ending with ‘for what you do for the 
least of my brothers, you did for me.’”

Penrose said her Notre Dame education shaped her to be a better person.

“I’ve learned about service, about serving those who are least deserving of 
justice, those who are least deserving of my time, my effort, the least 
deserving and yet, we help them,” she said. “The work is not popular. I would 
say it’s thankless. Every individual in the United States deserves 
representation. That’s not necessarily why I took that case. I’m not here to 
justify the crime, but the crime and the penalty are separate issues.”

Penrose also said there are unique opportunities and responsibilities for 
lawyers, particularly lawyers graduating from Notre Dame.

“You’ll learn about other cultures and other people and that will shape who you 
are, and it will make you a better person,” she said. “You are a part of the 
Notre Dame family. You are a different kind of lawyer. You are a Notre Dame 
lawyer. Do something to help someone. Do justice.”

(source: ndsmcobserver.com)





NORTH CAROLINA:

Racial Justice Act ruling: 18 months later, still no decision in N.C.


It's been 18 months since the N.C. Supreme Court heard arguments in the state's 
controversial Racial Justice Act cases and the court still hasn't issued issued 
a decision.

Most cases don't take that long, said former Associate Justice Ed Brady of 
Fayetteville. He strove to get court opinions finished in three to six months, 
he said.

The other four cases that the state Supreme Court heard in April 2014 were all 
decided before the end of that year. The Racial Justice Act rulings may be put 
off until next year because the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a similar 
matter, a death penalty lawyer said.

In the meantime, the four defendants in the Racial Justice Act cases - each 
convicted in some of the Fayetteville area's highest-profile murders - and the 
families of their victims are waiting to hear whether the defendants will be 
sent back to death row. The defendants used the act in 2011 and 2012 to 
persuade a judge to commute their death sentences to life in prison without 
parole.

Also, unrelated to the Racial Justice Act, the court system is still reviewing 
the legality and constitutionality of the state's death penalty practices. 
Executions in this state have been in hiatus since January 2007 because of that 
litigation.

Nov. 6 is the next scheduled day for the N.C. Supreme Court to issue rulings, 
but there is no telling when it will decide the Racial Justice Act cases.

North Carolina's justices may be waiting because the U.S. Supreme Court has 
before it a similar case from Georgia, said lawyer Ken Rose of the Center for 
Death Penalty Litigation. Brady said it would be prudent for the North Carolina 
court to wait in light of the Georgia case.

The Georgia case, Foster vs. Chatman, and the North Carolina cases focus on 
whether prosecutors illegally used juror strikes to specifically prevent blacks 
from serving on the juries, possibly on the assumption that a black juror would 
be less likely to convict or less likely to impose a death sentence.

It's illegal for a lawyer to consider a person's race during jury selection.

The outcome of the Georgia case could affect the North Carolina cases, Rose 
said.

The four Racial Justice Act defendants are Marcus Reymond Robinson, who killed 
a teen in a robbery; Tilmon Golphin, who killed a state trooper and deputy; 
Christina S. "Queen" Walters, who led a gang that killed two women; and Quintel 
Augustine, who killed a police officer.

The Racial Justice Act was enacted in 2009 to rectify incidents of 
institutional racism in the criminal justice system. Most of the state's death 
row inmates, regardless of their race, sought to get their death sentences 
commuted.

The legislature repealed the act in 2013.

Former Associate Justices Brady and Patricia Timmons-Goodson, who also is from 
Fayetteville, could not speak specifically about the Racial Justice Act cases 
but discussed in general why some cases may take a while.

The court's overall caseload can be a factor, Timmons-Goodson said, and some 
cases are more complex, requiring more time.

Former Associate Justice Bob Orr of Asheville said the last opinion he wrote, a 
ruling in a major lawsuit over state funding of public schools, had six boxes 
of files.

"If the law clerks are having to go through all the records, that does eat up a 
boatload of time," Orr said.

Efforts to get the justices to agree on the majority opinion (instead of having 
several issue separate concurring opinions) may also add to the time it takes 
to issue a ruling, Brady said

(source: Fayetteville Observer)




FLORIDA:

Florida Judges Can Kill You

The state’s perverse death sentencing system is surely unconstitutional—right?



That conclusion appeared all but unavoidable after oral arguments on Tuesday in 
Hurst v. Florida, a capital sentencing case whose complex problems all point 
toward a simple solution. For a surprisingly entertaining hour, the justices 
returned to the death penalty after a brief reprieve. Only this time, instead 
of a bickering brawl, the justices engaged in a thoughtful debate that might 
actually bring sorely needed justice to some death row inmates.

Hurst is a simple case about who gets to decide whether a defendant will live 
or die. Under current Supreme Court jurisprudence, a capital defendant may 
present to the jury “mitigating circumstances”—factors, such as childhood 
trauma, which diminish his culpability. Prosecutors, however, may present to 
the jury “aggravating circumstances”—factors, such as extreme depravity or 
premeditation, which increase the defendant’s culpability. Typically, the jury 
decides whether these aggravators were proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and 
whether they outweigh mitigators. If so, the jury sentences the defendant to 
death. If not, the jury spares his life.

Florida follows this constitutionally mandated system—with two perverse twists. 
First, while a jury of 12 does assess aggravators and mitigators, it doesn’t 
have to decide unanimously whether aggravators outweigh mitigators. In fact, it 
doesn’t have to decide anything unanimously during sentencing. So long as just 
seven jurors believe an aggravator justifies the death penalty, the jury must 
recommend that the defendant be executed. Even if each of the 7 jurors cites a 
different aggravator, the jury as a whole must endorse execution. And the 
defendant is barred by state law from asking the jury to explain which 
aggravators justified capital punishment.

Since Scalia tends to err on the side of willy-nilly executions, he doesn’t 
like the system.

The 2nd twist is similarly bizarre. Although the jury recommends a sentence to 
the judge, she is under no obligation to follow it: The jury’s decision is, by 
law, “advisory.” That means judges can actually override a jury’s 
recommendation of life in prison and condemn a defendant to death instead. And 
yes, Florida judges have done exactly that. It also means that the judge can 
impose death based on aggravators that the jury found irrelevant or unproven. 
And if the jury can’t reach a decision? Under Florida law, that’s no problem: 
The judge can simply impose death on her own. (The only other state to give 
judges so much power over life and death is Alabama, where judges routinely 
override jury recommendations for life in prison and impose capital punishment 
instead.)

Florida’s sentencing scheme presents a serious constitutional conundrum. The 
Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial requires that, in death penalty 
cases, all aggravators be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. But in 
Florida, a judge can rely on aggravators that were not proved to a jury. She 
can even rely on aggravators a jury never considered. Moreover, several 
justices have found that the Eighth Amendment’s bar against “cruel and unusual 
punishments” requires a jury, not a judge, to impose the death penalty. Juries, 
these justices believe, reflect the community’s “moral sensibility” and 
“considered judgment,” which the Constitution requires in any death sentence. A 
jury’s decision represents the wishes of at least a fraction of the defendant’s 
peers. A judge’s decision might represent nothing more than her empty stomach.

At the top of the hour, all eyes are on the unusually engaged Scalia, a wild 
card in jury trial cases. Scalia may not care about sparing death row 
inmates—this is, after all, the man who thinks executing the innocent is 
perfectly constitutional—but he’s obsessed with the right to a jury trial. In 
2002, he even agreed (hesitantly) that capital defendants have a constitutional 
right to put aggravators before the jury.

But that was a long time ago, years before Scalia became the Fox News justice. 
As soon as Scalia opens his mouth on Tuesday, it seems his vote is going to 
Florida.

“This necessity of finding an aggravating factor, we made it up, right?” Scalia 
asks Seth Waxman, the former solicitor general who is arguing against the 
Florida law. You can almost see Waxman bid adieu to Scalia’s vote. Soon after, 
Scalia continues: Florida’s laws “require unanimity for a conviction, right? 
They just don’t require unanimity on the sentence.”

Scalia’s point here is that the whole system of aggravators and mitigators was 
largely imposed on states by the Supreme Court to keep them from executing 
inmates willy-nilly. Since Scalia tends to err on the side of willy-nilly 
executions, he doesn’t like the system, and isn’t eager to strike down 
Florida’s workaround.

Justice Elena Kagan jumps in to help Waxman, unspooling a Breyer-esque 
hypothetical designed to demonstrate why a merely advisory jury verdict would 
violate the Sixth Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito—who spends much of the 
morning leaning way back in his chair, eyes closed, lips pursed—abruptly sits 
forward and strikes.

What if, Alito asks, the jury is told that “if you decide on death, the judge 
is going to review it, and the judge has the power to sentence to life” 
instead?

This is an obvious question with an obvious answer—a disappointing performance 
for the typically trenchant Alito.

“Our view,” Waxman responds smoothly, is that under the Eighth Amendment, 
“capital sentencing has been, and as a matter of constitutional law should be, 
done by a jury.” A judge can choose to spare a defendant’s life in 
contravention to a jury’s verdict—and indeed, in some states, they do (albeit 
rarely). But the Eighth Amendment prevents a judge from sentencing a defendant 
to death when the jury votes for life. Alito’s point effectively defanged, 
Waxman returns to his seat triumphant.

Allen Winsor, the Florida solicitor general who has the unenviable task of 
defending his state’s indefensible law, doesn’t fare quite so well. Justice 
Stephen Breyer, the court’s leading death penalty skeptic, pummels Winsor with 
questions meant to show that a judge can impose death when a jury wants life 
under Florida’s law. Winsor evades the question for a few painful minutes 
before Breyer demands a real answer.

“My simple question is,” the justice declares, “as a matter of Florida law, can 
the judge impose the death sentence? Yes or no.”

“As a matter of Florida statutory law, yes,” Winsor responds—but as a matter of 
constitutional law, “no.” There is a moment of silence as everybody realizes 
that Winsor just gave away his case, openly admitting that Florida’s capital 
sentencing laws are incompatible with the Constitution. Breyer relents, but 
spends the rest of the morning looking frustrated, gazing at the audience like 
a captain looking out over a foggy sea.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the probable swing vote here and possibly for all 
eternity, remains conspicuously silent throughout the morning, appearing 
listless and bored. So everyone’s head snaps up when he asks his first 
question.

“You’re saying that it is possible,” Kennedy proceeds cautiously “that under 
Florida law, the jury would not find the existence of an aggravating factor,” 
but “the judge could then proceed to find an aggravating factor and impose the 
death penalty?”

Winsor tries to stammer out a response, but Kennedy continues.

“Now, you say this hasn’t happened. He’d probably be reversed. But 
theoretically this could happen?”

Predictably, Winsor dodges Kennedy’s question, swerving toward some amusing 
banter with Kagan. But Kennedy brings it up again, sternly advising Winsor that 
“a death case is not funny.” Winsor’s stammering response makes no sense, and 
Kennedy’s face veers from stultified to pissed off. You don’t sidestep a 
question from the most powerful man in America.

Arguments close with a rousing, largely uninterrupted rebuttal by Waxman, then 
the justices file slowly off the bench. As they amble toward the robing room, 
the resonant sound of Justice Clarence Thomas’ laughter echoes into the 
courtroom. He’s chatting with Breyer, and the 2 are all smiles and camaraderie. 
One of them will likely lose this case, but at that moment, it didn’t seem to 
matter. Meanwhile, 394 people sit on Florida’s death row, many of whom may have 
been sentenced unconstitutionally. For them, the outcome of Hurst could be the 
difference between life and death. But the specter of the execution chamber is 
far away from the court as the justices head to lunch. Thomas’ laughter fades, 
and we all exit the courtroom into the sunny fall afternoon, putting images of 
gurneys and needles out of our minds as we stroll down the blindingly white 
marble steps.

(source: slate.com)




ALABAMA:

Judge gives woman until Friday to decide whether she will testify in Wylam 
twins slaying


A judge has ordered Crystal Nelson to decide by Friday whether to accept a plea 
deal with prosecutors in which she would agree to testify against one of her 
co-defendants in the 2013 shooting deaths of 17-year-old twin brothers Jeremi 
and Jonathan Berry.

The Berrys' mother also was wounded in the shooting.

ALA., Jefferson County Circuit Judge Tracie Todd said during a Thursday hearing 
for one of Nelson's co-defendants, Stanley Chatman, that Chatman's defense 
attorneys are to be notified by or on Friday as to whether Nelson will agree to 
testify at his trial.

"She (Nelson) should know at this point whether she is going to cooperate or 
not," the judge said.

Nelson, 23, of Birmingham, is charged with murder in the case.

Chatman, 28, of Birmingham, and Terrell Corey McMullin, 22, of Fairfield, are 
charged with multiple counts of capital murder and the two men would face the 
possibility of the death penalty if convicted.

Deputy Jefferson County District Attorneys Neal Zarzour and Misty Reynolds 
declined comment regarding a possible deal with Nelson to testify at Chatman's 
trial.

Chatman is represented by attorneys Emory Anthony and Chris Burrell.

Nelson's attorney, Lynniece Washington, had not responded to a request for 
comment prior to publication of this story.

Todd had held Wednesday's hearing in Chatman's case to consider a several 
motions by the defense and prosecution. Chatman's case has been set for trial 
April 4.

McMullin, whose trial is set for Jan. 25, also was to have had a hearing on 
Wednesday but it was continued after one of his attorneys didn't show up 
because he was in another case in Shelby County. Todd appointed another lawyer 
replace the attorney.

Nelson, Chatman and two other men, Quentin Nixon and Dayjuan Tuggle, were 
charged soon after the June 28, 2013 slayings of the Berry twins and the 
attempted murder of their mother, LaTasha Berry, in Wylam.

Since then there have been several twists in the case:

-         Charges were dropped against Nixon and Tuggle in March 2014 after 
Nelson wrote a letter saying the two men were not in the car that day.

-         McMullin was arrested and charged in April 2014.

-         Police in June 2015 shot another man who also had been identified as 
a suspect in the case. Charges, however, have not been filed against him 
related to the Berry twins' deaths.

Chatman is currently serving a 99-year sentence for his conviction on a murder 
charge in the March 1, 2013 shooting death of Derrick Dewayne King.

Chatman was out on bond after King was killed when he was charged in the Berry 
twins' slaying. Chatman also had been released in November 2012 from prison 
after serving a sentence for his manslaughter conviction in the 2005 shooting 
death of another teen.

(source: al.com)




USA:

'Shrimp Boy' could face rare federal death penalty case


The U.S. Justice Department may soon review whether to pursue a rare federal 
death penalty prosecution against Raymond "Shrimp Boy" Chow, a reputed Asian 
organized crime figure preparing to go to trial on racketeering charges.

In court papers filed Wednesday, the San Francisco U.S. attorney's office asked 
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to delay Chow's scheduled Nov. 3 trial date 
because of the possibility that new murder charges -- expected to be added to 
the case as soon as Thursday -- could trigger the Justice Department's death 
penalty review process.

Chow's lawyers could not immediately be reached. Breyer gave Chow's lawyers 
until Thursday morning to respond to the government's request for a delay; 
Chow, who is in jail, has refused other trial delay proposals.

Chow, who has a long criminal history, faces sweeping racketeering charges for 
his alleged role as head of a San Francisco crime syndicate in a case that 
spawned the political corruption indictment of former state Sen. Leland Yee. 
Yee and many other defendants have pleaded guilty to racketeering, but Chow 
insists he is innocent and is fighting the charges.

But federal prosecutors on Wednesday suggested the stakes may be higher for 
Chow because of the addition of new allegations he arranged the murders of two 
other Asian gang figures in 2006 and 2013.

"The government has been in consultation with the Department of Justice and, 
due to the criminal history of defendant Chow, (the U.S. attorney's office) is 
not authorized to bring the ... murder charge as a non-death eligible offense 
without the review and decision of the Attorney General," federal prosecutors 
told the judge.

That automatic death penalty review process can take months. The Justice 
Department has pursued only a handful of federal death penalty cases during the 
Obama administration, including the recent case of Boston Marathon bomber 
Dzokhar Tsarnaev.

Bay Area federal prosecutors have unsuccessfully pursued several death penalty 
prosecutions the past few decades, including charges against leading San 
Francisco Western Addition gang members five years ago.

(source: San Jose Mercury News)


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


The Death Penalty and Human Rights: An interesting dynamic


When most people think of the phrase “human rights” it often brings to mind 
campaigns to protect minority groups or prevent civilian casualties of war. 
This seems natural, as these are undeniably important and pressing issues and 
are quite often covered in the media.

But what about something like the death penalty?

A Pew Research poll conducted this year shows that while support for the death 
penalty has gone down among Americans, the number still remains at a majority 
of 56%, with only 38% percent in opposition.(1)

Among Canadians this number is also strikingly high. In 2013 an Angus Reid poll 
found that 61% of Canadians said that the death penalty, abolished in 1976, was 
warranted for murder.(2)

>From where I stand, this is strange. Aside from the fact that one of the most 
often cited (and arguably heartless) justifications of the death penalty, it’s 
cost effectiveness, is no longer a given in countries like the United States, 
there is also the question of human rights.(3)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims the right of every 
individual to not be deprived of life and states that no one is to be subjected 
to cruel or degrading punishment. Numerous UN conventions and statements have 
followed up this declaration clarifying this position. More recently in 2005, 
the UN Commission for Human Rights approved a resolution calling on all states 
to abolish the death penalty completely.(4)

Additionally, bodies like the Canadian Supreme Court have rebuked the death 
penalty in cases such as United States v. Burns. Here the Supreme Court claimed 
that the finality of punishment would aggravate gross injustices committed 
against those wrongfully convicted, of which there have been many.(5)

These points bring up the question: where do we draw the line between populist 
sentiment and the supposed “inalienability” of human rights? If these polls are 
to be believed, a majority of Canadians and Americans alike would be willing to 
deprive those convicted of murder of what the UN has declared is to be 
considered an inalienable right.

So, is it that our societies have suddenly gone so morally bankrupt that we 
advocate human rights abuse? Or is there an indication here that the framers of 
the UDHR may have been out of touch with what average people in North America 
truly consider to be a human right? Or is this just a case of norm creation 
from the top down rather than the bottom up?

Maybe there are deeper justifications that people consider to be trumping what 
“others”, like the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, consider to be human 
rights, but these are interesting questions to go along with our theme on this 
blog.

Check out this link to information from Amnesty International for some basic 
info on the death penalty, a map of where it is practiced and why it is opposed 
on human rights grounds: https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/

Cited

(1)http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/16/less-support-for-death-penalty-especially-among-democrats/

(2)http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/02/08/majority_of_canadians_support_return_of_death_penalty_poll_finds.html

(3)http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/

(4)http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/international-death-penalty/death-penalty-and-human-rights-standards

(5)https://www.law.kuleuven.be/iir/nl/activiteiten/documentatie/OldActivities/DeathPenalty/Burns.pdf

(source: McGill International Report)