[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----S.C., GA., FLA., LA., OHIO, ARK.

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 27



SOUTH CAROLINA:

Trey Gowdy Sent an Intellectually Disabled Man to Death Row----As a South 
Carolina district attorney, Gowdy pushed to put Fredrick Evins on death row, 
even though evidence emerged during the trial that Evins is intellectually 
disabled.


Trey Gowdy, the head of the select House committee on Benghazi, spent 11 hours 
last week tearing into Hillary Clinton over her handling of the 2012 attack on 
a US consulate in Libya that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other 
Americans dead. For many viewers, Gowdy's adversarial style was proof that his 
committee is more concerned with partisan theatrics than with investigating the 
causes of the attack and the security breaches that may have enabled it. Gowdy 
learned this aggressive brand of questioning as a South Carolina prosecutor - a 
credential he cited during last week's hearing. During his time as a district 
attorney - or "Circuit Solicitor" in South Carolina parlance - Gowdy became 
known as an effective litigator who was particularly savvy at winning 
death-penalty cases. When he was chosen to lead the Benghazi committee in May 
of 2014, a Fox News headline touted Gowdy as a "tenacious former death-row 
prosecutor."

Yet Gowdy's capital cases have not always panned out.

Last year, a South Carolina judge named Gary Hill took the highly unusual step 
of unilaterally reversing the death sentence of a man named Fredrick Evins, 
whom Gowdy had put on death row. Evins's appeals attorneys, it turned out, had 
uncovered evidence that Evins suffers from a serious intellectual disability. 
In 2002, the Supreme Court held that executing a person with mental retardation 
violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

To be sure, the blame for Evins's wrongful death sentence falls mostly with his 
original defense attorneys. According to several people familiar with the case, 
one of them has since admitted to failing to adequately represent Evins in his 
trial for the 2003 rape and murder of a South Carolina woman. But according to 
Hank Ehlies, the lead attorney on the team that won Evins's sentence reduction 
and who studied events in the original trial, Gowdy too played a role.

At Evins's original trial, an expert witness surprised the courtroom by 
asserting that Evins might be intellectually deficient. Gowdy, according to 
Ehlies intervened to effectively prevent the question of intellectual 
disability from interfering with his capital case. After the judge expressed 
concern over the new information, Ehlies says, Gowdy asked the judge to allow 
the prosecution to bring in an expert witness to attest to Evins's mental 
fitness for the death penalty. The judge consented and the expert, says Ehlies, 
was a psychiatrist "known to be very favorable to the state."

The state psychiatrist testified that Evins did not meet the state's definition 
of intellectually disabled, recalls Jeffrey Bloom, a Columbia-based attorney 
who served as co-counsel with Ehlies and who also studied the original trial. 
Evins's defense team then surrendered, says Bloom, telling the judge they would 
not introduce any further evidence regarding their client's mental disability. 
(The defense team's psychiatrist also reportedly agreed with the state's 
finding.) The prosecution then asked the judge to make a determination that 
Evins was mentally fit for the death penalty, Bloom says, "and that was it."

Bloom says that a prosecutor can choose 2 paths when confronted with such newly 
surfaced information. "He can say, 'Oh golly this should have come out months 
ago, we're going to stop now,' or the prosecutor can push on, which is what was 
done here." (Bloom later emailed to clarify that he has "no criticism to make 
of Solicitor Gowdy as to how he handled the trial proceeding when potential 
evidence of mental retardation/intellectual disability arose.")

The jury subsequently sentenced Frederick Evins to death.

"It was very, very frustrating for me to see that" in the trial transcript, 
Ehlies told me. He says it took him "years of fighting to sort something out 
that should have always been plain."

Yet, despite his exasperation over Gowdy's move, Ehlies, who has known Gowdy 
for more than two decades, expresses almost unbridled admiration of the former 
prosecutor. "He's very competent. He's an astute observer. He does well with 
the public, and he's a worthy adversary, and I might add, honorable," said 
Ehlies, who identifies politically as an independent. Bloom also said he has 
"an extremely healthy respect for [Gowdy's] ability" and that "he was probably 
one of the best prosecutors" he had encountered during his career.

"The facts of the case met the statutory eligibility for the death penalty," 
Amanda Duvall, a spokesperson for Gowdy, said in an e-mail. "[Evins's] mental 
health was never raised as an issue before or during trial despite ample 
opportunity to do so. In fact, even when the witness claimed he might be 
intellectually deficient, the defense attorneys still did not argue he was 
intellectually disabled."

Ehlies told me that when he approached Gowdy with the information he had 
uncovered regarding Evins's mental disability, "Trey was very receptive. He was 
open-minded. He was objective. He looked at the case and asked a bunch of 
questions." Although Gowdy was still district attorney when this meeting took 
place, he was not allowed to directly handle the appeal, which fell under the 
authority of the state attorney general's office.

Ehlies saves his harshest words about Evins's original defense team and the 
state's attorney general's office, which fought Ehlies for years to keep Evins 
on death row. Ehlies asserts that the attorney general's office was 
"unconscious on their feet" in attempting to argue that Evins was eligible for 
the death sentence and says that the likelihood of Evins having "a compromised 
mental state" was apparent during their 1st meeting. Referring to Evins's 
original trail lawyers, who were appointed by the court, Ehlies says that 
"there was an absolute bar of ineligibility staring them in the face, and they 
missed it completely, and he was sentenced to death."

Evins was no doubt a dangerous criminal. While he was on death row for the 
murder of a store clerk named Rhonda Ward Goodwin, DNA evidence reportedly 
linked him to the 2002 murder of another woman named Damaris Huff as well as 
the rape of an 83-year-old woman. As a condition of Evins' resentencing to life 
in prison, he pled guilty to all 3 crimes. Gowdy's successor, Barry Barnett, 
accepted the deal, despite his assertions that he personally wished Evins could 
be executed.

In response to a list of questions regarding the Evins case, Gowdy's 
spokesperson defended Gowdy's record of discretion in pursuing capital cases.

"Out of close to 100 capital eligible cases Mr. Gowdy had while district 
attorney, he noticed very few for the death penalty," Duvall said in an e-mail. 
Duvall noted that Gowdy was not involved in Evins's post-conviction relief 
process and indicated that the former prosecutor does not necessarily oppose 
the overturning of Evins's sentence. "If evidence was produced that Mr. Evins 
met the statutory definition of intellectually disabled, then yes it was the 
proper decision."

(source: The Nation)






GEORGIA:

Supreme Court Tackles Case Involving Ongoing Discrimination Against Black 
Jurors


The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider a case involving discrimination 
against potential Black jurors, according to The Washington Post. The case 
involves Timothy Tyrone Foster, a Black teenager who was sentenced to death for 
the murder of an elderly white woman in Georgia. Court records show the 
prosecutor deliberately struck Black candidates from the jury.

It's been reported that prosecutors prefer white jurors because they are more 
likely to vote for the death penalty. On the other hand, defense attorneys 
prefer Black jurors because they are more likely to vote against death penalty 
cases.

Foster's attorneys from the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta are 
arguing the case should be retried because Prosecutor Stephen Lanier kept 
Blacks from the jury. Foster was convicted by an all-white jury in 1987. The 
case has other racial overtones. According to The Washington Post, Lanier told 
jurors they had to convict Foster "to deter other people out there in the 
projects," which were 90 % Black.

Although a Supreme Court ruling 30 years ago made it illegal to bar someone 
from a jury because of their race, prosecutors have ways of ensuring all-white 
juries who are more favorable to voting for convictions. Some of the Black 
jurors in the Foster case were excluded for questionable reasons. The Post 
reported Marilyn Garrett was struck from the jury because Lanier claimed she 
was too close to Foster's age. Garrett was 34 and Foster was 19. Lanier 
accepted an all-white jury made up of 8 people who were 35 and under. One of 
the jurors was just 3 years older than Foster. Court records show Lanier had 
marked all the potential Black jurors names with a letter B. They were also 
highlighted in green and put at the top of the "definite no" list.

Considering the number of people who have been freed from death row, Black 
jurors are rightly skeptical of the criminal justice system.

A 2014 Washington Post-ABC News poll revealed Blacks and whites have starkly 
differing views on justice. The poll showed only 1 in 10 Blacks believed Blacks 
were fairly treated by the criminal justice system. However, 6 out of 10 whites 
believed the police treated all races equally.

(source: Atlanta Black Star)






FLORIDA:

Florida case spotlights flaws in the death penalty system


The state of Florida has an odd process for reaching decisions in death penalty 
cases, one that the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to overturn in a case argued 
this month.

Timothy Lee Hurst was convicted 15 years ago of robbing and murdering an 
assistant manager of a fast-food restaurant where he worked, and was sentenced 
to death. In Florida, as in all but two other states (Louisiana and Oregon), a 
jury must decide unanimously whether the defendant is guilty. Like other 
states, Florida also asks the jury to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors 
in determining whether a person convicted of murder should be sentenced to 
death.

But Florida juries only make a recommendation; the final decision on whether to 
impose the death penalty is up to the judge and can be based on factors 
determined by the judge alone. Hurst argues that violates the 6th Amendment 
right to a trial by jury.

He may be right. But in this case the question of who ultimately decides is 
actually less interesting to us than the question of how that decision is 
reached.

Consider this, for instance: When a jury in Florida sends its life-or-death 
recommendation to the judge, it weighs aggravating and mitigating 
circumstances, but then it doesn't tell the judge which ones it found 
significant. So as the judge considers whether the crime justifies a death 
sentence, he or she must do so without knowing how the jury reached its 
recommendation. Given the profoundly serious nature of the decision, and the 
fact that the law calls for the judge to consider the jury's recommendation, 
that lack of transparency is unacceptable.

Here's another problem with Florida's process: The jury is not required to 
agree unanimously on its recommendation; a simple majority of seven votes is 
enough to recommend death. In other words, it takes less agreement to recommend 
death than to convict, even though the death penalty is irreversible. (Also 
strange is the fact that those jurors don't have to base their votes on the 
same aggravating factors, which means death can be recommended even if a 
majority of the jurors cannot agree on why they're recommending it.)

On the surface, this case is about fine-tuning the death penalty process. But 
viewed only slightly differently, it is about the random and indefensible 
nature of our capital punishment laws.

The reality is that the death penalty is not moral; neither Florida nor any 
other state has figured out how to carry it out in a fair, just or transparent 
manner. A series of exonerations in recent years shows that the system is too 
susceptible to manipulation to be trusted with life-or-death decisions. 
Further, not only is the death penalty ineffective as a deterrent, it is 
applied disproportionately to minorities and is often meted out arbitrarily 
depending on the county in which a murder occurs. It's a fatally flawed system.

(source: Editorial, Los Angeles Times)






LOUISIANA:

Man Indicted in Shreveport Officer's Death Pleads Not Guilty


A man accused in the slaying of a Shreveport police officer has plead not 
guilty to a charge of 1st-degree murder.

The Times reports ( http://bit.ly/1k5gSU5 ) 27-year-old Grover Cannon entered 
the plea Monday in state court. His next hearing date is Dec. 21.

The state indicated it will seek the death penalty in its case against Cannon.

29-year-old Officer Thomas LaValley was responding to a call about a family 
dispute Aug. 5 when he was gunned down. He was shot 6 times.

Cannon was captured the next day after a manhunt.

(source: Associated Press)






OHIO:

Barberton triple murder trial aborted over survivor's diary


The death-penalty trial of a man accused of killing a small-time Barberton drug 
dealer and his 2 children is delayed after defense attorneys discovered that 
prosecutors failed to turn over a diary entry from the surviving victim.

Jury selection in Eric Hendon's aggravated murder trial went on for more than a 
week until defense attorney Brian Pierce notified Summit County Judge Amy 
Corrigall Jones that the diary entry was not provided to them as required by 
law.

The entry by Ronda Blankenship describes Eric Hendon as an accomplice to the 
Dec. 31, 2013 shooting and his brother, Michael Hendon, as the person who shot 
and killed John Kohler, 42, and his 2 children, Ashley Carpenter, 18, and David 
Kohler Carpenter, 14.

In other interviews with police and during Michael Hendon's trial, Blankenship 
identified Eric Hendon, 31, as the shooter and Michael Hendon as the 
accomplice.

Michael Hendon was convicted at trial and sentenced to life in prison without 
parole eligibility.

Assistant Summit County Prosecutor Teri Burnside said on Monday that both she 
and Pierce agreed to delay the trial and dismiss the 150 member pool called for 
jury selection.

Attorneys on both sides spent more than a week interviewing about 70 potential 
jurors until Corrigall Jones stopped the process last week.

Pierce agreed to withdraw his motion for a mistrial in lieu of the continuance. 
Pierce said during the hearing that he intended to hire experts and further 
investigate the issue surrounding the diary entry.

Corrigall Jones set a Nov. 5 hearing date, during which they will set a new 
date for jury selection.

(source: cleveland.com)

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

Gov. John Kasich dismissed the potential adoption of alternate methods for 
carrying out the death penalty in Ohio


"I don't think that's where we're headed," he told reporters Oct. 26, after 
being asked whether the state should consider firing squads, hangings and other 
options being discussed elsewhere in the country.

Kasich offered the comments a week after he postponed all Ohio executions 
scheduled in 2016, citing continued difficulties in finding supplies of the 
drugs used in lethal injections.

The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction noted last week that it 
"continues to seek all legal means to obtain the drugs necessary to carry out 
court ordered executions, but over the past few years it has become exceedingly 
difficult to secure those drugs because of severe supply and distribution 
restrictions. The new dates are designed to provide DRC additional time 
necessary to secure the required execution drugs."

11 inmates now have executions scheduled in 2017, plus 8 more in 2018 and a 
half a dozen in 2019.

Kasich said Oct. 26 that his administration would continue to work toward 
resuming executions.

"We'll keep doing what we can do," he said. "There's a bunch of court cases. 
We'll see how they get resolved."

He added, "Some of these people who sit on death row have committed heinous 
crimes, and there is great pain in some of these families, who say ... 'I will 
not be able to rest until justice is done,'" he said. "It's a very difficult 
thing to have to explain to them. ... I think sometimes when it comes to this 
issue, people really forget the victims."

Some state lawmakers have voiced support for considering other execution 
methods.

"The death penalty, if we're going to conduct it in Ohio, needs to be done 
fairly, needs to be done safely, it needs to be done in a way that is 
transparent," Senate President Keith Faber (R-Celina) said last week. "From 
that perspective, if we can't get the drugs that our protocol calls for, either 
we need to change our protocols or we need to think about other solutions. 
There are a lot of people out there talking about other solutions. I've heard 
everything from using heroin to using nitrogen to going back to the electric 
chair. That's a debate that probably we need to have."

Capital punishment opponents, however, continue to push for the state to 
discontinue executions permanently.

"In a state where we have nine death row exonerees, wrongly convicted in Ohio 
courts, there is only one viable option: a sentence of life without parole in 
capital cases," state Rep. Nickie Antonio (D-Lakewood) said in a released 
statement. "... The current drug shortage that has postponed executions for yet 
another year is an opportunity for Ohio to consider becoming the 20th state to 
abolish capital punishment in favor of life without parole. We can condemn the 
violent offensive acts of those who commit heinous crimes, but no execution 
brings back a loved one and we as a society must be better than our worst 
criminals and our flawed system."

(source: Twinsburg Bulletin)






ARKANSAS:

Arkansas inmates ask for ruling on death penalty law


Attorneys challenging Arkansas' execution secrecy law are asking a judge to 
rule on their constitutional concerns before ruling on whether to issue a 
protective order to shield the drug makers' identity.

The attorneys for 9 death row inmates filed the motion Monday in Pulaski County 
Circuit Court.

Arkansas officials last week asked Judge Wendell Griffen to issue a protective 
order shielding the state from releasing the drug information or limiting the 
disclosure to the inmates' attorneys.

Griffen issued an order this month telling the state to turn over the drug 
information or ask for the protective order.

The inmates are challenging the state's secrecy law, saying it could lead to 
cruel and unusual punishment. The executions of 8 of the inmates have been 
delayed pending the resolution of that challenge.

(source: Associated Press)