[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----KY., OKLA., COLO., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 5



KENTUCKY:

Death penalty considered in murder case


Commonwealth's Attorney Kelly Clarke requested more time to decide if he would 
seek the death penalty in the case of murdered University of Cincinnati 
professor Randall Russ.

Clarke said he was originally supposed to decide if he would seek the death 
penalty for accused murderers Charles Black and Kevin Howard, by Aug. 28, but 
did not want to rush "such a serious decision."

"I was not comfortable making a decision so serious before examining all the 
evidence," Clarke said. "There is still outstanding DNA evidence and I just 
didn't feel like this was a decision that needed to be rushed. I have now 
talked with the family and I know where they stand, so I'm just asking for a 
little more time."

Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Stockton Wood agreed the decision is 
not something to be taken lightly and agreed to allow more time, but said he 
would also proceed through the remainder of the hearings as if the commonwealth 
will be seeking the death penalty.

"I will take under consideration any motions that would be filed as if the 
Commonwealth were to seek the death penalty," Wood said to attorneys for Howard 
and Black.

Wood also asked Clarke where the commonwealth was in regards to DNA evidence 
against Howard and Black.

Clarke said a lab technician will be able to do a buccal swab of the 
defendants, but hair follicle testing would be needed.

"Normally, I would want to avoid a hair test if at all possible," Wood said. 
"However, due to the grave nature of this case, I may be willing to allow it."

Howard agreed to submit to a hair follicle sample, if the commonwealth agreed 
to do it quickly.

The charges against the 2 men came about after Black was arrested on Oct. 1 in 
connection with the disappearance of Randall Russ.

Black was arrested after officials said he led officers with the Kentucky State 
Police to a body buried in a shallow grave in the Hillsboro area of Fleming 
County. The body was later identified as Russ.

Black was questioned after evidence allegedly emerged of him using Russ's 
credit card to withdraw $700 from an ATM. Black told police Howard had killed 
Russ in his home while he was next door. Black said when he returned, Russ was 
bound and gagged and was dead.

Black said he and Howard took Russ's body to the area of Ringo Grange City 
Road, where they buried him in a shallow grave before cleaning Russ's vehicle 
and taking it to Fort Boonesborough in Richmond, according to Kentucky State 
Police Trooper Wes Prather.

A trial date for Howard and Black has been set for Feb. 8 and is expected to 
last about 3 weeks.

(source: Ledger Independent)






OKLAHOMA:

A Summary: "When 8 is Enough"


How many "true" stories does it take to execute an innocent man? Editor's Note: 
On September 16, Richard E. Glossip is scheduled for execution for his 
purported role in a "murder-for-hire" plot in 1997.

Glossip is currently on death row in Oklahoma waiting his execution. The case 
has drawn national, and lately international, attention.

The following material, offered by Glossip's advocates who are seeking either a 
stay in his execution or a 60-day or longer "stay" in carrying out the sentence 
- is self-explanatory.

This summary is condensed from much longer document that breaks down what Don 
Knight - a well-known Colorado attorney who specializes in capital punishment 
cases - calls the "8 is enough" reasons to doubt Glossip's guilt.

Below is a transcript summary and commentary written by Richard E. Glossip's 
Innocence Legal Defense team Don Knight, Kathleen Lord, and Mark Olive.

With the execution of Richard Glossip rapidly approaching, many questions have 
been raised over why the jury reached the verdict it did. There was no physical 
evidence linking Richard to the crime. The conviction was based solely upon 
statements given to the police by Justin Sneed, the man who confessed to the 
murder of Barry Van Treese.

In May 1998, on the eve of Mr. Glossip's 1st trial, Mr. Sneed signed an 
agreement with the District Attorney that spared Mr. Sneed from his own death 
sentence in exchange for "truthful testimony" in Richard Glossip's trial.

However, a thorough search through the many conflicting statements made by Mr. 
Sneed since the day of his arrest makes it impossible to know the truth.

This document presents for the 1st time, in comparison, at least 8 very 
different stories told by Justin Sneed.

These varying accounts were taken directly from the transcript of his interview 
with the police, the official court records of his testimonies in the 2 trials, 
and statements that he had made to family members since the date of his arrest.

These stories highlight exactly how the justice system has failed Richard 
Glossip, how innocent people can be put to death, and why no one should ever be 
put to death based on the word of just one person.

Story 1 - "I don't really know what to say about it"

When the interview with the police began, Justin Sneed stated he knew the 
manager of the Best Budget Inn as "Rich," but he did not even know Richard 
Glossip's last name. When first asked by Detectives Bemo and Cook about what 
happened at the Best Budget Inn on January 7, 1997, Sneed said that he really 
didn't know what to say about the death of Barry Van Treese. He did recall that 
his brother Wes mentioned staging a robbery at one point to get money from 
Barry Van Treese, but " ... it didn't go no further than that."

Story 2 - "I didn't kill Barry Van Treese"

After being pressed by the detectives following his initial denial of any 
knowledge, Sneed's story changed and he said affirmatively that he did not kill 
Barry Van Treese. He claimed he didn't really know him and had only met him a 
few times.

The detectives implied that they wouldn't believe Sneed if he said he acted 
alone and that he had better give someone else up. For the 1st time in the 
interrogation they told Sneed that they had Richard Glossip in custody and " 
... he is putting this all on you."

Story 3 - "I just meant to knock him out"

In this story Sneed described a plan to steal money from Van Treese and then 
how things went wrong once Sneed entered room 102. He admitted killing Van 
Treese but made it clear that he had no intention to do so. Sneed claimed that 
Richard told him Van Treese kept money in the car and that Richard would split 
the money with Sneed if Sneed took it from Barry's car.

Sneed then went on to state that he entered room 102 only with the intent to 
take Van Treese's keys in order to take the money from 2 the car. Sneed stated 
he had no intent to kill Van Treese. However, as Sneed entered the room Van 
Treese unexpectedly woke up. Sneed stated he hit Van Treese only with the 
intent to knock him out but things got "out of control." Sneed said how he got 
the keys from Barry's pants which were on the couch, went to the car, took the 
money, and moved the car.

He never explained to the police what plans, if any, he had to deal with Van 
Treese's body. This lack of any plan, which runs through later versions, 
supports the fact that Sneed never planned to kill Barry Van Treese. Instead, 
he only planned to steal the money that was in the car.

Story 4 - "Rich asked me to kill Barry, so he could run the motel."

In Story 4, Sneed created an entirely new scenario. He began by stating 
"Actually, Rich asked me to kill Barry, so he could run the motel." According 
to Sneed, D. Anna, Richard's girlfriend, was working in the office and saw 
Barry drive up at 3 a.m.

Sneed claimed that Richard ran to Sneed's room, woke him up, and told him to 
kill Barry in exchange for $7000 and some extra money on-the-side for renting 
rooms. Sneed claimed that after he beat Barry and took the money, he met with 
Richard and the 2 of them split the money. They both went into room 102 to see 
if Van Treese was dead and then moved the car to the bank parking lot.

After hearing these various versions of the death of Barry Van Treese, 
detectives Bemo and Cook told Sneed that this story (number four) would help 
him avoid the death penalty. In addition, there is evidence now that the 2 
detectives took Justin Sneed from the interview room and continued to talk with 
him about the case.

These conversations were not recorded and there is no way to know what was 
said. However, it appears they used this unrecorded time to drive home the 
importance of story number four over all others.

Sneed makes a deal to save his own life

In May of 1998, shortly before the start of Richard Glossip's 1st trial, Sneed 
made a deal with the prosecution that if he testified against Glossip he would 
not face the death penalty and would instead receive a life sentence without 
parole. This required him to give "truthful" testimony. Obviously, it would 
have to conform in some way to Story 4 for this to help him.

The stories he has given since he made this agreement do contain some of the 
same threads as Story 4, but also add critical new information that, if true, 
would certainly have been remembered by Sneed, and told to Bemo and Cook, in 
Story 4.

For example, a plan to "melt" the body with Muriatic acid, or an order given by 
Richard to Sneed to kill Van Treese with a hammer months before the actual 
homicide, are not details one would easily forget when talking to the police.

Story 5 - "Glossip told me to pick up trash bags, a hacksaw, and muriatic acid 
..."

The 5th story was given by Sneed at the 1st trial in 1998. He testified that 
prior to the murder, Glossip approached Sneed "several times" with the idea to 
kill Barry Van Treese, but Sneed never asked him why. Sneed stated that he used 
methamphetamines several days before, but not the day of, the murder.

When asked what he would get in exchange for killing Barry Van Treese he gave 
various answers, including: $7000; splitting $4000; the money was never on his 
mind as he was just going along; nothing really; and he could manage one of the 
motels that Barry owned.

At trial Sneed also testified that Glossip woke him up (sometimes by phone, 
sometimes by knocking) at 3 a.m. and said words to the effect of "quick, go 
kill Barry" with a baseball bat which happened to be in Sneed's room.

Sneed claimed he then went to the Sinclair station across the street and 
purchased a coke and waited an hour before going into room 102 with a master 
key which he used as the motel maintenance man. He stated once he entered room 
102, Van Treese woke up and, without saying anything, rushed him.

Sneed testified that he hit Van Treese 1 time with the bat before Van Treese 
pushed into him. Sneed fell back into a chair and the bat struck and broke the 
window.

Sneed said Van Treese then ran toward the door but Sneed was able to grab him 
from behind, trip him to the floor, and beat him to death. He claimed he then 
sat in the room with Barry, watching him take his last breaths, for 30 minutes.

Sneed testified he left room 102 and later in the morning both he and Richard 
returned to see if Van Treese was dead and to tape a shower curtain over the 
inside of the broken window. They left the room and Glossip told Sneed where 
the money was in the car. Sneed said he moved the car while Richard went back 
to his own room.

Sneed then called Richard on the phone to come back down to Sneed's room and 
count the money. Instead of giving Sneed all the money, Sneed claimed that they 
split it because "I was never in it for the money."

Sneed stated Glossip then told him to go to the hardware store to buy Plexiglas 
to cover the outside of the broken window. In the meantime, Sneed said Richard 
returned to his own room to "take a nap" (despite the fact that there was a 
dead body in one of his motel rooms).

Sneed testified that he waited until 8:30 a.m. before leaving to buy the 
Plexiglas and, for the 1st time, stated Richard also asked him to buy trash 
bags, a hacksaw, and muriatic acid.

This information was not given to Detectives Bemo and Cook in Story 4. Sneed 
claimed during this `st trial testimony that the acid would be used to "melt" 
the body, the saw to cut it up, and the trash bags to carry it away. Sneed 
claimed that even with all of this going on at the motel, Glossip was able to 
sleep until noon and then go to Walmart with his girlfriend.

Sneed stated that the police came to the motel while Richard was away and, once 
he returned from Walmart, Richard told him twice to leave the motel.

Sneed then stated that the tumbler from the doorknob of room 102 was missing 
and explained that it fell out as he tried to break the key off in the lock to 
prevent anyone from entering the room that had a key. This was another new fact 
Sneed had not mentioned.

Story 6 - "Now is the time to do it, take the hammer and do it"

The 2nd trial took place in 2004. Sneed testified to a great many new "details" 
which he did not tell Bemo and Cook about in Story 4 or the jury in the 1st 
trial. The transcripts do not say why this is, but they do show the new 
prosecutor on the case met with Sneed and discussed his testimony at least 
twice in advance of the trial.

This 6th story began with Sneed stating that he could have gone back to live 
with his mother or his stepfather if things did not work out at the motel. It 
also said that, on the morning after the murder, Sneed went back to work for a 
roofing company making $500.00 per week and living in an apartment.

His old roofing crew was within walking distance of the Best Budget Inn and he 
knew right where to find them. Despite these many options, Sneed swore that he 
had nowhere to go if he were thrown out of the motel and so he had no option 
but to kill Barry Van Treese at Glossip's behest.

Sneed testified that in the late summer of 1997 he quit working for the roofing 
company and lived at the Best Budget Inn where he hustled money for drugs. He 
stated that he used methamphetamine regularly, but claimed the last time he 
used the drug was the day before Christmas, not just 2 days before his crime as 
he previously testified. He claimed that Glossip came to him joking about 
pulling off a robbery as early as September 1996. He said that Richard wanted 
to run both motels owned by Barry Van Treese, and said he could con Van 
Treese's widow into letting him do it if Van Treese were dead.

According to Sneed, the robbery discussions eventually turned to doing a "hit" 
on Barry. Sneed stated that he was promised various things, including at 
different times in the testimony: $3500; $5000; $10,000; money from rooms 
rented on the side; $10,000 again; all the money; half the money; and finally 
to split around $4000.00 with Richard.

Just like in Story 5, Sneed added critical new details which he did not give to 
Bemo and Cook, or to the jury in the 1st trial. In this version Sneed stated 
that "sometime in November" Barry Van Treese was working with Sneed and Glossip 
in the "boiler room" at the motel, attempting to fix the wiring for a cable TV. 
Sneed testified that, at a point when Van Treese was crouched down close to the 
floor, Richard suddenly told Sneed to kill Van Treese with a hammer that 
happened to be nearby. "Now is the time to do it, take the hammer and do it."

However, Sneed testified that he decided not to do so. He gave no explanation 
for why he could resist Mr. Glossip???s orders in November but apparently not 
in January.

In the 2nd trial Sneed also testified that prior to January 7, 1997, and 
despite Richard's supposed near constant talk with Sneed about killing Van 
Treese, Sneed decided not to because he did not take the talk seriously. 
However, in the early morning hours of January 7th, when Richard came into his 
room insisting that he kill Van Treese, Sneed inexplicably felt he had no 
choice but to follow these orders simply because of the way Richard "raised his 
voice."

In this testimony, Sneed also added another new wrinkle told for the first 
time. He stated that during the fight with Van Treese he took a pocket knife 
out of his back pocket, had time to open the knife using both hands (he is not 
clear where the baseball bat was at this point in time), and then stabbed Van 
Treese with the knife one time in the chest before losing control of the knife. 
When previously asked by both the police and the prosecutor whether he had 
stabbed Van Treese during the altercation, Sneed denied that he stabbed Barry 
Van Treese.

Sneed also testified for the 1st time that, following the murder, Richard 
entered room 102 and took a $100 bill out of Barry's wallet. He continued that 
Richard then told Sneed to move the car and take the money from under the seat. 
Sneed stated that they later met in his room where Richard told Sneed that 
instead of Sneed getting all the money they would split it.

Sneed stated he didn't mind as "he just didn't have any argument against it."

Story 6 contains many statements made by Sneed that he was never given an 
overall plan by Richard Glossip as to how the homicide or the clean-up was 
supposed to go. Instead, he testified that he was very suddenly told to kill 
Van Treese with the bat and then to return to Glossip for further instructions.

He stated that Glossip then told him what to do next and, after he completed 
each separate act, Sneed stated that he simply returned to Richard for further 
orders.

Story 7 - "There actually was a plan"

In the 2nd trial Sneed testified that, after he left the police station with 
Bemo and Cook, he told the detectives that Richard actually did have a plan and 
apparently told Sneed about it. He said the plan was for Sneed to kill Van 
Treese, and that Richard agreed it was his (Richard's) job to clean up the room 
after the homicide.

However, according to Sneed, he told the police that Richard didn't do a very 
good job with his end of the bargain. There is no way to know what other things 
he may have told the police after the tape was turned off, and what information 
about the case the detectives may have given to Sneed as they continued the 
conversation.

Story 8 - "How high up does this go?"

In August 2015, an investigator working for Mr. Glossip's defense team talked 
with Justin Sneed's mother. In this interview, his mother stated that in 
January 1997, just a few days after he was arrested, Justin Sneed wrote a 
letter to her from the jail. In this letter to his mother Justin talked about 
being involved in the murder and that there were others involved as well. 
According to his mother, Justin wrote in the letter, "You won't believe who!"

His mother told the investigator that in the letter Justin made it sound like 
there were really powerful and important people involved in this crime and that 
his mother wondered at the time, "How high up does this go?" His mother told 
the investigator that she continues to believe there were other people involved 
in the murder.

Anyone who has any information regarding this case can contact Don Knight at 
don at dknightlaw.com

(source: The City Sentinel)






COLORADO:

The state of the death penalty in Colorado----Public officials and others weigh 
in on capital punishment's future in light of the James Holmes and Dexter Lewis 
verdicts


2 years ago, when Gov. John Hickenlooper granted Nathan Dunlap an indefinite 
reprieve on his death sentence for the Chuck E. Cheese murders, he said he 
hoped to spark a conversation about the death penalty. In that spirit, we asked 
a number a prominent Coloradans for their views on the death penalty in the 
wake of the recent verdicts in the James Holmes and Dexter Lewis trials. Should 
those verdicts of life without parole alter public attitudes toward the death 
penalty? Do they suggest the law should be changed? Or do they prove that 
Colorado's law works as it should, with each trial being decided on its merits? 
- The Denver Post

Gov. John Hickenlooper:

In 2 of the most horrific murders in our state's history, neither jury could 
come to the consensus necessary to deliver a death penalty verdict. Both juries 
were "death qualified" - meaning each person would be capable of sentencing the 
defendants to death. Yet when given the facts of the case, neither jury could 
conclude that death was the appropriate punishment.

Capital punishment trials, and the decades of appeals that follow successful 
prosecutions, cost millions and millions of dollars, many times more than life 
in prison without parole.

What do we get for that hefty sum? A months-long trial and semiannual appeals 
that drag victims and/or their families back through the horrors of the worst 
day of their lives. We make 2-bit celebrities out of cold-blooded killers. We 
almost certainly inspire copycats, as we have seen with recent theater 
shootings.

Study after study demonstrates that the death penalty in no way serves as a 
deterrent. States that abolished the death penalty decades ago have no higher 
rates of homicide nor frequency of mass murders.

Most religions of the world do not support the death penalty. Almost every 
other developed country on earth has abandoned capital punishment either in law 
or practice. Many other states have come to this conclusion, too, and this is 
not a red state-blue state issue. Nebraska's Republican legislature recently 
repealed its death penalty statute, and then overrode the governor's veto.

In Colorado, the death penalty is arbitrarily sought and imposed. A recent 
University of Denver Law Review article demonstrates that, even when the 
heinousness of the crime is factored in, the race of the accused and place of 
the crime are statistically significant predictors of whether prosecutors will 
seek the death penalty.

That is not justice.

The death penalty does not make our homes or our state any safer. Life in 
prison without hope of parole is a just and harsh punishment. Each of these 
killers will die in prison. In the meantime, let's honor the memories of the 
victims and continue to support the survivors, their families and loved ones as 
they heal.

Cynthia H. Coffman, state attorney general:

The death penalty should remain a viable sentencing option in criminal cases 
with a singular exception: if the citizens of Colorado decide to repeal it 
through the initiative process.

This appears unlikely, since any number of opinion polls indicate Coloradans 
want the death penalty as an option when their neighbors or families are killed 
in horrific, depraved crimes. They recognize that death is not intended to be a 
deterrent against another's future action but instead is a punishment for a 
crime already committed.

The fact that an overwhelming majority wants to preserve capital punishment is 
evidence enough of the penalty's continued importance to the rule of law or, 
more simply, a sense of true justice.

The current debate shifts in focus from the expense of trials and appeals and 
incarceration costs to mental capacity issues and perceived racial disparities. 
However, I have faith that, given the chance to vote, the public will not be 
duped. They rightly will focus on whether our criminal justice system functions 
as devised.

It does, though not as swiftly as it should. The verdicts in two recent murder 
cases do nothing but prove that the death penalty process in Colorado works 
well. Jurors are thoughtful and deliberate in their decisions. The death 
penalty is justifiably difficult to obtain, which is merely symptomatic of the 
substantial due-process rights granted defendants.

The continued viability of the death penalty in Colorado should rest in the 
voters' hands. They make up our jury pools and may one day sit on a capital 
case. Neither the executive nor legislative branch can be expected to read the 
minds of voters, nor should they substitute their judgment for the public's.

And, if opponents are correct that the death penalty is passe in modern 
society, they should not fear an up or down vote of the people.

Doug Wilson, state public defender:

The death penalty is a failed public policy for many reasons. It's time to 
re-evaluate its use. The governor should call for a moratorium on all further 
death penalty cases until we complete that discussion, which should include the 
virtually unlimited prosecutorial discretion to seek death; the impact of race, 
ethnicity, gender and wealth of the victim and the defendant on that process; 
the aggregate expenditures on the death penalty since Colorado returned to jury 
sentencing in 2003; mental health issues that plague society and the criminal 
justice system; and the religious, moral and philosophical concerns surrounding 
the government's ability to execute its citizens.

It's time to have a statewide discussion about the future of the death penalty 
led by an independent commission and to include elected prosecutors, law 
enforcement, the attorney general's office, defense counsel, the Judicial 
Department, Departments of Corrections and Human Services, mental health 
professionals, civil rights and religious leaders, academics, legislators, and 
defendant and victim family members.

Whether you support abolition or not, it's time to talk.

Bill Cadman, state Senate president:

2 high-profile murder convictions, neither of which drew a death sentence from 
jurors, have anti-death penalty groups declaring that our most serious criminal 
sanction is dead in Colorado. But I wouldn't be so fast to write that epitaph.

I'm among those who believe the death penalty should be retained as an option 
for future jurors, even if most elect not to impose it. The vote of 2 juries - 
1 of which was prepared to impose the death sentence but fell 1 vote short - do 
not a statewide referendum make.

All the 2 cases prove is that the system works as it should. Jurors weighing 
all the details and circumstances after prolonged study and careful 
deliberation simply determined that a death sentence wasn't justified in these 
cases.

We shouldn't read more into it than that. Nor should we assume that jurors 
weighing the circumstances of some future case might not rule otherwise.

I believe James Holmes and Dexter Lewis deserved death for the horrific crimes 
they committed. But I wasn't on those juries, shouldering that weighty 
responsibility. And I'm not upset at jurors who made a different call because I 
believe in the process even when I'm personally disappointed by the result.

If death penalty opponents believe society now overwhelmingly rejects this form 
of punishment, as evidenced by these verdicts, they should have no trouble 
trusting in future juries to make that decision, on a case by case basis.

Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, speaker of the state House:

I am morally opposed to the death penalty. It is imposed capriciously or, at 
the very least, inconsistently. It troubles me deeply that all 3 people on 
death row in Colorado are African-American men. The death penalty in Colorado 
is not consistently applied, and when it is applied, the evidence demonstrates 
racial inequity. It is a standard of justice for some, but not for all.

It also troubles me that the handing down of a death sentence triggers a 
virtually endless appeals process that ends up costing the state millions in 
court costs over the life of a case. Those dollars could go toward education, 
mental health and other human services that just might turn some Coloradans 
away from the path that leads to murder.

Before he handed down 12 life sentences in the Holmes case, Judge Carlos Samour 
Jr. said, "If we subscribe to the 'eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' 
philosophy, we would be no different than the criminal." That statement 
captures my thoughts on why the death penalty is an outmoded punishment that I 
find personally wrong.

Craig Silverman, legal analyst and former prosecutor:

A single juror said "no way" to capital punishment in the Aurora theater trial. 
1 juror was also enough to stop the Fero's massacre case during its penalty 
phase in Denver District Court. Individual jurors have that power under 
Colorado law.

So does Gov. John Hickenlooper, who once claimed he supported the death 
penalty. The governor's audacious Nathan Dunlap reprieve has clouded every 
Colorado capital case under his watch. There is a strong chance the three mass 
murderers currently on Colorado's death row will be granted clemency before 
Hickenlooper leaves office.

Public defenders presented compelling but opposite mitigation evidence in 
Colorado's most recent capital cases. James Holmes' supportive parents were 
highlighted in Arapahoe County while a Denver jury learned of Dexter Lewis' 
horrific upbringing. As for Dunlap, the governor informed us he now simply 
opposes capital punishment.

But most Coloradans disagree. A recent Quinnipiac poll showed 63 % favored 
execution for the Aurora theater shooter, while 32 % preferred life in prison.

Worse crimes than these massacres are, sadly, conceivable. Jack Graham blew up 
a United Airlines jet, killing 44 in 1955. He was tried in Denver District 
Court in 1956, and executed in 1957. In 1997, a federal jury made up of 
Coloradans sentenced Timothy McVeigh, murderer of 168 in Oklahoma City, to the 
execution he experienced four years later.

Why abandon Colorado's death penalty now? Mass murdering defendants in Aurora, 
Sterling and Canon City have recently offered guilty pleas to avoid the 
possibility of execution.

Death penalty abolitionists may have had a better argument if they lost 
Colorado's recent capital trials. But they prevailed. Now, as always, they want 
more, but most Coloradans say, "No way."

State Rep. Rhonda Fields, an Aurora Democrat:

James Holmes and Dexter Lewis killed 17 innocent people. Dozens more were 
injured, and the pain of hundreds of survivors and family members will never 
heal.

I know this to be true because my beloved son, Javad Marshall Fields, and his 
wonderful fiancee, Vivian Wolfe, were brutally murdered. While their killers, 
Robert Ray and Sir Mario Owens, were sentenced to death, I have serious doubts 
that they will ever be executed. The third death row inmate in Colorado, Nathan 
Dunlap, was granted a reprieve after his sentence stood for more than 1 
decades.

I have concluded that my emotional well-being and that of my family is not 
dependent upon what happens to the killers who forever devastated my family. 
Our healing comes from within and with the support of those who love us. Now 
that the Holmes and Lewis trials have ended, my thoughts are with the victims 
and their families.

I have come to understand and accept the fact that my family can never be made 
whole in any human-created system of justice.

As a member of the state legislature, I must also be concerned about the high 
cost of death penalty prosecutions. In an era of severe budget constraints, I 
place a higher priority on school funding formulas that fairly support all 
students, early childhood education, crime prevention and the economic security 
of families.

Serving as a policy-maker has given me a perspective to compare the cost of the 
death penalty and the deep pain in my heart caused by the murders of 2 precious 
people taken far too soon.

Broomfield attorney Shawn Mitchell, former state senator:

I support the death penalty in concept. It is a self-evident truth that a 
person can, by murderous savagery, forfeit the right to continue living. This 
is not an affront to human dignity; it is a defense of human dignity. It's 
debated whether execution promotes deterrence, retribution, or a visceral sense 
of just response to barbarity. All play a role.

However, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court killed the death penalty - you might 
say, by lethal injunction. The court ruled execution was too arbitrary and 
discriminatory. In 1976 in the case of Gregg vs. Georgia, the court authorized 
a reshaped death sentence.

The court ruled a routine sentence for first-degree murder was too mechanical, 
and therefore cruel and unusual. Rather than base the punishment on the nature 
of the crime, the court invented a kind of "totality of the killer's life" 
test. Juries must consider aggravating and mitigating factors. The heinous 
things about the murder must be found to outweigh every sympathetic, sad, 
mitigating, hopeful human thing that can be introduced about the rest of the 
defendant's life.

Jurors must become gods and weigh the killer's life story against the crime in 
a strange, judicially invented balancing of apples and oranges.

This unwieldy formulation ensures that capital cases will always be protracted, 
abitrary, clustered sideshows about the defendant's life. Seldom will justice 
and circumstance assemble 12 jurors who can unanimously keep their eye on the 
murder weapon instead of the sob story. It's a gamble, and probably wasteful to 
pursue capital punishment under current case law.

A more practical and principled death penalty would be based on conviction of 
premeditated murder with aggravated circumstances of cruelty or depravity, by a 
new standard only for capital cases: beyond all possible doubt. No sideshow 
about a sad upbringing.

Claire Levy, director of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy:

The death penalty is an arbitrary punishment that does not separate the "worst 
of the worst" from other murderers. Colorado's law would allow the death 
penalty in 90 % of prosecuted 1st-degree murder cases. Yet prosecutors only 
seek execution against those insane enough or abused enough in their childhood 
to commit atrocities. Ordinary Coloradans reject execution in those 
circumstances. So where does that leave us?

The death penalty is mostly a tool for extracting a guilty plea to first-degree 
murder. While that may be expedient, our system of justice should not condone 
that practice.

The death penalty does not bring finality and closure to a horrible tragedy. It 
extends it indefinitely. Colorado's longest-serving death row inmate was 
convicted over 20 years ago. His face has defaced the front page of the 
newspaper numerous times, forcing the victims' families to relive their 
ordeals.

There are 894 inmates serving life sentences for 1st-degree murder. Can anyone 
remember a name or a face that belongs to these inmates? They have been 
forgotten. That's finality.

The death penalty serves no purpose in a modern criminal justice system. It 
doesn't deter crime. It isn't necessary to keep the public safe. It isn't 
sought consistently - not even when an inmate serving a life sentence kills 
again. The penalty is not consistent with current standards of decency, 
evidenced by juries' refusal to impose it.

Death is sought out of vengeance, to obliterate someone who inflicted 
unimaginable pain. But our judicial system is not here to exact vengeance no 
matter how much pain a killer has imposed. The death penalty should be 
repealed.

State Sen. Kevin Lundberg, a Republican from Berthoud:

When a premeditated mass murder - where no one questions the guilt of the 
convicted - fails to yield a death sentence, it is obvious to all that our 
death penalty law does not work.

Where do we go from here? Should we completely eliminate the death penalty, or 
should we find ways to fix the process? I believe we must fix it.

The death penalty is necessary, for justice and for deterrence.

Justice demands payment for crime, and it is the responsibility of civil 
government to administer that justice. An essential part of that justice has 
always been the death penalty for the worst of all crimes. It has been the 
standard for virtually all cultures in all ages.

I believe in mercy, grace and reconciliation, but those virtues cannot become 
excuses to ignore the moral obligation the civil magistrate has to administer 
justice.

The death penalty should always be rare, but to take it away entirely, which 
our current law has essentially done, is to remove the deterrence the death 
penalty can provide, and hopefully avoid some heinous crimes in the future.

The Colorado legislature needs to own up to the fact that our death penalty law 
needs to change. Probably a simple adjustment to the requirement for a 
unanimous opinion from the jury to a super majority would cure the dilemma.

State Rep. Angela Williams, a Denver Democrat:

One of the major problems with the death penalty is obvious when you look at 
who is sentenced to death. Each man on Colorado's death row is 
African-American, and blacks make up only 4 % of our state's population. There 
is something seriously wrong with a policy when only non-white defendants are 
getting the death penalty. The state cannot go on arguing that this is a fair 
and just punishment.

In the wake of these trials, the perpetrator has become the focus. The victims 
should be remembered and their families should be supported. The murderer 
should not become a celebrity.

As a lawmaker, I cannot support the continuation of such a racist, arbitrary 
and broken system.

David Lane, Denver criminal defense attorney:

The U.S. Supreme Court has traditionally looked at what juries are doing around 
the country to determine what is or is not cruel and unusual punishment. 2 
Colorado juries just sent powerful messages to the nation that despite 17 
innocent deaths, the death penalty is not the appropriate response from a 
civilized society.

Colorado has spent literally tens of millions of dollars in futile efforts to 
kill people over the last 50 years, and we have had 1 execution. Throwing 
scarce resources down the vengeance rat hole makes no sense.

The U.S. Supreme Court has built these costs into the process, and there is no 
turning back. The costs - coupled with the imperfections of our justice system 
that resulted in 150 innocent people being freed from death rows around the 
country, and the fact that a number of actually innocent people have been 
executed - makes the death penalty an anachronism.

The sentence of life without parole keeps us safe without having us stoop to 
the level of those we kill. The death penalty is a bygone relic of a brutal 
past.

Dan Recht, Denver criminal defense attorney:

The death penalty in Colorado is riddled with problems, not the least of which 
is the arbitrary and unfair nature in which it is applied. It is solely the 
decision of the elected district attorney to seek death. This means that 
politics will always be involved when choosing what sentence to pursue, and the 
location of the crime will often determine the defendant's fate.

Now, with the most recent juries dismissing the death penalty, a decision to 
seek the death penalty amounts to little more than an effort to bolster a DA's 
political career by sticking to the tired rhetoric of being "tough on crime."

It should not be lost on the public that George Brauchler, the elected DA in 
Arapahoe County, indicated his interest in running for the U.S. Senate before 
the ink even dried on the verdict form in Holmes.

State Sen. Owen Hill, a Republican from Colorado Springs:

Capital punishment is the ultimate and final condemnation of those who have 
proven themselves to be enemies of humanity. Whether in declared war or in our 
local community, the punishment for heinous crime should be death.

It was right and virtuous to execute Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and Timothy 
McVeigh. We might say Hermann Goering cheated justice by poisoning himself 
before he could be hanged.

I used to be opposed to the death penalty because I mistakenly interpreted 
failures in our overly bureaucratic judicial system as an argument against 
justice itself.

One of the most important public policy opportunities we have is to reinforce 
justice by enacting significant criminal justice reform. We must ensure that 
enemies of human life swiftly meet justice while those who make all-too-common 
mistakes are given more opportunities to succeed as productive members of our 
community.

In this pursuit of justice, we must remember that our response to crime and to 
criminals, to victims and their families, is the greatest measure of the 
strength and character of our community. Virtue demands that we strenuously 
avoid two grave mistakes. The first mistake is condemning without due process 
and a universal assumption of innocence until proven guilty. The second is 
delaying and vacillating in acting justly to punish those who have inhumanely 
deprived others of life. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Life is a privilege and a gift and those who wantonly and cruelly take this 
from others, proving themselves enemies of humanity, ought to be given justice 
and stripped of their own lives.

Todd Shepherd, Independence Institute:

When a person has been convicted of killing someone who is known to be willing 
to provide testimony to police or attorneys, or when the person has been 
convicted of killing a judge or prosecuting attorney, the death penalty is an 
appropriate sentencing option for jurors.

Killing a listed witness or prosecuting attorney is a crime that does not 
happen in a vacuum. Those kinds of murders not only attempt to skew a 
particular trial, but they also have the potential to cast a veil of silence 
over the entire judicial system.

The scenario I'm describing is not hypothetical. 2 of the 3 people on 
Colorado's death row - Robert Ray and Sir Mario Owens - were convicted for the 
2005 killing of Javaad Marshall Fields and Vivan Wolfe, Fields' fianc???e. 
Fields was planning to testify against Ray and Owens in a separate murder case 
when he was gunned down in his car.

In December 2006, Kalonnian Clark was gunned down in her own home. Clark was 
cooperating with the prosecution of a known gangster.

By preserving the death penalty for these kinds of crimes, society sends a 
strong message that rightly ought to strengthen the judicial system in its 
routine work on non-death penalty cases.

(source: The Denver Post)






CALIFORNIA:

Visiting of Condemned Inmates Resumes at San Quentin


Seaton became the 69th death row inmate to die of natural causes in California 
since the state reinstated the death penalty in 1978, according to Reuters. The 
Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and the Adams County Health 
Department (ACHD) are reporting 4 confirmed cases of Legionnaires' disease, 
including 1 death in Quincy. "We continue to focus on the outbreak at the 
Illinois Veterans' Home-Quincy and investigate possible sources of Legionella 
bacteria and make recommendations on how to eliminate the bacteria".

The number of confirmed cases of Legionnaires' disease at California's San 
Quentin prison is holding steady at 6, 1 of 3 outbreaks of Legionnaires' around 
the country that have sickened dozens and killed 20.

Corrections officials say full kitchen service will resume next week.

By Friday the toilets were operable again, but because of concern of steam from 
heating food, the 3,700 inmates at San Quentin were put on a 
breakfast-lunch-dinner diet of peanut butter sandwiches. Antibiotics can treat 
the disease, but it is fatal for between 5% and 30% of patients, Moore said.

A condemned San Quentin prisoner died of natural causes 29 years after he used 
a claw hammer to murder his 77-year-old disabled neighbor in Riverside.

The bacterium that causes Legionnaires' disease thrives in warm water. The 
prison turned off running water last week after the first case surfaced. The 
prison's water comes from the Marin Municipal Water District, which is 
conducting its own testing. The letter asked lawyers to encourage prisoners to 
report any symptoms of illness to medical staff as legal visits resumed 
Wednesday. Since July there have been 124 cases of Legionnaires' disease at 
various locations the South Bronx; 12 people have died.

There have been several outbreaks of Legionnaires??? disease in the United 
States this summer, with more than 100 people becoming sick and 19 deaths.

(source: (Press Examiner)

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

California Democrat urges court to reinstate death penalty


The office of the California Attorney General argued Monday before a 3-judge 
panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that last 
year's lower court ruling barring further executions in the state should be 
reversed.

The death sentence of Earnest Jones, who was convicted for a rape and murder 
committed 23 years ago, was vacated by Federal District Judge Cormac J. Carney, 
an appointee of George W. Bush. As the WSWS explained at the time, this 
decision was the 1st to invalidate the California death penalty altogether 
since voters reinstated capital punishment in 1978.

Carney based his ruling on the fact that during the ensuing 37 years, 
California courts have sentenced over 900 people to death, but only 13 have 
been executed. About 100 have died on death row of natural causes or suicide.

"For the rest, the dysfunctional administration of California's death penalty 
system has resulted, and will continue to result, in an inordinate and 
unpredictable period of delay preceding their actual execution," Carney wrote. 
"As for the random few for whom execution does become a reality, they will have 
languished for so long on death row that their execution will serve no 
retributive or deterrent purpose and will be arbitrary."

The Supreme Court has ruled that state laws resulting in arbitrary death 
sentences violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual 
punishments." Most cases have focused on procedures for the guilt and penalty 
phases of the death penalty trial, but Carney based his ruling instead on the 
inability of California to provide condemned inmates with meaningful review 
after their convictions.

The challenge to Carney's ruling was argued by Michael J. Mongan on behalf of 
California Attorney General Kamala Harris. The 3rd-ranking Democrat in state 
government, Harris is the current favorite of the party establishment to 
replace retiring US Senator Barbara Boxer next year. Harris claims to 
personally oppose capital punishment, but attorneys for her office support it 
in court at every opportunity.

Mongan's arguments concerned only mind-numbing technicalities, particularly the 
alleged failure of the condemned man to fully litigate his claims of state 
court dysfunction in state court before raising them in his federal habeas 
corpus petition, a draconian legal doctrine known as "exhaustion."

The executive director of the Habeas Corpus Research Center (HCRC), Michael 
Lawrence, argued to uphold Carney's ruling. Lawrence told the Ninth Circuit 
panel that the state provided HCRC only 34 lawyers to represent 758 death row 
inmates. Presently 358 inmates are waiting for a lawyer to be assigned, a 
process that takes 8 to 10 years.

Once the HCRC lawyer is assigned to a case, the process itself can take another 
8 to 10 years, much of that time spent "exhausting" state-court proceedings so 
that a federal habeas corpus petition can be filed. Lawrence explained that in 
most cases HCRC lawyers submit extensive papers to the state courts detailing 
alleged constitutional violations, and then wait up to 4 years for the 
inevitable postcard denying their petitions without explanation.

During the oral argument, all three judges, each appointed by a Democratic 
president, ignored the mental anguish of human beings left to languish for 
decades on death row, instead focusing on whether the technical requirements 
for exhaustion were met before Carney ruled that the state courts were 
dysfunctional.

As explained by Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor who frequently 
comments on California legal developments, "The question is whether they have 
to go back to the state system - which both sides agreed is completely 
dysfunctional - before it comes back to the federal courts and they deal with 
it."

Placing a condemned man into such a Catch-22 is cruel and unusual punishment in 
itself.

Most legal experts forecast that the Ninth Circuit panel will reverse Carney. 
That ruling, however, could either reinstate Ernest Jones??? death sentence and 
move him closer to the execution chamber, or send him back into the California 
court system for a ruling on whether those courts are too dysfunctional to 
administer executions in a non-arbitrary manner. A formal opinion can be issued 
at any time between a few weeks and several months.

After the panel rules, the losing side will likely petition the entire Ninth 
Circuit for review en banc. A petition to the US Supreme Court could then be 
filed.

Carney's ruling reflects that opposition to the death penalty is growing not 
only within the population as a whole, but also within certain sections of the 
ruling class.

19 states have abolished the death penalty, including 6 - Maryland, New Jersey, 
New York, New Mexico, Illinois, Connecticut and Nebraska - since 2007.

Opinion polls show a steady nationwide decline of support for capital 
punishment. Public approval in the mid-1990s reached an all-time high of 80 %, 
during the Clinton administration's promotion of a draconian "law and order" 
culture, with only 16 % opposed. Support has fallen below 60 % in the most 
recent polling.

Last August, a Colorado jury rejected the death penalty for James Holmes, 
convicted of murdering 12 people and wounding 70 others in a movie theatre. A 
few weeks later another Colorado jury spared the life of Dexter Lewis after 
convicting him of killing 5 people.

In 2012 California voters narrowly defeated a ballot measure that would have 
ended the death penalty.

Many oppose capital punishment because of the growing understanding that 
corrupt and dishonest police and prosecutors manipulate evidence to obtain 
wrongful convictions. There is also growing recognition that low-income and 
minority defendants are disproportionally targeted for execution.

The judicial system, representing some of the most class-conscious 
representatives of the ruling class, has been sensitive to this shift. In the 
last decade a divided Supreme Court has ruled that executions of mentally 
retarded individuals ( Atkins v. Virginia, 2002) and juveniles ( Roper v. 
Simmons, 2005) violate the Eighth Amendment.

Last June, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent 
urging the Supreme Court to rule "that the death penalty, in and of itself, now 
likely constitutes a legally prohibited cruel and unusual punishment."

There are also "fiscal opponents" who reject capital punishment because of its 
exorbitant cost, estimated to exceed $300 million per execution in California.

Despite the growing opposition, California's Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, 
like Attorney General Harris, chose to appeal Carney's ruling. Brown, like 
Harris, has expressed personal opposition to the death penalty, while using his 
political authority to support it.

In 2012, in response to a federal court's invalidating California's 3-drug 
lethal injection protocol, Brown ordered prison officials to develop a 
single-drug method, stating, "My administration is working to ensure that 
California's laws on capital punishment are upheld and carried out in 
conformity with our statutes."

Both Brown and Harris also refused to publicly support California's anti-death 
penalty ballot measure in 2012.

(source: World Socialist Web Site)






USA:

Catholic policy advocates crossing fingers in advance of papal visit


There is no doubt that Pope Francis' impending visit to the United States is 
generating a lot of enthusiasm. For some people, the rarity of a papal visit to 
these shores is reason enough to trek hundreds of miles or more for the 
opportunity to be with him, or near him, even if only briefly.

There are others, though, who hope that the pope's words will provide a shot in 
the arm for their work on public policy issues.

Over the course of 5 days, the pope will give homilies at Masses in Washington, 
New York and Philadelphia. He will address the World Meeting of Families, the 
United Nations General Assembly, and be the first pontiff to address a joint 
meeting of Congress. Pope Francis will also meet with President Barack Obama.

"We're hoping and expecting that he is going to speak on issues of migration, 
and I'm hoping he'll talk about the dignity of those who are seeking a better 
life," said Jeanne Atkinson, executive director of the Catholic Legal 
Immigration Network. "I'm hoping he'll speak of compassion toward refugees and 
asylum seekers."

Atkinson has been tracking Pope Francis' remarks. "He made a statement about 
the U.S.-Mexican border," she said. "He's concerned with Syrian refugees, 
trafficking, all that. He very much speaks to what CLINIC does."

As to whether the pope's visit will move the needle on a long-stymied overhaul 
of U.S. immigration policy, Atkinson thinks it depends on who's listening.

"A person who is virulently anti-immigrant, I don't think so." However, she 
clarified, "I think people are eager to hear what he has to say, Catholics, of 
course, but non-Catholics. I think he clearly speaks from a position of moral 
authority -- but without an agenda, in a sense. His agenda is the church's 
agenda. I think people will listen."

And should they listen, "I hope it will cause people to re-examine the church's 
position on immigration," Atkinson said. "The church has been a strong force 
for immigration and immigration reform for decades."

Opponents of the death penalty also hope the pope will mention their cause.

"We are hopeful he will follow in the footsteps of St. John Paul II and help 
facilitate the end of the use of the death penalty in this country and point 
out the need for reform within our criminal justice system," said Karen 
Clifton, executive director of the Catholic Mobilizing Network to End the Use 
of the Death Penalty, in a Sept. 4 statement emailed to Catholic News Service.

Clifton recalled St. John Paul's appeal against capital punishment during his 
January 1999 visit to St. Louis. The day after his appeal, a death row inmate's 
sentence was commuted to life in prison.

"Pope Francis has been very outspoken against the use of the death penalty, 
stating it is 'inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed. ... It 
is an offense against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human 
person, ... There is no humane way of killing another person,'" Clifton said. 
"With the current debate on the use of the death penalty in this country, Pope 
Francis' strong pastoral words need to be heard."

(source: Catholic News Service)

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

The 5 most controversial Supreme Court fights coming up


Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex 
marriage, ostensibly settling one of the biggest civil-rights questions of our 
time. This fall is stacked with even more controversial, politically charged 
cases.

Abortion clinics

Perhaps the most politically volatile coming Supreme Court case is Whole 
Woman's Health v. Lakey, which will decide whether dozens of abortion clinics 
throughout Texas can remain open - a decision that probably will affect other 
conservative states that have in recent years imposed harsh restrictions on 
abortion clinics.

"Not since before Roe v. Wade has a law or court decision had the potential to 
devastate access to reproductive healthcare on such a sweeping scale," Nancy 
Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told Bloomberg 
earlier this year.

In June, the court issued a temporary "stay," allowing the clinics to remain 
open until the case is formally decided. The stay, however, was opposed by the 
bench's 4 conservative justices: John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, 
and Samuel Alito. Anthony Kennedy, the court's usual swing vote in politically 
charged issues, joined the 4 liberal justices to permit the stay.

It's unlikely that the court's eight ideological stalwarts will change their 
mind in the case's formal deliberation this fall. Kennedy will once again be 
the swing vote, and it's uncertain how he'll decide when he hears the case in 
court; in the past, he has supported limits on abortion.

The vote could also have implications for other states' abortion limits. In the 
past few years, numerous other states have passed abortion restrictions similar 
to those in Texas, and a decision this term can sway how soon they will meet 
the Supreme Court.

The death penalty

3 big cases about the constitutionality of the death penalty are set to be 
heard this term: 1 from Florida and 2 from Kansas. With all 3 cases, the 
Supreme Court has opportunities to make it harder - or easier - for lower 
courts to assign the death penalty to criminals.

An important factor in determining whether the death penalty can be applied is 
whether the defendant is considered intellectually disabled. And whether 
someone is intellectually disabled is determined differently depending on the 
jurisdiction.

Florida's state Supreme Court ruled that a defendant in a capital case doesn't 
have the right to have a jury determine that. Timothy Lee Hurst, a convicted 
murderer in Florida v. Hurst, the case before the court, was deemed fit for 
capital punishment by one of Florida's courts, even though psychologists 
determined that he was intellectually disabled.

In the 2002 decision for Ring v. Arizona, the US Supreme Court decided that a 
jury was required to determine the factors that could allow the death penalty 
to be assigned to a convicted criminal. In light of that ruling, Hurst wants a 
jury to make the final decision on whether he is eligible for the death 
penalty. Florida argues that its procedural framework for death sentencing is 
sufficient.

The Kansas cases - Kansas v. Carr and Kansas v. Gleason - will be heard 
together. The Kansas state Supreme Court found Jonathan and Reginald Carr 
guilty of capital murder in 2000 but overturned the death penalty that the 
state wanted. Gleason, too, was found guilty, but the state Supreme Court 
overturned the death sentence as a punishment.

Sarah Johnson, an attorney with the state office defending Gleason and Jonathan 
Carr, told The Wichita Eagle that she was "honestly a little surprised" that 
the Supreme Court picked up the case. Kansas most recently executed someone in 
1965.

"We don't think this is an issue that really is worthy of the US Supreme 
Court's time and attention, but we are confident that once they get into it, 
they will recognize that the Kansas Supreme Court acted well within its 
discretion," Johnson told The Wichita Eagle.

The Kansas cases will rest on the question of whether the Eighth Amendment 
requires that a jury deciding capital punishment can be told that it isn't 
necessary to prove mitigating circumstances "beyond a reasonable doubt." That 
is to say, the court will decide whether the "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause 
applies when a jury is deciding whether capital punishment should even be 
considered in a case, not just when it's applied.

Affirmative action

Unusually, the case is being heard again. The first time, the Supreme Court let 
a lower court decide whether the university complied with the 
affirmative-action guidelines established in previous cases. But now the 
Supreme Court itself seems to want to see whether Fisher's situation satisfies 
affirmative-action requirements.

The Supreme Court has refined the rules of affirmative action over the years, 
and this case gives the opportunity for it to do that again. Kennedy, who is 
seen the swing vote in this issue, has never upheld an affirmative-action plan.

"I hope the justices will rule that UT is not allowed to treat undergraduate 
applicants differently because of their race or ethnicity," Fisher said in a 
statement when the court agreed to review the case again.

This particular case also has the rare chance to end in a tie; Elena Kagan will 
recuse herself from the case because she worked on it from 2009 to 2010, when 
she was the US' solicitor general. If that happens, the decision will loop back 
to the lower court.

Life sentencing for juveniles

Back in 2012, the Supreme Court decided in Miller v. Alabama that states may 
not sentence juveniles found guilty of murder to a mandatory life sentence 
without parole. Now, with Montgomery v. Louisiana, the court must decide 
whether that rule can be applied retroactively: Henry Montgomery, the plaintiff 
in that case, shot and killed a Louisiana sheriff when he was 17 years old - 
way back in 1963.

The Louisiana state Supreme Court refused to retroactively change Montgomery's 
sentence, and the Supreme Court must also now decide whether the court has an 
authority to do that, also making this a case of state-versus-federal power 
when it comes to certain kinds of sentencing.

Since the Miller v. Alabama ruling, hundreds of similar cases are being 
challenged again in the courts. Some states, like California, have agreed to 
allow inmates to apply for re-sentencing hearings, while states like 
Pennsylvania aren't. Florida, on the other hand, is relaxing its mandatory 
prison sentences in light of the ruling, throwing out every mandatory life 
sentence given to inmates who committed their crimes while a juvenile.

Unions

Many unions require that employees pay dues for representation by default but 
allow them to opt out. The decision for Friedrichs v. California Teachers 
Association might change the system to an opt-in one instead.

Labor unions tend to argue that the opt-out system is essential for their 
survival. They are legally required to act in the interests of all workers in a 
"unit" regardless of whether any one worker pays dues. Those nonunion workers, 
therefore, still benefit from the union's actions even though the union doesn't 
get paid by them.

Rebecca Friedrichs, one of the plaintiffs, told The Washington Post that she 
decided to pursue the case out of frustration with her union, which she said 
supported political candidates she didn't support, and didn't listen to the 
teachers it represented.

"Unions are not going to go out of business over this," Friedrichs told The 
Post. "Unions will still have full monopoly bargaining power. They'll still be 
there in the schools. The only difference I see is that workers will have a 
choice. If teachers see that a union is good, they'll join. If they feel like 
me and they're troubled in their conscience, they won't join. To me, it's a 
liberty issue."

Previous Supreme Court rulings have established complicated standards that, 
basically, allow unions to compel workers to pay dues if being a part of a 
union is required for the job. But even then, those unions may engage only in 
collective-bargaining activities, not speech-related activities.

A 1977 ruling, for Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, determined that these 
special types of unions could exist in a public workplace, like a school, but 
the court may overrule that this term. If it does, it can be a crippling blow 
to public-sector unions, such as teachers unions.

(source: Business Insider)