[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., FLA., OHIO, TENN., OKLA., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 11



PENNSYLVANIA:

Justices Hear Death-Penalty Moratorium Debate


Gov. Tom Wolf's decision to grant a reprieve to a death row inmate - and 
announcement that he would grant more while a study of death penalty procedures 
was ongoing - should be set aside as an unconstitutional open-ended suspension 
of his duty to enforce the law, prosecutors argued to the state Supreme Court 
on Thursday.

But H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr., representing the Wolf administration, argued the 
reprieves are not permanent, but indefinite pending a recommendation by a state 
task force.

"It's not an unchecked power," Moulton said. "If the people are unhappy with 
the way this governor is granting reprieves, they could choose another 
governor," or amend the constitution.

Justice J. Michael Eakin asked both sides whether Wolf inadvertently created 
the dispute when, instead of simply granting indefinite reprieves pending the 
task force recommendations, Wolf instead announced he was instituting a 
moratorium on the death penalty.

"Are you asking us to overturn his political pronouncement?" Eakin asked Hugh 
J. Burns Jr., who argued the case for the Philadelphia District Attorney's 
Office.

"It's not a political question at all. He could have given a proper reprieve," 
Burns said. "What actually happened is the governor created a rule of general 
application," violating the separation of powers doctrine and his mandate to 
execute the state's laws.

Burns noted the moratorium has been cited as law in certain courts, most 
notably the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

"This shows that it is not a matter of individual clemency," Burns said. 
"Obviously, the executive is not a lawmaker."

Justice Debra M. Todd asked if a governor would be able to issue bundles of 
reprieves, as opposed to simply single reprieves or a moratorium stopping all 
executions.

"There's no limit on the number," Todd said. "You're characterizing it as a 
moratorium. Is it a moratorium or a collection of reprieves?"

Burns said Wolf's actions were not constitutional because the moratorium is 
premised on something that may never happen, as the recommendations may never 
be addressed or implemented.

"The recommendations may not even be possible," Burns said.

In February, Wolf granted a reprieve for Terrance Williams, whose case has been 
the subject of litigation for more than 30 years, and announced plans to grant 
reprieves until the task force's report is reviewed, and the findings are 
addressed.

Williams was convicted in 1986 of murder and robbery and he was sentenced to 
death in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. He appealed several times 
under the Post Conviction Relief Act. The trial court in 2012 vacated his 
sentence, but the Supreme Court reinstated it in December. Former Gov. Tom 
Corbett signed a death warrant in the case Jan. 13.

According to Moulton, the governor's open-ended ability to grant reprieves is 
nothing new. He said those powers have been used by governors since colonial 
times, and have remained with the office despite the laws being changed 
approximately 5 times.

Justice Correale F. Stevens, however, asked if making the reprieve dependent on 
the task force recommendations circumvented the General Assembly, and the 
court's role in addressing the issue. The justice compared the situation to a 
"clerk in Kentucky ignoring current laws," in reference to Rowan County, 
Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis, who recently refused to give marriage licenses to 
same-sex couples.

"Is that appropriate policy," Stevens asked.

"No," Burns replied.

However, later in the arguments, Todd noted the task force is not "some random" 
committee, but was established by the state legislature and chaired by Sen. 
Stewart J. Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, and Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery.

Still, Stevens asked, "Shouldn't it go back to the legislature?"

Moulton replied that nobody knows what the task force's recommendations will 
be, and noted the recommendations could be specifically aimed at legislative 
changes.

But it was exactly this unknown about what the recommendations will be and 
whether they will be followed that Justice Max Baer and Chief Justice Thomas G. 
Saylor said could make the prosecutors' arguments premature.

"What if the legislature follows the recommendations?" Saylor asked.

Burns replied that regardless of the findings, Wolf's actions had set up a 
condition that may never come to pass.

"That's just another way of saying, 'It's not a reprieve,'" Burns said.

(source: thelegalintelligencer.com)






FLORIDA:

Killer of teen girl denied appeal for state execution


A man who raped and killed a 13-year-old girl has had his appeal to state 
execution denied by the local court, according to court records.

Matthew Caylor, 39, has been on death row since he was convicted in 2009 of 
raping and killing Melinda Hinson in a Panama City motel room. Caylor strangled 
the girl with a telephone cord and then hid her body under the bed and placed 
the bed frame on her head.

Bay County Circuit Judge James Fensom on Thursday denied Caylor's motion vacate 
the court's judgment and sentence. It now can be appealed to the Florida 
Supreme Court.

According to court records, Caylor confessed to the murder and detailed the 
events leading up to a housekeeper at the Valu-Lodge Motel finding Hinson's 
naked body under the bed.

Her parents had reported her missing 2 days earlier, records show.

Officers reported that Caylor was on felony probation from Georgia in July 2008 
after he molested a 14-year-old, which he claimed to be falsely accused.

After he said he came to Panama City to relax, he told investigators Hinson 
came to his room to ask for a cigarette. Caylor said he felt that he had "been 
through all this because of something I didn't do," and he decided to "make it 
worth it," according to court transcripts.

Caylor claimed Hinson came on to him when he became angered and he began to 
choke her, investigators reported.

"It was like, more or less like you're the ... reason I'm in this situation I'm 
in now because I did the right thing," he told investigators. "I think it was 
more of a hate, like a hate, like I was really angry, I think it was ... That 
she was 13 coming on to me."

Caylor said after he strangled Hinson with the phone cord and hid her under the 
bed, he left the motel, officers reported.

Jurors found him guilty of 1st-degree murder, sexual battery with serious force 
and aggravated child abuse.

However, Caylor claimed he was denied a fair trial because his attorney failed 
to challenge jurors during the selection process; did not perform a sufficient 
investigation during the penalty phase; failed to obtain an adequate mental 
health evaluation; and did not provide effective counsel in pursuing post 
conviction remedies.

He also argued that execution by electrocution or lethal injection violated his 
constitutional rights, court records indicate.

Fensom denied Caylor's claims.

(source: Panama City News Herald)






OHIO:

Death row inmate's new trial request denied


A judge has denied a new trial request made by a Lima man sitting on death row.

Allen County Common Pleas Court Judge David Cheney overruling Jeronique 
Cunningham's petition for a new trial. Cunningham was convicted by a jury of 2 
counts of aggravated murder, both with the death penalty specification. Earlier 
that year, Cunningham and his half brother Cleveland Jackson shot 8 people in 
an apartment on Eureka Street. 2 children died of gunshot wounds.

In the petition, Cunningham claimed one of the jurors knew him and the victim's 
family and used the information to sway the others. The ruling states that the 
petition was filed too late and that there was not enough evidence to the juror 
misconduct claim. The case will go back to an appeals court. Jackson has run 
out of appeals. His execution is scheduled for next year.

(source: hometownstations.com)






TENNESSEE:

State Supreme Court Upholds Conviction, Death Penalty For Tipton County Man


The Tennessee Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty for the man who 
kidnapped, sexually abused, and murdered a woman in west Tennessee in 2010.

Rickey Alvis Bell, Jr. appealed his conviction and sentence after a trial court 
found him guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual 
battery, and 2 alternative counts of 1st-degree felony murder. The jury 
sentenced Bell to death for the 1st-degree murder conviction. The Court of 
Criminal Appeals upheld the convictions and sentence, despite finding that 2 of 
the 4 aggravating circumstances that warranted the death penalty were not 
supported by the record.

The Supreme Court, which is required to review all death penalty cases, also 
considered 5 other issues on appeal. The 1st issue was whether it was proper 
for the state to seek the death penalty in light of Bell's possible 
intellectual disability. The court determined that the defense failed to prove 
that Bell suffered from an intellectual disability that would make him 
ineligible for the death penalty. The court also upheld the constitutionality 
of Tennessee's law on this subject, concluding that defendants are permitted to 
present evidence of intellectual capacity in addition to I.Q. test scores, 
thereby avoiding any constitutional issue.

Next, the court reviewed Bell's 2 motions for mistrial based on testimony that 
he previously had been incarcerated, which typically is not admissible. The 
court determined that the brief testimony was not elicited by the state and was 
lacking in detail, that the trial court properly instructed the jury not to 
consider that statement, and that the other facts presented in the case where 
enough to outweigh any effect that limited testimony may have had on the jury.

The court also reviewed the trial court's decision to prohibit any testimony 
regarding the husband's extramarital affair with his ex-wife, which was ongoing 
at the time of the crime. The court agreed with Bell that the evidence was 
crucial to his defense, but determined that, in light of the entire record and 
the overall strength of the state's case, the information would not have 
altered the jury's verdict.

Bell next challenged whether the evidence was sufficient to support his 
convictions, an issue that often is appealed. After a trial court finds a 
defendant guilty, the burden shifts to the defendant on appeal to prove that 
the jury should not have convicted him. The court determined that the proof was 
sufficient to support the convictions.

Finally, the court reviewed the evidence supporting the aggravating 
circumstances as part of its mandatory review of the death sentence. Before a 
defendant is sentenced to death, the state is required to prove at least one 
aggravating circumstance in the perpetration of the crime. These circumstances 
include factors such as previous convictions for violent felonies, the 
atrociousness of the crime, and whether a rape and/or kidnapping was committed 
during a murder.

In this case, the trial court found that 4 aggravating circumstances applied. 
However, upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that 2 of those factors did 
not apply. First, Mr. Bell's 1997 sentence from Pennsylvania did not involve a 
violent felony. Secondly, the trial court permitted the jury to apply the 
aggravating factors of the rape and kidnapping twice, when the law only permits 
one application.

Nonetheless, the court determined that the 2 remaining aggravating 
circumstances apply, and supported the death sentence. The Court also 
determined the sentence was not disproportionate to other similar sentences.

In a dissent written by Chief Justice Sharon Lee and joined by Justice Gary 
Wade, the 2 members of the Court disagreed with the majority on the issue of 
the defense presenting evidence of the husband's extramarital affair. Chief 
Justice Lee wrote that the evidence against Bell was not overwhelming and the 
trial court hindered Bell's defense by prohibiting him from presenting evidence 
of the victim's husband's affair.

(source: The Chattanoogan)






OKLAHOMA----impending execution

Death Row Inmate Richard Glossip Speaks To The National ENQUIRER


As the final seconds tick away before his almost-certain execution for murder 
in Oklahoma, a despondent Richard Glossip has spoken out to The National 
ENQUIRER to declare he's ready to meet his awful fate!

"I don't want people thinking that I want to die as a martyr, because I don't," 
Glossip said in his final interview from death row.

"I am ready to die to prevent this from happening to another innocent person!"

Glossip will receive a lethal injection on Sept. 16 for ordering the murder of 
his former boss - unless the governor of Oklahoma steps in to stay the 
execution.

However, Hollywood actress and activist Susan Sarandon has been pulling out all 
the stops to save the condemned man's life!

Susan - who won an Oscar for her portrayal of crusading, anti-death penalty nun 
Sister Helen Prejean in "Dead Man Walking" - is pressuring Oklahoma Governor 
Mary Fallin to halt the execution.

In the meantime, Glossip spends the last days before he'll be strapped to a 
gurney and wheeled into the death chamber confined to a cramped concrete cell 
in front of a flickering television in McAlester, Okla.

He was moved to the Oklahoma State Penitentiary's grim H-Unit, which houses 
death row, on Aug. 15, and sits just yards from the room where he will breathe 
his last.

"The worst thing is, they took away my music," Glossip told British journalist 
Christopher Bucktin of his stark surroundings.

In the wake of his interview with Bucktin, on assignment for The Mirror 
newspaper, Glossip can now only receive limited visits from family, clergy and 
lawyers.

In a world exclusive, Bucktin went behind bars to meet 52-year-old Glossip, who 
has been dreading his execution since he was first jailed in 1998.

"It was a bizarre and deeply disturbing experience - and helped me understand 
why campaigners like Sarandon are fighting to save this man's life," Bucktin 
said.

Glossip was convicted of 1st-degree murder for ordering the hit that killed his 
boss - based on the testimony of the man who actually committed the murder.

Justin Sneed, a handyman at the hotel where the 2 men worked, was able to avoid 
execution himself by cutting a deal with the state and fingering Glossip.

When Sneed was 19, he confessed to police that on the morning of Jan. 6, 1997, 
he beat Barry Van Treese to death, claiming Glossip put him up to it.

However, there is no physical evidence corroborating Sneed's story.

"When Glossip shuffled in, hands shackled, bent at the waist and wearing 
prison-issue clothing, he didn't look like the heinous individuals sharing 
death row with him," Bucktin said.

While he seemed defeated by the judicial system, Glossip showed little fear to 
our reporter, stunning Bucktin with his final pronouncement of innocence.

"It is just crazy for this to be happening in this country, but if I have to do 
my part to stop this (from happening) again, I will," the shackled Glossip told 
Bucktin under the din of an industrial air conditioner.

"I am not afraid to die, but if I do, in my heart and my head I know I was 
taken from this Earth for something I had no part in."

Meanwhile, Susan has been giving interviews, posting on Facebook and sending 
emails asking people to sign a petition to stop the execution.

Susan said: "Rather than accept a life sentence in exchange for a guilty plea, 
he put his faith in justice - and justice let him down."

Susan appeared on "Dr. Phil" to put pressure on Governor Fallin, who has the 
authority to delay the execution by 60 days.

"Fallin argued that (Glossip) had two trials and appeals and a full clemency 
board hearing (all) ruling his conviction and sentencing are just," said Susan. 
"But her argument is grossly inaccurate."

Susan read a letter from the condemned man on the air. "'If the worst happens, 
I want my death not to be in vain,'" Susan said, her voice cracking.

"There's no forensic evidence," declared Sister Helen, who joined Susan on the 
show. "His dying is wrong!"

Top legal experts consulted by The ENQUIRER concur.

Even the daughter of Glossip's accuser has cast grave doubt on her father's 
damning testimony. "For a couple of years now, my father has been talking to me 
about recanting his original testimony," O'Ryan Justine Sneed wrote in a 
letter. "I feel his conscience is getting to him."

But it may be too little too late for Glossip, who defiantly told our reporter 
his death will not be without purpose.

"When I am on the table, I really would like Governor Fallin and all the people 
who put me there to witness my execution. "I'd look at them and say, 'Look 
innocence in the eyes before you murder it.' That way, my blood ends up on 
their hands. That's what I want my last words to be.

"No man should die for a crime they didn't commit."

(source: National Enquirer)






CALIFORNIA:

California Death Penalty Appeals Process Lawsuit Could End Capital Punishment, 
Shape National Debate


In a system plagued by delays that can last decades, getting sentenced to death 
in California is tantamount to serving a life sentence fraught with the 
uncertain threat of execution, a U.S. District Court judge ruled last year. 
That constant tension violates the U.S. Constitution's Eight Amendment 
protection against cruel and unusual punishment, the judge determined, because 
prisoners are never sure whether they would live or be executed.

The ruling has thrust the nation's largest death row to the forefront of a 
national debate on whether the U.S.' costly capital punishment system violates 
human rights. California officials have asked a federal appeals panel to 
overturn the 2014 court ruling, but if the federal judges determine the state's 
death penalty system is unconstitutional, it could lead to the reprieve of the 
more than 740 people on death row or at least an overhaul of the system to 
correct its problems. The case could make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, 
where a decision on the constitutionality of the death penalty would have 
national legal implications as more states debate the legal and human costs of 
capital punishment.

"I wouldn't be surprised if other states were to abolish the death penalty, 
whether that be because of California or a decline in use of the death penalty 
nationally," said Daniel Nagin, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who studies the death penalty. "There's clearly much 
less enthusiasm [for the death penalty]."

The Death Penalty In California

California has the highest number of people on death row in the country, 
outnumbering other states significantly. Florida has the 2nd highest number of 
death row inmates at 401, and Texas has about 271. Of the 900 people sentenced 
to death in California since 1978, 94 have died of natural causes and only 13 
have been executed.

While other states don't have as many death row inmates, they carry out more 
executions. Since 1976, Texas has executed 528 inmates and Oklahoma has 
executed 112. California has not executed a prisoner in 9 years.

Capital punishment in California has created a staggering cost for taxpayers. 
Between 1978 and 2011, capital punishment cost California taxpayers more than 
$4 billion, which went toward pre-trial, trial and appeals costs, according to 
the Death Penalty Information Center, a non-profit organization that compiles 
data on the death penalty based in Washington, D.C..

The high number of California inmates waiting to be executed is a result of 
long delays on death row. The state Legislature created the Habeas Corpus 
Resource Center in 1998 to provide death row inmates who can't afford private 
attorneys with legal representation in their appeals. But the Legislature 
limits the number of court-appointed attorneys at the center to 34, making it 
nearly impossible for appeals to be filed for the more than 740 death penalty 
cases in a reasonable amount of time, Robert Dunham, executive director of the 
Death Penalty Information Center said.

Convicts sentenced to death have an automatic appeal which they cannot waive, 
meaning every case has to be handled by at least one attorney. The plaintiff in 
the 2014 case, Ernest Dewayne Jones, was sentenced to death in 1995 after being 
convicted of the 1992 rape and murder of his then-girlfriend's mother. Jones' 
attorneys argued that the state didn't allow for a timely review of his appeal 
and that delays in his case were much longer than in other states.

U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney last year ruled in Jones's case that 
California's death penalty system was flawed and that delays essentially meant 
those on death row would languish their indefinitely, never seeing their 
executions carried out. Carney said the long waits inmates see on death row 
make the death penalty cruel and unusual.

The appeals judges could rule that the state needs to fix the death penalty 
system instead of abolish it, said Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio 
State University in Columbus, Ohio, and an expert on criminal punishment. That 
could mean making the wait time for death row inmates less extensive.

But if the court were to say the state needs to fix the system, that could give 
death penalty opponents more firing power to push for the abolition of the 
punishment altogether, Berman said. He said opponents would most likely bring 
up the high cost associated with preserving the death penalty, and some 
lawmakers could suggest a ballot initiative to abolish executions.

"They might say, 'Why throw good money after bad to make this system work?'" 
Berman said.

Nagen said for another state to take California's lead, that state's problems 
with the death penalty would have to be similar to California's - extended 
waits on death row.

That means Texas, which sentences many prisoners to death and carries out those 
sentences much of the time, might not look to California as a leading example. 
But a state like Pennsylvania, which rarely carries out death sentences, might 
look to whatever happens in California with more scrutiny.

A National Precedent?

Critics argue that the death penalty is not a dependable form of punishment 
given that some people sentenced to death are possibly not guilty of the crime 
they were convicted of. About 4 % of people on death row are thought to be 
innocent, underscoring a significant problem in a system that ends peoples' 
lives, said Austin Sarat, a jurisprudence and political science professor at 
Amherst College in Massachusetts.

At least one U.S. Supreme Court justice has questioned the constitutionality of 
the death penalty in recent months, and the California case could represent an 
opportunity for the high court to take a broad look in the near future at 
whether the death penalty should be allowed in the United States. In writing 
the dissenting opinion in the most recent case to come before the court 
regarding the death penalty, Glossip v. Gross, Justice Stephen Breyer invited 
the issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty to come before the 
court.

In Glossip v. Gross, attorneys for prisoners in Oklahoma claim claimed that a 
three-drug protocol for lethal injections was cruel and unusual because the 
first drug given would not make a prisoner unconscious before getting the other 
2 drugs, which cause a lot of pain. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the 
use of the 3-drug approach was constitutional as the petitioners in the case 
failed to adequately prove it was unconstitutional.

Glossip v. Gross followed the same path as the California case currently under 
debate before being brought to the Supreme Court. It first came up in a U.S 
District Court, then was kicked to a U.S. Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court has made broad decisions on the death penalty before, such as 
in the 1972 case Furman v. Georgia, in which a temporary moratorium was placed 
on the death penalty nationally, and the 1976 case Gregg v. Georgia, in which 
the court said the death penalty could be used in the country.

Support On The Decline

The Connecticut Supreme Court struck down the state's death penalty as 
unconstitutional in August, relieving 11 inmates on death row. Connecticut was 
the seventh state to abolish capital punishment since 2007 after Illinois, 
Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and New Mexico. As of 2015, a total of 
19 states and Washington, D.C. do not have the death penalty, according to the 
Death Penalty Information Center.

While many Americans support the death penalty, opponents of capital punishment 
have grown in recent decades. Some 48 % of people say they favor life without 
parole for murderers instead of the death penalty, while 43 % of people favored 
the death penalty for convicted murderers, according to a June poll from 
Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Connecticut. Researchers have also found that 
while 56 % of people favor the death penalty overall, support for capital 
punishment has dropped since 1996, when 78 % of people favored execution, 
according to an April poll from the Pew Research Center, a think tank based in 
Washington, D.C.

If California were to throw out its death penalty, it could create a domino 
effect around the country, some legal experts predict. "Indisputably, every 
state that has modified its death penalty in any way has had an echo effect in 
other states and around the country," Berman said.

Michael Radelet, a sociology professor at the University of Colorado in 
Boulder, Colorado, who studies capital punishment, said that if California's 
death penalty were to be abolished, it would influence people in other states 
who make decisions regarding the death penalty, such as jurors and prosecutors.

"It would make it more acceptable for jurors to voice reservations about the 
death penalty and make it more palatable for prosecutors to decline to seek a 
death sentence," Radelet said.

Declining support for the death penalty in recent years has already influenced 
the way states sentence people to death. Since the 1990's, death sentences have 
decreased by more than 2/3, Sarat said.

"The most important thing is the recognition that the death penalty system is 
unreliable," Sarat said. "It's the machinery of death."

(source: International Business Times)

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

Case delayed for man accused of killing 3-year-old Sophia Acosta


A man accused of killing a toddler was in court Thursday. His defense team is 
trying to get the death penalty off the table but the hearing has been 
postponed.

The family of 3-year-old Sophia Acosta gathered outside a courtroom on 
Thursday. Cameras weren't allowed to show the toddler's accused killer, 
Christopher Cheary, in court. His defense team is trying to get the death 
penalty off the table. However, the hearing was continued until October 6th.

"Recently they've been subpoenaing information from the prison system and we're 
stuck dealing with those issues," said David Alavezos, a supervising 
prosecutor.

Sophia would be 7 if she were still alive today. Instead her life was cut short 
in May 2011 when she was found injured and not breathing. Less than a month 
later Christopher Cheary was arrested by Exeter police. He was dating Sophia's 
mom.

Cheary faces murder and sexual assault charges. There are special circumstances 
attached to those charges that if convicted could mean the death penalty. 
Alavezos says death penalty cases include a penalty phase trial after the 
regular trial.

Alavezos added, "The defense can present all kinds of evidence for why life 
without possibility of parole is more appropriate punishment than the death 
penalty."

The trial is set to start in January -- that's what the family has been wanting 
for more than 4 years.

"We are seeking justice, we know they want justice and its gonna take some time 
to go through the process," said Alavezos.

The prosecution says they've been ready for the trial for 2 years.

(source: ABC news)






USA:

Man Facing Death Penalty Retrial for 2000 Killing Due in Court----Federal 
prosecutors have formally filed notice that they will again seek the death 
penalty against Donald Fell


A Vermont man facing a new trial for the 2000 killing of a woman who was 
abducted when she arrived for work at a Rutland supermarket and later killed is 
due to appear in federal court.

Federal prosecutors have formally filed notice that they will again seek the 
death penalty against Donald Fell in the 2000 killing of Terry King of North 
Clarendon.

Fell was convicted of killing King in 2005 and sentenced to death, but his 
conviction was overturned because of juror misconduct. He is now facing a 
retrial in September 2016.

Among the issues expected to be discussed Friday is a 2012 incident in which 
Fell allegedly tried to kill another death row inmate in a federal prison in 
Indiana.

(source: necn.com)