[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., N.C., S.C., FLA., ARK., NEB., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 18



PENNSYLVANIA:

Westmoreland judge rejects Daugherty murderer's complaints about death row 
conditions


The mentally disabled woman tortured and stabbed to death by Ricky Smyrnes was 
foremost on the mind of Judge Rita Hathaway on Thursday when she ruled that the 
murderer is going to have to make do with whatever comforts he can find on 
death row.

The judge rejected a defense request to appoint an expert to examine death row 
living conditions as part of Smyrnes' ongoing appeal of his death sentence.

"I guess you're asking me to make Mr. Smyrnes more comfortable on death row," 
Hathaway said at the hearing in Westmoreland County court. "I'm not hearing any 
argument that he's being tortured on death row, unlike the innocent victim in 
this case, Jennifer Daugherty."

Smyrnes, along with 5 of his Greensburg roommates, were convicted of the 
February 2010 torture slaying of Daugherty. The prosecution said Smyrnes, 29, 
formerly of Irwin, was ringleader of the group and convened "family meetings" 
in which the roommates voted to kill Daugherty, then discard her body.

According to testimony during the trials, Daugherty, 30, of Mt. Pleasant was 
humiliated, beaten, tortured and stabbed to death. Smyrnes and Melvin Knight, 
25, were convicted of 1st-degree murder and sentenced to death.

Hathaway presided over all the cases connected to the torture slaying. During a 
sentencing hearing this summer for Angela Marinucci, who is also appealing her 
sentence of life in prison without parole, the judge said Daugherty's murder 
was one of the toughest for her to sit through during her 2-decade career on 
the bench.

Hathaway has said she has nightmares and still struggles with the vivid details 
of what was done to Daugherty.

But it's Smyrnes who contends his death sentence is cruel and unusual 
punishment, because there is little likelihood he will be executed and he now 
stays in solitary confinement with little interaction with the outside world.

Smyrnes' appeal, in which he says there was insufficient evidence to support 
his conviction, also focused on constitutionality questions surrounding his 
sentence.

Defense attorneys Brian Aston and James Fox argued that Smyrnes' living 
conditions - in which he is allowed only 3 showers a week and out of his cell 
for 2 hours a day - cause him to suffer from hallucinations, paranoia, 
depression and loss of appetite.

"All of those psychological effects are due to solitary confinement and are 
cruel and unusual punishment," Aston said.

The defense argued that since the death penalty was reinstated in Pennsylvania 
in 1976, there have been 182 defendants sent to death row and only 3 executed. 
During that same time, there have been 124 cases in which death sentences were 
reversed and 118 cases in which capital punishment was reimposed as a result of 
new hearings, Aston said.

We're ready to explore whether the system itself is so broken it needs to be 
redone," Aston said.

Gov. Tom Wolf has imposed a moratorium on the death penalty until the state's 
practices with regards to capital punishment can be reviewed.

Meanwhile, the judge offered a suggestion to Smyrnes should he continue to have 
a problem with death row living conditions.

"The conditions you are complaining about should be addressed through a civil 
lawsuit against the Department of Corrections," Hathaway said.

(source: triblive.com)






NORTH CAROLINA:

Capital murder trial at least 6 months out

The capital trial of a man accused of murdering an 88-year-old man more than 2 
years ago will likely be at least 6 months away, and possibly as long as a year 
down the road.

Attorneys for Bobby Joe Jackson argued they needed 12 months to prepare for the 
death penalty trial, while prosecutors urged the judge to look at holding the 
trial in March 2016 - which will be near the 3rd anniversary of the death of 
Lindsey Stikeleather.

The trial was set to begin in November, but both sides told Judge Mark Klass 
that was not a possibility since one of Jackson's 2 attorneys withdrew from the 
case last month and a new one was just appointed.

Scott Gsell made his 1st appearance on behalf of Jackson at Thursday's hearing 
in Iredell County Superior Court.

Because this is a death penalty case, 2 attorneys are required. Gsell is the 
3rd second-chair appointed since Jackson was arrested in March 2013. 
Authorities contend Jackson, a former tenant of Stikeleather's, lured him out 
with a story about a broken scooter. Stikeleather went to a local bank and 
withdrew a large sum of money under threat from Jackson, authorities said.

Stikeleather's body was found underneath a bridge on Eufola Road, a few days 
after meeting Stikeleather about the broken down scooter.

Since Jackson's arrest in March 2013, the case has wound its way through the 
court system. Lori Hamilton was appointed to represent Jackson, and once the 
death penalty was brought into the picture, a second attorney, Craig Blitzer 
was appointed.

Hamilton told Klass that shortly after his appointment, Blitzer launched a 
campaign for district attorney in Rockingham County. She said his campaign left 
much of the trial preparation to her, and after he was elected, Blitzer 
formally withdrew from the case.

Dan Dolan, from the Capital Defender's Service, was then appointed as second 
chair. Dolan was on the case for more than a year when he asked to withdraw 
from the case last month. Dolan cited an unspecified conflict of interest. 
Judge Joe Crosswhite, resident senior superior court judge for Iredell, granted 
the motion.

Gsell was appointed last month, and he and Hamilton said he would need to get 
up to speed on the case, and in some instances, retrace investigative steps 
taken by Dolan.

Hamilton said the defense needs a minimum of 1 year to be ready for trial.

Assistant District Attorney Mikko Red Arrow, who along with District Attorney 
Sarah Kirkman is trying the case, told Klass a year was "absurd" and he 
proposed postponing the trial 6 months - until March 2016.

Red Arrow argued that while Gsell is new to the case, Hamilton has been 
involved since shortly after Jackson's arrest. "This is not a factually 
complicated case," he said.

Hamilton said she doesn't believe the 6 month timetable is realistic, adding it 
was likely she and Gsell would be back in court asking for a continuance if 
trial was set for March.

Regardless of when the trial date is set, Red Arrow said, it will be necessary 
to set aside a special session of court since the case will likely take more 
than the 2 weeks normally allotted to a session of Superior Court.

Klass agreed to set a tentative trial date for June 2016.

(source: Statesville Record & Landmark)

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

A troubling case in Davidson County


Recently, Davidson County had a death penalty trial that lasted a 
record-breaking 24 weeks and ended with a surprising plea bargain caused by the 
failure of the prosecutors to follow the law and comply with the orders of the 
court. After participating in one of the longest jury selections in North 
Carolina history, the state reversed course and offered a plea bargain to 3 
counts of 2nd degree-murder after the judge removed the death penalty from 
consideration because the prosecutors failed to comply with discovery laws and 
the orders of the court.

This unexpected plea understandably raised questions. In a recent one-sided 
column in the Winston-Salem Journal, District Attorney Garry Frank was quoted 
as expressing disappointment about what he considered an expensive loss for the 
state. He blamed it on Superior Court Judge Chris Bragg - a former prosecutor 
with experience prosecuting death penalty cases. Apparently, Frank felt that 
the judge unfairly pressed for a plea deal and undermined the state's case.

As Carl Kennedy's defense attorneys, who watched this case unfold over several 
years, we want to offer another perspective on why this trial ended in an 
unexpected plea bargain. It had nothing to do with an activist judge, and 
everything to do with the fairness and integrity of our justice system. This 
was a case where the prosecutors failed to follow both the law and the orders 
of the court repeatedly.

First, we acknowledge that Kennedy's trial was a tremendous waste of taxpayer 
dollars. Death penalty trials can be extremely expensive, and this one, handled 
by assistant district attorneys Alan Martin and Greg Brown, was even more 
lengthy and costly than most. But here's what hasn't been reported: In 
Kennedy's case, every penny could have been saved.

In August, 2012, long before the trial began, Kennedy offered to plead guilty 
to 3 counts of 1st degree murder and accept 3 sentences of life in prison 
without the possibility of parole. The deal would have saved hundreds of 
thousands in trial costs, ensured that Kennedy took full responsibility for his 
crimes, and that he would certainly die in prison.

Frank declined to accept a plea to three counts of 1st degree murder and 
insisted on a trial. Frank's office then failed to provide information that 
prosecutors were required to provide by law and the court's previous orders.

Death penalty cases are subject to heightened reliability and should be free 
from error to avoid the possibility of retrials and further expense to the 
taxpayers, not to mention the conviction of innocent defendants. Prosecutors 
are required to maintain open files and disclose evidence that may be favorable 
to a defendant. They are also required to disclose when they offer witnesses 
benefits in exchange for testimony against a defendant.

There is good reason for this law. Many innocent people who have been 
exonerated were convicted with the help of untruthful witnesses, who testified 
in exchange for reduced sentences for their own crimes. In a death penalty 
trial, this information helps the jury decide whether the witness' testimony is 
reliable enough to send a person to his death.

Frank's office did not turn over evidence that discovery laws mandate should 
have been turned over. This pattern continued even after the judge's repeated 
warnings. Then, on the day one of Kennedy's co-defendants was set to testify 
against him, the defense discovered more evidence that had not been disclosed.

Only then did the judge finally, and rightly, decide that the state should not 
be allowed to seek the death penalty in a case where the prosecutors had 
repeatedly not followed the law.

Nothing about the judge's decision prevented Frank's office from continuing to 
pursue a 1st-degree murder conviction and sentences of life without parole. 
However, Frank made the decision to agree to a plea of 3 2nd-degree murder 
charges.

The reality is that the District Attorney's Office compromised its own case by 
failing to comply with basic rules of discovery and the orders of the court.

This case was a tragedy all the way around and, in the end, a waste of time and 
money for all involved. But the lesson is this: Death penalty prosecutions must 
be carried out with the utmost integrity and fairness and prosecutors must 
follow the law.

The victims' families and the taxpayers of this state deserve a fair and 
trustworthy process. In a state where 9 innocent people have now been removed 
from death row, we must not look the other way when the prosecutors break the 
rules.

The blame for the outcome in this case and the waste of significant taxpayer 
money falls squarely at the feet of the prosecutors, and not the judge.

(source: Opinion; Robert E. Campbell practices law in Taylorsville. Lisa Dubs 
practices in Hickory----Winston-Salem Journal)






SOUTH CAROLINA:

Deputy met with former Pickens coach minutes before fatal shooting


An investigator visited and spoke with former Pickens High football coach Bill 
Isaacs about 10 minutes before he was shot dead on Monday morning, the Pickens 
County Sheriff's Office said. The 2nd victim in the double homicide, Isaacs' 
longtime friend Dickie Stewart, was on the phone with a 911 dispatcher when he 
was shot at the scene, according to a 911 call authorities released Thursday.

Albert Leon Bowen, 64, of Gilliland Road is charged with 2 counts of murder in 
their deaths. Thirteenth Circuit Solicitor Walt Wilkins said the double 
homicide qualifies for the death penalty, but authorities have not decided 
whether to pursue capital punishment.

Sheriff Rick Clark said there was no evidence of a feud or threats involving 
the victims.

The day before the shooting, however, Isaacs complained to the Sheriff's Office 
that someone shot at his vehicle, according to an incident report. Isaacs told 
a deputy by phone Sunday that the windshield of a replica model vehicle was 
damaged in his driveway, according to an incident report. The damage was 
consistent with a high-powered pellet gun, Clark said.

Isaacs was "adamant about not wanting a deputy to respond to the scene," 
according to the report. He wanted to deal with an investigator whom he had 
talked to previously, the Sheriff's Office said. Since September 2014, Isaacs 
and his wife had made 3 reports to the Sheriff's Office about damage to their 
vehicles, according to incident reports.

"It was believed that the property damage that happened to Mr. Isaacs was 
coming from the house across the street at Mr. Bowen's," Clark said. "Those 
were the initial things that we were looking at and trying to investigate."

However, none of the incidents could be tied to anyone in the neighborhood, the 
Sheriff's Office said. There were no reports of damage to Stewart's property 
prior to the shooting, Clark said.

Sheriff Clark said a detective met with Isaacs at 9:13 a.m. Monday at his home 
at 411 Gilliland Road. The detective left the home at 9:41 a.m. Monday to 
obtain information about the case at the Law Enforcement Center, authorities 
said. Isaacs decided to go for a morning walk when the detective left, Clark 
said.

The Sheriff's Office played two 911 calls at a press conference Thursday. In a 
call received at 9:50 a.m., a woman tells a dispatcher she saw a man lying face 
down on the ground on North Homestead Road, down the street from where Isaacs 
lived, authorities said.

In the 2nd call 1 minute later, Stewart says that Isaacs, his neighbor, is down 
on the ground. As the dispatcher questions Stewart, he yells in pain.

"I've been shot," he screams. "Please, not me, too."

The detective returned to the Isaacs home at 9:57 a.m., and Bowen was taken 
into custody at his home.

Clark declined to elaborate on a motive for the shootings.

In the past year, residents in the neighborhood reported hearing gunshots on 
multiple occasions.

In September 2014, Isaacs' wife, Margaret Isaacs, told a deputy that their 2 
SUVs were shot in the driveway, according to an incident report. An officer 
spoke with multiple people on Gilliland Road and on surrounding streets, 
according to a supplemental incident report.

One man said he shot every day for target practice but never in the direction 
of the Isaacs home, according to the report. Discharging a firearm is not 
illegal in the county jurisdiction of Pickens. An officer also talked to Bowen 
and his wife. They lived across the street from Isaacses.

An officer wrote in his supplemental report: "I am not positive, but I feel the 
shots must have came from a subject driving down the road."

In the report he said that Bowen "Albert stated he had also heard several shots 
during the past week and said it shook his house."

In December 2014, Isaacs reported to the Sheriff's Office that someone shot 
into his home and vehicle, according to an incident report.

No other incidents were reported until this past weekend, the Sheriff's Office 
said.

Isaacs lived in the neighborhood for decades, Clark said. He was the head 
football coach at Pickens for 27 years and is the winningest coach in the 
program's history. He was inducted into the South Carolina Athletic Coaches 
Hall of Fame in 2011.

(source: thestate.com)

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

Is life in prison less expensive than the death penalty?


The defense team for accused South Carolina church shooter Dylann Roof made it 
very clear this week: Their client wants to keep his life, even if it's behind 
bars.

Lawyers told the court Roof would plead guilty to all charges in exchange for a 
sentence of life without parole.

The Solicitor, Scarlett Wilson, said she will seek the death penalty.

Former South Carolina Attorney General Charlie Condon agreed, "I can't imagine 
a more appropriate case for the State to seek the death penalty."

A 2006 Columbia School of Law study found executions cost between $2.5 and $5 
million. A sentence of life without parole costs less than a million dollars. 
Reasons included that capital cases require at least 2 trials - 1 to determine 
the defendant's guilt and another to determine if the punishment should be 
death - greater scrutiny given to capital cases and their appeals, and higher 
costs for housing and monitoring a death row inmate.

Condon counters, "If you let cost be the depository factor, that leaves aside 
what the court should be about."

"Justice can be very expensive," he said.

Some states have decided it's just too expensive. New Jersey abolished the 
death penalty in 2007. The state spent $254 million over 21 years without 
executing a single person. New Mexico followed in 2009. In August of this year, 
Connecticut's highest court ruled the death penalty is unconstitutional.

Right now there are 43 inmates awaiting death in South Carolina. The last was 
executed in 2011.

(source: WBAY news)






FLORIDA:

Students face death penalty for alleged machete murder


5 Jobs Corps students were indicted by a Miami grand jury on 1st degree murder 
charges for allegedly hacking to death a 17-year-old schoolmate with a machete, 
according to court documents.

The 4 men and 1 woman aged 18 to 23, who were enrolled in Homestead Job Corps, 
a federally run live-in school, could face the death penalty. They are accused 
of planning the murder of Jose Amaya Guardado over the course of 2 weeks, 
including digging his grave beforehand, according to videotaped confessions, 
prosecutors say.

The alleged ringleader, Kaheem Arbelo, 20, pleaded not guilty in state court 
prior to Wednesday's indictment. A trial is set for Oct 19.

Guardado was reported missing from the school south of Miami in late June. 
After days of searching, his brother found him in early July decomposing in a 
shallow grave in the woods near the campus, according to a police report.

A series of final, brutal attacks by Arbelo allegedly caused Guardado's face to 
cave in, the report said.

Arbelo then had sex with the female suspect, Desiray Strickland, in the woods 
after the group allegedly cleaned up the crime scene and buried the dead teen, 
it added.

After the arrests, federal authorities suspended classes and began reviewing 
the school's operating procedures.

The murder has also caused increased scrutiny of the U.S. Department of Labor 
program which operates 125 campuses nationwide. The schools help at-risk men 
and women ages of 16 and 24 earn high-school degrees, prepare for college, or 
follow one of more than 100 vocational programs.

(source: Reuters)






ARKANSAS:

Justices affirm 2 inmates' sentences ---- 1 still faces death, other is in for 
life


A death-row inmate who killed his cellmate and a man who killed his girlfriend 
both lost appeals Thursday before the Arkansas Supreme Court.

The state's high court issued unanimous opinions affirming the death sentence 
for Robert Holland and the conviction and life sentence for Fred Williams.

Holland, 46, has been in prison since 1991, for killing his parents with a gun 
and a tire iron just outside El Dorado earlier that year. Once behind bars, he 
killed again.

Already serving a life sentence for one count of capital murder, Holland told 
prison officials in the Cummins unit in Gould that he wanted a cell all to 
himself.

Holland's refusal to share the space led to several disciplinary actions 
against him, and on Dec. 7, 2012, Holland agreed to accept a cellmate.

Hours after Matthew Scheile was transferred to the cell, Holland stopped prison 
guards on their rounds and informed them that he'd just killed the man.

Scheile, 22, was serving 4 years for failure to register as a sex offender; if 
he had lived 3 months longer, he would have been eligible for parole, prison 
records show.

Scheile was strangled with a bedsheet, according to reports, and Holland told 
state police investigators that he killed Scheile to have the cell to himself.

Holland was charged with capital murder and pleaded guilty early in his legal 
proceedings.

Prosecutors sought the death penalty and on July 14, 2014, Holland was 
sentenced to be executed.

Holland appealed last September, arguing that he was unfairly sentenced because 
state attorneys abused the jury-selection process.

State attorneys struck three blacks from the jury and Holland, who is white, 
objected, arguing that the attorneys were discriminatory in their selections.

In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court outlined standards for such an objection and 
noted that an appeal on these grounds is only valid if the trial judge ruled 
against the preponderance of evidence that prosecutors were systemically 
discriminating along racial lines.

State attorneys argued that one of the black candidates was struck because she 
knew a potential defense witness. Another was dismissed because her son was 
awaiting trial on accusations of smuggling contraband into a prison. A third 
prospective juror who had a son in prison also was rejected.

The state high court, in an opinion penned by Justice Rhonda Wood, found that 
the jury strikes were "sufficiently race-neutral" and that Holland's argument 
"boils down to 'the court should have not believed the State.'"

(source: arkansasonline.com)


NEBRASKA:

State foiled by improper paperwork in attempt to acquire execution drug


Improper paperwork thwarted an effort by Nebraska prison officials to import a 
disputed shipment of lethal injection drugs earlier this month.

Despite warnings from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that it is illegal 
to import foreign-made sodium thiopental, the state proceeded with plans to 
obtain the drug from a pharmaceutical broker in India. However, "improper or 
missing international paperwork" filed by the drug exporter prompted FedEx to 
return the shipment before it left India, Jim McCluskey, a spokesman for FedEx, 
said Thursday.

The company sends information about all imported drugs to the FDA and U.S. 
Customs officials in advance of their delivery, McCluskey said. "If the 
shipment is authorized, we will deliver it to the recipient," he said. "If it 
is not, we will return it to the foreign shipper."

According to FedEx tracking records, the shipment was picked up by the company 
Aug. 28 but returned to the exporter Sept. 4.

James Foster, spokesman for the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, 
said Thursday that state officials "will continue to work with all entities 
involved for the legal importation of the substances."

Earlier this year, Nebraska Corrections officials paid $54,400 to purchase the 
sodium thiopental and another drug called pancuronium bromide from a supplier 
in India. The substances, 2 of 3 required under the state's lethal injection 
protocol, had expired.

Gov. Pete Ricketts has said he remains confident that Nebraska will obtain the 
drugs, but the FDA says the sodium thiopental is no longer approved for use in 
he United States. The domestic manufacturer of the anesthetic stopped making it 
several years ago under pressure from death penalty opponents.

The FDA's position that the drug will not be allowed delivery to Nebraska or 
any other state remains unchanged, Jeff Ventura, the agency's spokesman, said 
in an email Thursday.

In support of its ban on the importation of the drug, the FDA has referred to a 
2013 federal appeals court ruling in Washington, D.C.

Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson has hinted that the state may legally 
challenge the FDA's blockade of the drug. Nebraska was not a party to the case 
that led to the appeals court decision, and Peterson has said the FDA has 
staked out a position that goes beyond what the court required.

The governor announced the purchase of the drugs last spring while the 
Legislature was debating a bill to repeal the death penalty in Nebraska. 
Ricketts wanted to counter arguments that the state would be unable to obtain 
the drugs needed to carry out an execution. Lawmakers voted to repeal the death 
penalty over the governor's veto. Death penalty supporters, however, apparently 
succeeded to obtaining enough petition signatures to put capital punishment on 
the ballot in 2016.

Nebraska last executed an inmate in 1997, when the method of execution was the 
electric chair. Some death penalty supporters have argued that the state should 
seek a change in protocol and use different drugs for lethal injection.

(source: Omaha World-Herald)






CALIFORNIA:

Death penalty's troubling contradictions


While in seminary in the San Francisco Bay area I had the opportunity to become 
the franchise owner/operator of a Shell service station on Highway 101 at the 
Corte Madera Y.

At that time, 101 was a 4-lane highway complete with stop signs at several 
intersections. Cars going north had stopped for the red light. There were 
several cars in the left-turn lane awaiting the light to change. A car not in 
that designated lane but in the center lane signaled he was going to make an 
unauthorized left turn.

In the car behind him was an off-duty California Highway Patrol officer who 
sounded his horn to warn the car in front of him to not make the turn. The 
driver in the car panicked and turned left directly in the path of an 
18-wheeler. Both the driver and passenger were ejected from the car and killed 
on impact.

My 1st experience with violent death. I can still see the body of the man on 
the pavement as I covered him with a blanket from the service station.

The next experience with violent death was as a legally mandated witness to the 
execution of a 38-year-old African-American man in San Quentin's infamous gas 
chamber. That particular Saturday morning I was working the day shift as a 
corrections officer. The required number of witnesses had not shown up, so the 
watch lieutenant tapped me to be the 13th witness.

The condemned man was strapped securely in the stationary oak chair directly 
over a cauldron of sulfuric acid into which the cyanide eggs were dropped. 
Coached by death-row personnel to take large breaths of the hydrogen cyanide 
gas, the condemned prisoner's body jerked 3 or 4 times and he was pronounced 
dead by the attending physicians, safely using remote stethoscopes.

Not the last bodies resulting from violent death I have witnessed, but 2 of the 
most vivid in my memory. One a senseless accident. The second the state of 
California's legally mandated act of societal revenge.

As of earlier this month, there were 747 male prisoners on San Quentin's death 
row. The 21 female condemned prisoners are held at the Central California 
Women's facility in Chowchilla. The death penalty is only one discouragingly 
intractable social dilemma involving crime and punishment.

In the United States we have 2.5 million people behind bars. That means with 5 
% of the world's population, we have 25 % of those incarcerated worldwide. In 
addition, there are 6 million people under some kind of court supervision.

In the face of this incredible drain on our national resources, costing some 
$30,000 per prisoner per year, some of our current presidential contenders are 
talking about shutting down the government if they can't defund Planned 
Parenthood. No one in the field of criminology leaves out "poverty" as one of 
the main contributing factors in criminal behavior.

Planned Parenthood spends 97 % of its resources on birth control and sex 
education. The other 3 % that could be used for abortion services is exempted 
from using any federal funds under the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976. The 
anomaly of those stridently in favor of the death penalty is they often are the 
same people opposing birth control and all abortion services. Go figure.

(source: The Rev. Chuck Arnold is pastor of Valley of the Flowers United Church 
of Christ in Vandenberg Village----Opinion, Lompoc Record)

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

Los Angeles father charged in stabbing death of 3 sons found in SUV


A father who was found with stab wounds in an SUV with his 3 sons dead in the 
back was charged with murder on Tuesday.

Luis Fuentes, 33, also known as Luiz Yantuche, was charged with 3 counts, 
prosecutors said.

The district attorney's office alleges special circumstances - multiple murders 
and use of a knife in a killing - that would make Fuentes eligible for the 
death penalty, but prosecutors said they have not yet decided whether to seek 
capital punishment.

Fuentes was being held without bail and was scheduled to appear in court 
Wednesday. It wasn't clear whether he has yet hired an attorney who could be 
reached for comment.

Authorities allege Fuentes used a knife to kill his young sons - 8-year-old 
Alexander, 9-year-old Juan and 10-year-old Luis.

A furniture store owner found the bodies. Fuentes was in the front seat 
bleeding from stab wounds to his chest with a knife sitting next to him but 
survived his injuries, authorities said.

Neither police nor prosecutors have cited a motive, but Fuentes' wife died in 
2008 and he had suffered from depression ever since, despite the efforts of 
friends and family to help, the Los Angeles Times reported.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Defense wants judge to recuse himself----The judge presiding over a death 
penalty murder trial, represented one of the defendants in a 1996 unrelated 
case


Defense attorneys in a death penalty murder trial have asked the judge 
presiding over the trial to disqualify himself from the case after learning 
that he represented 1 of the defendants in an unrelated robbery case in 1996.

During a court hearing Thursday, Sept. 17, Riverside County Superior Judge 
Bernard Schwartz told attorneys in the murder case he did not remember the 
robbery case involving defendant Romaine Martin, who is on trial with Deontray 
Robinson. Jurors were not present during the hearing.

Schwartz will meet again with attorneys Wednesday, Sept. 23.

A number of options exist, including: Schwartz could recuse himself from 
hearing the case; he could continue hearing evidence; declare a mistrial; or, 
as requested by defense and prosecution attorneys, he could issue a stay in 
proceedings to allow the Judicial Council of California to select an 
independent judge to decide the disqualification issue.

Martin, 40, of Moreno Valley, and Robinson, 25, of Palm Desert, face numerous 
charges, including murder and robbery, and special circumstances allegations of 
murder committed during a robbery, murder to benefit a criminal street gang, 
murder during a burglary and murder to prevent the testimony of a victim or 
witness. Their trial in the 2011 case began about 3 weeks ago.

According to court records and testimony, victim Jerry Mitchell Jr. was beaten 
and bleeding after a home-invasion robbery at his condo on Carnation Lane in 
Moreno Valley. Then, one of the robbers, identified by prosecutors as Robinson, 
returned to shoot Mitchell.

If the defendants are convicted of certain charges, the same jury would hear 
testimony in a penalty phase that could lead to a death penalty recommendation. 
While emphasizing he respected "the court" and fair treatment in the 
proceedings in reference to Schwartz, defense attorney Darryl Exum said, "The 
problem with this case is how it looks," the perception of impartiality and the 
consequences if the subject of the prior case comes up in the trial.

The defense received information last week that confirmed Schwartz, who was a 
defense attorney back then, represented Martin in the 1996 case. The case was 
filed at a time the Superior Court was transitioning between paper files and 
electronic records.

A short case abstract is available electronically, but Exum learned that 
because the case concluded in 1997 more detailed records are available. 
Prosecutors had provided information about the existence of the case prior to 
trial.

"I should have been able to find this out and I didn't. .... I take this 
responsibility," Exum said about learning of the previous case details.

A motion was filed on Martin's behalf Wednesday, Sept. 16, and later that day 
attorneys for Robinson filed a similar motion. Copies of the documents were not 
immediately available.

(source: Press-Enterprise)






USA:

Inside the growing conservative movement to end the death penalty


After years of sitting on death row in Oklahoma, Richard Glossip was scheduled 
to die on Wednesday. But today, Friday, he's still alive. That's thanks to a 
last-minute, 2-week reprieve - which was granted in no small part because of a 
growing cadre of conservative activists who oppose the death penalty.

Glossip's case - he was convicted of hiring someone to kill his boss - had 
exhausted every avenue of appeal, even briefly heading to the Supreme Court 
last year as the justices weighed the legality of lethal injection. But time 
and again, state officials and the legal system rejected his team's claims of 
innocence.

In recent weeks, pressure began to mount from evangelicals, young activists, 
and figures in the local media who wanted the state to take one last look at 
his case. The outreach to these groups came largely from an organization called 
Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty. Their outreach specialist is a 
man named Marc Hyden, a former campaign field representative for the National 
Rifle Association who argues that opposing capital punishment is a natural 
philosophical fit for tough-minded conservatives.

"Point to a single government program that works flawlessly. Death penalty 
supporters have to accept that it's a human-run program and so my question is, 
how many innocent people are you willing to execute?" Hyden told me.

The fallibility of government is just one of several strategic points from 
which Hyden and his conservative constituency come at capital punishment. They 
are also quick to point out that putting someone to death is far more expensive 
than simply keeping them in prison. Then there's the empirical data challenging 
whether the threat of execution is truly a disincentive for would-be criminals. 
Some anecdotal accounts challenge whether families of victims benefit in any 
measurable way from seeing a perpetrator put to death. And for the truly 
committed pro-life believer, there is the larger philosophical dilemma of 
whether a God-fearing society should be empowering the state to execute its 
citizens.

But none of these arguments carries the weight of innocence.

That brings us to the case of Ray Krone, an early player in state Republican 
politics before he was wrongfully convicted of murder. In 2002, Krone rose to 
prominence when he became the 100th U.S. citizen exonerated from death row 
since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

"I was in the Boy Scouts and the church choir. I did 6 years in the Air Force, 
7 years in the Post Office," Krone said in a phone interview. "This could be 
your son, father, neighbor. I didn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars for 
a great lawyer and most people facing death row probably don't either. How many 
innocent people take a plea bargain?"

That's where Hyden and conservatives find common ground with very liberal 
figures, such as the actress Susan Sarandon.

Sarandon has been vocally involved in Glossip's case, teaming up with Sister 
Mary Prejean, whom Sarandon portrayed in her Oscar-winning performance in Dead 
Man Walking. When I asked Sarandon what she thinks about her strange 
bedfellows, she said, "There's a lot of common ground there," noting with a 
laugh that's not something she would normally say about a group of conservative 
Republicans. "From a philosophical point of view, they're being very consistent 
in challenging government power."

40 years ago, the death penalty was far less common than it is today. But as 
the nation recoiled from a sense of liberal policies gone awry amid spiking 
crime rates, most of the country was all too happy to get behind a tougher 
criminal justice approach. And for hungry prosecutors in states where a strong 
conviction record is intrinsically tied to a bright political future, 
sentencing a violent criminal to death became a badge of honor.

Today, the death penalty is still supported by a majority of Americans, 
particularly conservative ones. However, the opposition has a few vocal 
opponents on the right, including former RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Oliver 
North. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has expressed his own skepticism, but it's 
unlikely to become a relevant issue on the 2016 presidential campaign trail. No 
one wants to become the next Michael Dukakis, forced into the emasculating 
position of defending the human rights of a spouse's imaginary sexual predator.

For those opposed to the death penalty, the strategy is largely mirrored in the 
push for same-sex marriage. Change policy at the state level and hope that 
doing so serves as the catalyst for a shift in public opinion, eventually 
leading to more direct action at the federal level.

Support for the death penalty has noticeably dropped, peaking at 80 % in the 
mid-1990s and dropping to 63 % in the most recent Gallup data available. 
However, only 33 % of people say they oppose capital punishment, still nearly 
10 % away from when the country was more or less split on the issue from the 
early 1960s through the mid '70s. Ironically, it was during a 4-year suspension 
by the Supreme Court, from 1972 to 1976, that support for state-sanctioned 
murder began to peak.

Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty got off the ground in 2010 in 
Montana, an ideal breeding ground for forward-thinking conservative positions. 
After all, this is the same state where citizens have tussled with the federal 
government over using their gun registration cards to purchase medical 
marijuana.

Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty has expanded to states 
including Florida, Delaware, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, 
Georgia, Connecticut, and Nebraska. The latter 2 abolished capital punishment 
this year. Altogether, 7 states have banned the death penalty since 2000, by 
far the biggest shift in American history.

Over the coming days and weeks, Glossip's case will bring an increased 
spotlight to capital punishment and whether it has a place in modern American 
society. It's unlikely any one case will prove to be the tipping point, but 
when you consider that just 5 years ago, legalized marijuana and gay marriage 
seemed farfetched to most, it's not crazy to think that with a bipartisan 
coalition opposing it, the death penalty may soon find itself on life support, 
too.

(source: The Week)

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

Charlie Rose Talks to Stephen Breyer ---- The Clinton appointee weighs in on 
his fellow Supreme Court justices and his stand against the death penalty.


Your book, The Court and the World, explores foreign law's impact on the U.S. 
legal system. Give me an example.

We've had 3 cases involving a treaty about domestic affairs, about abduction of 
children. They're tough cases. We have groups who were trying to fight child 
abduction on one side and groups who are against spousal abuse on the other. 
Why are we suddenly deciding these matters? Because the world today is filled 
with marriages that cross boundaries. The problem is, how do we adjust our 
institutions to sensibly create rules in a world where so many of these issues 
cross borders? It's not a problem that's been solved.

I know lots of people who want to see the rule of law reach across borders 
before they'll do business with or live in another country.

The point in this book is that by participating in what's going on in this 
world legally, we'll further the rule of law. And if we don't participate, what 
will happen is the world will go on without us. Who are we? We're people 
Jefferson and the founders said are engaging in an experiment. Lincoln said, 
"We are engaged in a great war to see if this nation or any nation so conceived 
and so dedicated can long endure." And that's why I want us to think about 
what's going on beyond our shores and the relevance of what you're arguing here 
to what's going on over there. And there are plenty of places where it's 
relevant. Plenty.

You wrote a dissent in Bush v. Gore. Talk about what you learned from that 
experience.

What I find most interesting in that case is that we did accept the rule of 
law. Many Americans opposed it, probably half. And it may be wrong. After all, 
judges are human, and their decisions may be wrong. And if we're not prepared 
to accept that, we don't have rule of law. What I say to students on that is, 
"I know 20 % of you are thinking, 'Too bad there weren't a few riots.' Before 
you come to that conclusion, turn on the TV set and see what happens in 
countries where they make their decisions that way." I see in front of me 
people who are committed to deciding under law. That's a great thing. It's a 
great asset for this country. It's amazing, actually.

"If we don't participate, what will happen is the world will go on without us."

Explain your dissent questioning the constitutionality of the death penalty.

I said we should go back and consider the basic issue. That's what judges do. 
And they don't announce the decision before they read the briefs. But I can say 
there's enough right in front of us, which is what I did say. There's enough in 
terms of the wrong person [being executed] sometimes, in terms of the arbitrary 
way in which it seems to have been applied, in terms of how long it takes - the 
average time a person is sentenced to death, between that moment and the time 
of execution, is 18 years. And I said, "Don't you think it's time to reconsider 
the matter?"

What's the dynamic among you and your 8 longtime co-workers?

I have not heard a voice raised in anger in that court. We disagree, but we 
disagree civilly. And we can be friends. And we are. It's professional. The 
disagreements can be serious, but no loud voices and no insults, not even as a 
joke. And that's true for 20 years. I tell law students, "You can make your 
point. And you'll make it better if you make it in a civil way."

What do you think will be on the court's agenda, and how do you prepare?

If there's an issue in this country that people are concerned about, it's quite 
likely to come up in front of the court. The way a judge proceeds and the 
strength of the institution is not to have a blank mind but to have an open 
mind. It means you do, in fact, read what people write on the issue. You think 
about it, and you don't just react as you might at a cocktail party. You 
discuss it with others and you make a decision. That's a kind of 12th grade 
civics text explanation, but the courts do work that way.

Your fellow justices come to their decisions in very different ways, don't 
they?

I used to think, "Isn't it too bad that not everyone agrees with me?" And I've 
sort of changed on that because it's a big country. There are 315 million 
people, and it isn't so terrible to have a Supreme Court where different judges 
do, in fact, have somewhat different attitudes some of the time.

(source: Bloomberg News)