[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OKLA., NEB., ARIZ., NEV., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 22


OKLAHOMA----impending execution

Attorneys for Oklahoma death row inmate Glossip file new affidavit claiming he 
was framed


Defense attorneys for an Oklahoma death row inmate whose execution was delayed 
last week filed a new affidavit Monday from a 2nd former cellmate who claims 
the man was framed.

Richard Glossip, 52, was just hours away from being executed Wednesday when the 
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ordered his execution halted until Sept. 30 
to give the court time to review a lengthy death penalty challenge that 
Glossip's lawyers filed a day earlier.

His attorneys are trying to convince the appeals court that Glossip did not 
commit the 1997 beating death of Barry Alan Van Treese of Lawton. A 
co-defendant, Justin Sneed, confessed to beating Van Treese to death in an 
Oklahoma City motel room, but said he did so at Glossip's direction.

The new affidavit from Joseph Tapley, whom the affidavit claims shared a cell 
with Sneed in 1997 at the Oklahoma County Jail, said he never heard Sneed say 
"anyone - especially not - Richard Glossip" enlisted him to kill the victim. 
Tapley's affidavit also claims Sneed discussed Van Treese's death 2 or 3 times 
while they were cellmates and that Sneed gave him "very detailed accounts" of 
how he killed Van Treese with a baseball bat.

"I am sure that Justin Sneed acted alone," the affidavit said. "He never gave 
me any indication that someone else was involved. He never mentioned the name 
of Richard Glossip to me. If he had told me that someone else was involved I 
definitely would have remembered that."

The affidavit says Tapley reached out to Glossip's defense attorneys on Sept. 
15 and was interviewed Sunday.

Previously, Glossip's attorneys gave the court an affidavit from inmate Michael 
Scott, who claims he heard Sneed say "he set Richard Glossip up, and that 
Richard Glossip didn't do anything." The Oklahoman reported Saturday, according 
to a prisons system document, that Scott once labeled himself a habitual liar.

Glossip's attorneys for the appeals have argued that his trial representation 
didn't present enough evidence to discredit Sneed, who was sentenced to life in 
prison and testified against Glossip.

A spokesman for Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office, which is defending 
Glossip's first-degree murder conviction and death sentence, did not 
immediately return a telephone call seeking comment Monday.

Glossip was twice convicted of ordering the killing of Van Treese, who owned 
the Oklahoma City motel where Glossip worked. Prosecutors said Sneed, a motel 
handyman, admitted robbing and beating Van Treese, but said he did so only 
after Glossip promised to pay him $10,000.

Had it not been halted, Glossip's execution would have been the 1st in Oklahoma 
since a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state's 3-drug lethal 
injection formula in June.

(source: Associated Press)






NEBRASKA:

New lawsuit says death penalty ballot language 'unlawfully misleading,' 
'unfairly slanted'


An anti-death penalty group has filed a second lawsuit against a referendum to 
restore capital punishment off the 2016 ballot.

Nebraskans for Public Safety, in a press release Monday, said the proposed 
ballot language, approved by Attorney General Doug Peterson, is "unlawfully 
misleading" and "unfairly slanted."

The plaintiff named in the lawsuit, defense attorney Lyle Koenig, said the 
language inaccurately states that life in prison would be the "maximum" 
sentence allowable if the death penalty is not restored.

In fact, it would be the only penalty allowed for 1st-degree murder if capital 
punishment is abolished, Koenig said, adding that the ballot language gives the 
incorrect impression that the repeal of the death penalty provides a more 
lenient sentence than life behind bars.

"Nebraskans have respectful differences of opinion on the death penalty," he 
said. "However, I think we can agree that all voters deserve a fair explanation 
of what this vote is really about."

The lawsuit follows one filed last week asking that the referendum be blocked 
because Gov. Pete Ricketts was not listed as one of the sponsors.

The Republican governor has been a leading financial backer of the drive, and 
his privately funded political consultant helped coordinate the 
signature-collection effort.

The Nebraska Legislature voted in the spring to repeal the death penalty, 
overriding Ricketts' veto.

That prompted the formation of Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, which launched 
a petition drive to put the issue before voters in the 2016 election.

The effort to get the issue on the ballot appears headed for success.

Nebraskans for the Death Penalty turned in 166,692 signatures last month.

On Friday, Secretary of State John Gale announced that more than enough 
signatures had been verified to place the issue on the ballot and suspend the 
repeal of the death penalty until that vote is taken.

Gale said he could not make that official until the signature verification 
process is further along.

Nebraskans for Public Safety includes 2 of the leading anti-death penalty 
groups in the state, ACLU of Nebraska and Nebraskans for Alternatives to the 
Death Penalty.

Both lawsuits have been filed in Lancaster County District Court.

(source: Omaha World-Herald)

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

Too civilized for death penalty


Let's keep the death penalty out of Nebraska ("Death penalty repeal appears to 
be on hold," September 18). I am opposed to the death penalty for so many 
reasons. Mistakes are made and people are wrongfully convicted. The death 
penalty is meted out unfairly. If you are a person of color, you are far more 
likely to get the death penalty than if you are white. That is especially true 
if the victim is white. It is more expensive to have the death penalty option, 
rather than life in prison without possibility of parole because of the 
built-in safeguards. The money we save by abolishing the death penalty could be 
put to use elsewhere. Health professionals are required to attend, if not 
administer, the death penalty, which is a violation of the Hippocratic oath. It 
can be emotionally devastating to the prison personnel to lose someone they 
have overseen for a period of years and the death penalty is 
government-sanctioned murder.

The United States should take the moral high ground by having life in prison 
with no possibility of parole as our ultimate penalty. We should not debase 
ourselves by putting ourselves on the same level as Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia 
and China. Certainly we are more civilized than that.

Linda Ager, Lincoln

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

Hypocrisy on death penalty


I read with continued amusement the hypocrisy demonstrated by the left over the 
death penalty petition initiative ("Governor responds to allegations in death 
penalty lawsuit," September 18). While they supported the people's right to 
vote on the minimum wage law, and will likely spearhead a similar drive for 
Medicaid expansion and other issues, the same effort by their opponents draws 
cries of foul, and outlandish claims that it subverts the democratic process.

Another thing that seems to repeatedly drive them into an apoplectic frenzy is 
the funding provided by Governor Ricketts for a portion of the drive, which he 
did openly and honestly. All this is done while neglecting to detail where the 
funding for their counter effort is coming from; widely reported, including by 
the Journal Star ("Death penalty financial reports filed," July 2), to be 
George Soros, the foreign-born socialist billionaire, who has provided this 
funding through a Massachusetts shill organization in an attempt to hide his 
involvement.

Dave Kendle, Lincoln

(source for both: Letter to the Editor, Lincoln Journal Star)






ARIZONA:

Rosemary Velazco, Carlos Cruz update: Death penalty sought for parents of 
3-year-old Surprise girl


Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for a Surprise couple accused of 
killing their 3-year-old daughter four months ago.

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office said Monday that the intent paperwork has 
been filed in the cases against 36-year-old Rosemary Velazco and 28-year-old 
Carlos Tercerro Cruz.

Both pleaded not guilty to charges of 1st-degree murder and felony child abuse 
in June. Their trial date hasn't been set.

Prosecutors say Alexandra Velazco-Tercerro weighed only 15 pounds when she was 
found dead May 23.

Surprise police say the girl showed signs of extreme malnourishment and had 
numerous injuries.

Authorities say the girl was placed in foster care at birth because she tested 
positive for methamphetamines.

She was returned to her parents about 10 months later after they completed 
substance abuse and parenting classes.

(source: ABC News)

***********

Phoenix man, Christopher Licon, now facing death penalty over 2010 killings


A Phoenix man convicted of killing his half-brother and 6-year-old nephew in 
2010 now is facing the death penalty.

Maricopa County Superior Court officials say jurors on Monday found 2 
aggravating circumstances against 24-year-old Christopher Rey Licon.

The trial's sentencing phase begins Tuesday.

Last Monday, jurors rejected Licon's insanity defense and found him guilty of 
1st-degree murder and kidnapping in the death of 6-year-old Xavier Jaquez.

Licon also was convicted of 2nd-degree murder in the death of his half-brother, 
Angel Jaquez.

He faces 16 to 25 years in prison for that death.

Licon was accused of killing his half-brother in a drug dispute in December 
2010 and then gunning down his nephew who witnessed the murder.

He also was found guilty last week of kidnapping, burglary and tampering with 
evidence.

(source: Associated Press)






NEVADA:

Court upholds death penalty in slaying of Las Vegas woman


The Nevada Supreme Court today upheld the death penalty for Richard Haberstroh, 
convicted of abducting, sexually assaulting and strangling a Las Vegas woman.

Haberstroh argued the death penalty was excessive. He said his family had a 
history of alcoholism, that he was abused as a child and had mental problems, 
according to court documents.

In a unanimous decision, the court upheld the death penalty, noting, among 
other things, "the nature and circumstances of his crimes" and his "lengthy 
criminal record."

On July 21, 1986, he abducted Donna Kitowski, 20, from a grocery store parking 
lot in Las Vegas, according to court records. He took her to the desert outside 
the city, robbed her, sexually assaulted her and strangled her, the records 
say. The attack caused irreparable brain damage that led to her death.

Haberstroh, now 60, was sentenced to death. He was subsequently granted a new 
penalty hearing, but a jury returned the same sentence.

(source: Associcated Press)

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

Trial underway for suspect in airman's shooting death


Nathan Paet rushed out the door of his far southwest valley home, late to work 
at Nellis Air Force Base, and was gunned down before he could make it out of 
the garage.

Shot five times, the 28-year-old staff sergeant stumbled back inside, bleeding 
through his camouflage fatigues, and fell to the floor.

His wife, Michelle Paet, who prosecutors say wanted her husband out of the 
picture and planned the killing with her boyfriend, called police, as four 
young children watched their father die.

Just moments earlier on the night of Dec. 1, 2010, Michael Rodriguez had sent a 
text message to Michelle Paet that read, "This contract is a pain."

"This contract being the murder that they're planning, and that they're going 
to carry out," prosecutor Frank Coumou told jurors in opening statements of 
Rodriguez's death penalty trial Monday.

Michelle Paet replied to the text: "My husband just woke up. I guess he's late. 
Lol."

Rodriguez was waiting outside in his black Cadillac CTS with the alleged 
gunman, Corry Hawkins, prosecutors said.

"I got it covered," Rodriguez told Michelle Paet.

And just before the blasts from a .38-caliber handgun killed her husband, she 
replied: "He's rushing to get out the door. Lol."

Rodriguez is the first of four defendants, along with Michelle Paet, Hawkins 
and Jessica Austin, to face trial in the killing.

Defense lawyers portrayed Michelle Paet as the mastermind of the killing, and 
said she had tried to take out a life insurance policy on her husband as early 
as April 2009, long before she met Rodriguez.

The Paets had raised four children, ages 2 through 9, together, and Nathan Paet 
was unaware of his wife's infidelity, prosecutors said.

He was born in 1982 in Tamuning, Guam. He and Michelle were high school 
sweethearts. After graduation, Nathan joined the Air Force in April 2002, and 
the 2 married in 2006.

At Nellis, Nathan Paet was the assistant non-commissioned officer-in-charge for 
the Strike Aircraft Maintenance Supply section of the 757th Aircraft 
Maintenance Squadron.

Prosecutors said his life insurance policy was increased to $600,000 less than 
a month before he was killed. Authorities have said that Michelle Paet admitted 
to planning the killing in October 2010.

But Rodriguez, who was addicted to painkillers, stood to reap none of the 
financial benefits, defense lawyer Alzora Jackson told jurors.

She asked jurors to "determine if Mr. Rodriguez was capable of possessing the 
requisite intent" for 1st-degree murder.

Metro officer John Harris responded to the southwest valley home, where he saw 
blood stains on the garage floor and a streak of red on the white door. He 
walked inside and found Michelle Paet kneeling over her husband, feigning CPR.

Harris testified that the woman did not appear upset and her "demeanor did not 
match the situation."

He asked her what could have happened.

"It had to be random," she said. "It had to be completely random."

Nothing was stolen, and neighbors reported seeing the black Cadillac speed off 
without headlights after they heard gunfire.

As Nathan Paet lay dying, his wife reached her arms around the officer in what 
was described as a "flirtatious hug" that Harris found "strange, very strange."

After paramedics arrived, one of the children looked up at Harris and asked, 
"Is my daddy going to be OK?"

(source: Las Vegas Review-Journal)






USA:

U.S. justices unlikely to address death penalty's constitutionality


When the last U.S. Supreme Court term ended in June with an unusual showdown 
over a decision approving Oklahoma's lethal injection process, some court 
watchers saw it as a sign the court might soon take up the bigger question of 
the constitutionality of the death penalty itself.

But more recent signals from the court suggest that such a broad ruling is not 
likely any time soon, even though there are 3 death-penalty cases already on 
the docket for the new term, which begins Oct 5.

In the June case, which upheld Oklahoma's procedures by a 5-to-4 margin, 
liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in a dissenting 
opinion that called for a full reexamination of capital punishment. As 
currently applied, Breyer wrote, the death penalty "likely constitutes a 
legally prohibited 'cruel and unusual punishment.'"

Within 2 weeks of that June 29 decision, however, Breyer and Ginsburg indicated 
that they don't intend to raise their concerns in every death penalty case that 
comes before them.

On July 14, the court rejected last-minute stay applications filed by Missouri 
inmate David Zink. In one of his court filings, Zink had asked the court to 
rule that the death penalty was unconstitutional.

The court often rejects stay-of-execution applications without comment or a 
record of how justices voted, but it does note if justices publicly dissent, 
and neither Breyer nor Ginsburg did.

This month, the court rejected a similar stay application from another Missouri 
inmate, Roderick Nunley. Again, neither Breyer nor Ginsburg publicly dissented 
and the inmate was executed.

Their silence indicated that Breyer and Ginsburg were "not quite in the 
category of adamant opposition in all cases," said Kent Scheiddeger, legal 
director of the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

In any event, since 4 votes are needed to accept a case for consideration by 
the court, Breyer and Ginsburg would need two more justices to join them in 
support of hearing a case directly challenging the death penalty.

Fellow liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan also dissented in the 
Oklahoma case, but neither joined Breyer's opinion.

The court's conservatives would be expected to uphold the death penalty, with 
Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative appointed by President Ronald Reagan, 
likely to be the swing vote. He joined liberals in the majority in 2002, when 
the court banned death sentences for the mentally disabled, and in a 2005 case 
in which the court said that people sentenced to death for offenses committed 
as juveniles could not be executed. But he voted with his fellow conservatives 
in June's lethal injection case.

Some death penalty experts have suggested that Breyer's dissent in the Oklahoma 
case may have been carefully aimed. He was "writing not just for the public, 
but for Justice Kennedy," said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death 
Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that tracks the issue and does not take 
a stand on whether capital punishment should be abolished.

NIBBLING AROUND THE EDGES

Although death penalty opponents are now on alert that Breyer and Ginsburg are 
interested in a case that squarely attacks the death penalty, it could take 
time for the right case to come to the court. In the meantime, if the 
court-watchers' interpretations of Breyer and Ginsburg's moves this summer are 
accurate, the justices will likely continue to consider more discrete legal 
issues that nibble around the edges of the bigger constitutional question.

The case this fall most likely to attract public attention to capital 
punishment involves allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in Georgia. In that 
case, a black man, Timothy Foster, was sentenced to death by an all-white jury, 
and the question before the Supreme Court will be whether prosecutors 
unlawfully struck potential black members of the jury.

2 other cases scheduled for the session will focus on narrower, state-specific 
issues concerning the death penalty process in Kansas and Florida.

The high court has not seriously debated the constitutionality of the death 
penalty since the 1970s. In 1972, the justices effectively suspended it in the 
landmark Furman v. Georgia decision, ruling that the punishment was being 
imposed unconstitutionally. But the decision allowed states to re-write their 
laws to address the problem. Within 4 years, the court had approved new 
standards for death penalty cases, saying that, if states conformed to them, 
the punishment was constitutional.

The death penalty is on the books in 31 states, and the federal government also 
authorizes the punishment in cases it prosecutes.

There are signs that the U.S. public is turning away from the death penalty. 
The number of death sentences imposed fell to a 20-year low in 2014, according 
to the Death Penalty Information Center.

The high-profile ruling in June, Glossip v. Gross, came at a time of increased 
focus on the death penalty following several botched executions. The lead 
plaintiff in that case, convicted murderer Richard Glossip, received a last 
minute stay from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on Sept. 16, after 
filing new court papers claiming his innocence. His execution has since been 
rescheduled for Sept. 30 absent further court intervention.

(source: Reuters)