[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----IND., OKLA., KAN., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 26



INDIANA:

Indiana man's death penalty upheld in slaying-mutilation


The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the death penalty Thursday for a man convicted 
of killing a family friend and mutilating her body in a slaying the justices 
called "beyond horrendous."

The court affirmed William Clyde Gibson III's sentence for his 2013 conviction 
in the killing of 75-year-old Christine Whitis after finding no errors by the 
trial court among six issues Gibson raised on appeal.

Their ruling noted that Whitis, who had been the best friend of Gibson's late 
mother, was sexually assaulted by Gibson as he slowly strangled the Clarksville 
woman and even after her death.

Once she was dead, Gibson cut off part of her body and placed that severed 
flesh in the console of her van, which he then drove to various bars to go 
drinking, the decision noted.

"We find the nature of Gibson's offense to be beyond horrendous: he brutally 
murdered an elderly woman, sexually assaulting her in the process, even after 
she was dead, then dismembering her body," the justices wrote in their ruling.

Whitis' strangled and mutilated body was found in Gibson's garage in New Albany 
in April 2012, days before the body of 35-year-old Stephanie Kirk of 
Charlestown was found buried in his backyard.

Gibson, 57, pleaded guilty in Kirk's murder last year and was also sentenced to 
death in her killing - a sentence that's also been appealed to the state's high 
court, said Steven Ripstra, 1 of Gibson's 2 court-appointed attorneys.

Ripstra said he was disappointed by the court's ruling in Whitis' killing. He 
said he thought one of the issues the appeal raised about the Floyd County jury 
that convicted Gibson "was very good."

"It doesn't look like they addressed that in great detail," he said Thursday.

Ripstra said he would file a motion asking the court to rehear Gibson's appeal, 
and if that is rejected the next step would be to appeal the case to the U.S. 
Supreme Court.

Gibson also pleaded guilty last year to the fatal stabbing of Karen Hodella, a 
44-year-old from Port Orange, Florida, who had been visiting Indiana. Her 
remains were found in 2002 in Clarksville along the Ohio River. Gibson received 
a 65-year sentence in her killing.

(source: Associated Press)






OKLAHOMA:

Oklahoma Attorney General's Office Calls New Witnesses In Glossip Innocence 
Claim 'Inherently Suspect'


In a Thursday court filing, the Oklahoma Attorney General's office called new 
witnesses in death row inmate Richard Glossip's innocence claim "inherently 
suspect."

Glossip, 52, came within 4 hours of execution on Sept. 16 before receiving a 
stay from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The court postponed Glossip's 
lethal injection until Sept. 30 in order to review new evidence in his claim 
that he is innocent. Glossip was sentenced to death for hiring Justin Sneed to 
kill their boss Barry Alan Van Treese in 1997.

In recent weeks, Glossip's legal team has filed affidavits from 2 men who 
served time with Sneed who said he either lied about Glossip's involvement in 
the killing or never mentioned it at all. A 3rd affidavit from a man who took 
drugs with Glossip's brother also conflicts the prosecution's position that 
Sneed was under Glossip's control.

The legal team is asking the court to hold an evidentiary hearing to look at 
the new evidence.

Sneed received a sentence of life without parole after testifying that Glossip 
hired him to murder Van Treese. In a 2014 interview with The Oklahoman, Sneed 
stood by his testimony that Glossip asked him to murder Van Treese.

In the Thursday filing, Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Miller called the 
testimony of the former inmates questionable, pointing to the fact that all 3 
testimonies came very late and that each one of the witnesses has a checkered 
past that includes drug abuse and serious crime such as rape and burglary.

The most recent affidavit is from a man named Joseph Tapley, who said he shared 
a cell with Sneed in the Oklahoma County jail shortly after the murder. Tapley 
testified that Sneed never mentioned Glossip's name when referring to the 
crime, only that he murdered Van Treese to steal money from him.

"Put simply, the 'inherently suspect' affidavit of an individual who has been 
repeatedly convicted of crimes involving deceit, describing alleged 
conversations that occurred almost 20 years ago while Mr. Sneed and Mr. Tapley 
may have been under the influence of methamphetamine, does not even come close 
to being clear and convincing evidence of Petitioner's actual innocence," 
Miller wrote of Tapley's testimony.

Miller argued that none of the affidavits brought forth compelling evidence 
that Glossip was not significantly involved in the murder of Van Treese. A new 
hearing is not warranted, she contends.

"As this Court has explained, it does not remand for an evidentiary hearing in 
a capitol post-conviction proceeding 'on a whim,'" she wrote.

In previous court filings, Glossip's attorneys have also questioned the 
integrity of the testimony at the murder trial of Dr. Chai Choi, who performed 
the autopsy on Van Treese. Choi testified that Van Treese likely died of blood 
loss several hours after he was attacked by Sneed. Prosecutors implied Van 
Treese could have been saved if Glossip had alerted authorities as soon as 
Sneed told him about the attack. Glossip waited until the day after Sneed beat 
Van Treese with a baseball bat to tell police he knew where the body was 
located.

Glossip's legal team filed expert testimony disputing Choi's autopsy and 
asserting that it unfairly affected the jury's decision to pursue the death 
penalty. Miller argued in the Thursday filing the distinction was a moot point 
in terms of Glossip's guilt.

"The issues of whether it took Mr. Van Treese hours to die or only minutes and 
whether blood loss contributed to his death do not impact Petitioner's guilt, 
nor the aggravating circumstances found in this case," Miller wrote.

(source: The Oklahoman)






KANSAS:

Kansas Death Penalty Opponents Heartened By Pope's Comments


Opponents of the death penalty in Kansas are hoping the pope's words can spur 
some action on the issue. Pope Francis called for ending capital punishment 
during a speech before a joint session of Congress Thursday.

Mary Sloan, with the Kansas Coalition Against the Death Penalty, had hoped Pope 
Francis would talk about the issue during his visit to the U.S., and she's 
especially pleased it came during his high-profile speech.

"I think he's a great source of inspiration and leadership. I do think it puts 
it on the public agenda, makes it something that people will talk about and 
consider," Sloan says.

Opponents of the death penalty haven???t made much headway in the Kansas 
Statehouse in recent years. Sloan is hoping they'll be energized by the pope's 
comments.

"I hope that they will all be inspired that now is the time to make this happen 
in Kansas," Sloan says.

Sloan hopes the issue will get a hearing next year. Kansas reinstated the death 
penalty in the 1990s, but no executions have been carried out since then.

(source: KMUW news)






CALIFORNIA:

Double murder death penalty defendant's case postponed as lawyers try to oust 
judge


The trial of an accused double murderer facing the death penalty will again be 
postponed as the defendant's attorneys ramp up another effort to get the judge 
presiding over the case disqualified.

Daniel Wozniak. Daniel Wozniak.Attorneys for Daniel Patrick Wozniak have filed 
a motion to get Orange County Superior Court Judge John Conley booted despite 
having failed to do the same thing earlier this year, when similar motions were 
rejected by the state Supreme Court.

This time, however, Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders claims he has new 
information that Conley, when he was a prosecutor in the 1980s, was aware of 
misconduct allegations related to the handling for informants in the county's 
jails and did nothing about it.

Sanders subpoenaed Conley as a witness in his attempt at an evidentiary hearing 
into allegations of outrageous government misconduct regarding an informant's 
encounter with Wozniak while they were both locked up in the county's jail.

Sanders made the same arguments in his representation of the worst mass killer 
in the county's history - Scott Dekraai - and persuaded a judge to kick the 
Orange County District Attorney's Office off the penalty phase of the case, a 
ruling that is under appeal.

Sanders is also seeking to have Orange County Superior Court Judge Walter 
Schwarm, a former prosecutor, testify in an evidentiary hearing.

Sanders' motion to subpoena the judges was assigned to Orange County Superior 
Court Judge Gregg Prickett, who Sanders also moved to disqualify because he was 
the sentencing judge for the inmate accused of violating Wozniak's 
constitutional rights through illegal interrogation as a snitch.

Prickett denied Sanders' motion to disqualify Prickett, allowing Sanders to 
make his case to subpoena Conley and Schwarm. Prickett said he would read 
Sanders' 754-page motion, filed last month, and issue a ruling next Friday.

After the hearing before Prickett, the defendant was sent back to Conley's 
courtroom, where it was decided that Sanders' motion to recuse that judge would 
delay the planned trial of Wozniak, which was scheduled to begin next Friday.

Just like earlier this year, the motion likely will be sent to a judge in 
another county, who will issue a ruling.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Kevin Brazile in March rejected 
Sanders' motion to have Conley removed from the case, prompting appeals that 
were denied by the state Supreme Court.

Sanders is arguing that an "entrenched culture" of corruption exists when it 
comes to the handling of jailhouse informants, which encourages inmates to 
sometimes fabricate confessions so they get leniency from prosecutors.

He has cited cases Conley and Schwarm worked on as prosecutors that included 
informants that he would like to question the jurists about.

"This has been going on for 30 years," Sanders told Prickett. "Judge Conley has 
been on the front lines for this."

Sanders further argued Friday that the District Attorney's Office cannot be 
trusted to turn over evidence that helps the defense as it is legally bound to 
do. The defense attorney is also trying to get Senior Deputy District Attorney 
Matt Murphy and his entire office kicked off the prosecution of Wozniak.

Murphy argued that Sanders cannot show that Wozniak has suffered any 
"prejudice" or harm in his case that would allow a judge to grant Sanders' 
motions, therefore, all of the requests to remove the judges and prosecutors 
from the case should be denied.

In a reply to Sanders' lengthy motion, Murphy blasted Sanders for misstating 
evidence in multiple cases he cites involving jailhouse informants. Murphy said 
in many of those cases, forensic evidence led to the convictions, not the 
testimony of snitches, and those convictions were upheld on appeal.

The snitch in question in Wozniak's case is Fernando Perez, who was also a key 
player in the Dekraai case. Sanders argues that Perez violated Wozniak's rights 
because he wasn't allowed to be questioned by a government agent when he 
already had legal representation.

Murphy counters that Perez was not an official informant yet, was not asked to 
question Wozniak, and that what he ultimately provided to authorities was 
useless because the defendant already had made a "full confession" to Costa 
Mesa police.

Sanders cannot show that the jailers are part of the prosecution team, so the 
law prohibits him from seeking recusal of the prosecutors and dismissal of the 
death penalty. Murphy said Costa Mesa police are the lead investigators and the 
sheriff has not been involved in the case at all.

Murphy also blasted Sanders in court Friday for including a great deal of 
private information such as telephone numbers and addresses of witnesses, 
victims and informants in his massive legal filing. Sanders replied that he 
tried to have the motion filed under seal, which was denied by Conley.

On Friday, however, Conley, ordered the file sealed until next week so 
officials can redact the private information.

Murphy said it was "incredibly careless and reckless" to include the private 
information and that it could lead to someone getting killed by gangs looking 
for revenge.

Sanders angrily shot back, "We didn't do it to endanger anybody. ... I am 
absolutely glad to seal these documents."

Wozniak is accused of shooting a friend, Samuel Herr, after luring him to the 
Los Alamitos Joint Forces military base in May 2010.

Prosecutors allege he then used the victim's cell phone to trick another 
friend, Juri Kibuishi, into going to Herr's Costa Mesa apartment, where the 
defendant gunned her down and then made it look like Herr killed her during a 
sexual assault. Wozniak then allegedly returned to the base to dismember Herr.

(source: mynewsla.com)






USA:

Elected Judges more likely to Impose Death Penalty than Appointed Judges


How a judge reaches and stays on the bench has an impact on the most important 
of judicial rulings: death penalty cases.

An analysis of more than 2,100 state supreme court rulings from 37 states 
during the past 15 years revealed "a strong correlation between the results in 
those cases and the way each state chooses its justices," Reuters reported.

The study shows that judges who are elected to the bench are more than twice as 
likely to rule in favor of the death penalty as judges who have been appointed. 
The findings suggest that politics factors into life-and-death decisions made 
for defendants in criminal justice cases.

In 15 of the states Reuters examined that directly elect their supreme court 
justices, those justices rejected the death sentence in 11% of appeals. That 
rate was far lower than the 26% reversal rate in the 7 states where justices 
are appointed.

Another group of 15 states that initially appoint their justices but then 
require them to go through retention elections to remain on the bench produced 
a 15% reversal rate in death penalty decisions.

The influence of politics and fundraising by judges campaigning to be elected 
absolutely has an influence on judicial rulings, according to a recently 
published paper that focuses on the North Carolina Supreme Court. "What would 
happen if you had a judicial system where judges did not have to raise campaign 
money from lawyers and clients who had business before the court?," asked Vox's 
Lee Drutman, referring to the conclusion reached by the paper. "The answer, it 
turns out, is pretty much what common sense would dictate: You'd get justices 
who were more impartial, and less likely to vote in favor of attorneys who 
donated to their campaigns."

"In addition to finding evidence that justices who opted in to public financing 
became 'relatively less favorable toward attorney donors,' the paper also shows 
that justices who opted in to the public funding system became more moderate in 
their voting patterns," continued Drutman. "Unfortunately, North Carolina did 
away with this public funding system in 2013..."

As far as the Reuters study goes, its "findings, several legal experts said, 
support the argument that the death penalty is arbitrary and unconstitutional 
because politics - in addition to the facts - influence the outcome of an 
appeal," Reuters' Dan Levine and Kristina Cooke wrote.

They also cited the opinion of Yale Law School lecturer Stephen Bright, who has 
worked on hundreds of death penalty case defenses. According to Bright, "courts 
have a responsibility to protect a defendant's constitutional rights without 
political pressure, especially when the person's life is at stake," wrote 
Levine and Cooke. Said Bright: "It's the difference between the rule of law and 
the rule of the mob."

(source: Reuters)

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

After Sentencing 2 to Death, Former Judge Reflects on Pope, Capital Punishment


When Pope Francis called for the death penalty to be abolished Thursday, there 
was at least 1 person in the audience who had condemned convicted criminals to 
death.

"Having been a judge in Texas who handled capital murder cases, I had come to a 
conclusion that there were some cases ... where that was appropriate, and I 
still think that way," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert said in an interview while 
passing through the Capitol basement after the historic address to Congress.

"I appreciate, you know, the pope's comments but there are some places, there 
are some cases where it's appropriate. In Texas, if you commit a felony and a 
murder or multiple murders or a murder on a first responder, then that gets you 
there. I had 3 capital murder cases I tried." Gohmert told CQ Roll Call. "2 got 
the death penalty, and it is quite sobering to look somebody in the eye and 
tell them they're going to be taken and put to death."

Gohmert proceeded to tell a story of one of the men who was sent to death row 
on his watch, saying that while some people have been known to find religion as 
a way of improving their chances of getting clemency, he had a case where he 
thought there was a real change.

"I can understand the seriousness, but I also know that one of the 2 - who was 
being put to death - became a Christian while he was waiting for the death 
penalty. He was the farthest thing from a Christian before that," Gohmert said. 
"I agree with the pope that there should never be a lack of hope, and even with 
him, he found his hope, and that was before the death penalty."

The Texans who serve on the other side of the Rotunda said they also supported 
capital punishment, and it should be a state matter.

"I think that's consistent with what I understand the Catholic church's 
position is. It's not Texas law. I was glad to hear the pope's views, I think 
taken as a whole they were very inspirational," Senate Majority Whip John 
Cornyn said. "I'm not going to look to him to give us direction on public 
policy in Texas, necessarily."

His colleague, presidential hopeful Ted Cruz, said likewise.

"The Catholic Church doctrine has long opposed capital punishment, I certainly 
respect that teaching. As a policy matter, I don't agree with it. Under our 
Constitution, capital punishment is a question for the states to decide. There 
are states that have chosen to abolish capital punishment, that's their 
prerogative," Cruz told reporters. "There are other states, such as my home 
state of Texas, that have quite properly concluded that capital punishment is a 
recognition of the sanctity of life. That for the most egregious crimes, they 
merit the ultimate punishment."

Democratic Sen. Christopher S. Murphy, whose home state of Connecticut recently 
abolished the death penalty, said members seemed surprised by the pope's words 
about the sanctity of life turning to a specific policy message about death 
sentences, rather than about the church's strong anti-abortion views.

"The golden rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend 
human life at every stage of its development. This conviction has led me, from 
the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global 
abolition of the death penalty. I am convinced that this way is the best, since 
every life is sacred," the pope said in his speech. "Every human person is 
endowed with an inalienable dignity and society can only benefit from the 
rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes."

"It was a bit of a head fake moment in the speech that seemed to catch some 
people by surprise, but it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that the church 
doesn't, you know, support the death penalty," Murphy said. "It was a good 
reminder that the church is not just against the death penalty in name, but 
it's willing to give voice to that position as well."

Murphy said the imposition of capital punishment in Connecticut itself was so 
rare that the system was out-of-date.

Before the reference to capital punishment, members were gearing up for 
comments from the pope about abortion, and conservatives came away disappointed 
on that point.

"A lot more people in the chamber agreed with him on abortion than they did the 
death penalty," Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley said. The Iowa 
Republican was one of several lawmakers who suggested there's a false 
equivalency drawn between the 2 issues.

(source: rollcall.com)