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

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 29



OKLAHOMA----impending execution

Fallin: "Some Anxiety" in Oklahoma Ahead of Glossip Execution


Gov. Mary Fallin will not intervene in the case of Richard Glossip, who is 
scheduled for execution tomorrow afternoon.

"Richard Glossip has had almost 18 years of hearings, trials, appeals. He's had 
3 stays on his execution. He took it all the way to the Court of Criminal 
Appeals," Fallin said during a day-long visit to Tulsa. "It's the law of the 
state of Oklahoma; my job as the governor is just to make sure the law is 
carried forth."

Barring action by the U.S. Supreme Court, Glossip will be executed by lethal 
injection Wednesday at 3 p.m. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected a 
request Monday from Glossip's attorneys for a new hearing.

They say new evidence shows the man Glossip purportedly hired to kill their 
boss, Oklahoma City motel owner Barry Van Treese, acted alone.

Fallin said the criminal justice system has worked as it should in Glossip's 
case.

"I will say, I still believe in the death penalty, which is the current law in 
Oklahoma, and I still believe in justice for the victims that have suffered so 
much in horrible crimes like murder," Fallin said.

While she avoided speaking personally, Fallin said there is anxiety in the 
state over Glossip's impending death.

"This particular case has received a lot of national press because of 
anti-death penalty groups, and they are truly what they are: anti-death penalty 
groups that do not support that," Fallin said.

Glossip's lawyers are also challenging Oklahoma's use of midazolam after it was 
discovered the Texas Department of Corrections compounded the more reliable 
pentobarbital and gave some to Virginia.

(source: publicradiotulsa.org)

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

Richard Glossip lawyers submit appeal to U.S. Supreme Court


Richard Glossip is innocent and his execution would be the result of a wrongful 
conviction, according to a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Mr. 
Glossip's attorneys today with the United States Supreme Court.

Information on the appeal was circulated to news organizations worldwide the 
afternoon of Tuesday (September 29).

The petition comes a day after a splintered Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals 
denied, in a close 3-2 vote, Mr. Glossip's request for an evidentiary hearing 
and a stay of execution. Mr. Glossip is scheduled for execution in Oklahoma at 
3 p.m. on Wednesday, September 30.

Arguing that the execution of Mr. Glossip would be unconstitutional because of 
the weakness of the evidence against him, the petition states:

"'The State's entire case' against Mr. Glossip turned upon the testimony of 
Justin Sneed. Glossip v. State, 29 P.3d 597, 560 (Ok. Cr. 2001). Newly 
discovered evidence completely undermines Sneed's credibility. Mr. Glossip 
claimed below that his execution based solely on Sneed's bargained for, and now 
provably unreliable, testimony would violate the Eighth and Fourteenth 
Amendments." (p. I) The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari can be accessed here: 
[http://bit.ly/1PM4rXD]

The dissents by OCCA Judges Johnson and Smith can be accessed here 
[http://bit.ly/1KJ8Fha http://bit.ly/1MEthI8].

The dissent states:

"Glossip's materials convince me that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing 
to investigate his claim of actual innocence ...While finality of judgment is 
important, the State has no interest in executing an actually innocent man."

Glossip's attorneys contend in their brief that new evidence, not fully 
considered by any court, shows that Mr. Glossip is innocent of the murder for 
which he faces execution. Mr. Glossip was not present during the murder.

Justin Sneed committed the murder and does not face the death penalty. Mr. 
Sneed avoided death by providing testimony that Mr. Glossip was involved. A 
lower court has already recognized that "the State's entire case" rests on Mr. 
Sneed's testimony (Glossip v. State, 29 P.3d 597, 560 (Ok. Cr. 2001.)

However, multiple witnesses have come forward to say that Mr. Sneed acted 
alone. If the state proceeds with Mr. Glossip's execution, it will be based 
solely on unreliable information provided by 1 witness, in exchange for his 
life.

Glossip's laewyes note that two new witnesses, Michael Scott and Joseph Tapley, 
have come forward, "at no benefit to themselves, and offered sworn affidavits 
that Mr. Sneed revealed that Mr. Glossip had no involvement in the murder. 
Another new affidavit reveals the extent of Mr. Sneed's methamphetamine 
addiction at the time of the crime, and his modus operandi of breaking into 
cars and hotel rooms to steal to get money for his drug addiction."

Additionally, new evidence implicates the interrogation of Justin Sneed. Dr. 
Richard Leo, Ph.D., J.D., is the national, leading expert on police-induced 
false confessions and erroneous convictions. After reviewing Mr. Glossip's 
case, based on decades of social science research, he concluded that law 
enforcement in this case used the "personal and situational factors associated 
with, and believed to cause, false confessions." See Dr. Richard Leo report, 
App. B.

An analysis of a recent video interview with Mr. Sneed and background 
information, which reveals multiple, changing stories, can be accessed in the 
following links.

Justin Sneed Transcribed 
Interview----https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3_bre24T7cBbnNmRUhyUjJDc28/view?usp=sharing

Sneed Competency Evaluation, 
7.1.97----https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3_bre24T7cBSFJOOU5oV2dTclk/view?usp=sharing

Detailed Elements from Sneed's 8 
Stories----https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3_bre24T7cBenozcXdxWm9RNU0/view?usp=sharing

When Eight is Enough 
8.28.15----https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3_bre24T7cBR3FXVnhiWFNTMXc/view?usp=sharing

Donald Knight, one of Glossip's lawyers, observed in today's press release:

"This case splintered the Court of Criminal Appeals - a 3-2 vote. 2 Judges 
believed a further stay of execution and a hearing on innocence was required on 
the facts. We should all be deeply concerned about an execution under such 
circumstances," said Donald Knight, 1 of Mr. Glossip's attorneys.

Knight's team of lawyers seeking to present Glossip's execution includes 
Kathleen Lord and Mark Olive.

(source: The City Sentinel)






NEBRASKA:

Lawsuits question pro-death penalty petition----Lawsuits want ballot language 
changed and questions Governor's role in petition


A pro-death penalty group's effort to bring forth a referendum vote on Nebraska 
legislatures repeal of the death penalty is being challenged in 2 lawsuits.

Nebraskans for the death penalty, has spent close more than $900,000 and has 
collected nearly 167, 000 to bring a public vote in 2016 on whether to 
reinstate the death penalty.

Opponents of the death penalty are now suing the organization.

"We want to make sure that everything was done correctly," said Matt Maly, 
Conservatives Concerned with the Death Penalty Coordinator. "The basis of the 
1st suit has to do with Governor Ricketts not being listed as a sponsor even 
though he was clearly funding and organizing their effort."

The latest suit, filed by Nebraskan's for Public Safety, claims the ballot 
language is unlawfully misleading by stating that life in prison would be the 
"maximum" sentence allowable if the death penalty is not restored.

Phrasing, the group says gives the impression that the repeal of the death 
penalty provides a more lenient punishment than life behind bars, which is the 
mandatory sentence.

A second suit, questions Governor Ricketts involvement in the petition drive. 
It suggests that Ricketts, who donated $200,000 to the cause should have been 
listed as a sponsor.

"The financial donations aren't so much the problem as the organization and 
using his staff to put together their effort in gathering signatures," Maly.

The petition drive was managed by Jessica Moenning, a republican political 
consultant who is on the governor's payroll.

Ricketts does not deny donating to the organizations, however he's says he is 
simply supportive of the cause.

"I wasn't listed as a sponsor because I'm not a sponsor. I'm certainly a vocal 
advocate because I along with most Nebraskans believe we ought to have capitol 
punishment." said Governor Pete Ricketts (R-Nebraska), "I've also donated to 
the cause, but that doesn't make me a sponsor."

Maly told ABC9 he's doesn't mind having the issue on the ballot. He just wants 
to make sure it gets there the right way.

(source: siouxlandmatters.com)






CALIFORNIA:

1 of 2 men charged with murder of UCLA student may face death penalty


One of the men arrested in connection with the death of UCLA student Andrea 
"Andy" DelVesco may face the death penalty, according to prosecutors.

The Los Angeles Police Department arrested Eric Marquez, a 5th-year biology 
student, and Alberto Medina, both 22, over the weekend after forensic evidence 
and witness statements linked the 2 to a suspected homicide and arson.

Prosecutors said Medina, a Fresno State University student, entered the 
apartment and fatally stabbed DelVesco with a knife before setting the 
apartment on fire, according to a Los Angeles District Attorney's Office press 
release.

Los Angeles District Attorney spokeswoman Sarah Ardalani said Medina is being 
held without bail because he was charged with capital murder with a special 
circumstance of murder during a robbery. Ardalani added Medina could face the 
death penalty.

Prosecutors also charged Medina with 1 count of arson and 2 counts of 
1st-degree burglary.

County prosecutors charged Marquez with 1 count of murder and 2 counts of 
1st-degree burglary.

Marquez and Medina are scheduled to appear at the Airport Branch of the Los 
Angeles County Superior Court after 2 p.m. LAPD is still investigating the 
case.

(source: The (UCLA) Daily Bruin)

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

Why I Changed My Mind to Oppose the Death Penalty


For 30 years I supported the death penalty. I felt that the state should make a 
strong statement that those who commit the most heinous crimes receive the 
ultimate penalty. This view was reinforced by the almost universal support from 
law enforcement. The people who most often deal with the worst criminals 
understand that evil exists in a small percentage of the population. As a 
public official, their opinion on this issue counted for a lot with me, as did 
my own sense of justice.

We can, and should, continue to debate the morality of the death penalty, but 
over the past several years, it has become clear to me that, in practice, our 
death penalty system is failing and should be abolished. I've come to this 
conclusion for 3 reasons.

It costs too much: The state of California has spent $4 billion on the death 
penalty since 1978. That's $308 million for each of the 13 executions carried 
out between then and now. We spend $90,000 more each year to house someone on 
death row than in regular prison. That cost adds up, as most death row inmates 
in California stay there for over 25 years. The bottom line -- replacing the 
death penalty with lifetime imprisonment without parole would save the state 
over $140 million a year. There are better ways to spend this money.

It's broken: In the past 40 years, over 150 people have been wrongly convicted 
and sentenced to death in the United States. People of color are at least twice 
as likely as Caucasians to be sentenced to death for comparable crimes. Even in 
our age of advanced medicine, we have not figured out how to administer the 
death penalty appropriately. A botched execution in Oklahoma just last year 
took 45 minutes, during which time the prisoner cried out and convulsed in pain 
before dying of a heart attack. We must ensure that those who commit the worst 
offenses are caught and punished, and are never allowed to threaten the public 
again. But we also must do a better job of living up to the principles 
enshrined in our Constitution, including the prohibition against "cruel and 
unusual punishment."

It doesn't make us safer: There is no evidence that the death penalty helps 
prevent crime. Researchers have been looking for evidence for decades, 
including in the 19 states and 140 countries that have banned the death 
penalty. They haven't found it. What they have found is people are less likely 
to commit crime the more they worry that they will get caught. In other words, 
the money we spend on death row would be better spent on ensuring law 
enforcement officers have the resources they need to prevent, investigate and 
solve crimes.

I know many Californians of goodwill continue to believe the death penalty is a 
just punishment for those who commit the most heinous offenses. In a democracy, 
though, we must make hard choices about how to spend our money. Having served 
as California's Chief Fiscal Officer, I know that we often don't have enough 
money to make critical investments in the future of our state. The evidence is 
compelling -- the death penalty is simply not worth the cost. The money we 
spend on our failed death penalty program in California could pay for 1,500 new 
police officers, or 3,000 new teachers, or the cost of pre-K for 20,000 
children. These are the type of investments we need to make to provide security 
and opportunity for the next generation of Californians.

(source: Steve Westly, Former CA State Controller; Managing Partner, The Westly 
Group----Huffington Post)






USA:

The U.S. Is Ignoring Pope Francis' Call to Abolish the Death Penalty


Peter denied Jesus 3 times. Today and over the next several days, we will deny 
Peter's apostolic successor 3 times. Pope Francis, during his visit last week 
to the United States, reiterated his and the Catholic Church's current 
opposition to capital punishment; yet, 3 executions are imminent.

As I write this, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole is meeting and 
listening to Kelly Gissendaner's son, Brandon, whose brother and sister have 
already pleaded for mercy for their mother. In 1997 Kelly Gissendaner murdered 
Doug Gissendaner, who was the stepfather to Gissendaner's sons and father to 
her daughter. Other inmates, officials, clergy, and theologians - including 
Jurgen Moltmann - have asked that Gissendaner not be executed.

The 2nd execution is scheduled for Sept. 30 in Oklahoma. However, death row 
inmate Richard Glossip's case raises many doubts, especially since he was 
convicted solely on the testimony of only one witness, who confessed to the 
crime and received a life sentence with no physical evidence directly linking 
Glossip to the crime. Again, many people are asking for his life to be spared.

And 3rd, in the state where I reside and work, Missouri plans to execute Kimber 
Edwards on Oct. 6, even though he, like Glossip, may have been wrongfully 
convicted.

I formerly served as a corrections officer at a maximum security facility. I 
also used to be a reserve police officer. I have sped through city streets in a 
squad car, sirens blaring, on my way to shootings. I have booked and 
interviewed (interrogated) alleged murderers. I have seen victims??? families 
cry. I have had inmates hit me. I even used force when I wore a badge. And yet, 
as a Catholic Christian, over the years I have come to oppose capital 
punishment for a number of reasons.

I agree with Pope Francis' remarks about the death penalty. During his speech 
before Congress, Democrats and Republicans applauded when he emphasized: "Let 
us remember the Golden Rule: 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto 
you'" (Mt 7:12). The pope added: "This Rule points us in a clear direction. Let 
us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be 
treated. Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for 
ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. 
In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us 
give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The 
yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us. 
The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend 
human life at every stage of its development."

And then he specifically devoted attention to capital punishment: "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, every human person is 
endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the 
rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother bishops here 
in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. 
Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are 
convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension 
of hope and the goal of rehabilitation."

Pope Francis has made similar remarks previously, echoing Pope John Paul II 
who, 16 years ago here in St. Louis, asked then-Governor Mel Carnahan of 
Missouri to commute the death sentence of Darrell Mease, and the governor 
complied with his request. John Paul II added: "The new evangelization calls 
for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, 
celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is 
the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken 
away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has 
the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the 
chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a 
consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary."

So the current Catholic position on capital punishment views it as morally 
unjustified. It is not necessary to protect society. It does not make up for 
the horrible crime committed. It does not really respect the sanctity of life. 
Just as nobody can earn or merit grace and salvation, so too can no one do 
anything that absolutely excludes them from possibly receiving grace and 
salvation. We are all sinners, as the apostle Paul noted in Romans 3:23.

In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (1995, par. 56), John Paul II said that it 
is only justified as "legitimate defense" against an imminent threat to 
society, a scenario that he believed is "rare if not practically nonexistent" 
in countries such as the U.S. (reiterated in the Catechism, par. 2267). 
Although, unlike direct abortion, capital punishment is not what is referred to 
as an "intrinsic evil" (never morally justified because it is per se evil), I 
would say that now - in the view of the Catholic Church - the death penalty is 
a "grave evil" much like unjust war. Just war might be morally justified, as is 
the death penalty, as "legitimate defense" against imminent and grave threats; 
otherwise, it is morally unjustified and therefore a grave evil. These 3 
executions, if carried out, would be gravely evil, in my view. And, as a former 
corrections officer, I also worry about what carrying out these executions does 
to the officers and staff involved.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Let us also not do unto 
others what we would not have them do unto us. And let us not become the very 
evil from which we are trying to protect ourselves.

(source: Tobias Winright is a contributing writer for Sojourners, and he holds 
the Maeder Chair in Health Care Ethics and is teaches theological ethics at 
Saint Louis University in St. Louis, MO.----sojo.net)

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

Ted Cruz's Hedge Funder Sugar Daddy Spends $100,000 to Bring Death Penalty Back 
to Nebraska


A coalition of right-wing donors and activists wants Nebraska to start 
executing people again.

Over the summer, the conservative legislature of Nebraska - led by left-wing 
lawmaker Ernie Chambers - stunningly voted to end the death penalty, overcoming 
the veto of the state's Republican governor.

Now, a coalition of right-wing donors and activists, buoyed by one of Ted 
Cruz's biggest funders, has converged on the state to bring capital punishment 
back.

New York City hedge funder Robert Mercer gave $100,000 to the $900,000 campaign 
that successfully placed a referendum about the issue on the state's 2016 
ballot. Mercer is a well-known funder of right-wing causes, giving millions of 
dollars to organizations such as the Media Research Center and the Heartland 
Institute. More recently, Mercer gave $11 million to a constellation of outside 
Super PACs supporting Cruz's campaign for the Republican presidential 
nomination.

Recall that Cruz recently dismissed Pope Francis's calls for abolition of the 
death penalty, telling Politico that he "spent a number of years in law 
enforcement dealing with some of the worst criminals, child rapists and 
murderers, people who've committed unspeakable acts. I believe the death 
penalty is a recognition of the preciousness of human life, that for the most 
egregious crimes, the ultimate punishment should apply."

This is despite the fact that as a lawyer in private practice, Cruz once argued 
against the death penalty's unfairness as it was meted out in the current 
criminal justice system.

Recall that over the last quarter, Cruz's Super PACs accumulated $38 million. 
This means that more than 1/4 of all of the outside money coming Cruz's way so 
far has come from a single man - and that man is doing his best to bring the 
death penalty back to a state that just got rid of it, a viewpoint that the 
candidate who is depending on his resources seems to be echoing.

(source: alternet.org)