[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----NEB., IDAHO, WASH., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 17



NEBRASKA:

Attorney general disputes death penalty costs


Attorney General Doug Peterson on Tuesday disputed the estimated $14.6 million 
annual cost of retaining the death penalty in Nebraska cited a day earlier in a 
study commissioned by supporters of ending capital punishment in the state.

"Relying heavily on studies from California, Florida, Texas and other states, 
this group's report fails to accurately reflect actual costs associated with 
the death penalty in Nebraska," Peterson said.

Pointing to the major cost factor of death penalty appeals cited by Creighton 
University economist Ernie Goss in the report prepared for Retain a Just 
Nebraska, the attorney general noted that his office handles all criminal 
appeals filed by the state of Nebraska, including those filed by inmates facing 
the death penalty.

"The total number of criminal appeals filed is approximately 500 per year," 
Peterson said, and less than 1 % of those appeals are filed in capital cases 
annually.

"It is misleading for this report to conclude that, on an annual basis, having 
the death penalty costs an amount that far exceeds the total annual budgets of 
both the Nebraska attorney general's office and the state public defender's 
office combined," he said.

"Nebraska voters are entitled to accurate Nebraska figures as they determine 
whether to keep the death penalty in Nebraska."

The study by Goss and Associates Economic Solutions stated that costs 
associated with the death penalty as opposed to a sentence of life without 
parole are higher at every stage of the judicial and correctional process, 
including legal defense, pre-trial activities, jury selection, length of trial, 
incarceration and appeal.

(source: Lincoln Journal Star)






IDAHO:

County to seek death penalty in double-murder case


The Teton County Prosecutor's office confirmed that they will be seeking the 
death penalty for Erik Ohlson, 39, of Jackson.

Ohlson will be arraigned in an Idaho District Court on Sept. 6 with 2 charges 
of 1st degree murder.

Ohlson faces 1 murder charge for the shooting death of Jennifer Nalley, 39, of 
Driggs. The 2nd count stems from the death of Nalley's unborn child.

Ohlson was arrested for a DUI after crashing his vehicle into a utility pole. 
While he was in custody, he told investigators he shot Nalley after coming to 
her home in Driggs. He said he was in a relationship with Nalley and was aware 
that she was pregnant.

There, he will have the opportunity to plead guilty or not guilty.

County Prosecutor Kathy Spitzer confirmed that prosecutors would declare their 
intent to seek the death penalty before then.

Cases involving the death penalty can become very expensive.

"The cost of a capital case can vary widely depending on the specifics of the 
case and the speed at which the prosecution and defense come to a settlement," 
said Idaho Association of Counties Associate General Counsel Dan Blocksom. "The 
range can be anywhere from about $10,000 to $500,000..."

By seeking the death penalty, the county is triggering the Capital Crimes 
Defense Fund, CCDF, which is designed to "ease the burden of the cost of trials 
for death penalty cases."

The fund, which counties pay into on a per capita basis, is governed by the 
Idaho Association of Counties, IAC.

"Counties don't have to pay into the fund, but if they don't, then the State 
Appellate Public Defender will not handle the defense for their appeals," said 
Blocksom.

The CCDF works kind of like an insurance policy, with a deductible of $10,000 
and an annual "premium" based on county population.

According to Blocksom, Teton County's dues amount from 2007 to 2016 has been 
$3,095 per year.

Once the county pays the deductible, "the CCDF will pay the costs for the 
second attorney [required for death penalty cases] and all other related trial 
costs including but not limited to preparation, investigation, forensics, 
mitigation, etc."

These requirements can get very expensive.

"Even if the capital defense kicks in, some counties can almost go broke over 
prosecuting something like this," said Blocksom.

This is in part because the CCDF pays for only 1 of the defendant's attorneys 
and does not pay any of the prosecution's bills.

"IAC has been primarily concerned about ensuring the 6th Amendment right to 
counsel for indigent defendants, and thus has been urging the Idaho Legislature 
to provide state funding to the counties to protect this right," said Blocksom. 
"Prosecution, on the other hand, is not a constitutional issue in the same way 
that public defense is, so IAC's handling of this issue is only indirectly 
through its assistance of the CCDF board's discussions."

Just the reimbursable parts of a capital case can reach the hundreds of 
thousands.

The CCDF paid more than $400,000 in claims to Latah County's defense of Dale 
Shackelford, who killed his ex-wife and her boyfriend and then set fire to the 
building where their bodies were found.

Shoshone County Clerk Peggy White is dealing with the payments for one such 
capital case, where a 26-year-old woman was charged with murdering a 22 month 
old child. The case is still ongoing, but no longer involves the death penalty.

For White, paying for the case has proven a challenge.

"It's devastating to have a murder case," said White. "So far, I've got a ton 
of bills. Approximately $168,000 thus far ... It's a big deal to us."

Shoshone County, which is 76 % public land and has a population of about 
12,600, had to pay for trial costs upfront by forming a trust account, which 
the Defense Fund reimburses.

To be reimbursed, the expenses have to first be approved by the CCDF board, 
made up of representative county commissioners from each state district.

Furthermore, according to the CCDF's guidelines, "if a case is converted from a 
capital case to a non-capital case prior to trial, the CCDF shall pay only 
those amounts incurred prior to conversion to a non-capital case."

Prosecutors can remove the intent to have capital punishment at any time.

Ohlson's defense has not returned a request for comment.

(source: Teton Valley News)






WASHINGTON:

Debating the death penalty


Editor's note: Today's editorials appeared in The Columbian. Editorial content 
from other publications is provided to give readers a sampling of regional and 
national opinion and does not necessarily reflect positions endorsed by the 
Editorial Board of The Daily News.

The pending criminal case against Brent Luyster provides an opportunity for 
necessary discussions about issues surrounding the death penalty in Washington.

Many of those topics were explored recently in an article by Columbian reporter 
Jessica Prokop. The story focused on the financial costs of pursuing capital 
punishment - costs that, according to a Seattle University study, typically run 
about $1 million per case. And yet the social costs surrounding the death 
penalty are equally important as debate continues throughout the nation over 
the moral and philosophical dilemma engulfing capital punishment.

Gov. Jay Inslee already has weighed in with his opinion about these costs. In 
2014, he implemented a moratorium on capital punishment in the state, saying he 
would offer a reprieve to those who have been sentenced to death but would not 
commute sentences. "Equal justice under the law is the state's primary 
responsibility," Inslee said at the time. "And in death penalty cases, I'm not 
convinced equal justice is being served"

Certainly, there is room for debate surrounding capital punishment. There is 
room for discussion about inequity in how the punishment is handed out; in how 
laws vary from state to state; and in how there is the persistent possibility 
of executing somebody who, in truth, is innocent of the crimes for which they 
have been convicted. But the fact is that Washington voters have approved the 
death penalty, establishing the state's current capital punishment law in 1981. 
And the fact is that Inslee has a duty to carry out the laws of the state 
rather than unilaterally imposing his vision of fairness and equity.

The governor's stance on the issue should not influence those in the office of 
the Clark County Prosecutor, who will decide whether or not to pursue the death 
penalty against Luyster. He has been charged with gunning down 2 friends on the 
porch of a rural Woodland home, then barging inside and shooting 2 women, 1 of 
whom died. Clark County Prosecutor Tony Golik said: "This is an issue that 
prosecutor offices statewide wrestle with. We are in a difficult position as 
prosecutors in this state where we have the death penalty that is continuously 
approved by voters. The law provides for that sentence in certain 
circumstances, but we also have, conversely, the governor's position and also 
the knowledge that the Supreme Court has routinely reversed death-penalty 
decisions."

It also is an issue that voters should again wrestle with. Last year, the 
Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys announced that it planned to 
push the Legislature to put a death-penalty referendum before voters. But no 
such measure is on this year's ballot, leaving prosecutors to weigh a state law 
that passed a generation ago against the governor's moratorium. In the 
meantime, taxpayers are left to weigh the cost of capital-punishment cases 
against the cost of incarcerating the most abhorrent criminals for the rest of 
their lives - a toll that runs about $36,000 a year for each death-row inmate.

In the long run, money should not be a significant factor in considering the 
death penalty. What is most important is the notion of justice and the equity 
with which it is handed out. Establishing and implementing a system that 
reflects our highest ideals and that engenders the trust of the public has a 
value that is priceless in a civilized society.

(source: tdn.com)






USA:


Donald J Trump phoned in to Fox & Friends in May 2015, shortly after 2 police 
officers were shot dead in Mississippi.

Presenter Steve Doocy wanted to know what an appropriate punishment for the 
killers would be.

"Well, it's the death penalty," Trump said airily. "We have people who are, 
these 2, animals who shot the cops ... the death penalty, it should be brought 
back and it should be brought back strong."

A month later, Trump announced he was running for president. He has barely said 
the words "death penalty" in public since, although a top adviser has called 
for Hillary Clinton's execution, saying she "should be put in the firing line 
and shot for treason".

Clinton only talks about capital punishment when pressed and then, clumsily. 
Unlike most of her own party - including running mate Tim Kaine - the Democrat 
supports death in the case of terrorists. She has said she would be happy if 
someone would outlaw execution. Someone else.

In campaign 2016, the safest stance on the ultimate punishment may be silence. 
Both candidates need to woo disaffected members of the other's party. Neither 
can afford to lose their own loyal base.

"Why bring it up if it's going to stir the pot if you don't have to?" said 
Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, senior fellow at the University of Southern California's 
Sol Price School of Public Policy.

For the 1st time since 1972, the Democratic party platform advocates repealing 
the death penalty. Mainstream Republican opinion has begun to turn away from 
it, too. Executions and death sentences are down nationwide, while the number 
of exonerated death row inmates creeps upward.

The percentage of Americans who support the death penalty has been steadily 
declining since its high of 80% in the mid-1990s, although a comfortable 
majority - 61% according to Gallup, and 56% according to the Pew Research 
Center - still favor the use of capital punishment for a person convicted of 
murder.

And California - with the biggest death row in the country - could become the 
6th state in recent years to do away with executions as voters there face 
dueling ballot measures in November, one to repeal the death penalty, the other 
to streamline it.

Trump has increasingly positioned himself as a law and order candidate. He 
doubled down on fear of immigrant criminals in his speech to the Republican 
national convention and recently said he supported "extreme vetting" of people 
from other countries. Yet he has so far shied away from promising grisly 
execution for murderers.

The main exception was a December speech to the New England Police Benevolent 
Association, a police officers' union, in which he promised an executive order 
mandating death sentences for cop-killers. (This would not work out, in any 
case; mandatory death sentences were rendered unconstitutional by a 1976 
supreme court decision.)

Perhaps the most illuminating examples of Trump's death penalty position are 
the newspaper advertisements he took out in 1989 demanding death for five black 
and Latino teenagers - the so-called Central Park 5 - who were convicted of the 
rape and attempted murder of a woman that year. The 5 men were exonerated in 
2002.

The full-page advertisements are classic Trump. Under the vast headline "BRING 
BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!" is a lengthy screed, much of it 
in capital letters.

"I want to hate these muggers and murderers," Trump wrote. "They should be 
forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their 
crimes."

The Republican platform, recently ratified at the party's convention in 
Cleveland, contains just 2 sentences on the subject of capital punishment.

"The constitutionality of the death penalty is firmly settled by its explicit 
mention in the Fifth Amendment," it says. "With the murder rate soaring in our 
great cities, we condemn the Supreme Court's erosion of the right of the people 
to enact capital punishment in their states."

This reflects an emerging Republican critique of the death penalty, which more 
and more conservatives oppose, said Michael Radelet, a professor of sociology 
at the University of Colorado at Boulder who studies capital punishment.

The rising conservative critique is based on 3 pillars, the 1st of which is 
financial. "It costs a zillion dollars to send anybody to death row, so fiscal 
conservatives want to cut down on that money," Radelet said.

The 2nd, he said, is religious principle; the pope condemned capital punishment 
in his 2015 speech to Congress, and "if we get a survey of religious leaders in 
the US there???s no question that the overwhelming majority would stand opposed 
to the death penalty."

The 3rd pillar, according to Radelet, is a simpler attitude of distrust in 
governmental efficiency, summarized as "hell, the government can't even fill a 
pothole properly", so why should it be trusted with the power of life and 
death? None of these arguments appear to carry any weight with the party's 
nominee. Trump has stayed largely silent on the subject, with the exception of 
his remarks on Fox & Friends, and a 2015 New York Times interview in which he 
said that the death penalty was a deterrent because when somebody is executed 
"you know that person's not going to kill again".

In the 1980s and 90s, opposition to the death penalty was "political poison in 
most elections", said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty 
Information Center. "Now, you are seeing Republican legislators, many of them 
conservative Republicans, openly oppose the death penalty."

Still, most of the decline in death penalty support comes from Democrats, 
according to a 2015 study by Pew Research Center. Nearly 60% of Democrats 
oppose the death penalty, compared to just 25% in 1996.

Which may be part of the problem for Clinton, who was roundly criticized for 
her awkward responses to questions about the death penalty during the primary 
season.

Both of her primary rivals - Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and former Maryland 
governor Martin O'Malley - opposed capital punishment. Now that the general 
election is under way , a Clinton challenge will be getting Sanders' fervent 
and progressive supporters to the polls.

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has been criticized for her awkward 
responses to questions about the death penalty.

At a CNN/TV One town hall meeting in Ohio in March, an undecided voter named 
Ricky Jackson stood up to ask the former secretary of state a question. Jackson 
had spent 39 years in prison for murder before being exonerated and freed in 
2014.

"Senator, I spent some of those years on death row, and," Jackson began. He 
paused. Wiped tears from his eyes. "Excuse me, I'm sorry. I came perilously 
close to my own execution ... I would like to know how can you still take your 
stance on the death penalty in light of what we know right now."

"You know, this is such a profoundly difficult question," Clinton began 
cautiously.

"And what I have said and what I continue to believe is that the states have 
proven themselves incapable of carrying out fair trials that give any defendant 
all of the rights a defendant should have, all of the support that the 
defendant's lawyer should have."

Then she stepped into deep trouble, with a response critics roundly decried as 
typical triangulation, a kind of squishy have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too caution.

"I have said I would breathe a sigh of relief if either the supreme court or 
the states, themselves, began to eliminate the death penalty," she said.

"At this point, given the challenges we face from terrorist activities 
primarily in our country that end up under federal jurisdiction for very 
limited purposes," she continued, "I think that it can still be held in reserve 
for those."

Maybe, she said, "it is distinction that is hard to support."

(source: The Guardian)

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

Nearly 2 weeks of new hearings planned in Rodriguez death penalty appeal


Nearly 2 weeks have been set aside next spring and summer for court hearings in 
Alfonso Rodriguez Jr.'s appeal of his death sentence.

4 days starting March 28 are allotted for an evidentiary hearing on forensic 
issues in the murder case. An evidentiary hearing on Rodriguez's mental health 
is slated to start June 20 and last f4 days or more.

U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson made the scheduling decisions Tuesday, Aug. 
16, at a hearing in Fargo's federal court. Erickson said he expects the mental 
health hearing may take longer than four days given the complexity of the 
issues at hand.

Rodriguez, 63, of Crookston was sentenced to death for the 2003 kidnapping, 
rape and murder of 22-year-old Dru Sjodin, a University of North Dakota 
student. The question of Rodriguez's mental capacity is a key element of his 
appeal, as the U.S. Supreme Court has held it's unconstitutional to execute an 
intellectually disabled person.

Rodriguez's attorney, Assistant Federal Defender Victor Abreu, told the judge 
that the mental health hearing will involve a significant number of witnesses, 
more than the forensic hearing.

The 2 hearings could be the longest period of testimony seen in the case since 
the trial that resulted in Rodriguez's conviction in 2006.

The progress of Rodriguez's appeal has lately been slowed by a change in his 
defense attorneys. Abreu is one of the attorneys from the Federal Community 
Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently tapped to 
represent Rodriguez.

Rodriguez had been represented by court-appointed attorneys Michael Wiseman, 
Joseph Margulies and Andrew Mohring during his appeal. But in March, the 3 
asked to be replaced by the FCDO because of staffing changes in the federal 
defender system and the FCDO's expertise.

On Tuesday, at the request of the defense, the judge extended the appointment 
of Rodriguez's outgoing attorneys until Oct. 6, allowing them to help with the 
case until the FCDO is ready to take over full time.

Complicating the handoff are tens of thousands of pages of case documents that 
must be transferred from Rodriguez's old attorneys to his new ones. Abreu told 
the judge the transfer is 90 % complete.

In 2011, attorneys filed a habeas corpus motion to appeal Rodriguez's death 
sentence. Considered a last-resort appeal after his direct appeals were turned 
down by the U.S. Supreme Court, the motion argues he is mentally disabled and 
was insane at the time of the crime, making him ineligible for the death 
penalty.

(source: Duluth News Tribune)

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

Hearings in North Dakota death penalty case pushed back


A federal judge on Tuesday pushed back the next hearing in a North Dakota death 
penalty case to allow a new defense team to catch up on evidence.

U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson had re-assigned the case of Alfonso 
Rodriguez Jr. in June to the Federal Community Defender Office, or FCDO, in 
Pennsylvania. The move was viewed primarily as a cost-cutting measure.

A jury in 2005 convicted Rodriguez, of Crookston, Minnesota, for kidnapping and 
killing University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin, of Pequot Lakes, 
Minnesota, in November 2003. It was North Dakota's 1st federal death penalty 
case and led to tougher laws for sex offenders.

The next hearing in the case was expected to take place on Nov. 1 in Fargo, 
with a 2nd hearing to follow on Jan. 17. During a 10-minute session in open 
court Tuesday, Erickson scheduled a hearing on forensic issues for March 28 and 
hearing on mental health issues for June 20.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Keith Reisenauer, who filed court documents in March 
arguing against the change in lawyers, had no objection to the new timeline and 
called it the best approach "to move forward."

Erickson tentatively scheduled 2 weeks for the hearing on mental health issues 
after Victor Abreu, an assistant federal defender, said there would be "a 
significant amount of witnesses" expected to take the stand.

Abreu and federal prosecutors declined to comment after the hearing.

The habeas corpus motion, considered the last step in the appeal process, was 
originally filed in 2011. Erickson called on prominent death penalty Joseph 
Margulies, a Cornell University law professor, to lead the defense team.

The nearly 300-page appeal by Margulies says, among other things, that 
Rodriguez is mentally disabled, his trial lawyers were ineffective and the 
medical examiner made numerous mistakes.

"In large part, this is a case about junk science and false forensics," the 
appeal says.

(source: Associated Press)