[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----TEXAS, FLA., ALA., OHIO, OKLA.

Thu Aug 18 07:59:00 CDT 2016

Aug. 18

TEXAS----impending execution

Texas death sentence for accessory challenged by defense lawyer

Texas is planning to execute a man next week for a murder he did not commit.

If the sentence were to be carried out, it would mark the 1st time in the 
United States that an accessory with so little culpability to a murder was put 
to death, his lawyer said.

Jeffery Wood, 42, is scheduled to be executed on Aug. 24 by lethal injection. 
He was convicted of taking part in a 1996 convenience store robbery during 
which clerk Kriss Keeran was fatally shot.

Prosecutors and Wood's lawyers agree that he was in a vehicle outside the store 
when it was robbed. But prosecutors have said Wood knew the clerk might be shot 
and Wood's lawyers have refuted their argument.

Wood's roommate at the time, Daniel Reneau, was convicted of pulling the 
trigger and executed on June 13, 2002.

"I am not aware of a case where a person has been executed with so minimal 
culpability and with such little participation in the event," lawyer Jared 
Tyler said in an interview.

"When people think of the death penalty, they think of the worst of the worst," 
Tyler said. "He was sitting in the truck outside a convenience store when 
somebody else of their own volition decided to kill somebody."

Tyler said he has filed motions with the state to halt the execution, citing 
culpability, tainted testimony and mental competency issues.

Ten people have been executed as accessories to felony murder since the United 
States reinstated the death penalty in 1976, according to the Death Penalty 
Information Center, which monitors capital punishment. 
(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/those-executed-who-did-not-directly-kill-victim)

Under Texas' "Law of Parties," a person can be charged with capital murder even 
if the offense is committed by someone else. "Each party to an offense may be 
charged and convicted without alleging that he acted as a principal or 
accomplice," according to the law.

Texas has said that Wood is culpable because he knew the robbery was going to 
take place. After the killing, he entered the store with Reneau to steal the 
cash box, store safe and remove a video recorder used for security.

(source: Reuters)

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

State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, is hoping to stop the upcoming execution of 
Jeff Wood.

It's not often that a staunch conservative loses sleep over imposition of the 
death penalty, but state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, says he is up nights over 
the impending execution of Jeff Wood.

The 2-term legislator has spent the past week poring over court documents and 
speaking with the governor's office and Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 
hoping to prevent what would be the state's 7th execution of the year.

Wood is set to die by lethal injection Aug. 24.

"I simply do not believe that Mr. Wood is deserving of the death sentence," 
Leach told the Tribune. "I can't sit quietly by and not say anything."

In the early morning of Jan. 2, 1996, Wood sat in a truck outside a Kerrville 
gas station while his friend, Daniel Reneau, went inside to steal a safe said 
to be full from the holiday weekend, according to court documents. When the 
clerk, Kriss Keeran, didn't comply or respond to threats, Reneau shot him dead.

Reneau was sentenced to death and executed in 2002. Wood received his own death 
sentence under Texas' felony murder statute, commonly known as the law of 
parties, which holds that anyone involved in a crime resulting in death is 
equally responsible, even if they weren't directly involved in the actual 
killing.

According to Nadia Mireles, Wood's then-girlfriend, Wood told Reneau to leave 
his gun at home the morning of the murder. She said Reneau put the gun down but 
picked it back up when Wood left the room. Her testimony was not included in 
Wood's trial, but it was in Reneau's.

"This is the reason we have this final step by the Constitution to provide the 
governor the right to commute a sentence,"- State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano

Prosecutors argued Wood knew Reneau would kill Keeran if he didn't cooperate 
with the robbery. If true, that would make him guilty of capital murder under 
the law of parties, which states that a person can be charged with a crime he 
didn't commit if he "should have anticipated it as a result" of another crime.

Leach, who ranks among the most conservative Republicans in the House, is for 
the death penalty in the most heinous cases, he said. And he believes in the 
death penalty under the law of parties in cases where the accomplice was 
clearly involved in the murder. But when he came across Wood's case during his 
work for the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, it didn't seem right.

"Jeffery Lee Wood's case has caught my attention unlike any death row inmate in 
my time in office has," he said. "Once I started digging, I couldn't stop."

Now, Leach is trying to use his voice as a lawmaker to stop the execution and 
change Wood's sentence from death to life in prison. He's spoken with Gov. Greg 
Abbott's office and the parole board and hopes to convince other legislators to 
send letters to the 2 before the board takes up the case on Monday, he said.

If the parole board votes to recommend that Wood's sentence be changed, Abbott 
can accept or reject that recommendation. Without the board's recommendation, 
the most Abbott can do is issue a one-time, 30-day delay of execution.

"This is the reason we have this final step by the Constitution to provide the 
governor the right to commute a sentence," Leach said, adding that he would 
ultimately respect whatever choice the board and Abbott make.

Abbott's office declined to comment for this story. The parole board has 
previously said it could not comment on Wood's clemency petition. In a 2008 
petition, the parole board and then-Gov. Rick Perry declined to commute Wood's 
sentence.

(source: Texas Tribune)

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

Executing the Getaway Driver Is a Bad Idea

Texas is poised to execute Jeffery Lee Wood next week, even though he was 
sitting in the car 20 years ago when his friend went into a convenience store 
and fatally shot the clerk. Under existing precedent, sentencing an accomplice 
to the death penalty is sometimes constitutional. But it shouldn't be -- at 
least when the accomplice doesn't intend for the crime to occur, as was almost 
certainly the case for Wood.

The U.S. Supreme Court made its 2 crucial decisions on the execution of 
accomplices some 30 years ago -- and they are now ripe for being revisited. The 
1st, Enmund v. Florida, came in 1982. It was a close, 5-4 decision, with 
centrist Justice Byron White writing for a coalition of liberal justices.

The court struck down the death penalty for Earl Enmund, a getaway driver who 
had been in the car when his colleagues committed 2 murders in the course of a 
robbery. Under Florida law, he had been an accomplice, which subjected him to 
the same penalty as the murderers themselves.

White wrote that such accomplice liability was cruel and unusual punishment in 
violation of the Eighth Amendment. It had been "rejected by society," he said.

The decision emphasized that the defendant hadn't killed or intended to kill. 
"Thus his culpability is plainly different from that of the robbers who 
killed," White wrote, "yet the State treated them alike, and attributed to 
Edmund the culpability of those who killed."

The decision fell short of saying that only an actual killer could be executed, 
leaving room for someone who didn't pull the trigger but "intended" the death 
to occur. This position makes a certain amount of moral sense. If 2 people act 
in concert, and only 1 pulls the trigger, it's plausible to say that they are 
comparably responsible. But if only 1 shoots and kills, and the other had no 
intent of causing death -- and wasn't even present when it happened -- then the 
punishment for the 2 should not be the same.

Under the Enmund rule from 1982, Wood very likely wouldn't be executed. He knew 
the killer had a gun -- and indeed Wood urged him not to bring it on the 
fateful trip to the convenience store. But the prosecution didn't prove that 
Wood had intended the murder to occur.

Unfortunately for Wood, the Supreme Court wasn't done with this issue in 1982 
-- nor was Byron White. In 1987, the court reconsidered accomplice liability in 
a case called Tison v. Arizona. This time, White deserted the liberals and 
joined an opinion written for the court by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and 
joined by t3 other conservatives.

The court held that intent to kill was not necessary for the death penalty -- 
essentially rewriting the 1982 decision without acknowledging it. Then the 
court said that it was constitutional to execute an accomplice "whose 
participation is major and whose mental state is one of reckless indifference 
to the value of human life."

That???s the standard that Texas courts applied to Wood in upholding his death 
sentence. Texas law still allows for the execution of an accomplice under a 
rule sometime called "the law of parties." The courts found that Wood was a 
major participant in the crime and recklessly disregarded the value of human 
life when it came to the events that led to the murder.

The evidence in support of that conclusion about Wood's role and attitude seems 
highly debatable. But that shouldn't matter. It's time for the Supreme Court to 
go back to the 1982 rule requiring intent to kill.

Wood's case shows why the 1987 rule is indefensible. First, a getaway driver, 
or any accomplice who is aware that a criminal plot is under way, like Wood, 
can be considered a "major participant." So that requirement is almost 
meaningless.

Quicktake Lethal Injection

Second, anyone who participates at all in a crime involving a gun or other 
dangerous weapon can be found recklessly indifferent to the value of human 
life, as Wood was. That means that essentially any accomplice can be executed.

In short, the 1987 rule effectively erases the moral boundary between someone 
who intends to kill and someone who is along for the ride when someone else 
does the killing. Whatever Byron White may have been thinking in 1982, he had 
more or less reversed himself by 1987.

Today's court is gradually getting more progressive about capital punishment, 
exempting minors and those with reduced mental capacity. And it's long been the 
legal rule that the death penalty can only be applied when someone has been 
killed, not for other heinous crimes such as rape.

The court should now reopen the question of executing defendants who didn't 
kill anyone. The justices don't even have to invent a new standard -- they can 
just apply the 1982 ruling, and restrict the death penalty to criminals who 
participated in a murder with the intent to kill.

(source: Bloomberg news)

FLORIDA:

Debate between State Attorney candidates at Jacksonville University gets heated

Just 2 weeks before the Florida primary, candidates for State Attorney faced 
off at Jacksonville University on Tuesday night.

There were moments that were heated in the debate between incumbent State 
Attorney Angela Corey and candidates Wes White and Melissa Nelson, who are all 
running as Republicans.

The audience got into the debate too, with Nelson supporters cheering for her 
and a Corey supporter yelling from the crowd that Nelson "stinks."

Corey talked about her record, saying that over the last 8 years, it speaks for 
itself. Corey said she helped the office improve its conviction rate and 
overall rank. Corey also defended her handling of high-profile cases, including 
the George Zimmerman case.

Nelson criticized Corey, saying that if elected, she would work to restore 
trust that Corey has diminished. Nelson also touted her experience as a 
criminal prosecutor, and said she felt her opponents had been ganging up on her 
during the campaign.

White talked about what he would do if elected State Attorney, saying 
Jacksonville does not need a weak-willed State Attorney. He said he thinks the 
death penalty should only be used when absolutely necessary.

The candidates also discussed the controversy surrounding the closed primary 
following the write-in candidate Kenny Lay, with Corey's opponents accusing her 
of orchestrating it. After the debate, Corey denied those claims.

"I have said it before, while I don't agree with what they did, that group of 
people who did that thought they were doing the right thing for the right 
reasons and there is a Supreme Court decision to back them up," Corey said.

"The lack of ownership, from the trick, the ploy to close this primary to the 
ads funded and put together by Angela Corey's campaign," Nelson said after the 
debate."

"Well, I would change my party affiliation to NPA, which means 'no party 
affiliation,' so that everyone could vote. Now, people that know me know that 
I'm a conservative," White said after the debate.

The candidates also called each other's integrity into question during the 
debate. One case that was brought up over and over again was the trial of a 
serial killer from more than a decade ago.

William Wells dubbed himself "The Mayport Monster" after he killed five people 
in the early 2000s. Nelson was a prosecutor in that case: on Tuesday night, she 
said the families of Wells' victims had asked her not to seek the death 
penalty.

Wells was sentenced to life in prison and while in prison, he ended up killing 
another prisoner. Nelson said Corey supervised her during that case, but Corey 
said she opposed the decision not to seek the death penalty all along.

"That is false," Nelson said after the debate. "Did she produce any evidence 
indicating that? That is outright, that is false."

"Even though I helped her a little bit with that case, she and Harry Shorstein 
and they alone, made the decision to waive the death penalty on a serial 
killer," Corey said after the debate.

"When someone says they are going to kill again, there's only one solution, and 
that is to impose the death penalty," White said.

The winner of this race will face the write-in candidate in November.

(source: WOKV news)

ALABAMA:

Alabama death row inmate appeals to U.S. Supreme Court

Attorneys for Alabama death row inmate William Ernest Kuenzel filed an appeal 
to the U.S. Supreme Court this week seeking a ruling that would allow him to 
present new evidence that they say will prove his innocence.

Kuenzel was convicted in the 1987 shooting death of a Sylacauga convenience 
store clerk during a robbery. He has gained support for his claims of innocence 
from a group of lawyers, former district attorneys, ministers, and actors, 
including Law & Order actor Sam Waterston.That group filed a brief supporting 
Kuenzel's innocence to the Alabama Supreme Court, which refused to hear the 
case in April.

In the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday Kuenzel's attorneys state 
that in 2010, and during federal proceedings, attorneys for Alabama disclosed 
"critical exculpatory evidence" that it failed to turn over during Kuenzel's 
capital trial, which they say violated previous federal rulings.

"This new evidence completely undermines Mr. Kuenzel's already tenuous capital 
conviction and vindicates his long-maintained position that he is actually 
innocent. Regardless of one's views on the broader questions surrounding 
capital punishment, this particular case presents the intolerable risk that an 
innocent man will be put to death without any consideration of new exculpatory 
evidence that gravely undermines the already limited evidence supporting his 
conviction," according to the U.S. Supreme Court petition.

After a federal petition was denied on procedural grounds, Kuenzel returned to 
Alabama state court and filed a second state petition based on the evidence 
that the state prosecutors had newly disclosed during the federal habeas 
proceedings, according to the U.S. Supreme Court petition. But under Alabama 
law, Kuenzel was blocked from seeking state habeas relief during the pendency 
of his federal habeas proceedings because of state law that prohibits 
prosecuting 2 actions in the courts of Alabama "at the same time for the same 
cause and against the same party." "Unusually, Alabama has interpreted this 
provision to apply to concurrent litigation in Alabama federal courts, and 
mandates dismissal when a 2nd suit for the same cause is brought," the U.S. 
Supreme Court petition states.

"Yet the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Mr. Kuenzel's habeas 
petition as untimely under Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c), which 
requires that successive state habeas petitions based on newly discovered 
evidence be brought within 6 months of the discovery of that evidence," the 
petition states. "By this rule, Mr. Kuenzel was required to file a successive 
state habeas petition while his federal habeas proceedings were pending, even 
though Alabama Code # 6-5-440 would have required the dismissal of such a 
duplicative suit."

The question Kuenzel's attorneys have posed to the U.S. Supreme Court is this: 
"Whether it is fundamentally unfair and violates the Due Process Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to require a capital habeas petitioner to bring a 
successive state habeas petition within six months of the discovery of new 
evidence, when Alabama Code # 6-5-440 would have simultaneously barred such a 
suit."

Kuenzel was convicted in the shooting death of clerk Linda Offord. His roommate 
Havey Venn pleaded guilty as an accomplice.

Venn testified that Kuenzel suggested robbing the store. A number of witnesses 
testified to seeing Venn's 1984 Buick Regal automobile at the store the night 
of the murder and an unidentified man in the front passenger seat.

Venn testified that he sat in the car while Kuenzel went inside the convenience 
store with a 16-gauge shotgun. Venn heard a shot and saw the clerk fall 
backwards, according to court records.

A 16-year-old witness also testified she was riding in a car past the store 
about an hour before the murder and that she saw Venn and Kuenzel inside the 
store. Without her identification, the evidence was insufficient to convict 
Kuenzel because state law requires that accomplice testimony be corroborated, 
attorneys have argued.

Missed deadlines

The evidence Kuenzel says is new evidence is that grand-jury testimony of the 
16-year-old girl, first disclosed in 2010, indicates she could not identify 
Kuenzel as the man she saw in the convenience store the night of the murder, 
Moore states. Because the discovery of that evidence occurred more than 2 
decades after Kuenzel's conviction, his only procedural route for bringing that 
evidence before the circuit court for a hearing was a new petition filed within 
6 months of discovery of that evidence, he stated.

Kuenzel filed his current petition in September 2013, long past the 6-month 
filing deadline. That deadline, however, under extraordinary circumstances may 
be disregarded, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote in an opinion in the 
case.

Kuenzel argued he had found out about the testimony transcripts while he was 
litigating an appeal in federal court. The Court of Criminal Appeals, 
perceiving no reason why Kuenzel could not file his 2nd petition while his 
federal case was proceeding, affirmed the circuit court's finding that the 
petition was untimely.

"Ordinarily, that would be the end of the matter. Because of the 
irreversibility of the death penalty, however, I believe some leeway may be 
warranted in this case," Moore stated in his opinion.

Among the evidence Kuenzel's defense team say they have uncovered since the 
trial that jurors never heard or saw include:

--Venn's gun was a .16 gauge shotgun after all despite Venn having claimed it 
was a .12 gauge. Offord had been shot with a .16 gauge.

--Grand jury testimony by a prosecution witness, who had testified at trial 
that she saw both Kuenzel and Venn inside the store, was not shown to jurors. 
During the grand jury testimony she stated she couldn't identify the men.

--Venn's girlfriend said Venn was alone and was not with Kuenzel that night.

--Police notes, which the defense team got in 2010, show Venn had first told 
police he was another man, but police never tried to find that man.

--A police officer noted Venn had injuries consistent with that of the victim.

--Venn needed money for an attorney to defend himself at an upcoming drug 
trial.

--The shotgun Kuenzel had borrowed had been returned to the relative days 
before the shooting.

Among the evidence the jury did have was that Venn had blood from the victim on 
his clothing and Kuenzel didn't, the lawyers have also argued. Also, Kuenzel 
and his step father both testified that Kuenzel was asleep at home, without 
access to a car, that night.

(source: al.com)

OHIO:

Worley Indicted On 19 Counts, Could Face Death Penalty Surrounding Abduction & 
Murder

James D. Worley, 57, Delta has been indicted Tuesday, August 16 on 19 counts 
concerning the death of Sierah Joughin, 20, Metamora. Joughin's body was found 
in a field on July 22, 2 days after she had gone missing during a bike ride.

Worley could face the death penalty as a result of the charges which now 
include:

2 counts of aggravated murder, unclassified felonies, with specifications for 
the death penalty

2 counts of murder, unclassified felonies

2 counts of aggravated robbery, 1st degree felonies

4 counts of kidnapping, 1st degree felonies

2 counts of felonious assault, 2nd degree felonies

2 counts of abduction, 3rd degree felonies

1 count of tampering with evidence, a 3rd degree felony

2 counts of having weapons while on disability, 3rd degree felonies

1 count of possession of criminal tools, a 5th degree felony

1 count of abuse of a corpse, a 5th degree felony

Worley has been held without bond at the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio 
since he was originally charged with 1 count of aggravated murder, an 
unclassified felony, and 1 count of abduction, a 3rd degree felony.

The duplicated counts of new charges are due to the crimes being listed in 
different subsections of the Ohio Revised Code.

Worley's arraignment on the new charges was scheduled for Friday, August 19 at 
10:30 AM.

(source: thevillagerporter.com)

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

Bond set at $1 million for 1st of 8 charged in Hamilton shootings

Bond was set Wednesday at $1 million for Cornell McKennelly II, the 1st of 8 
people to be arraigned on charges connected to 2 Hamilton shootings that killed 
3 people.

McKennelly, 38, of Franklin Street, Hamilton, is charged with murder and having 
weapons under disability, for allegedly killing Hamilton's Kalif Goens at 
Doubles Bar on July 24. He is scheduled to be back in Butler County Common 
Pleas Court in October for a pre-trial hearing.

Judge Greg Stephens set the high bond after prosecutors pointed to McKennelly's 
past criminal history that includes a conviction for drug trafficking in 
cocaine in 1999 in Butler County, serving a prison sentence for escape from 
Warren County, and conviction on a heroin charge in 2006 in Washington, D.C.

"This is a very emotional case containing a sequence of tensions in a sequence 
of events. For the safety of the public and, quite frankly, your safety Mr. 
McKennelly, I am setting bond at $1 million, not 10 %," Stephens said.

The courtroom was full of people that were searched with a hand-held metal 
detector before entering the courtroom. They left without comment after the 
hearing that lasted about 5 minutes.

The remainder of the defendants will be arraigned Friday, also by Stephens.

They are:

--Mondale Goens, 21, of Maple Ave., Hamilton, charged with 2 counts of 
felonious assault, in the Doubles Bar shooting. He is represented by attorney 
Lawrence Hawkins.

--Rodrick Curtis Jr., 20, North 7th Street, Hamilton, charge with felonious 
assault and having weapons under disability, for the Doubles Bar shooting. He 
is represented by attorney Scott Blauvelt.

--Zachary Harris, 24, of Columbus, charged with counts of aggravated murder 
with a death penalty specification alleging the crimes were for hire, and a 
classification as a repeat violent offender, and having weapons under 
disability. for the Central Avenue drive-by shooting that killed Orlando 
Gilbert and Todd Berus. Harris is represented by attorneys Tim McKenna and 
Wilkes Ellworth

--Tony Patete, 23, of Newark, charge with 2 counts of aggravated murder with a 
death penalty specification alleging the crimes were for hire, for the Central 
Avenue shooting. He is represented by attorneys Elizabeth Agar and William 
Oswall Jr.

--Cory Cook II, 23, 9th Street, Hamilton: Felonious assault, for the Doubles 
Bar Shooting. bar with the specification that a gun was used in the crime. He 
is represented by attorney Melinda Cook.

--Michael Grevious II, 23, of Maple Ave., Hamilton, charge with 1 count of 
aggravated murder with a death penalty specification alleging the crime was for 
hire and classifying him as a repeat violent offender for the Central Avenue 
shooting and felonious assault and the classification of a repeat violent 
offender, and having weapons under disability, for the Doubles Bar shooting. He 
is represented by David Washington and Ed Kathman.

--Melinda Ann Gibby, 35, of Lancaster, charged with 2 counts of aggravated 
murder with a death penalty specification alleging the crimes were for hire for 
the Central Avenue shooting. She is represented by David Brewer and Tamara 
Sack.

Gun violence at the Main Street bar on the city's west side killed Kalif Goens 
and injured 7 others, according to Butler County Prosecutor Michael Gmoser.

Days later, 2 men were killed in a drive-by shooting along Central Avenue, 
which officials say was a murder for hire, according to the indictment.

(source: journal-news.com)

OKLAHOMA:

Another mental exam ordered for Oklahoma beheading suspect

A judge in Oklahoma refused Wednesday to accept a guilty plea from a man 
accused of beheading a co-worker at a food processing plant in 2014, instead 
ordering another mental evaluation.

Cleveland County District Judge Lori Walkley said she wouldn't accept the plea 
from Alton Nolen, who has said he wants the death penalty for the attack at 
Vaughan Foods in Moore, because Nolen is not mentally competent enough. He will 
go to the state mental hospital for more tests.

Nolen is charged with 1st-degree murder in the beheading of Colleen Hufford, 
54, at the plant shortly after he was suspended from the company for making 
racial remarks. He was also accused of stabbing and wounding another co-worker 
before a company executive shot him.

"They're entitled to justice," Walkley said of the victims and their families. 
"While it may not be swift, it will be sure."

The victim's daughter, Kelli Hufford, said in a statement that "justice was not 
served."

"The level of disappointment my family and I are experiencing at this moment is 
almost incomprehensible," she said. "Giving this monster any more time on this 
earth rather than charging him and sentencing him to the death penalty for 
killing my mother is inexcusable."

Nolen's defence attorneys have argued that he is mentally ill and unable to 
co-operate with them. At a hearing last week, a neuropsychologist testifying 
for the defence said Nolen is schizophrenic.

"He has lost touch with reality. ... He can't think rationally because he 
firmly believes he is being held captive, and we are all evil and the devil," 
Antoinette McGarrahan said.

District Attorney Greg Mashburn told Oklahoma City television station KFOR 
Wednesday (http://bit.ly/2biLZrM ) that he hopes there won't be much delay due 
to the new round of tests ordered.

"I think he is competent," Mashburn said. "We'll have him looked at one more 
time and get back and hopefully get this case back on track."

(source: timescolonist.com)

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

Another mental exam ordered for Oklahoma beheading suspect