[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, OHIO, KY., KAN., N. MEX., COLO., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 21




TEXAS:

Incompetent counsel in death penalty cases


Defending people accused or convicted of capital murder is daunting, 
emotionally draining, and all consuming - when you win. When your client gets 
executed, it is devastating beyond words. Jerry Guerinot's smiling face in the 
AP's article, titled Texas lawyer who lost all death penalty cases says he's 
done, makes my blood boil. How could a professional entrusted with the lives of 
others show no scars when he finally decides to stop ushering his clients to 
death row?

The article omitted important details that put this question into perspective. 
The most successful capital trial lawyers rarely go to trial. They work hard to 
investigate every possible detail about their clients and their crimes. If 
their clients are innocent, they present firm evidence to the prosecutor to get 
the case dismissed. If their clients are guilty, they present firm evidence of 
their clients' humanity to remove death as an option. Guerinot took almost 
twice as many cases to trial as he resolved without trial; these numbers are an 
enormous red flag that he did not prepare his cases in a professional manner. 
Or as the New York Times quoted famous capital attorney David Dow saying, "He 
doesn't even pick the low-hanging fruit which is hitting him in the head as he 
is walking under the tree." Pat Hartwell, one of the leading death-penalty 
activists in Texas, knows nearly every attorney who has represented the 
prisoners. She knows the good ones and the bad ones; she knows the ones who 
care and the ones who just want a paycheck or some fame. Hartwell regards 
Guerinot as one who thought his bravado and connections would protect his 
reputation. But it has not. Guerinot's record speaks for itself.

Guerinot's high-profile cases illustrate his lack of care and preparation when 
his clients' lives are on the line. The article mentions that the Supreme Court 
will review Duane Buck's case next term because a psychologist opined that he 
would be a future danger because he is a black man. What the article omits is 
that Guerinot called this psychologist, Walter Quijano, to testify on his 
client's behalf. That's right; Guerinot called an expert witness for the sole 
purpose of saving Buck's life, and that witness said that Buck would continue 
to be a danger to society because he is black. Either Guerinot really wanted 
the jury to kill his client, or he did not put any thought or preparation into 
Buck's defense. And the conservative Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated 
Linda Carty's conviction despite Guerinot's proclamation that she received a 
death sentence "because it was a terrible crime." It may have been a terrible 
crime, but Carty did not do it. Guerinot seems to miss this minor detail.

But a much deeper and more troubling problem is lurking in Texas. Why did 
Harris County judges continue to appoint Guerinot to represent these 
defendants? He never won, and an alarming number of his clients have been 
granted relief due to Guerinot's professional deficiencies. The judges 
presumably saw Guerinot's billing records and knew that he did not prepare for 
his trials. Why would they appoint a lawyer who would almost certainly fail to 
"defend" his clients, as Guerinot acknowledged when he corrected himself to say 
he only "represents" them? That question remains unanswered as Guerinot retires 
from capital work. Texas, which executes people much more often than the rest 
of death-penalty states, should be ensuring that the best lawyers in the state 
handle these cases. But the best-of-the-best too often enter the case after the 
damage is done. And even at that late point, these lawyers often face fierce 
resistance from the Texas courts and local lawyers.

People who devote their lives to correcting these wrongs know this tragic 
reality. Society, however, thinks that Clarence Darrow represents every person 
accused of capital murder. Certainly, many devoted capital trial lawyers are 
the cream of the legal crop. But you rarely hear about their clients. When you 
hear news of someone being executed, someone like Guerinot represented them, 
and the judges arranged for that representation. As long as this situation 
exists in Texas and other death-penalty states, justice does not prevail. Until 
this and the multitude of other problems are corrected, if they can be, the 
death penalty must be abolished.

(source: Opinion; Gregory W. Gardner is a capital habeas attorney in 
Boulder----Boulder Daily Camera)

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

Death penalty can be justified


The state of Texas had 2 executions scheduled in the remainder of August - 
Jeffrey Wood on Wednesday and Rolando Ruiz on Aug. 31. (In the case of Wood, 
his execution was halted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Friday. His 
case has become a national story and resulted in the attention of a state 
lawmaker who opposes capital punishment for Wood.)

According to media reports, Wood was not present when an accomplice fatally 
shot a convenience store employee during a robbery in Kerrville. Wood was 
waiting outside in a vehicle. However, Wood did enter the store following the 
shooting, as security footage showed Wood and an accomplice removing a safe.

Wood may not have been present when his accomplice committed murder, but the 
questions are these: Did Wood know a shooting had just been committed? Did he 
know whether the convenience store employee was alive or dead? Did he do 
anything to determine whether a life could have been saved? Or did he just 
commit robbery and flee?

Unfortunately, this is the problem sometimes with capital punishment - the 
details of how a horrific crime was committed can be questioned.

However, what about when there are no questions? What about when there is no 
doubt as to an individual's guilt?

This is the dilemma with the never-ending debate over capital punishment, 
especially in the state of Texas, which has executed 6 individuals in 2016.

Not every capital punishment case has questions.

Sometimes, the death penalty is justified as punishment when there is no doubt 
as to guilt.

For example, the advent of technology (specifically DNA evidence) makes it 
possible to determine an individual's guilt - or innocence.

If an individual commits a horrific crime, and DNA evidence exists that 
determines beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed this horrific 
crime, why should the death penalty be excluded as punishment?

Here is the point - there are capital punishment cases that, thanks to science, 
can prove whether a person is guilty or innocent - and remove the potential of 
an innocent person being executed.

Not every capital punishment case consists of questions and circumstances like 
those found in Wood's case.

Sometimes, the facts cannot be disputed - and when technology backs up the 
facts, the death penalty should be available for the most heinous of crimes.

(source: Editorial, Amarillo Globe-News)






OHIO:

Man accused in slaying to remain held ---- No bond set in Fulton Co. for Worley 
on 19 charges


A judge ordered Friday that the man accused of killing Sierah Joughin remain 
held without bond until his arraignment.

James Worley, 57, of rural Delta, Ohio, appeared by video from the Corrections 
Center of Northwest Ohio for a hearing in Fulton County Common Pleas Court.

He faces 19 charges handed up this week by a grand jury. 2 counts carry a 
potential death penalty if Worley is convicted.

Worley did not enter a plea Friday to Judge James Barber. About 30 people, 
including family and media, attended the brief hearing inside the small 
courtroom.

Toledo attorney Mark Berling, who is certified to handle death penalty cases, 
has been appointed to Worley's case. The defendant is to be arraigned Sept. 8.

Worley was indicted on charges including murder, abduction, and tampering with 
evidence. Prosecutors said multiple counts of the same offense reflect 
different sections of Ohio Revised Code. Authorities said all 19 charges stem 
from the kidnapping and murder of Ms. Joughin.

Ms. Joughin, 20, of Metamora, Ohio, disappeared July 19 while riding a bike in 
rural Fulton County. Her remains were found 3 days later along Fulton County 
Road 7. She was handcuffed and died of asphyxiation, according to an autopsy 
report.

Worley was arrested July 22 on an abduction charge. He was later charged with 
aggravated murder.

In an interview, Mr. Berling said he has not yet thoroughly reviewed court 
documents and declined comment on the case. This will be his 20th capital case, 
he said, including many in which he served as lead counsel.

Mr. Berling said he will select a 2nd attorney to join him in defense of 
Worley. Mark Powers, who has previously represented Worley, is expected to stay 
on as well, Mr. Berling said.

(source: Toledo Blade)






KENTUCKY:

Jury pool expands in Langford case


Ballard Circuit Judge Tim Langford expressed concern Friday as to whether an 
adequate jury pool had been summoned for the murder trial of a La Center man, 
which is scheduled in December.

Shaquille Edwards, 22, is charged with murder, attempted murder, 1st-degree 
assault, 2 counts of kidnapping, 2 counts of 1st-degree wanton endangerment and 
2 counts of 1st-degree burglary.

He could face the death penalty if convicted.

Authorities believe Edwards fatally shot his cousin, 18-year-old Theresa 
Hughes, and wounded 21-year-old Caitlin L. Houston.

During a pretrial conference Friday in Wickliffe, Langford noted that because 
the death penalty is on the table, seating a jury could be more difficult as 
some potential jurors might not be comfortable making such a decision.

To ensure a large enough jury pool was available, Edwards' defense attorney Del 
Pruitt said, the judge opted to combine the circuit court and district court 
jury pools, estimating that could bring the head count up to about 200 
potentials.

Additionally, Pruitt said, the judge decided to move the trial's start from 
Dec. 5 to Dec. 1, to give the attorneys time to evaluate each potential juror.

"In a death penalty case, you have to do individual death qualification before 
you start picking a jury," Pruitt said, explaining that each potential juror 
would have to be interviewed to determine if the person could consider a case 
that could end with capital punishment.

Pruitt estimated that process would take at least a few days.

Commonwealth Attorney Mike Stacey estimated opening arguments would start Dec. 
6. The trial is scheduled to last until Dec. 14.

Also addressed Friday was whether the case could be settled before going to 
trial.

"(Langford) wants us to attempt a settlement, so that's what we're going to 
do," Pruitt said, adding he is optimistic an agreement can be reached.

"We're going to try and reach an agreement that both parties feel is adequate 
and fair," Stacey said. "Not only do I have the (victims') families to 
consider, but I have the citizens of Ballard County to answer to. But we're 
working on it."

Edwards was arrested Feb. 2 after Ballard deputies responded to an early 
morning shooting near the 200 block of Locust Avenue in La Center.

Kentucky State Police Trooper Michael Robichaud said officers first found 
Hughes, who had been fatally shot.

In that same block, Houston was found with a gunshot wound to the leg, he said. 
She was taken to Baptist Health Paducah.

Robichaud said Edwards was located in a residence near the scene. As troopers 
pulled up to the house, he said, Edwards came out with a firearm. Robichaud 
said Edwards relinquished the weapon and was taken into custody without 
incident.

He was taken to the Ballard County Jail in Wickliffe, where he remains on $1 
million bond.

Edwards will next appear for a pretrial conference on Sept. 30. Langford said 
he hopes to hear at that time that a settlement has been reached.

(source: The Paducah Sun)






KANSAS:

Growing effort to unseat justices warrants critical examination


In the coming months, Kansas voters are likely to hear more about the justices 
that sit on the Kansas Supreme Court than ever before as 5 of the justices - 
Lawton Nuss, Marla Luckert, Carol Beier, Dan Biles and Caleb Stegall - face 
retention votes in November.

Normally, such votes come and go without much attention. The names, in most 
years, are unfamiliar to voters, but that will be different this year because 
this isn't most years.

Nonprofit companies similar to those that spend so much money in political 
campaigns have popped up for and against retention of the justices. Gov. Sam 
Brownback and many in the Kansas Legislature have made it clear that they want 
to exert greater control over the judiciary, which has often stood in 
opposition to the administration and Legislature's positions, particularly on 
school finance formulas.

Voters won't hear much about that, however. Instead, they'll hear the retelling 
of the horrifically brutal murders committed in 2000 by Jonathan and Reginald 
Carr in Wichita, which resulted in the death penalty for both in 2002.

They'll also hear about a Kansas Supreme Court that in 2014 chose the rights of 
murderers over the rights of the victims and their families - and how those 
justices should be dumped in exchange for a new high court.

The truth, however, seldom can be boiled down to such simplistic postcard style 
talking points.

The defense attorneys for the Carr brothers dutifully appealed the brothers' 
convictions and sentencings, claiming that jurors were not given proper 
instructions and that the trial and sentencing should have been tried 
separately.

In reviewing the case, the state's high court vacated the death sentences, 
agreeing that the brothers shouldn't have been sentenced together. The case was 
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned the Kansas Supreme Court. 
On the issue of jury instructions, Kansas prosecutors in the meantime changed 
the way they present instructions to jurors. What the Carr brothers did in 2000 
is indefensible, cruel and they both deserve the strongest penalty possible for 
the the murders of Jason Befort, Brad Heyka, Aaron Sander, Heather Muller and a 
5th victim, identified as H.G., who survived.

The pain and anger their families feel is deep and justified.

The justices, in their ruling on the case, never threatened to turn the Carr 
brothers loose. Additionally, the ruling in no way minimized the horror those 
men inflicted on their victims. In the simplest terms, the ruling was over a 
matter of law, a technicality of sorts, raised by defense attorneys, about the 
way in which the case had been handled and whether the U.S. Constitution had 
been followed.

The justices likely knew that their ruling would be unpopular, open them to 
criticism and political retaliation. They nevertheless made that unpopular 
ruling based on an understanding of the law and the constitution.

This is how laws are made better and perfected. And that's exactly why justices 
are supposed to be insulated from the politics that soil so much of American, 
and Kansas, politics.

We should want, and need, justices who have the courage to make sound rulings 
of law, regardless of the political implications of any given moment in time.

As election season grows nearer, voters will undoubtedly see their mailboxes 
once again filled with misleading claims about politicians, with the added 
bonus of such claims regarding the justices who sit on Kansas Supreme Court.

But voters must set aside the material designed to elicit an emotional response 
long enough to allow reason to reign - and question what really underlies an 
unprecedented effort to alter the majority of the highest court in the state.

Such moves, when combined with attempts to change the way justices are selected 
and overt threats by lawmakers to disregard rulings from the judiciary, reveal 
that there???s much more history and context that must be considered.

(source: Opinion; Jason Probst, for The Hutchinson News editorial board)






NEW MEXICO:

Area officials weigh in on death penalty


New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez' recent announcement that she wants to restore 
the death penalty has been a point of controversy among Roosevelt County and 
state officials.

While those supporting the death penalty agree it is well deserved for 
criminals committing violent acts toward police officers and children, while 
those against it say state money is best used towards helping people.

The state repealed the death penalty in 2009, when then-Gov. Bill Richardson 
signed a law replacing the sentence with life without parole.

New Mexico Sen. Stuart Ingle said he is in support of Martinez' announcement.

"I don't have a problem with it at all," said Ingle. "Criminals should have to 
think about it. Some of these things that they've done - they do not deserve to 
live even if they are in prison."

Ingle added that the penalty should be immediate for suspects guilty of killing 
police officers, kidnapping resulting in death or "some kind of a terrorism 
aspect."

Curry County Sheriff Wesley Waller echoes those sentiments.

"We would support it," Waller said. "I do think it's something that does need 
to be reviited. We feel it does serve as a deterrent."

Chris Sanchez, director of communications for Martinez' office said in an email 
statement that Martinez will pursue the change as part of her legislative 
agenda in January.

"At minimum, we can all agree that it should apply to cop killers and child 
murderers," Martinez stated in the email. "People need to ask themselves, if 
the man who ambushed and killed 5 police officers in Dallas had lived, would he 
deserve the ultimate penalty?"

District Attorney Andrea Reeb said she "100 % support(s)" the governor's idea.

"I think it is a huge deterrent for people committing violent crimes," Reeb 
said. "Now, a lot of times, defendants have no incentive to take a plea 
agreement, because they have nothing to lose. I think if they knew that was a 
possibility, it would deter them."

She said people will think twice before committing violent crimes, but many 
defendants will take plea agreements to avoid the death penalty, which means 
they still get jail time and tax payer dollars and are saved by ending the case 
before it goes to trial.

"I don't see that people think they have anything to lose anymore," said Reeb. 
"The death penalty gives a chance for victims, prosecutors and attorneys to 
negotiate those kind of things."

"I believe the way we did it previously where we had to find the aggravated 
circumstances of the crime should still be the way it should go," Reeb added, 
"but I have always felt it is a deterrent for crime."

Since 1912, New Mexico has executed 28 people. Terry Clark, executed in 2001, 
was the 1st person executed by the state since 1960. Between 1960 and 1976, 
murder of a police officer was the only charge that could be considered as a 
death penalty case. Clark, out on bond while appealing an assault conviction, 
raped and killed a 9-year-old Artesia girl.

Despite the repeal, t2 inmates remain on the state's death row - Timothy Allen, 
convicted in the 1994 kidnapping, rape and murder by strangulation of a teenage 
girl; and Robert Ray Fry, convicted in 2002 of murdering a Shiprock mother by 
bludgeoning and stabbing.

The eastern New Mexico region had a few cases approach the death penalty level 
prior to the repeal:

-- William "Billy Joe" Watson was found not guilty in 2010 on a death penalty 
case for the slaying of Causey farmer Jimmie Bo Chunn. Donald Taylor pleaded 
guilty to the shooting to avoid the death penalty.

-- Texas resident Michael Treadway was found guilty in the December 1997 
shooting death of Everett "Red" Prather, a Texico shop owner. He was originally 
given the death penalty, but the Supreme Court tossed the death penalty 
circumstance of murdering a witness. Evidence showed Prather grabbed the 
telephone before being shot, but the court ruled that wasn't enough evidence to 
show Treadway formed "specific intent to kill for the purpose of preventing the 
report of a crime."

-- In 2007, Stanley Bedford was found guilty of the 2005 deaths of Portales' 
Odis and Doris Newman. The Albuquerque jury did not agree on the death penalty. 
Jerry Fuller, nephew to the Newmans, pleaded guilty to the murders to avoid the 
death penalty.

-- James Smith, a Clovis dentist, pleaded guilty in 2006 to the December 2005 
murder of Laura McNaughton. He was ruled eligible for the death penalty.

Watson and Bedford were both defended by Ruidoso attorney Gary Mitchell, who 
was long known as the state's fiercest fighter against death penalty cases.

"While I appreciate the governor's affinity for police and children, we take 1 
incident, and we turn it into a major reason for change," said Mitchell. "It's 
not gonna change things in New Mexico."

Mitchell said he spent 30 years fighting the death penalty, and argued state 
funds are better used toward improving the economy and ensuring care for 
children and the mentally ill.

"It would be much better in the long run," said Mitchell. "I say we direct our 
own money toward helping people and not killing them."

(source: Clovis News Journal)






COLORADO:

Review panel recommends removing Judge in Crowley death penalty case ---- Judge 
has sealed file in death penalty case


A judge presiding over a death penalty murder case in which a Colorado prison 
inmate is accused of fatally stabbing a female correctional officer is 1 of 2 
Colorado judges that local review commissions earmarked for removal from the 
bench in November's general election.

The State Commission on Judicial Performance identified Judge Michael Andrew 
Schiferl of the 16th Judicial District in Crowley County and Judge Jill-Ellyn 
Straus of the 17th Judicial District in Adams County as judges who should not 
be retained by voters in November. All of the 106 other appellate and trial 
court judges standing for retention in Colorado received "retain" 
recommendations.

Schiferl currently presides over the death penalty case against Miguel 
Contreras-Perez, who is accused of fatally stabbing Sgt. Mary Ricard on Sept. 
24, 2012, at the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility. The district attorney 
is seeking the death penalty in the case.

Straus, who was appointed in 2008, presides over juvenile court cases, focusing 
on dependency and neglect issues.

This year is the 50th anniversary of Colorado's merit selection for judges. 
Evaluations by local commissions across the state are now available online at 
www.ojpe.org. The evaluations will be included in the Colorado Voter 
Information Guide that will be mailed this fall to every registered voter in 
the state.

Each commission consists of 6 non-attorney members and four attorney members.

"Commission members take this work seriously and strive to provide voters an 
honest, fair and reliable performance assessment of every judge standing for 
retention in Colorado," state judicial commission Executive Director Kent 
Wagner said. "Citizens' votes matter and will ultimately determine if the judge 
remains in office for another term."

The local commissions evaluate a judge's integrity, legal knowledge, 
communication skills, judicial temperament and administrative performance. They 
attend court hearings, consider statements by judges and review decisions by 
the judge. Surveys were sent to more than 83,000 people having some involvement 
with the judges, including attorneys, jurors, crime victims and probation 
officers. The system was created in 1966 to ensure highly qualified and 
impartial judges serve in Colorado courts.

The evaluation of Schiferl said that 6 of 9 local commission members 
recommended that he "not be retained."

"In this rural judicial district, Judge Schiferl often appears too familiar 
with the litigants in his division, blurring necessary boundaries and failing 
to maintain the appearance of neutrality ... His legal writing skills are poor 
and the judge is sloppy in the formatting, flow, and grammar appearing in his 
written work ... His orders fail to maintain the necessary air of dignity and 
are not issued in a timely manner," the evaluation states.

The local commission, which noted that Schiferl has been criticized for similar 
issues in 2 prior evaluations in 2004 and 2010, wrote that Schiferl does accept 
constructive criticism. If he is retained during the general election he should 
voluntarily participate in an improvement plan, the commission noted. Schiferl 
took aim at attorneys on the committee who he said mostly practice criminal 
law.

"These attorneys have a vested interest in trying to remove me as a judge due 
to the present system of very favorable plea bargains. These plea bargains 
frequently have little regard as to how dangerous the defendant may be," 
Schiferl wrote in his response. He also criticized plea bargaining that fails 
to take into account how dangerous some offenders are.

But Rod Fouracre, a prosecutor who was the former district attorney, said if 
Schiferl is concerned about plea bargains he should reject questionable deals.

"That which he complains of he has ultimate control over," Fouracre said.

Fouracre is 1 of the prosecutors in the Contreras-Perez case. He said he could 
not comment on the case after Schiferl sealed it. He added that the judge is "a 
very nice man."

Straus' evaluation criticized her for courtroom communications.

"Judge Straus received below average evaluations in the areas of case 
management, application of the law, communications, demeanor, diligence and 
bias," the report says.

Straus responded that she is committed to honoring the rights of both victims 
and the accused.

"The hundreds of decisions that I have made are based upon facts and the law. 
Appellate courts have consistently affirmed my decisions," she wrote.

Colorado uses three methods to remove judges:

A retention vote is 1 of 3 ways in Colorado to remove a judge from office, but 
some residents have tried unsuccessfully to remove judges by other means 
including a recall.

Besides retention votes during general elections, judges can also be removed 
through impeachment or disciplinary action for ethical or legal violations, 
said Jon Sarche, spokesman for the Colorado Office of State Court 
Administrator.

In the latest attempt to remove a judge on the basis of controversial court 
decisions, 16,000 Boulder residents signed petitions seeking the recall of 
Judge Patrick Butler after he sentenced rape convict 22-year-old Austin 
Wilkerson to jail instead of prison.

Butler was appointed as a district judge in 2011. The last time he faced a 
retention vote was in 2014, and Boulder voters approved his retention. He isn't 
up for another retention vote until 2020.

(source: The Denver Post)






CALIFORNIA:

California's death row dilemma


Of the 2,943 inmates awaiting the death penalty in the United States, 
California???s 743 condemned inmates are by far the most of any state. Of the 
30 states that allow executions, Florida (396) and Texas (263) are the only 
others with more than 200 death row prisoners. The death penalty has been 
abolished or overturned in 20 states and is under gubernatorial bans in four 
others, according to the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center.

Last week, the Delaware Attorney General's office announced that it will not 
appeal its Supreme Court's ruling earlier this month striking down its death 
penalty statute on the basis that the capital sentencing procedures were 
unconstitutional. The fate of Delaware's 13 prisoners currently facing death 
sentences remains unclear.

In California, the last inmate put to death was a decade ago - Clarence Ray 
Allen in January 2006. Since then, the state's death penalty procedures have 
been the subject on ongoing legal challenges to how the lethal drugs are 
administered, effectively producing a moratorium on capital punishment.

Meanwhile, nearly 750 convicted killers in California are serving time in a 
broken system that was never intended to provide a permanent home for them. 
Nevertheless, since 1978, far more have died of natural causes or by suicide 
than the 13 who have been killed by the state.

Critics of capital punishment pose convincing concerns over the justice 
system's racial bias, conviction errors, the cost and timeline of appeals, 
litigation over administering lethal drugs and the constitutional, ethical and 
civil rights implications of state-sanctioned killing, even for the most 
egregious of crimes.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office reports that death row inmates 
face a wait of 5 years just to be assigned a lawyer, and appeals can drag on 
for 2 decades. The DPIC points to a study that found Californians convicted of 
murdering white people were more than 3 times more likely to be sentenced to 
death than those who killed blacks and more than 4 times more likely than those 
convicted of killing Latinos. Since 1973, the DPIC also reports, more than 150 
death row inmates in the U.S. have been exonerated, including 3 in California.

This past week, a reporter and photographer from the San Francisco Examiner 
were given access to San Quentin State Prison to talk with inmates about life 
on death row. The reporting team roamed the cells of the East Block and was 
allowed to talk freely with prisoners.

Serial killer Wayne Adam Ford said he never imagined he would be stuck on death 
row nearly 2 decades later. "I was completely for the death penalty before I 
came in here," Ford, now 54, told the Examiner. "[And] to tell you the truth, I 
would have rather been killed a long time ago rather than spend the last 18 
years in solitary confinement."

San Francisco native Joey Perez, 45, was one of the condemned men locked alone 
in rows of empty cages with nothing but pull-up bars inside. He was convicted 
of a murder in 1998.

"I'm in an 8-by-10 dog kennel," Perez said. "I'm like a rabid beast. This is a 
dog kennel. This is a miserable-ass life."

Most of the men who spoke to the Examiner reported frustration at the slow pace 
of appeals and what they perceive as a criminal justice system in need of 
reform.

"I'm going to die in prison," Perez said. "My only fear in life is dying in 
prison."

This November, California voters face the latest attempt to fix this. (The last 
was in 2012, when Proposition 34, which would have changed death penalty 
sentences to life in prison, failed 48 % to 52 %.) This fall, 2 death penalty 
measures - with competing aims - have qualified for the ballot.

Proposition 62 argues that the state could save some $150 million a year by 
repealing the death penalty while also ending the lengthy appeals process. The 
measure counts among its proponents Lt. Gov. and former San Francisco Mayor 
Gavin Newsom and the Bar Association of San Francisco.

The best argument against the death penalty and for the passage of Prop. 62 
this year is that government must function to value and preserve life whenever 
possible, even among those who have acted unforgivably to the contrary. Beyond 
arguments of cost savings and critiques of a biased justice system, a civilized 
society must stand against institutionalized brutality and murder.

The other measure, Proposition 66, also cites economic savings - potentially in 
the tens of millions annually in court costs and fewer prisoners - in reforming 
the appeals process to speed up executions. This would lead California on a 
dark and savage course.

For decades, public opinion polls have reflected a majority of Californians 
favor the death penalty, but the margins are shrinking. Will this be the year 
that tips the scale?

(source: Michael Howerton is editor in chief of the San Francisco Examiner)

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

Lakewood man charged with murder of taxi driver in Hollywood


Authorities charged a Lakewood man Friday with fatally attacking a taxi driver 
at a Hollywood gas station last weekend.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office charged 34-year-old Najib 
Halibi with 1 count of murder along with allegedly committing murder during a 
robbery. The charges make Halibi eligible for the death penalty, authorities 
said.

He was scheduled to be arraigned Friday in the Foltz Criminal Justice Center in 
downtown Los Angeles.

Halibi was a taxi passenger shortly after 3 a.m. on Aug. 14 when he got into a 
dispute with the driver, 47-year-old Asifawosen Alemseged, at a gas station in 
Hollywood, a district attorney press release said.

Halibi is accused of exiting the taxi, reaching into the vehicle, grabbing 
Alemseged and sifting through his pockets. According to authorities, Alemseged 
also exited the taxi and was allegedly beaten by Halibi, who fled the scene.

Alemseged was taken to a nearby hospital where he died, authorities said.

If convicted as charged, Halibi faces the death penalty or life in prison 
without the possibility of parole. A decision on whether to seek the death 
penalty will be made at a later date, authorities said.

(source: Press-Telegram)






USA:

Taylor Gleeson: Emotion should not determine death penalty stance


Last spring, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that "following the 
department's rigorous review process to thoroughly consider all relevant 
factual and legal issues, I have determined that the Justice Department will 
seek the death penalty" in the case of United States v Dylann Roof.

In June of last year, then-21-year-old Roof entered a bible study at the 
Emanuel AME church in Charleston, S.C., when he open fired on the group, and is 
now being charged with the murder of 9 members of the church.

Though the court ruling in the Roof case is still months, if not years, away, 
Lynch's statement will inevitably spark a debate about the death penalty that 
regularly arises around these cases. The United States political scene 
fluctuates between 2 very prominent ends in the argument over capital 
punishment.

To know that someone who has caused so much pain, whether through a personal or 
impersonal connection will receive the same fate as those whose lives they have 
taken is minimally a comfort, upholding the "eye for an eye" complex. Karen 
Brassard, a survivor of the Boston bombing, said that "it feels like we can 
actually take a breath and, kind of, actually breathe again" after the 
announcement that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the Boston bombers, was given the 
death penalty. Others, though no less adamant about the cruelty of mass murder, 
oppose the death penalty. Whether citing the Eighth Amendment, the moral wrong 
of reciprocated murder, or the harshness of life sentences as a preferable 
alternative for those who have committed these atrocities, according to a 
Gallup poll, this opposition has slowly gained popularity among U.S. voters in 
the last 30 years.

For Coloradans, the arguments sparked by the Charleston church shooting and the 
fate of Dylann Roof are a foul echo of the congruent conversations around James 
Holmes. A little more than four years ago, Holmes open fired in a movie theater 
in Aurora, killing 12 and injuring 70 others.

For many, the fear and uncertainty created by the shooting in Aurora could be 
at least somewhat alleviated through the idea that the man who created such 
fear in the first place would face his end. Execution doesn't bring back those 
who we have lost, but supports this socially construed idea of justice.

Last September, a public policy Colorado survey found that 47 % of Colorado 
voters were in favor of keeping the death penalty, with 43 % wanting to replace 
it and 10 % undecided. Irreconcilably, a Quinnipiac survey from two months 
earlier recorded that, in the case of James Holmes and the Aurora murders, 63 % 
of Colorado voters supported execution, with 32 % opposed and 5 % undecided.

Though Holmes was given 12 life sentences plus 3,318 years and not the death 
penalty, this noticeable difference in Colorado voters when presented with a 
less personal and more personal scenario, is all too common.

Regardless of one's beliefs around capital punishment, it is counterproductive 
and hypocritical to shift those values through anger and illogical fervor. When 
any life is taken in such a senseless way, we have an expectation in our 
criminal justice system to uphold the law and impose punishment. This system is 
supposed to act as an unbiased arbiter, separate from the fundamental passion 
that arises as a result of tragedies that hit us on a closer level.

We place a constructed faith in our government to implement justice, yet in 
times of personal offense this expectation of logic is hastily thrown aside to 
fulfill the primal instinct of revenge.

Undoubtedly, the actions of Dylann Roof were despicable. To bear the intentions 
of taking the life of innocent people, perpetuated by different skin colors, is 
heinous and inhumane. You may believe that the decision to pursue capital 
punishment was justified or maybe it was barbaric, but if we condemn ourselves 
to fluctuating opinions on the premise of personal proximity, then we are not 
upholding justice.

(source: Opinion; Taylor Gleeson, 19, lives in Lafayette and is a student at 
the Ohio State University----Boulder Daily Camera)