[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----CALIF., ORE., WASH.

[Rick Halperin]

August 25



CALIFORNIA:

Prop 62: Death to the death penalty


Is there a problem right now with California's death penalty?

Yes there is.

Activists on both sides of the death penalty debate agree the process in 
California is broken. Right now convicts as well as families of victims wait 
for years for as the legal system grinds on. A convict on average spends 18 
years on death row before he is executed, and executions almost never happen. 
The last one was in 2006. Inmates are more likely to die of natural causes or 
suicide than to be put to death. On top of that the protracted legal process is 
expensive. It costs taxpayers about $150 million a year in attorneys' fees.

Each side takes different approaches to the problem. One wants to reform the 
process. They have proposed Prop 66. The other side wants to abolish the death 
penalty. They have proposed 62.

What would Prop 62 do?

Prop 62 would repeal the death penalty in California.

Who is for Prop 62 and what are their arguments?

Supporters include long-time death penalty opponent and actor, Mike Ferrell as 
well as actor Edward James Olmos, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and Jimmy and 
Rosalynn Carter. Organizations in favor of Prop 62 include the ACLU, state 
employee unions, innocence projects and some families of murder victims.

They say we should pass Prop 62 because:

-- It would save taxpayers millions of dollars by getting rid of California's 
costly and inefficient death penalty process. A death sentence costs 18 times 
more than a life sentence. Taxpayers have spent $5 billion dollars since 1978 
to carry out only 13 executions.

-- Inmates on death row would still have to spend the rest of their lives in 
prison and a greater portion of the wages they earn would go toward victim 
restitution.

-- It would provide victim???s families with closure instead of waiting for 
years for executions that never happen.

-- It would eliminate the chance that an innocent person is executed. In 
California 66 innocent people have had their murder convictions overturned.

-- Murder trials are biased against minorities and Latinos are 
disproportionately represented on death row

-- Botched executions make the process inhumane.

Who is against Prop 62 and what are their arguments?

Many law enforcement groups and district attorneys associations are against 
Prop 62 along with LA Sheriff Jim McDonnell, former governor Pete Wilson and 
some families of murder victims.

They say:

-- It lets the worst of the worst criminals stay alive at taxpayers' expense 
long after their victims have lost their lives.

-- People who get the death penalty are guilty of 1st degree murder with 
special circumstances. They are serial murders, or they have tortured their 
victims, or killed children or police officers. They should be punished more 
than other murderers.

-- Prop 62 will cost taxpayers money because inmates must be kept in prison at 
a cost of about $47,000 a year for the rest of their lives.

-- The answer to our broken capital punishment process is to reform it, not 
repeal it as we propose in Prop 66.

What does a "yes" vote on Prop 62 mean?

A "yes" vote means you want to abolish California's death penalty. Those 
already on death row would get life in prison without parole.

What does a "no" vote mean?

A "no" vote means you want to keep the death penalty as part of California's 
criminal sentencing laws.

There's another ballot measure, Prop 66, dealing with the death penalty on the 
ballot. How do these 2 props effect each other?

If 1 proposition passes and the other fails, then obviously the winning 
proposition becomes law.

If they both fail, things stay the way they are now.

If they both pass, then the proposition that received the most votes becomes 
law.

(source: KCET news)

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

Tossed death penalty may signal shift on California Supreme Court


In a ruling that could signal tougher scrutiny of capital cases by California's 
highest court, Gov. Jerry Brown's 3 appointees have joined a 4th justice to 
overturn a death sentence that a previous majority had voted to uphold.

Monday's 4-3 vote by the state Supreme Court granted a new penalty trial to 
Gary Grimes, to determine whether he should be resentenced to death or to life 
in prison without parole for his role in the murder of a 98-year-old Shasta 
County woman. State voters could take that issue off the table in November if 
they approve Proposition 62, which would repeal the state's death penalty law 
and resentence the nearly 750 death row inmates to life without parole.

In the meantime, however, the ruling suggests a shift on a court in which the 
death penalty has been an overriding issue for nearly 4 decades.

After legislators passed a death penalty law in 1977 and voters expanded it in 
1988, the court under Chief Justice Rose Bird reversed nearly every death 
sentence it considered until 1986. The voters removed Bird and 2 other Brown 
appointees, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin, and the newly composed court became 
one of the nation's leaders in upholding death sentences, with an affirmance 
rate that rose above 90 %. It has also had a majority of Republican appointees 
for nearly 3 decades.

The court has become less conservative on social issues over the years, as 
illustrated by a May 2008 ruling granting same-sex couples the right to marry. 
But it has continued to uphold a large majority of the death sentences it has 
considered until 6 weeks ago. Since then, the court has overturned 4 out of 7 
death verdicts.

The first 3 reversals were unanimous, based on findings that the trial judge 
had wrongly dismissed jurors or interfered with jury deliberations.

In Grimes' case, however, the new ruling was due to a change in the court's 
membership, Brown's appointments of Justices Mariano-Florentino Cuellar and 
Leondra Kruger, who joined the Democratic governor's previous appointee, 
Justice Goodwin Liu.

Grimes was sentenced to death for allegedly ordering the murder of Betty Bone, 
who was stabbed and strangled by burglars who broke into her home in 1995. 
Prosecution witnesses said the killer was 20-year-old John Morris, who 
committed suicide in jail the day after his arrest.

Grimes admitted taking part in the burglary, but denied any role in the murder. 
Prosecution witnesses said he had directed the killing, watched it take place 
and laughed about it with Morris afterward.

The disputed issue in the case was the trial judge???s refusal to allow defense 
witnesses to testify that Morris told them Grimes had taken no part in the 
killing and had been shocked to see it happen.

A different 4-3 court majority, led by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, 
upheld Grimes' death sentence in January 2015, saying the testimony was 
properly excluded as secondhand hearsay accounts by other witnesses and would 
not have affected the verdict, because the prosecutor had never claimed Grimes 
was the killer.

But Cuellar and Kruger joined the court before the ruling became final and 
voted to reconsider it, joining 2 of the dissenting justices, Liu and Kathryn 
Mickle Werdegar, a generally moderate appointee of Republican Gov. Pete Wilson.

On Monday, a new majority led by Kruger upheld Grimes' murder conviction but 
reversed his death sentence.

Kruger said Morris' reported statements about Grimes should have been allowed 
into evidence because the killer appeared to be taking responsibility rather 
than blaming someone else, a type of hearsay that is legally admissible. She 
said the statements might have persuaded 1 or more jurors to spare Grimes' 
life.

In dissent, Cantil-Sakauye said the ruling "opens the door to potentially 
untrustworthy hearsay" in future cases, and also argued that the evidence would 
not have affected the jury's decision.

Matt Cherry, executive director of Death Penalty Focus, a San Francisco 
nonprofit that opposes capital punishment, said the ruling and other recent 
decisions may reflect "a newfound courage" on the court.

Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the pro-capital punishment Criminal Justice 
Legal Foundation, responded, "It's a little premature to be calling it a trend 
for 1 case."

The case is People vs. Grimes, S076339.

(source: San Francisco Chronicle)






OREGON:

Lara back in Bend; in court today----COCC public safety officer facing 4 counts 
of aggravated murder


Edwin Lara, accused of the July murder of Kaylee Sawyer of Bend, was booked 
into the Deschutes County jail early Wednesday and will appear for the 1st time 
in Deschutes County Circuit Court today.

Lara, 31, faces 4 counts of aggravated murder, including 2 counts that allege 
kidnapping and attempted sexual abuse. Booking records show he was booked at 
3:34 a.m. in the jail in Bend and is expected to appear by video for an 
arraignment at 4 p.m. today before Deschutes Circuit Presiding Judge Alta 
Brady.

Authorities say Lara killed 23-year-old Sawyer, kidnapped a woman in Salem and 
then fled to California, where he allegedly committed a series of violent acts 
including attempted murder and carjacking. He was arrested July 26 and jailed 
in Siskiyou County, California, and waived extradition Aug. 16.

Sawyer was last seen the morning of July 24 outside her apartment building in 
Bend near the Central Oregon Community College campus, where Lara worked as a 
campus safety officer. Her body was found 2 days later off state Highway 126 
east of Sisters.

Lara, of Redmond, is married to Bend Police Officer Isabel Ponce-Lara. Court 
documents indicate Ponce-Lara questioned her husband's odd behavior the day 
after Sawyer was reported missing; she told Redmond Police that Lara told her 
Sawyer walked in front of his COCC campus security vehicle and he hit her and 
disposed of the body.

Aggravated murder is the only crime in Oregon punishable by the death penalty, 
though the governor's office has had a moratorium on executions since 2011. 
Deschutes County District Attorney John Hummel has not said whether he will 
seek the death penalty in the case.

Due to what Trial Court Administrator Jeff Hall described in a memo issued 
Wednesday as "heightened media interest," the court will enforce media pool 
rules allowing only 1 video camera and 1 still camera in the courtroom.

(source: The Bend Bulletin)






WASHINGTON:

Luyster arraignment postponed, again


Woodland triple murder suspect Brent Luyster's arraignment in Clark County 
Superior Court was postponed for a 2nd time Wednesday morning.

Luyster, 35, is accused of murdering 3 people and attempting to kill a fourth 
at a rural Woodland home July 15 while out on bail for an alleged assault on 
his ex-girlfriend in Longview.

He's been charged with 3 counts of aggravated 1st-degree murder while armed 
with a firearm and 1 count of 1st-degree attempted murder.

Luyster's defense attorney, Bob Yoseph, who is representing him along with 
Vancouver lawyer Ed Dunkerly, asked Superior Court Judge Robert Lewis to push 
back Luyster's arraignment because - he alleged - Clark County Deputy 
Prosecutor Luka Vitasovic breached professional rules of conduct.

According to the defense team, Vitasovic violated conduct rules when he spoke 
openly with other prosecutors about representing Luyster as a public defender 
in a previous domestic violence case.

Yoseph wants more time to request additional information regarding Vitasovic's 
representation of Luyster. He also wants to depose Vitasovic under oath about 
the conversation he had with other prosecutors. Yoseph is arguing that by 
speaking with others about Luyster, Vitasovic has made it harder for the 
prosecutor's office to make a fair decision on whether to seek the death 
penalty.

Luyster could ultimately face the death penalty, although Gov. Jay Inslee 
announced a moratorium on executions in 2014. A committee of prosecutors is 
assembled to decide whether to seek the penalty, and Yoseph wants Vitasovic and 
Deputy Prosecutor Jessica Barrar barred from that committee. Barrar is married 
to Jeff Barrar, the head of the Vancouver public defender's office, Vancouver 
Defenders.

Luyster's arraignment was rescheduled for 9 a.m. on Nov. 8.

(source: The Daily News)