[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, CONN., PENN., N.C., ALA., MISS.

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 26





TEXAS:

Trial date set in Scott's case in death of parents


A trial date has been set for Stephen Scott, a Dallas man facing a felony 
charge of capital murder of multiple persons in connection with the death of 
his parents earlier this year.

The trial, which will begin Dec. 5 and heard by a jury, was set Thursday during 
Scott's latest court proceeding. His court-appointed attorney, Lee Ann 
Breading, said Scott was present in the holdover facility for Thursday's court 
appearance.

The proceeding was held in 362nd District Court with Judge Bruce McFarling 
presiding.

A grand jury indicted Scott, 40, in connection with the murder of his parents, 
Marion Scott, 75, and Linda Scott, 70, on Jan. 21. Scott allegedly stabbed the 
couple in their home Jan. 10, according to an arrest affidavit. Scott 
reportedly called 911 and confessed to the fatal stabbings to an emergency 
dispatcher, police have said.

Denton police arrested Scott the same day and charged him with capital murder. 
He remains in Denton County Jail with his bail set at $250,000, according to 
jail records.

In the time Scott has been behind bars, he's been hospitalized for what's 
believed to have been a self-inflicted head wound. Breading said earlier this 
year she would evaluate Scott to determine if his injury impacted his ability 
to work with the defense. That is yet to be determined.

"All those issues are still pending," Breading said earlier this week.

If convicted, Scott could face the death penalty or life in prison with no 
possibility for parole.

Whether prosecutors will seek the death penalty has also yet to be determined, 
according to Jamie Beck, first assistant district attorney.

"We have not filed any kind of formal notice that we are, and that's something 
that must happen before we can," she said.

(source: Denton Record-Chronicle)

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

Change of venue denied in capital murder case


A district judge has temporarily denied a request to move the capital murder 
trial of a former Texas correctional officer accused of killing his infant son 
and the boy's grandmother in Walker County more than 3 years ago.

Judge Don Kraemer ruled against a change-of-venue motion filed by defense 
attorneys for Howard Wayne Lewis during a hearing Wednesday afternoon in the 
12th Judicial District courtroom at the Walker County Courthouse. Kraemer said 
he would keep the motion in consideration if anything develops between now and 
Lewis' trial that could jeopardize his right to a fair and impartial trial.

A trial date has not been set at this time as the court awaits the results of 
additional DNA testing that was requested by Brian Lacour with the Texas 
Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases office, who is representing Lewis. 
Kraemer said Wednesday it will likely be next year before the death-penalty 
case goes before a jury.

"It will be after January before we get (the DNA testing results)," Kraemer 
said. "My hopes to try this in January has been thrown out the window."

Lewis was indicted by a grand jury in November 2014 on a charge of capital 
murder of a child under 10 after DNA evidence allegedly linked him to the July 
24, 2013, slaying of his son, 18-month-old Aiyden Benjamin Lewis. Investigators 
believe the murders were a result of an ongoing custody dispute between Lewis 
and the baby's mother, Tiffany Crawford.

Crawford's husband found the bodies of his wife and grandson at their home on 
M. Williams Road, about 6 miles west of Huntsville off Highway 30. Autopsies 
revealed Aiyden died of asphyxiation and his grandmother, 55-year-old Shanta 
Crawford, was violently beaten to death with a blunt object.

Local defense attorneys Frank Blazek and Paxton Adams testified Wednesday for 
the defense. They said they did not believe Lewis could get a fair trial in 
Walker County because of the nature of the crimes.

"... Inevitably, sympathy will be for the child and grandmother and not your 
client," Blazek told Lacour. "... (A Walker County jury) wouldn't have any 
problem choosing death in this case."

Blazek also testified to the extent of the media coverage. Lacour introduced 
into evidence Wednesday 15 reprinted copies of The Huntsville Item, dating from 
July 26, 2013 to Nov. 11, 2014, which contained stories about the case.

"In general, the defense never benefits from media coverage," Blazek said.

Adams testified that Shanta Crawford was well-liked in the community, 
especially among Texas Department of Criminal Justice employees she worked 
with. He said the few people who have asked him about the case, assuming he 
knew a lot about it because he is a defense attorney, had come to the 
"conclusion" that Lewis was guilty of the murders.

Blazek said that Walker County had "good people" and they have "picked good 
juries" during his time practicing law here, but again, he believed the 
circumstances involving the case made it different than others.

"In my opinion as a defense attorney in this county, I do not," Adams answered 
when Lacour asked him if he thought Lewis could get a fair trial in Walker 
County.

The state produced 3 witnesses, including one who lives in the vicinity of the 
crime scene, who all testified that they had limited knowledge about the case 
and hardly talked about it.

David Ward, Ken Hugghins and Lovie Willis each said they had not discussed the 
murders with anyone since around the time they happened more than 3 years ago.

(source: Huntsville Item)

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

Jeff Wood's Stay of Execution Casts More Doubt on the Texas Death Machine


Terri Been was being interviewed by a reporter inside a Whataburger restaurant 
in East Texas on the afternoon of August 19 when the text came in: Her brother, 
Jeff Wood, on death row for his alleged involvement as an accomplice in the 
1996 murder of his friend, and facing imminent execution, had been granted a 
stay. She read the text sent by Wood's attorney twice before dialing him up. 
"Are you serious?" she asked.

It had been a long and emotionally taxing day: Been and her husband, her 
parents, Wood's daughter, and another friend had traveled to Huntsville, Texas, 
the location of the state's execution chamber, for the first of several 8-hour 
visits with Wood in anticipation that he would be executed sometime after 6 
p.m. on Wednesday, August 24. The news from the lawyer, Jared Tyler, was a 
serious relief. "I consider it a miracle," she told The Intercept. "He's 
stopped Texas from killing my brother."

That afternoon the state's highest criminal court, the Court of Criminal 
Appeals, agreed with Tyler that a state district court should determine whether 
the punishment hearing portion of Wood's 1998 trial was infected by junk 
science and misleading testimony offered by the notorious Dr. James Grigson. If 
the district court agrees that it was tainted, Wood could get a new hearing, 
and a chance to get off of death row.

Grigson, who died in 2004, was known even among peers in the psychiatric 
community as "Dr. Death" for routinely offering scientifically unsupportable 
testimony that helped to send defendants to death row in a number of capital 
cases. He was expelled from the American Psychiatric Association and its Texas 
counterpart prior to testifying in Wood's case, where he opined that unless 
sentenced to die Wood would continue to be violent, a determination he made 
without ever examining Wood.

But the court majority sidestepped - at least for now - the biggest question in 
Wood's case: Is he legally eligible for the death penalty? That prompted a 
strongly worded opinion from one of the court's 9 jurists, Elsa Alcala, who for 
at least the 2nd time this year has called into question whether Texas' death 
system itself is constitutional - an unusual stance for a jurist on such a 
conservative and notoriously pro-death penalty court in the state with the 
nation's most active execution chamber. Indeed, Alcala has been airing concerns 
that have not been expressed in any meaningful way by any member of that court 
in nearly 2 decades. Wood, she wrote, "may be actually innocent of the death 
penalty because he may be categorically ineligible for that punishment."

An Unconstitutional Sentence

Wood is on death row even though he has never killed anyone. He was convicted 
and sentenced to die for the January 2, 1996, robbery of a convenience store 
that ended with the shooting death of his friend Kriss Keeran, who worked at 
the store. But it was another man, Danny Reneau, who entered the store armed, 
intending to rob the place, and who shot Keeran. Wood, Reneau, Keeran and 
another store employee had planned an inside-job robbery for the previous day, 
but the plan had been aborted. Wood said he had no idea that Reneau intended to 
rob the store that day, and certainly had no idea that Reneau would kill 
Keeran. After the murder, Wood admits that he did help Reneau steal money from 
the store, along with a surveillance videotape, but says he did so only after 
Reneau threatened to harm his daughter.

But a quirk of Texas law allows the state to seek the death penalty against a 
defendant who never killed or intended to kill anyone. Known as the law of 
parties, the law posits that if conspirators plan to commit 1 crime - in this 
case a robbery - but in the course of events someone ends up committing another 
crime (such as a murder) all parties are liable for the crime committed 
regardless of their individual intent, under the notion that everyone should 
have anticipated that the crime committed would occur.

Advocates and lawyers argue that Wood's impending execution would violate the 
Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. It is an argument that 
would appear to be in line with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which holds that 
a sentence must be proportional to the crime committed. In 2 cases involving 
parties to a planned crime that ended in murder, the court determined that the 
death penalty would be unconstitutional when a person lacked either the intent 
to kill or failed to exhibit a clear "reckless indifference" to human life.

No court has ever considered whether Wood's sentence was proportionate to his 
crime. Although Tyler finally raised the question directly in Wood???s most 
recent appeal, in staying the execution last week the Court of Criminal Appeals 
declined to ask the lower court to address the issue - except for Alcala, who 
opined in favor of addressing the question head on. "Perhaps one might suggest 
that I should not concern myself with the fact that applicant's death sentence 
appears to be unconstitutional under [Supreme Court precedent] because [Wood] 
should have raised this claim at some earlier stage of his post-conviction 
challenges and he is now procedurally barred from raising this challenge," she 
wrote. "I, however, would disagree with that suggestion."

It was the latest in a string of opinions by the conservative jurist 
questioning the legality of the death penalty and the approach of her 
colleagues to affirming death sentences. Alcala, who was appointed by Gov. Rick 
Perry, has questioned her colleagues' reluctance to allow inmates to present 
evidence challenging the Texas system as racist and out-of-step with a nation 
that is moving away from the death penalty. She has written strongly-worded 
dissents in two notable cases, involving the question of whether racially 
discriminatory testimony and poor lawyering condemned Duane Buck to die, and in 
another urging her colleagues to act to "uphold the federal Constitution" by 
setting up a modern and fair system for determining which defendants are barred 
from execution because of their intellectual disability. In the absence of a 
legislative standard, the court set up its own scheme for determining cognitive 
disability, a standard based on the mental abilities of the character Lennie 
from John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men.

The level of skepticism Alcala has expressed regarding the state's death 
penalty scheme - and her colleagues' role in maintaining the status quo - 
hasn't really been seen in Texas since Republicans took over the court in its 
entirety nearly 2 decades ago. As conservative jurists came to power in the 
1990s, a waning contingent of Democratic judges held on, including Judge 
Charlie Baird, now a defense attorney in private practice in Austin. Baird said 
he and his colleagues would regularly dissent from the majority's 
rubber-stamping of death convictions. In 1996 Baird authored a dissent 
suggesting that Texas was not fulfilling its promise to the U.S. Supreme Court 
in the wake of the 1976 opinion that reauthorized the death penalty. Texas had 
promised "we would interpret the statute fairly and apply the death penalty 
fairly," he recalled. "And I don't think we ever kept those promises."

To be fair, other Republican judges have joined or written dissenting opinions 
in the intervening years, but none so clearly skeptical of the system as 
Alcala's - save for a literal swan song opinion by Judge Tom Price, who opined 
in 2014, just before retiring his seat, that the death penalty "should be 
abolished."

Although Alcala hasn't uttered the same words, she nonetheless stands out even 
more than Price in 1 key way - her current term is up in 2018, meaning that 
speaking out could derail her chances to remain on the court in the future. In 
a profile published by Fusion, Alcala said it was "unlikely" that she'd run 
again, but also acknowledged that she has not made any definitive decision.

Attorneys with considerable experience litigating capital cases before the 
Texas court say that they are encouraged by Alcala's opinions, but are 
nonetheless skeptical that her more moderate and thoughtful approach to 
considering death penalty cases would necessarily have any outwardly obvious 
effect on her colleagues. "I've been waiting and I haven't seen it. I just 
haven't seen it," said Keith Hampton, a veteran defense attorney who was behind 
the only successful bid to have a death sentence commuted by Perry during his 
3-term tenure as the state's governor, during which time he presided over more 
executions than any other modern governor. Hampton said he could see Alcala's 
approach evolving in recent years, and believes now that she's "genuinely 
dedicated" to reform. "Clearly she's not playing to the crowd - because we're 
in Texas and there is no crowd for this here." In fact, Hampton worries that 
Alcala's writings and public posture may have given ammunition to any number of 
aggressive prosecutors who could try to force her recusal from considering 
appeals of their death cases.

Bryce Benjet, a former lawyer with the nonprofit Texas Defender Service who now 
works for the Innocence Project, said it might be more significant that the 
concerns Alcala has expressed haven't "happened with more frequency" on the 
court. But what is especially noteworthy, he said, is that these concerns are 
coming from a former prosecutor for Harris County (which includes the city of 
Houston), a jurisdiction responsible for sending hundreds of defendants to 
death row, and the U.S. county responsible for the most executions since 1976.

To Tyler, Wood's attorney, Alcala's views are more in line with those of the 
U.S. Supreme Court than with her colleagues. He notes that the Supreme Court 
has accepted for review 2 recent cases where she authored stern dissents - in 
the Buck case and in the case challenging the state's process for determining 
cognitive disabilities. And he said he believes the Supreme Court should take 
up Wood's case as well, to finally decide whether Wood's sentence is 
proportionate to his crime.

In the meantime, Wood's family and supporters have attracted another contingent 
of unlikely supporters in the form of conservative state House members who have 
been airing their own concerns about whether Wood's sentence is proper. 
Ultra-conservative members have each spoken out about their concerns and have 
been trying to persuade the Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Greg Abbot to 
consider commuting Wood's sentence. "I believe the death penalty, and in some 
cases the law of parties, has a place. Human life, being made in the image of 
God, is very precious," East Texas state Representative David Simpson, wrote in 
a column published in the Dallas Morning News. "In the case of Wood, I have 
seen enough questions to warrant advocating that his life be spared. 
Ultimately, God will judge our actions, and as humans we make mistakes and our 
justice system is not perfect."

(source: theintercept.com)






CONNECTICUT:

Home invasion survivor Dr. William Petit announces run for political office


9 years after surviving a brutal home invasion that resulted in the deaths of 
his wife and 2 daughters, Dr. William Petit has decided to run for political 
office in Connecticut.

Petit, 59, is expected to officially announce on Friday morning that he will 
run for a seat as the Republican Party's nominee in the 22nd District in 
Connecticut's House of Representatives. He faces an uphill battle against 
incumbent Betty Boukus, 73, who has represented the Plainville district since 
1994.

Petit, speaking exclusively with Cynthia McFadden on TODAY Friday, said that 
his platform is much more than the outspoken support for the death penalty that 
he has shown since the tragedy in 2007.

"You know, some people still stop and say, 'I know where you stand. You're for 
the death penalty,''' Petit said. "And I say, 'Well, you know, I'm not really 
running on the death penalty. What's important to people is their quality of 
life, the economy, their jobs, their children's futures. And that has to do 
with has to do with our economy and our job structure kinda thing.

"So no, I'm not running on the death penalty."

In July 2007, 2 men followed home his wife, Jennifer, and daughter, Michaela, 
11, from a local grocery story. Petit was locked in the basement as his wife, 
Michaela and daughter Hayley, 17, were tortured before their home in Cheshire, 
Connecticut, was set on fire.

Petit had been locked in the basement during the attack and was able to escape 
the fire. The 2 men who perpetrated the attack, Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven 
Hayes, are now on death row.

Petit became a strong supporter of the death penalty in Connecticut following 
the loss of his family. In 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court effectively 
banned the death penalty, which was upheld in a court ruling in May.

"Never, never forgive evil, and that's what it's about,'' Petit said. "And 
that's what the death penalty is about is erasing evil."

Petit still suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and survivor's guilt.

"Sleep is always tough," he said. "With loss, people talk about closure. But 
there is no closure."

Petit has since remarried, meeting his wife Christine, a photographer, after 
founding the Petit Family Foundation in memory of his family. The pair tied the 
knot in front of 300 people in 2012, with the blessing of the family of his 
late wife.

They also have a son, William, who turns 3 in November.

(source: today.com)






PENNSYLVANIA:

Ruling points to flaws in death penalty


A flawed system

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit showed us that the death 
penalty is a flawed system ("New trial ordered in 1991 slaying," Wednesday).

The court ruled Tuesday that the prosecution improperly kept evidence out of 
the murder trial of James Dennis. That evidence might show that the 
Philadelphia man did not kill a 17-year-old Olney High School student.

The ruling is a victory for Dennis, who has been in prison since 1992 because 
prosecutors were more interested in getting a conviction than in getting it 
right.

It is a victory for his family, who stood by him, and for Pennsylvanians, who 
care about fairness and justice.

Hopefully, with this decision, prosecutors and politicians will move to end the 
death penalty before we execute an innocent person.

|Nicolas Guerrero, University Park, Pa.

(source: Letter to the Editor, philly.com)






NORTH CAROLINA:

Toone makes court appearance for deaths of 3 girls


The man suspected of beating his family to death made a 1st appearance in Pitt 
County District Court on Thursday after he was charged with 3 additional counts 
of murder in the case.

Dibon Toone was arraigned on charges that he killed Ayona Toone, 7, Myona 
Toone, 5, and Bryana Nicole Carr, 11. Toone was the father of the 2 younger 
girls.

The girls were killed along with their mother Garlette Howard, 32, in the home 
they shared with Toone at 1101 Grovemont Drive. Their bodies were discovered at 
the home Aug. 16 after a family member of Toone's requested police to check on 
the family.

Toone previously appeared in court after the Greenville Police Department 
charged him with murder in the death of Howard. Although he always was the 
suspect in the three other deaths, the department did not serve murder warrants 
on him until Wednesday.

He is being held without bond on the 4 murder charges.

His 1st appearance, much like the one he made after he was charged with 
Howard's death, lasted just a few minutes. He was escorted by deputies into the 
courtroom at the detention center, wearing leg, waist and hand chain restraints 
and cuffs.

He wore a padded green cover-up that is sometimes used for defendants who may 
be suicidal. It is held together by Velcro.

District Court Judge David Leech read Toone his rights and told him that the 
punishment if convicted of 1st-degree murder is life in prison or the death 
penalty.

Toone told the judge that he already had been appointed a court appointed 
lawyer to represent him, and Leech told him he would assign the N.C. Office of 
Indigent Defense Services to represent him. That office will then appoint the 
same attorney who is representing him on the first murder charge to represent 
him on the other three murder charges.

Except for answering the judge's questions, Toone, who wore the same hard look 
on his face that he has worn since he was returned to Pitt County, said nothing 
during the short hearing.

Toone was arrested in Richmond, Va., on Aug. 16 while driving a LabCorp vehicle 
that Howard used in her job for that company, and was returned to Pitt County 
on Aug. 19 to face the murder charges.

The initial 1st appearance was held on Monday, also in the courtroom at the 
Pitt County Detention Center.

(source: reflector.com)






ALABAMA:

Judge denies bond for man held in killing of 5 in Alabama----District attorney 
calls Mississippi man a 'danger to the community'


A judge refused to set bond Wednesday for a Mississippi man accused of killing 
5 people and an unborn child who were slain one by one with an ax and shot 
inside a home in rural Alabama.

The decision by Mobile County Judge Rick Stout came as Derrick Dearman, 27, 
made his 1st court appearance on multiple charges of capital murder and 
kidnapping.

"He doesn't need to be out. He is a danger to the community," District Attorney 
Ashley Rich said afterward of the Leakesville, Mississippi, man.

Rich has said her office may seek the death penalty against Dearman, who 
allegedly attacked the 5 as they slept and then kidnapped his estranged 
girlfriend, who had sought shelter from him at the house. Killed were 3 men and 
2 women, one of whom was pregnant.

Relatives of the victims were present at Wednesday's hearing. Dearman turned to 
look at them but said nothing.

The Mobile County Sheriff's Office said several firearms and an ax were used on 
the 5 adults, but authorities didn't specify the total number of weapons 
involved.

Sheriff Sam Cochran said Dearman didn't have the guns when he arrived at the 
home but found them in the house. Cochran said he attacked first with the ax, 
then with the guns.

Dearman has told reporters he was high on methamphetamine at the time of the 
slayings early Saturday.

(source: Associated Press)






MISSISSIPPI:

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood defends discredited forensic experts, 
harasses defense attorneys instead


Yesterday, I posted about a crazy deposition from last April in which longtime 
Mississippi forensic expert Michael West went wildly off the rails. West was 
profane, belligerent, and openly contemptuous of the fact that anyone would 
dare question his expertise. The remarkable thing is that this was a deposition 
for a post-conviction hearing in a death penalty case. And in that case, West 
is the star witness. His testimony was the only physical evidence putting 
defendant Eddie Lee Howard at the crime scene.

Once in post-conviction, these cases are handled by the Mississippi Attorney 
General's Office. You might think that the Mississippi Attorney General Jim 
Hood would be embarrassed by West's antics. The actions from his office after 
the deposition indicate that that you'd be wrong.

The deposition occurred on April 16. On April 25th, in anticipation of the 
evidentiary hearing that followed in May (that hearing went down about the same 
way as the deposition - the judge has yet to rule on the matter), Tucker 
Carrington of the Mississippi Innocence Project sent a letter to assistant 
attorney general Jason Davis. In it, Carrington again pointed out that since 
Howard's trials West has been widely discredited. He pointed out that in the 
deposition itself, West contradicted his testimony at trial. And he pointed out 
West's wholesale failure to take any of this seriously - he failed to prepare 
for the deposition, his failed to produce the appropriate documents and 
records, and he of course showed an appalling lack of professionalism and 
reverence, particularly given that a man's life is at stake. Carrington again 
requested that the AG's office drop the charges.

The next day, Davis and Hood filed a motion requesting a hearing to assess the 
competency of Howard's legal team. It's an astonishingly brazen reaction. Faced 
with an embarrassing performance in which the state's already-discredited 
primary witness in a death penalty case came completely unhinged, Hood chose 
instead to attack the credibility of Eddie Lee Howard's lawyers.

My sources in Mississippi tell me that Hood's office has using this tactic for 
a while now. The motion was based on Rule 22 of the Mississippi;s Rules of 
Appellate Procedure. The intent behind that rule is sound: It gives the state's 
courts a mechanism to ensure that defendants in capital cases are getting 
adequate legal representation in their appeals. These are complicated and 
consequential cases. You don;t want death penalty appeals and post-conviction 
petitions handled by fresh law school grads or washed up schlubs.

The problem is that the rule as originally written was vague and sloppily 
drafted. For example, it required anyone handling a death penalty appeal to 
have taken a new felony case within the last 3 years. That may sound 
reasonable, but many attorneys work solely on post-conviction cases, which can 
draw on for years. They can handle multiple cases for years on end without ever 
taking on a new client. These of course are some of the most qualified 
attorneys to handle capital cases. Yet under the rule, they could potentially 
be disqualified.

Sources in Mississippi say that Hood's office has been using the rule as a 
weapon. While Hood and his subordinates will claim in briefs that they're 
merely fulfilling their obligation to protect the rights of criminal 
defendants, they aren't filing these motions as a matter of course in every 
capital case. The sense in Mississippi is that they haven't been using the rule 
to hassle out-of-state law firms and nonprofit legal aid groups taking 
Mississippi capital cases on a pro-bono basis. The attorneys at these firms and 
aid groups have extensive experience in capital cases. In other words, Hood's 
office has been using the rule to attack the most qualified capital defense 
attorneys, not the least. In 1 recent example, Hood's office tried to 
disqualify a well-respected Virginia attorney with significant death penalty 
experience because he hadn't paid the $350 fee necessary to be barred by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 1 of the requirements under the 
rule as it was previously written.

In an affidavit filed last November, Emily Olsen-Gault, the director and chief 
counsel for the American Bar Association's Death Penalty Representation 
Project, voiced the ABA's concerns about what Hood was doing:

"The interpretation of Rule 22 that the Attorney General's Office has advanced 
would irreversibly chill the recruitment and participation of pro bona counsel 
in post-conviction proceedings in Mississippi. This would not only harm 
indigent death-sentenced prisoners in Mississippi, but would also impose 
substantial burdens on Mississippi taxpayers."

In Eddie Lee Howard's case, Hood's decision to invoke the rule when he did was 
basically the legal equivalent of trolling. Tucker Carrington has been the 
director of the Mississippi Innocence Project for a decade. He has represented 
Mississippi clients in courts all over the state, as well as in federal court. 
He has been Howard's attorney since 2008. Prior to that he was a criminal 
defense attorney in Washington, D.C. Chris Fabricant is director of strategic 
litigation for the Innocence Project of New York. He has been a criminal 
defense attorney for over a decade. Dana Delger is a staff attorney at the 
Innocence Project who clerked for a federal appeals court judge and worked as a 
public defender in Harlem. Vanessa Potkin is a senior staff attorney with the 
Innocence Project. Peter Neufeld is a co-founder and co-director of the 
Innocence Project who has been practicing criminal defense law for decades. 
Plotkin and Neufeld in fact had represented Levon Brooks and Kennedy Brewer, 
the 2 men previously convicted by West's bite mark testimony who served nearly 
30 combined years in prison before they were exonerated in 2007.

These are the attorneys named in Hood's motion. The Innocence Project can at 
times be controversial. Prosecutors and law-and-order types have often 
disagreed with the organization's methods, tactics, or policy recommendations. 
But to argue that its attorneys aren't qualified to represent defendants in 
post conviction proceedings is laughable. That's what they do. They've also 
been representing Howard for nearly a decade. That Hood's office would suddenly 
invoke the rule less than 2 weeks after the April hearing, and just a day after 
Carrington's letter, makes it pretty clear that this was just petty harassment.

Moreover, as Carrington pointed out in his response, Hood's motion is 
particularly absurd given that Hood's office has already vouched for the 
credibility of Howard's legal team in a different context. That was less than a 
year ago.

The irony here is that while Hood claims to be so concerned about the 
qualifications of capital defense attorneys, he has shown zero interest in 
ensuring that expert witness who testify for the state in Mississippi's courts 
are credible and qualified. That's what that deposition last April was all 
about.

For his entire tenure as attorney general, Hood has steadfastly defended Steven 
Hayne, the controversial medical examiner who did 80-90 % of the state's 
autopsies for nearly 20 years. (Hayne and West were collaborators. Hayne often 
referred cases to West, while West often assisted Hayne with his autopsies.) 
That's probably at least in part because Hood frequently used Hayne back when 
he worked in a DA's office. When Mississippi's public safety commissioner 
effectively fired Hayne several years ago, Hood led an effort to resurrect an 
antiquated law to bring Hayne back.

As for Michael West, Hood did finally admit in 2011 that West had credibility 
problems. He even told a local TV station that he was conducting an 
investigation. A few months later, the assistant attorney general Hood 
allegedly assigned to head up that investigation was asked what he had found. 
He replied that to that point, he had done a Westlaw search on West's name - 
the legal equivalent of typing West's name into Google. 5 years later, we've 
heard nothing from Hood or his office about what that investigation has turned 
up. And this is an attorney general who is anything but publicity-shy.

Instead, Hood's office is still aggressively fighting to preserve convictions 
won with West's testimony. In most cases, Hood's office now argues that 
defendants are procedurally barred from raising questions about West's 
expertise. In these cases, Hood and his subordinates don't even try to argue 
that West is credible. They don't dispute that West's testimony was fraudulent. 
Instead, they that the defendant has already attempted to challenge West's 
credibility either at trial, during an appeal, or in post-conviction - and 
lost. By publicly acknowledging that West is not a credible witness, Hood has 
admitted that the Mississippi's courts were wrong to allow and uphold West's 
testimony. But he's willing to keep people in prison based on the fact that 
years ago, he and his predecessors persuaded Mississippi's courts to approve 
that testimony - to issue those wrong decisions - and the law now prevents 
those same defendants from raising that issue again. Hood is essentially 
arguing that Mississippi keep people in prison - or in Howard's case, that 
Mississippi execute someone - on a technicality.

Whether Hood is right on the law on this particular point is beside the point. 
As attorney general, he isn't required to fight to preserve these convictions. 
He could drop the charges in the interest of justice. Or he could agree to a 
new trial without the tainted testimony. He just won't do it.

The Lowndes County Circuit Court didn't directly address Hood's motion because 
days after Hood filed it, the Mississippi Supreme Court revised Rule 22 to fix 
the vague language and sloppy drafting. Under the revised rule, Howard's legal 
team is more than qualified, so there's no room for Hood's motion. It isn't 
clear if the state supreme court revised the rule in response to Hood's motion, 
but the timing is certainly suggestive.

Hood is widely expected to run for governor next year. As one of the only 
Democrats holding statewide office in the deep south (and a fairly popular one 
at that), he's expected to get a lot of support from the national party once he 
announces. So far in his political career, Hood has found success in the south 
by countering his close (and at time scandalous) relationship with the 
plaintiff's bar and high-profile fights with prominent businesses with an 
unapologetic embrace of law-and-order policies, including a particular 
enthusiasm for the death penalty. It will be interesting to see if he continues 
to pull it off. The landscape on criminal justice is shifting. Hood's efforts 
to undermine the rights of criminal defendants and his utter disinterest in the 
forensics crisis unfolding right under his nose may came back to haunt him.

(source: Radley Balko, Washington Post)