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

[Rick Halperin]

Dec. 2




NEBRASKA:

Nebraska Gov. Ricketts defends death penalty proposal


Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts defended a proposal Tuesday that would allow the 
state to obtain lethal injection drugs without disclosing its supplier, saying 
it would provide greater flexibility to move forward with executions after 
voters reinstated the death penalty earlier this month.

The administrative proposal announced Monday would let the Nebraska Department 
of Correctional Services' director choose which drugs are used in an execution 
and withhold the name of the supplier. Ricketts said the current administrative 
rules and 3-drug lethal injection protocol were "more restrictive" than what 
state law allows.

"We're really not changing anything with regard to confidentiality," Ricketts 
said at a news conference on an unrelated subject. "Claims of secrecy really 
just aren't founded."

Ricketts argued that the changes are already allowed under a 2009 state law 
which changed the protocol from electrocution to lethal injection. That law 
allows the identities of "all members of the execution team" to remain 
confidential. Ricketts said the proposal would count a pharmacist or a 
pharmaceutical chemist as a part of the execution team, and thus exempt from 
public disclosure.

The corrections department would also have to notify condemned inmates which 
drugs were chosen, the quantities to be used and the order in which they'd be 
administered at least 60 days before the Nebraska attorney general's office 
requests an execution warrant. Ricketts said the 60-day window gives inmates 
"plenty of time" to appeal.

Nebraska's last execution took place in 1997, using the electric chair. The 
state switched to lethal injection after the Nebraska Supreme Court declared 
the electric chair unconstitutional, but officials have never used the current 
3-drug protocol in an execution.

Certain lethal injection drugs have become virtually impossible to obtain in 
the United States or Europe because companies, fearing a public backlash, have 
refused to sell them.

Ricketts spokesman Taylor Gage said the cost of the drugs would remain a public 
record under the new proposed protocol.

Nebraska spent more than $54,000 last year on lethal injection drugs from a 
company based in India, but never received them because federal officials 
blocked the shipment. Chris Harris, the company's CEO, declined the state's 
request for a refund.

Nebraska's death penalty spent more than a year in limbo after lawmakers 
abolished the punishment in 2015, overriding Ricketts' veto. Voters reinstated 
capital punishment earlier this month through a ballot measure partially 
financed by Ricketts.

Death penalty opponents have promised to fight any attempt to shroud the 
process in secrecy.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska said the corrections department 
should be taking extra steps to maintain transparency and accountability given 
its history of high-profile missteps. 2 inmates escaped from a Lincoln prison 
earlier this year because staff members failed to follow security procedures. 
In 2014, under a previous administration, prison officials acknowledged that 
they had miscalculated hundreds of inmate sentences and failed to follow a 
Nebraska Supreme Court ruling.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln law professor Eric Berger said the proposed 
protocol raises new legal questions that will likely end up in the courts.

"It violates the Nebraska norm of open and transparent government," said 
Berger, who worked with death penalty opponents during the recent ballot 
campaign. "It also creates the risk of a botched execution. When they have that 
secrecy, (state officials) may feel they don't need to be as careful."

Berger said the decision not to stick with one specific protocol suggests that 
state officials could try to use different drugs on different inmates, 
depending on what's available. Doing so would force them to "reinvent the 
wheel" for every execution and relearn the properties of a particular drug, he 
said.

Berger said other parts of the proposal are vague. For instance, the drugs 
would have to be tested at least 60 days before an execution, but Berger said 
it's not clear who would test them. Additionally, Berger said the proposal 
could make it impossible to know whether the corrections director is getting 
advice from qualified medical experts when selecting the drugs.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Give state public input on death penalty protocol ---- It's up to the 
Legislature to decide whether to accept the governor's proposal through 
legislation that would codify it or reject it. For now, the public is left to 
weigh the Corrections Department proposal.


Nebraska voters have spoken definitively in favor of the death penalty. Now the 
state needs a way to carry it out.

The last Nebraska execution was in 1997, when Robert Williams was electrocuted. 
The state hasn't attempted an execution in the 7 years since the method was 
switched to lethal injection.

Public opposition to capital punishment has been increasing, both nationwide 
and in Nebraska, and lawsuits filed against manufacturers of the drugs used to 
carry out the death penalty have made it harder for states to procure them.

Many American and European manufacturers no longer sell the drugs to states for 
use in carrying out the death penalty by lethal injection. Nebraska has spent 
thousands of dollars to buy the drugs internationally, yet failed to import 
them.

Some death penalty states have been able to obtain the needed drugs by passing 
laws or adopting procedures shielding the manufacturers' names. The names are 
public under the 2009 Nebraska law that changed the state's method of execution 
to lethal injection.

Gov. Pete Ricketts, saying he respects the will of the voters, backs an 
administrative change in the death-penalty protocol.

Ricketts and the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services propose adding a 
pharmacist or pharmaceutical chemist to the state's execution team. Prison 
officials say doing so would help the state obtain the drugs to carry out a 
death sentence, since the identities of execution team members are kept 
confidential under the 2009 state law.

Prison officials say death-row inmates would be notified about the specific 
drugs to be used 60 days before a scheduled execution and say that should 
provide time for appeals.

Advocates for open government and critics of Nebraska's death penalty question 
the need to shield the manufacturer's identity. Some state senators have 
discussed clarifying the intent of the 2009 law.

It's up to the Legislature to decide whether to accept the governor's proposal 
through legislation that would codify it or reject it.

For now, the public is left to weigh the Corrections Department proposal. The 
administration has scheduled a public hearing for Dec. 30 on its policy change.

Nebraskans should take the opportunity to offer comments on the new protocol. 
State leaders should receive as much feedback as possible on the protocol for 
an issue as difficult and divisive as the death penalty.

Death penalty politics in Nebraska are complex. The Legislature repealed the 
death penalty. Then the governor led and helped finance a successful effort to 
restore it. He also campaigned against senators running for re-election who 
voted to repeal the death penalty or allowed the repeal to advance.

Given the state's difficulties in procuring execution drugs, officials may need 
to pursue some sort of protection for the drug manufacturers, whether in policy 
or law.

This discussion pits 2 important principles against one another: complying with 
the public's expressed will versus government transparency. Let the debate 
begin.

(source: Editorial, Omaha World-Herald)






CALIFORNIA:

Scot facing death penalty has murder trial delayed for a year----A Scot who may 
face the death penalty after being accused of shooting dead his mother and 
stepfather at their home in the United States has had his murder trial delayed 
by a year.


The couple, both 48, were found dead at their home in Bakersfield, California, 
on April 30 by police.

Connell, 30, originally from Shawlands, Glasgow, said he believed he committed 
the killings during a preliminary court hearing in July.

However, his lawyer Paul Cadman said there was no evidence of premeditation or 
malice on his part and argued he should be tried for 2nd-degree murder or 
voluntary manslaughter.

He was ordered to face 1st degree murder charges and his trial was due to begin 
early next year.

However, court officials in the US said it has now been postponed until January 
2018.

Judge Thomas C. Clark turned down the request for Connell to face lesser 
charges and said his statements showed ???a fair amount??? of thought and 
planning after the killings.

Connell has said he used bleach in an effort to clean up blood pooled around 
the bodies.

Mr Cadman said after the preliminary hearing that the killings were a result of 
post-traumatic stress disorder and drug addiction problems which Connell 
suffered after serving with the US army in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said: "Derek is disappointed by the decision of the magistrate to continue 
this case as a death penalty case since the preliminary hearing showed clearly 
that he has no recollection of the events and certainly had no premeditation, 
deliberation, or malice aforethought regarding the incident.

"He believes he did it but he doesn't know how.

"His heroic yet frightening experiences serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 
subsequent substance abuse problems due to his horrific experiences remain 
directly responsible for the tragedy that has unfolded in this case."

During an interview played to the court, Connell told investigators he believed 
he had killed his mother and stepfather.

"I had to have done it," he said. "There was no one else in the house."

Connell said he spent the evening drinking heavily, then returned to his 
parents' home. He began living with them after serving a 9-month jail sentence 
for drink driving in Colorado.

He told investigators he spoke with his stepfather briefly before going to bed. 
They did not argue, and he said he got along well with both his mother and 
stepfather.

Connell said the next thing he recalled was finding their bodies. He cried as 
he described lying next to his mother's body and telling her he was sorry.

2 shotguns, 5 handguns and 7 rifles were seized from the home. Mr Connell said 
the weapons belonged to his stepfather.

Connell served in the US Army from 2005 to 2008, and was discharged due to an 
incident involving alcohol, he said in court filings. He went on to work in oil 
fields in Colorado and Texas.

Connell was born in Rutherglen Maternity and lived with his mother in Shawlands 
on Glasgow's south side as a child.

She met her future husband while he was stationed with the US navy in Scotland 
and moved with her son to America more than 20 years ago. Before her death, she 
had worked for 16 years as a teacher at an elementary school.

(source: express.co.uk)

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

Legal experts discuss next steps for California's death penalty system under 
Prop 66


Despite showing its true blue color on issues like marijuana and gun control, 
California surprised many when voters chose to shoot down a proposition to 
abolish the state's long defunct death penalty and passed one that aims to 
reform and expedite the appeals process.

Now, groups like the ACLU and others have filed suit to prevent the state from 
resuming executions. But proponents of the new appeals system say they believe 
the challenges will be dismissed and executions could resume within the next 
year.

What are the next steps on both sides of the death penalty fight in California? 
What are the factors at play on each side of the legal challenges to the new 
system?

Guests:

Laurel Rosenhall, California politics reporter for CALmatters, a nonpartisan 
media venture committed to explaining how California's state capital works and 
why it matters

Kent Scheidegger, legal director and general counsel for the Criminal Justice 
Legal Foundation, an organization advocating reduced rights for accused and 
convicted criminals

Nancy Haydt, criminal defense attorney based in Santa Barbara and a member of 
the Board of Governors of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; she 
authored an extensive analysis of Prop 66

(source: scpr.org)

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

Death Penalty Stands for West Hills Woman Who Had Her Husband Murdered ---- The 
conviction of a woman who had her husband killed at his West Los Angeles auto 
repair shop will stand, the state Supreme Court ruled.


The California Supreme Court Thursday upheld a woman's conviction and death 
sentence for arranging her husband's murder inside a West Los Angeles-area auto 
repair shop he owned.

The state's highest court unanimously rejected the defense's contention that 
there were errors in the Los Angeles Superior Court trial of former West Hills 
resident Catherine Thompson, who is on death row for the June 14, 1990 killing 
of Melvin "Tom" Thompson in the restroom of his business.

The 49-year-old man, who had been shot, died later at a hospital.

Shortly after the murder, Thompson submitted a claim on 2 life insurance 
policies -- 1 issued for $100,000 and a 2nd one issued the year of the murder 
for $150,000 that had a clause that made it potentially worth $300,000, the 
Supreme Court wrote in a 111-page ruling.

She instructed a friend to collect all of the jewelry from her husband's body 
after the funeral and to return the items to her, which she pawned a day later 
and used the money to go on a gambling vacation to Laughlin, according to the 
ruling.

Thompson was convicted in September 1992 of 1st-degree murder and conspiracy to 
murder, with jurors finding true the special circumstance of murder for 
financial gain and recommending that she be sentenced to death.

Co-defendant Phillip Sanders, who was tried along with Thompson, was also 
convicted of the murder. He was sentenced to life in prison without the 
possibility of parole.

The justices rejected the defense's contention that Thompson should have been 
tried separately from Sanders.

In the ruling written by Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, the panel found there was 
a "web of evidence demonstrating that defendant participated in a conspiracy" 
with Sanders and 2 others to kill the victim for financial gain, including 
"defendant's many refinancing and insurance frauds," the evidence of many 
telephone calls between her and Sanders in the days leading up to the murder 
and her "blurted-out statement upon her arrest that she `'idn't know Phil at 
all"' though police had not yet revealed any evidence of Sanders' involvement 
in the crime.

The justices also noted that Thompson had a "strong financial incentive to kill 
the victim" and quickly used the insurance money after he was killed.

The panel found that the trial court "did not abuse its discretion in 
concluding that evidence of defendant's prior financial misdeeds was relevant 
to showing her motive for killing, and conspiring to kill, her husband in order 
to collect on his life insurance policies."

The justices wrote that jurors could infer from the evidence that "defendant's 
financial house of cards was about to collapse, leading her to believe she had 
one last option to make a large financial score: killing her husband."

Thompson -- who was sentenced to death in 1993 -- is among 21 women awaiting 
execution in California.

(source: patch.com)

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

Senator urges attorney general to pursue death penalty against Scott Dekraai


State Sen. Janet Nguyen Thursday called on the state attorney general's office 
to continue pursuing the death penalty against Scott Evans Dekraai, the worst 
mass killer in Orange County history.

The appeal by Nguyen, D-Garden Grove, comes more than a week after a panel of 
Fourth District Court of Appeal justices affirmed a lower court's ruling 
recusing the Orange County district attorney's office from the case against 
Dekraai, who has pleaded guilty to 8 murders and 1 attempted murder in and 
around a Seal Beach beauty salon 5 years ago, but is awaiting the punishment 
phase of his trial as prosecutors were seeking to have him put to death.

If the attorney general declines to appeal the Nov. 22 ruling, it would have to 
decide whether to pursue the death penalty or just let Dekraai default to a 
state-mandated life without the possibility of parole sentence.

"We will never be able to replace the loved ones lost, but we do owe it to the 
families and friends of Mr. Dekraai's victims to ensure that he is held 
accountable, to the fullest extent, for the lives he took," Nguyen said. "For 
the anguish he caused and the disregard he displayed for human life, Mr. 
Dekraai deserves to receive the death penalty."

Kristin Ford, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office, said, "We are 
still reviewing the (justices') ruling."

The Attorney General's Office has until Jan. 3 to decide whether to appeal to 
the state Supreme Court.

The appellate justices upheld the recusal of the district attorney's office by 
citing "institutional" problems with the handling of jailhouse informants, 
particularly in the investigation against Dekraai.

The justices ruled Dekraai could not get a fair trial because prosecutors have 
shown a penchant for siding with their law enforcement partners, the Orange 
County Sheriff's Department, which the justices faulted for much of the 
problems with the handling of "snitches," who have been accused in multiple 
cases of violating the constitutional rights of cell mates as they 
surreptitiously try to glean helpful information for investigators.

(source: presstelegram.com)






WASHINGTON:

Lawyers: Mass shooting suspect too immature for death penalty


Attorneys for the man charged with the July 30 mass shooting in Mukilteo say 
evidence suggests he has been living with untreated neurological problems and 
potential mental illness, and that justice demands more study before 
prosecutors decide whether to seek his execution.

Preliminary testing also suggests Allen Ivanov, 20, has the brain development 
of somebody years younger, defense attorney Walter Peale wrote in court papers.

"Age is not the determiner of immaturity; brain development is," Peale wrote. 
"Allen Ivanov's brain development will show he is a 'juvenile' to whom the 
death penalty cannot apply."

Peale filed the pleadings Thursday in preparation for a Dec. 14 hearing. He 
wants Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Janice Ellis to extend into January 
the time prosecutors can be presented information that may help them decide 
whether to seek the death penalty for Ivanov.

The Mukilteo man is charged with aggravated murder in the killings of Anna Bui, 
Jacob Long and Jordan Ebner, all 19. He's also accused of trying to murder Will 
Kramer, who was shot in the back, and allegedly shooting at 2 other young men 
as they ran for cover.

Prosecuting Attorney Mark Roe had given the defense team until Friday to 
provide him with "mitigation" information to consider before he decides whether 
to pursue death for Ivanov. Roe had expected to announce his decision by the 
middle of the month.

In Washington, the only punishment for somebody convicted of aggravated murder 
is a death sentence or life in prison without the possibility of release.

Although Gov. Jay Inslee has ordered a moratorium on executions, county 
prosecutors aren't barred from pursuing the death penalty in aggravated murder 
cases.

Snohomish County deputy prosecutor Adam Cornell said Thursday that prosecutors 
plan to file a response to the defense's motion ahead of the hearing, but he 
declined to say anything more about the request.

Ivanov was 19 when he allegedly opened fire with a military-style rifle at a 
house party. Like him, most of the young people there had graduated from Kamiak 
High School.

Bui was Ivanov's former girlfriend. He reportedly told detectives that he 
killed her and her friends because he was upset over the end of their 
relationship. Prior to the gunfire he also wrote a lengthy letter explaining 
his motivation and insisting there is nothing wrong with him or the way he 
thinks.

"I'm selfish. That's why I did this," Ivanov wrote.

Attorneys Peale and Karen Halverson both were appointed to represent Ivanov 
because of their experience representing people in cases where capital 
punishment is possible.

In keeping with the state's death penalty law, 1 of the first steps for defense 
attorneys is to present prosecutors with information that may merit leniency.

In court papers, Peale recounted meeting with Roe to seek additional time to 
present evidence. The prosecutor stood firm on his deadline.

The defense team "has set about to learn as much as possible about who Allen 
Ivanov is now, who he was on July 30, who he was before the incident and how he 
got to be who he was on that day," the attorney wrote.

They've traveled to the East Coast to meet with Ivanov's business partners in a 
computer game business. They've spoken to his family and his friends. Many 
others who knew Ivanov and the victims do not want to talk with investigators, 
Peale wrote. The defense also learned that the school district will not allow 
Ivanov's former teachers to be interviewed. The defense doesn't have time to 
issue subpoenas by Roe's deadline, Peale wrote.

Peale and Halverson broached the possibility of speaking with the victims??? 
families but Roe "rejected all suggestions." He agreed, Peale said, to pass 
along their findings and expressions of sorrow.

The defense also has arranged for Ivanov to undergo a battery of tests focusing 
on his neurological development and mental health.

"We are still mining information. Allen's life story is complex. It is filled 
with subtle clues," Peale wrote.

Among other things, they've learned that both of Ivanov's parents are 
immigrants from the former Soviet Union. His father was from Moscow. His mother 
lived there, too, as well as in Azerbaijan, before moving to the U.S.

Ivanov had learning problems and displayed "peculiar behaviors" as a child, the 
lawyer wrote. He described him as an "underachiever" in school, except for 
math. People have described Ivanov as "consumed with image," compulsive and 
controlling.

As a teen he reportedly would "shut down" and make suicidal threats, his family 
reported. At his mother's urging he underwent a mental health evaluation in 
November 2014, but didn't follow through with suggested therapy. His mental 
instability was pronounced enough that those around him, including Bui, 
discussed on social media how best to help, Peale wrote.

Preliminary testing also shows that Ivanov's brain has not developed "beyond an 
equivalent age of 18," the attorney wrote. That's an issue because the death 
penalty can't be sought for juveniles.

The attorney said he knows Roe will give weight to the recommendation of those 
who lost loved ones in the gunfire.

"The defense does not lose sight of the loss to the families of the victims and 
survivors. The defense job is more specific and isolated. The defense must 
focus on Allen," Peale wrote.

(source: The Herald)






USA:

A plea for mercy: Meeropol brothers call on Obama to exonerate their mother, 
Ethel Rosenberg, who was executed in 1953 for being a spy


On June 14, 1953, Robert and Michael Meeropol, 6 and 10 at the time, delivered 
a letter to a guard at the White House gates asking then-President Dwight D. 
Eisenhower to spare their parents, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were 
convicted for conspiracy to commit espionage and awaiting execution.

"Please let my mommy and daddy go and not let anything happen to them," Michael 
wrote to Eisenhower. "If they come home Robby and I will be very happy, we will 
thank you very much."

Michael said he remembers the day clearly, the guard knew he was coming and 
smiled when Michael handed him the letter. His grandparents and brother Robert 
stood by his side.

That day, approximately 6,800 people marched through Washington to pressure the 
president into granting clemency for the convicted spies, according the FBI 
website.

Signs read "Show the world America is merciful," "New evidence shows perjury," 
and "Mr. President: 'Please send my mommy and daddy home' Michael Rosenberg."

The pleas did not save their parents. The Rosenbergs were electrocuted 5 days 
later.

The Rosenbergs were convicted of passing secrets about the atomic bomb to the 
Soviet Union. However, the Meeropol brothers say their mother was not a spy. 
The charges against Ethel and the threat of the death penalty, according to 
Robert, were meant to intimidate Julius into cooperating.

After their parents' death, Robert and Michael took the adoptive parents' 
surname of Meeropol. Robert, 69, now lives in Easthampton and Michael, 73, 
lives in New York.

On Thursday, the Meeropol brothers visited the White House gates again, this 
time to publicly and symbolically deliver a letter and package of supporting 
documents to President Barack Obama, calling on him to issue a proclamation 
exonerating their mother.

"What we're asking for is a presidential statement that in effect nullifies the 
guilty verdict and states that her execution was wrong," Robert said during a 
live Facebook feed from outside the White House.

Together, the brothers re-enacted the visit they made 63 years ago. But this 
time, the gates around the White House were more secure and the brothers were 
told they could not hand deliver a letter. The Meeropols said the packet has 
been sent through mail as well.

"The important thing is we symbolically did this to replicate what was done in 
1953," Michael said.

A lifelong mission

The Meeropol brothers spent about 40 years researching their parents' case. In 
2008, grand jury documents from the Rosenberg trial were released - excluding 
the testimony of a chief prosecution witness, Ethel Rosenberg's brother, David 
Greenglass.

Greenglass's testimony was made public in 2015, about a year after his death. 
It was key evidence. At the trial, Greenglass contradicted his sworn grand jury 
testimony. At the trial, he described Ethel at secret meetings and that he saw 
his sister typing up handwritten notes. Greenglass's grand jury testimony, 
however, makes no mention of Ethel's presence at secret meetings, according to 
the Meeropols.

Decades later, Greenglass admitted that his testimony that led to his sister's 
conviction and execution was a lie, according to the Meeropols.

"The evidence about our mother is so clear that there is virtually no argument 
about it," Michael said.

But the Meeropol's said, "There is no question that the U.S. government - 
fueled by the hysteria of McCarthyism - encouraged false testimony and wrongly 
killed our parents."

On Wednesday, Congressman Jim McGovern sent a letter urging Obama to re-examine 
the case and determine if the conviction and execution of Ethel was 
fundamentally flawed.

"A significant body of evidence - including U.S. government files, grand jury 
testimony and other 3rd-party sources - now suggests that Ethel was not a spy, 
and that the government knew this at the time of her prosecution," McGovern 
wrote. "Moreover, this evidence indicates that Ethel was prosecuted not because 
of her own culpability but as a 'lever' to put pressure on her husband, Julius, 
to cooperate with the government."

Within the past year, more than 40,000 people signed the petition to exonerate 
Ethel Rosenberg. Among the notable political activists who have signed the 
petition are Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Angela Davis and Ed Asner.

Michael Moore posted a letter to Obama on his Facebook page. "Mr. President, it 
is now time to right this wrong. It is time to exonerate Ethel Rosenberg," he 
wrote.

A petition through the White House government website requires 100,000 
signatures to be collected within 30 days for a response. Considering the 
Rosenberg case was over 6 decades ago, the Meeropol brothers decided to take a 
different route and launched a petition on the Rosenberg Fund for Children 
website, an Easthampton organization founded by Robert in 1990 to help children 
of targeted activists.

Throughout the month of December, the Meeropol brothers plan to continue to 
raise questions about their mother's case and gather more signatures.

"Since we can't being her back to life, there could be nothing more satisfying 
for us than to have the government acknowledge that this shouldn't have 
happened," Robert said in front of the White House during the live Facebook 
feed.

(source: Daily Hampshire Gazette)

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

Why the death penalty is not dead yet


Battered with bad publicity in recent years, the death penalty's public support 
has declined. But earlier this month when voters in Nebraska, Oklahoma and 
California had their say, they voted to retain and even expand it, making clear 
that the controversial punishment is far from finished.

But even while public support for the death penalty remains in place, the 
political ground underneath that support has shifted in important ways. In 
years past, the issue split clearly along left/right political cleavages, with 
conservatives favoring and liberals opposed.

Today, those fault lines are much less clear, and a bit less coherent. 
California, for example, a consistently blue state, embraced the death penalty 
in 2 November ballot propositions.

The shifting ground is also apparent in deep red Utah, which in 2015 approved a 
law bringing back the firing squad. Then a year later, in 2016, a bill that 
would have abolished the death penalty altogether passed the Senate and came 
within a floor vote in the House of going to the governor's desk.

Had that bill been passed and signed, Utah might have found itself in a 
position similar to Nebraska, where heavily Republican voters earlier this 
month rebuked a heavily Republican state Legislature by reinstating the death 
penalty.

In 2015, the Nebraska Legislature voted to abolish the death penalty and then 
overrode the veto of Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts. In Nebraska's single 
legislative house, 35 of its 49 members are currently Republican.

In what became an inter-party squabble, Republican Gov. Ricketts became a 
driving force in the ballot initiative to overturn the death penalty abolition 
in November of this year, donating $300,000 of his own to the cause.

In short, death penalty opponents, though discouraged by election results this 
year, may have more growth potential at the political right and center than is 
apparent at first glance. Only time will tell if those seeds bear fruit.

Strange alignments

Conservative intramural squabbles on the death penalty reflect growing 
skepticism about trust in government power among some conservative thought 
leaders, particularly the tea party wing of the party.

No matter how much time passes, certain things about parenting remain the same. 
Others, however, don't. Let's explore ways parenting is different today than 
half a century ago.

In 2015, conservative columnist George Will, though not a tea partier, 
announced his opposition to the death penalty. At the same time, Sen. Rand Paul 
(R-Indiana) has been an outspoken opponent of open-ended domestic surveillance 
programs, and Utah's Sen. Mike Lee has been been a leading advocate of reducing 
mandatory minimum sentences, even partnering with liberal Democrats on this 
issue. Both Lee and Paul are considered children of the tea party movement.

Meanwhile, in deep blue California, the voters are not ready to let go. Golden 
State voters went 62 % for Hillary Clinton while also voting to legalize 
marijuana and regulate gun magazines. But on the same ballot they easily 
rejected a measure to eliminate the death penalty, while narrowly endorsing one 
that would speed up executions by limiting appeals.

Oklahoma voters also weighed in on Nov. 8, using a constitutional amendment to 
remove the death penalty from the judiciary's reach. Oklahoma had been a 
flashpoint of controversy in 2014 after a gruesome botched lethal injection.

An unusual spike

Since 2014, anti death-penalty advocates had felt it was only a matter of time 
before the opinion and policy shifted in their favor, as they rode a wave of 
publicity over exonerations on death row and controversies about humane lethal 
injection drugs.

In 2015, the Deseret News noted that "public support for the death penalty has 
been on a steady downward curve since it reached a high of nearly 80 % of 
Americans supporting it in 1994, according to Pew Research Center data. Today, 
55 % support capital punishment, Pew found, with large variations in ethnic 
groups. Blacks and Latinos are much more likely to oppose it."

But looking at the larger picture over time, it seems that choosing 1994 as a 
starting point might muddle the picture.

According to Gallup, 60 % of Americans today support the death penalty, the 
exact same percentage that supported it in 1937. In between, there have been 
ups and downs, ranging from a low of 42 in 1966 to a high of 80 % in 1994.

The year 1994 was also very near the peak of violent crime in America. Violent 
crime rates began climbing sharply in the late 1960s and continued to push 
upwards, cresting in the mid-1990s before beginning a sharp downward descent 
that brought them down today to levels not seen since 1960.

Public opinion polls seem to clearly follow crime over that time period, with 
support for the death penalty spiking just after crime rises, then falling 
gradually as crime falls.

If this link between violent crime and public opinion on the death penalty is 
accurate, then the 60 % level of death penalty support today may not be the 
result of a downward slide that is destined to continue. The drop may be, 
rather, the ebbing of an unusual dual spike upward and back down to more normal 
levels. Confidence that this slide will continue may be misplaced.

Possible openings

Digging a little deeper, the Gallup data yields some interesting insights into 
how death penalty opponents might unpack the issue to their advantage.

Since 1985, in addition to asking about support for capital punishment, Gallup 
has asked poll takers if they would endorse life in prison with "absolutely no 
possibility of parole" as an alternative to the death penalty.

Given that option, respondents in 1997 - near the peak of the crime wave - 
chose the death penalty by 61 to 29, compared with 80 % who chose the death 
penalty in the question that did not mention other options.

By 2014, a much more narrow 50-45 were in favor of the death penalty when 
offered the alternative, compared with 60 % who supported the death penalty 
when not offered the alternative. This indicates slippage across the board, but 
it also suggests openings to reframe the issue by offering alternatives.

One key question is whether people see the death penalty as a deterrent to 
violent crime. The shifts over time on this are quite striking. In 1985, 62 % 
said yes, it was a deterrent, but supportive responses dropped steadily and by 
2011, the most recent year Gallup asked the question, just 32 % saw the threat 
of punishment by death as a deterrent.

In an open-ended question about why voters supported the death penalty, 50 % in 
1991 chose some variation of "the punishment fits the crime," but that number 
had dropped to 35 % by 2014.

Explanations for supporting the death penalty, which had long focused on 
deterrence and retribution, are now much more scattered, with no dominant 
answers. These changes suggest the public may have become a little unclear on 
its reasoning, and thus more open to persuasion.

Another opening may lie in attitudes toward false convictions. Gallup only 
records answers on this in 2003 and 2005. In 2005, 57 % of respondents 
estimated false conviction rates at between 1 and 5 %.

No one knows the true number of false murder convictions, as the Deseret News 
has noted previously, with estimates varying from a low of .33 % to a high of 
between 3 and 5 %, estimates very much in line with public perception.

It is worth noting that the Gallup survey showed few if any respondents 
believing that false convictions never happen. That means nearly all death 
penalty supporters apparently accept at least some small risk that some people 
will be falsely convicted and executed.

The challenge for death penalty opponents is to replace that vague statistical 
awareness of possible innocence with real human faces.

In Utah, such an effort is underway. Last week, Utah Conservatives Concerned 
about the Death Penalty hosted a forum on the death penalty featuring Ray 
Krone, a wrongly convicted Arizona man who sat on death row for 10 years before 
being exonerated through DNA evidence.

For now, polls show the traditional American consensus in support of the death 
penalty appears to be holding near its historic norms. But openings may exist 
to disrupt it from both ends of the political spectrum, and with different 
avenues of persuasion.

(source: Deseret News)

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

Jeff Sessions Didn't Like How The Supreme Court Spared 'Retarded' People From 
Execution----Donald Trump's pick for attorney general said in 2002 that federal 
judges shouldn't read too much into the Constitution.


This week, the Supreme Court weighed the proper standard states must use to 
determine whether a capital defendant has an intellectual disability that would 
prevent a death sentence.

In a landmark 2002 case, the court ruled that the Constitution bars the 
execution of "mentally retarded offenders," but left open the question of how a 
state might assess the disability. The new case, Moore v. Texas, aims to fill 
some of that void in the law.

In the days that followed that 2002 ruling, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) - whom 
President-elect Donald Trump has picked for attorney general - said the Supreme 
Court's death penalty decision left him "very troubled."

"The court seemed to say that they had divined, somehow, that the American 
people had evolved in their thinking and, therefore, the laws their 
legislatures had passed were not valid anymore," Sessions said during an 
unrelated debate on the Senate floor decrying a Pledge of Allegiance ruling. 
"That they could not execute people who were retarded."

What the Alabama senator appeared to critique here is an old constitutional 
precedent, first announced by Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1958, that the 
Constitution's prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment should 
reflect society's progress. The court's 2002 ruling relied on this precedent.

"The basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the 
dignity of man," Warren wrote in Trop v. Dulles. "The Amendment must draw its 
meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a 
maturing society."

To Sessions, this was not a theory that should guide the Supreme Court's 
decision-making.

"However you feel about that," he continued in that same Senate session, "that 
is a dangerous philosophy, but it is a philosophy afoot in America today. It is 
a philosophy, I think, that is dangerous to liberty. If you care about the 
Constitution ... you will enforce it, the good and bad parts."

To be sure, the Eighth Amendment says nothing about the death penalty, and 
Sessions isn't alone in his view that the amendment shouldn't be interpreted 
through the lens of society's evolution. Just last year, in a lethal injection 
case, the late Justice Antonin Scalia faulted the 1958 decision and suggested 
it should be overruled.

The death penalty itself remains constitutional, and Sessions, if confirmed as 
attorney general, won't have much say in what happens to capital punishment in 
the courts. His input, like that of Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the case 
of accused South Carolina church gunman Dylann Roof, would be limited to 
recommending the ultimate punishment in individual federal prosecutions.

Be that as it may, Sessions' remarks in 2002 offer a window into the subject - 
if not into how he feels the courts should interpret America's founding 
document.

"The way to erode the power of the Constitution to protect our liberties is to 
start playing around with the meaning of words, just redefining those words," 
Sessions said. "And they come to mean whatever a judge says they do. That is a 
particularly pernicious thing because, you see, judges are not accountable. 
Federal judges are not accountable to the public. They are given a lifetime 
appointment."

Sessions himself was denied appointment to the federal bench in 1986.

(source: Cristian Farias; Legal Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post)

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

Most Favor Death Penalty for Charleston Church Shooter


Jury selection is underway in the federal trial of Dylann Roof who stands 
accused of the shooting deaths of a pastor and 8 parishioners in a black 
Charleston, South Carolina church last year. Most Americans believe Roof 
deserves the death penalty if found guilty.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of 
American Adults think the Charleston shooting suspect should be sentenced to 
death if convicted. Twenty-one percent (21%) disagree, but another 23% are not 
sure.

The national survey of 1,000 American Adults was conducted on November 28-29, 
2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 % points with 
a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is 
conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

(source: Rasmussen Reports)

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

Accused Charleston church shooter files objection to federal trial 
proceedings----Judge calls it 'a tactic for delay'


The man facing 33 charges and a possible death penalty in the shooting deaths 
of nine people at a downtown Charleston church filed a legal objection to the 
federal case Thursday.

Dylann Storm Roof, 22, is charged in the June 17, 2015 Emanuel AME Church 
shooting that claimed the lived of 9 parishioners after a Bible study.

In a filing dated Thursday, Roof, through court-appointed standby counsel, 
objected the proceedings as violating his Eighth Amendment right to "a reliable 
determination of his culpability and sentence in a capital case," because of 
the court's refusal to authorize "reasonable, limited assistance he has 
requested from standby counsel."

The filing stated Roof's request to represent himself, granted by U.S. District 
Judge Richard Gergel, is not a "tactic" designed to gain any kind of advantage 
in the trial and cited Gergel's own judicial opinion filed on Wednesday that 
states "no facts suggest Defendant's motion is 'a tactic for delay; for 
disruption for distortion of the system; or for manipulation of the trial 
process.'"

Roof also argued that in death penalty trials, self-representation is 
compounded by both the complexity and the stakes a defendant faces. The vast 
majority of lawyers are not qualified to handle death penalty cases, the filing 
stated.

For this reason, Roof argued, the Constitution provides "special protections" 
in capital cases because of the life-or-death stakes, such as special 
accommodations that would include allowing standby counsel to explain voir dire 
objections for Roof. Voir dire is a legal term that refers to a preliminary 
examination of a witness or juror.

The objection stated that the court must balance Roof's Sixth Amendment right 
to represent himself in the trial with his other Constitutional rights.

"The Court's refusal to permit the defendant to call on standby counsel for 
assistance works against even that modest aim," the motion stated. "Both the 
Constitution and the public interest require reconsideration of the Court's 
approach."

Roof filed an objection to the court proceedings Thursday, arguing the court is 
not allowing his standby counsel to offer him the level of guidance the 
Constitution guarantees. It is not clear when the judge will take up that 
objection.

(source: WYFF news)