[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ALA., OHIO, UTAH, USA

[Rick Halperin]

Dec. 8




ALABAMA----(temporary) stay of impending execution

Justice Clarence Thomas temporarily stays execution of Alabama death row inmate


Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has issued a temporary stay in the death 
penalty case of Ronald Smith, an Alabama death row inmate whose execution was 
scheduled for later Thursday.

No more information was provided in the brief order.

The case involves Ronald Bert Smith who was convicted in Alabama of the robbery 
and murder of Casey Wilson, a convenience store clerk.

Lawyers for Smith argue that although the jury rendered a verdict of life 
without parole, the trial court overrode the jury's verdict and sentenced Smith 
to death.

Smith argued in part that he should be given life without parole because 
Alabama's sentencing scheme is similar to that of Florida's which the Court 
struck down in an opinion called Hurst v. Florida.

Lawyers for Alabama argue that that the case should be allowed to proceed and 
stress that Hurst v. Florida has no retroactive application to Smith.

(source: CNN)

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

US Supreme Court temporarily halts execution of Alabama death row inmate Ronald 
Bert Smith


Alabama death row inmate Ronald Bert Smith, a former Eagle Scout and Army 
reservist convicted in the 1994 slaying of a Huntsville convenience store 
clerk, was granted a stay of tonight's execution early this evening by the U.S. 
Supreme Court.

Smith, 45, was set to be executed by lethal injection at 6 p.m. at the Holman 
Correctional Facility in Atmore. He was be the 2nd inmate executed this year. 2 
other executions, those of Vernon Madison and Tommy Arthur, were stayed by 
appeal courts.

At 5:14 p.m. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued the stay 
"pending further order of the court." The Department of Corrections is treating 
this as a temporary stay and the execution and as of 6:30 p.m. Thursday had not 
cancelled it.

Alabama has until midnight tonight to execute Smith. Otherwise it would have to 
go back to the Alabama Supreme Court and seek another execution date.

On Thursday the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied his request for a 
stay of execution That court also affirmed a district court's dismissal of 
Smith's lawsuit challenging Alabama's 3-drug lethal injection combination as 
cruel and unusual punishment.

At the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys for Smith are also seeking a stay of 
execution. The lawyers also are appealing the dismissal by the Alabama Supreme 
Court of Smith's claim that the state's death penalty sentencing law, which 
allows judges to override jury sentencing recommendations, is unconstitutional.

In November the U.S. Supreme Court issued a similar stay in the Tommy Arthur 
case. There were temporary stays issued before the execution was called off for 
that night.

The Associated Press also reported that Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley had no 
plans to stop the execution, a spokeswoman said Thursday evening. Smith's 
attorneys had petitioned Bentley seeking to have his sentence commuted to life 
in prison without the possibility of parole.

Bentley has never granted clemency to a death row inmate.

(source: al.com)




OHIO:

Court affirms death penalty for Cleveland serial killer


The Ohio Supreme Court today affirmed the 11 aggravated murder convictions and 
death penalty sentences of Anthony Sowell for the serial killing of 11 women in 
Cleveland.

In a 5-2 decision, the Court voted to uphold the 2011 convictions of Sowell, 
who was sentenced to death for the aggravated murder of 11 women whose bodies 
or body parts were found buried or concealed at his Imperial Avenue home. A 
principal issue in the case concerned whether the trial court committed 
reversible error in conducting an in camera hearing regarding statements Sowell 
made in a series of police interrogations and closing the voir dire of jurors 
in the case.

In an opinion authored by Justice Terrence O'Donnell, the Court concluded that 
the trial court failed to journalize all of the findings necessary to close the 
proceedings, but that failure did not mandate a new suppression hearing in this 
instance or a new trial.

"Although Sowell's statements to police are incriminating, the state presented 
overwhelming independent evidence of guilt supporting Sowell's convictions and 
sentence," he wrote.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice William M. O'Neill wrote the trial court 
failed to follow the procedural step of explaining the necessity for closing 
the suppression hearing, and maintained that Sowell is entitled to a new 
hearing that is either open to the public or closed only after a trial judge 
explains the reasoning for closing it.

Rape Investigation Leads to Victims

While investigating a 2009 rape complaint against Sowell, Cleveland police 
obtained warrants to arrest him and search his house. Although Sowell was not 
at home, they nonetheless executed the search warrant and found the bodies of 
Diane Turner and Telacia Fortson in Sowell's home and as a result obtained 
additional warrants to search the property with the help of the county 
coroner's office. They then located the bodies of Janice Webb, Nancy Cobbs, 
Tishana Culver, and Tonia Carmichael.

The following day, they located Sowell and arrested him. They continued the 
investigation at the home and with the use of a backhoe uncovered the bodies of 
Michelle Mason, Kim Smith, Amelda Hunter, and Crystal Dozier, and found the 
skull of Leshanda Long in Sowell's home.

Sowell Was Convicted on 81 Counts

A grand jury returned an 85-count indictment against Sowell with 66 counts 
related to the 11 murder victims. For each victim, the grand jury indicted 
Sowell on 2 counts of aggravated murder - 1 for prior calculation and design, 
and the other for felony murder predicated on kidnapping. Each murder count had 
death-penalty specifications. The remaining 19 counts related to crimes against 
Latundra Billups, Shawn Morris, and Gladys Wade, each of whom survived an 
encounter with Sowell, and those counts included charges of attempted murder, 
rape, felonious assault, and aggravated robbery.

During the guilt phase of trial, defense counsel did not call any witnesses but 
submitted a number of exhibits into evidence. The trial court acquitted Sowell 
of three counts relating to the felony-murder and kidnapping of Long, and the 
jury returned verdicts finding Sowell guilty of all but 1 count of aggravated 
robbery. Prior to the penalty phase, the trial court merged the aggravated 
murder counts for sentencing purposes, and the state elected to proceed under 
R.C. 2903.01(A), murder with prior calculation and design. The jury recommended 
death sentences for all 11 murders, and the trial court accepted that 
recommendation and sentenced Sowell to death on each count.

Sowell appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court and presented 18 propositions of law 
and three supplemental propositions of law, including claims that the trial 
court improperly closed the courtroom during the suppression hearing and jury 
voir dire.

Courtroom Closures

The trial court conducted an in camera hearing in July 2010 on Sowell's motion 
to suppress the statements he made to police. Additionally, the trial court 
closed the courtroom for a portion of the voir dire in connection with 
attitudes of jurors toward the death penalty, juror requests to be excused from 
service for hardship reasons, and the impact of pretrial publicity.

The Motion to Suppress

Sowell sought to suppress his statements to police claiming he was not properly 
advised of his Miranda rights. He claimed he did "not knowingly, intelligently, 
and voluntarily" waive his rights before answering questions because he was 
suffering from a psychotic disorder or mental illness.

The trial court determined that because of the sensitive nature of the mental 
health issue and concerns raised about the potential of prejudice to the jury 
pool, it would close the suppression hearing. Sowell's attorneys objected for 
the record to the procedure. At the hearing, the state presented testimony from 
police officers and video recordings of Sowell's interrogation.

Although in his statement Sowell never admitted to murdering the women and 
denied having any memory of killing them or concealing their bodies, he 
explained that he had encountered various women, mostly in the East Cleveland 
area, and from time to time would hear a "voice" telling him to rape the "bad" 
ones, who were doing drugs and soliciting on streets. He stated that he would 
black out and have dreams in which he hurt women by choking them. He described 
himself as "the punisher" and the women as "cons" who tried to "hustle" him out 
of money and drugs.

The trial court denied Sowell's motion to suppress those statements, finding 
that Sowell had properly waived his Miranda rights and that his statements were 
neither coerced nor the result of a psychosis that interfered with his ability 
to make free and rational choices.

Justice O'Donnell explained that the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial 
extends to hearings on motions to suppress evidence. He noted that in Waller v. 
Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court had held that a suppression hearing may be 
closed only if an ???overriding interest" is likely to be prejudiced, and the 
closure may not be broader than necessary to protect the rights or interests 
raised. The trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the 
proceedings, and it must "make findings adequate to support the closure."

In Waller, the court ruled that if a hearing were improperly closed, the remedy 
would not automatically be a new trial but a new suppression hearing. A new 
trial would be granted only if the 2nd public suppression hearing resulted in 
suppressing "material evidence" that was allowed in the 1st trial or "in some 
other material change in the positions of the parties."

Justice O'Donnell noted the trial court identified the overriding interest in 
the closed hearing: preventing the release of Sowell's statement to the public 
in order to ensure an unbiased jury. On this point, the majority concluded, 
"the trial court undoubtedly recognized that given the intense media interest 
generated by Sowell's trial involving the serial killing of 11 women in 
Cleveland, closing the suppression hearing was necessary to guarantee Sowell a 
fair trial and to avoid tainting the jury pool with statements that he would 
encounter various 'bad' women in his neighborhood, hear a voice telling him to 
rape them, black out, and then dream of strangling them before waking to find 
them gone," he wrote.

Justice O'Donnell also noted that the trial court recognized the potential for 
publicity to prejudice Sowell's right to a fair trial, but did not make an 
express finding that the closure of the proceeding was "no broader than 
necessary to protect the interest." Nevertheless, Justice O'Donnell stated that 
it was apparent from the record that the closure was no broader than necessary 
and the trial judge specifically stated it would reopen the court to arguments 
on other pretrial matters.

Although the trial court also did not specifically state that it considered 
reasonable alternatives to conducting a closed hearing, Justice O'Donnell 
recognized that it was obvious the court had no reasonable alternative other 
than closing the proceedings to protect Sowell's right to a fair trial.

"The trial court understood that if Sowell's statements were publicized but 
subsequently suppressed, then his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury 
would be compromised. Other than closing the hearing, there was no way for the 
court to examine the admissibility of Sowell's statements without also possibly 
exposing those statements and prejudicing potential jurors," he wrote.

Accordingly, the majority concluded that the limited closure of the courtroom 
during the hearing was proper.

In analyzing Waller, Justice O'Donnell recognized that a new suppression 
hearing is necessary only if suppressing the evidence would result in a 
"material change" in the positions of the parties. In Waller, the case involved 
suppression of wiretap evidence, and had that evidence been suppressed, the 
government would have been unable to proceed. Here, the Court concluded, even 
if the trial court had suppressed Sowell's statements to police, the case could 
have proceeded with other evidence without changing the outcome of the trial. 
He noted that police found the remains of 11 women on Sowell's property, and 
the conditions of the bodies established a course of conduct in which Sowell 
had kidnapped the women, sexually assaulted them, and strangled them to death.

Justice O'Donnell also noted that 5 of Sowell's victims survived and testified 
at trial, providing evidence of his course of conduct. The majority concluded 
that ordering a new suppression hearing would be a "vain act" that would not 
change the outcome of the trial.

Closure of Part of the Voir Dire

Justice O'Donnell noted that although Sowell objected to the in camera 
examination of the prospective jurors in connection with their attitudes toward 
the death penalty, their requests to be excused from jury service, and the 
impact of pretrial publicity, this was done at the request of defense counsel 
and therefore constitutes invited error, which cannot form the basis of 
reversible error.

Court Reviews Circumstances of Crimes

Justice O'Donnell explained that a death sentence can be affirmed only if the 
Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances of the 
crimes Sowell was found guilty of committing outweigh any mitigating factors.

The jury found Sowell guilty of 13 course-of-conduct specifications for each 
victim, and with respect to ten of the aggravated murders, the jury also found 
him guilty of 2 felony-murder specifications: 1 predicated on kidnapping with 
the purpose to terrorize or inflict serious harm to the victim and another 
predicated on kidnapping with the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with 
the victim against the victim's will. And the jury found that Sowell was either 
the principal offender or had acted with prior calculation and design. The 
trial court merged the course-of-conduct specifications into a single 1 for 
each aggravated murder and merged the 2 kidnapping specifications into a single 
one for each of the ten aggravated murders to which they applied. Justice 
O'Donnell wrote that the overwhelming evidence at trial supported the jury's 
findings that these aggravating circumstances existed.

Regarding mitigation, Justice O'Donnell noted that in connection with Sowell's 
history, background, and character, he was raised by his mother, who lived with 
his grandmother and his 2 siblings. After his sister's death, Sowell's mother 
took in 7 of her children. 3 of these children testified they had been 
subjected to regular abuse by Sowell's mother and that Sowell observed the 
beatings and sometimes laughed about it. Sowell's mother told an investigator 
that she once beat Sowell with a cord.

Sowell told the investigator he was sexually molested as a child, and one of 
Sowell';s nieces testified Sowell sexually molested her almost every day when 
she and Sowell were 10 and 11 years old, respectively.

Sowell served as an active duty U.S. Marine from 1978 to 1985 and was awarded 
two good conduct medals and was successively promoted from private first class 
to sergeant. Justice O'Donnell noted that Sowell had a prior criminal record 
consisting of a conviction for attempted rape in 1990 and that he served 15 
years in prison. While serving time at Grafton Correctional Institution, he 
worked as a food handler, and after his release, he entered a job-readiness 
program for ex-offenders. He then began working at a rubber products company. 
In 2007, Sowell suffered a heart attack and returned to work after his 
hospitalization, but he was unable to perform and left that employment.

Regarding the mitigating factor relating to the existence of any mental disease 
or defect, the record contains evidence that Sowell was evaluated by 4 mental 
health experts who assessed his mental state and whether his heart attack 
contributed to any mental problems. While the doctors filed conflicting reports 
about his mental condition, Justice O'Donnell noted that a 2005 Cuyahoga County 
Court Psychiatric Clinic report showed an absence of significant psychiatric 
illness, and that no antipsychotic medications had been prescribed for Sowell 
during his nearly 2-year incarceration in the county jail between his arrest 
for the murders and his trial.

In his unsworn statement at trial, Sowell reiterated prior testimony on his 
behalf and apologized for his crimes.

Upon reviewing the mitigating factors, Justice O'Donnell stated that "as to 
each of the 11 murders in this case, the aggravating circumstances outweigh the 
mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt."

Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Sharon L. Kennedy, and Judith 
L. French joined Justice O'Donnell's opinion.

Dissent Would Order New Hearing

In his dissent, Justice O'Neill wrote that in cases involving "unspeakable 
horror and overwhelming evidence of guilt," it is tempting to overlook 
procedural safeguards. He noted that while closed suppression hearings may 
sometimes be necessary, there is no question the necessity needs to be 
explained.

"I cannot stress strongly enough that the right to a fair, public trial belongs 
both to the accused and to the citizens of Ohio with equal value. They both 
need to have confidence in the ultimate outcome. It also serves to make those 
trying an accused keenly aware of their responsibility and of the importance of 
their task," he wrote.

Justice O'Neill maintained the majority misinterpreted the Waller decision and 
that Sowell is entitled to a new suppression hearing. If, after the new 
hearing, the trial court determines that the parties' positions will not 
materially change, then the trial court can rule that a new trial is not 
necessary.

"This court simply cannot choose to ignore the rulings of the United States 
Supreme Court on this issue," he wrote.

In a separate opinion, Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor partially joined Justice 
O'Neill's dissent. She wrote she agreed that Sowell is entitled to a new 
suppression hearing, but disagreed with Justice O'Neill's position that the 
death penalty is unconstitutional.

(source: WKYC news)






UTAH:

Death penalty an option for man charged with killing MP man, burning 
body----Raul Vidrio, 19, appeared in Provo's Fourth District Court before Judge 
James Taylor on Dec. 1, and could face the death penalty for his reported role 
in the death of Wesley Nay. Vidrio will be in court again Feb. 2, 2017.


Capital punishment is possible for a man charged with forcing a Mt. Pleasant 
man to dig his own grave before allegedly killing him and burning his body.

Raul Vidrio has been charged with a 1st-degree felony of murder for his 
reported role in the death of Wesley Nay, a Mt. Pleasant man whose burned 
remains were found Oct. 20 in a shallow grave near the Sanpete-Utah County 
border.

Nay, 22, was originally reported missing Sept. 18 and was last seen Aug. 29.

On Dec. 1, Vidrio, 19, appeared in Provo's Fourth District Court before Judge 
James Taylor with 1 of his attorneys, Jennifer Foresta.

Taylor told Foresta and prosecutor David Sturgill that the death penalty is an 
option in this case should the prosecution choose to pursue it.

The prosecution is required to make the decision on whether to pursue capital 
punishment within 60 days after Vidrio's arraignment, but they have a while 
before an arraignment can even be scheduled.

Foresta told Taylor they are awaiting discovery and evidence and need about 2 
months to prepare for their next hearing.

Vidrio will be in court again on Feb. 2, 2017.

Vidrio was arrested Sept. 1 in Sandy for reportedly being in possession of a 
stolen truck. In the bed of the truck were shovels, a pick and gas jugs, 
according to police.

On Vidrio's phone, police reported finding a picture of Nay, wearing the same 
clothes he was last seen in, digging his own grave. Police say Nay died of 
blunt trauma and stab wounds.

Vidrio has been reported by deputies as a known drug dealer and gang member in 
Mt. Pleasant and told police he sells and uses methamphetamine.

(source: The Daily Herald)






USA:

Judge presiding over Dylann Roof's trial denies defense's request for a 
mistrial


A request by Dylann Roof's defense team to have the judge presiding over the 
case to declare a mistrial was denied after a heated discussion between all 
sides.

The team filed the request Thursday morning, arguing that the court allowed 
Felicia Sanders to characterize Roof as "evil." Roof, 22, is accused of 
shooting and killing Sanders' son, Tywanza, and her aunt, Susie Jackson, in 
addition to seven others on June 17, 2015.

At one point, Sanders got so emotional recounting her harrowing ordeal that the 
court abruptly went into recess.

Sanders told jurors Roof, a Columbia area man, walked in and asked if they were 
having Bible study that night. The group in attendance said "yes" to Roof, and 
Sen. Clementa Pinckney offered Roof a seat beside him, Sanders said.

"He just sat there the whole time - evil, evil, evil as can be," Sanders said.

Roof's defense team said in the request for a mistrial Thursday that Sanders' 
emotion was "apparent and entirely understandable." Nonetheless, "such 
characterizations of the defendant are unquestionably improper in any case,' 
the motion said.

The defense cited previous rulings that supported their argument. They also 
noted that because of the emotional nature of the proceedings, Roof's mother, 
who collapsed in court sobbing on Wednesday, was taken to the hospital with a 
heart attack.

But U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel denied the request, arguing that he 
figured Roof's attorney, David Bruck, was making a strategic call when he did 
not object to Sanders' testimony at the time she said it on Wednesday. To allow 
such testimony to continue, but request parts be thrown out the next day, would 
"make the trial unmanageable," Gergel said.

The 2nd day of testimony resumed shortly after the jury re-entered the 
courtroom around 10:10 a.m.

(source: thestate.com)