[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----FLA., ALA., MONT.

[Rick Halperin]

Dec. 9




FLORIDA:

Future Far From Settled On Florida's Death Row----Questions about Florida's 
death penalty continue to swirl as the court considers 4 more cases. The full 
impact of the Hurst v. Florida decision is far from settled.


It's been nearly a year since the U.S. Supreme Court nixed Florida's death 
sentencing scheme in a case called Hurst v. Florida. Now the state Supreme 
Court is going through appeals with an eye on that ruling and its own later 
decision requiring unanimous juries. This week the court heard 4 of those 
cases, with Hurst hanging over each one.

"May as well address the Hurst issue 1st," Nada Carey began Thursday before the 
bench.

She's a public defender representing a man named Randall Deviney. The state 
Supreme Court's Hurst decision means all 12 jurors must agree in new capital 
cases and for inmates on their 1st round of appeals. That's where Deviney's 
case is.

"Mr. Deviney is entitled to a new sentencing proceeding," Carey argues, "given 
the 8-4 jury recommendation and the extensive and compelling mitigation in this 
case."

But the state Supreme Court hasn't said what its ruling means for some of the 
oldest cases on death row - it's unclear if the same unanimity requirements 
will apply. David Hendry represents an inmate named John Hampton in a secondary 
round of appeals. Hendry points to Florida's blanket prohibitions on executing 
juveniles or the mentally ill.

"So our argument is basically that it would likewise be improper for the state 
to execute someone who we know went through an unconstitutional trial," Hendry 
explains.

To complicate matters further, Florida's Attorney General Pam Bondi is 
preparing to appeal the court's decision in hopes of limiting how many inmates 
get new appeals.

"We're waiting on clarification - I don't want to comment on that yet," Bondi 
said Tuesday morning. "The opinion was - not vague, it was a bit - it left many 
questions with us."

Her office will file its appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the 
meantime the attorney general has asked a trial court to delay a new penalty 
hearing. But court watchers on both sides of the issue are skeptical the 
Supreme Court will wade into a dispute over the state constitution.

(source: WFSU news)






ALABAMA----execution

AL executes man convicted in 1994 murder


Alabama executed inmate Ronald Bert Smith Thursday night after the Supreme 
Court denied his 3rd stay of execution.

Attorney General Luther Strange released the following statement:

"For more than 2 decades Ronald Bert Smith has avoided justice for the cold 
blooded murder of Casey Wilson, who was first pistol whipped and shot in the 
arm after refusing to open a convenience store cash register and then shot in 
the head and left to die. The trial court described Smith's acts as 'an 
execution style slaying.' Tonight, justice was finally served."

At 9:15 p.m., a spokesperson for the Alabama Department of Corrections said 
that a third stay of execution from SCOTUS had been denied.

Just before 8 p.m., the Supreme Court issued a 2nd stay of execution for an 
Alabama man convicted in a store clerk's 1994 death. This was after the U.S. 
Supreme Court said at 7:30 p.m. that the execution could go forward.

Around 5:40 p.m., the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 1st temporary stay of 
execution of Ronald Bert Smith, who was convicted for shooting and killing 
convenience store clerk Casey Wilson during a robbery on November 8, 1994.

The Alabama Department of Corrections says Smith's execution was originally 
scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore.

A jury recommended life in prison without the possibility of parole, but the 
judge sentenced Smith to death. A U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the judge's 
decision in 2013.

(source: WSFA news)

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

The death penalty 'courtesy' stay has disappeared already


Last night the state of Alabama executed Ronald Smith, and the Supreme Court, 
by a 4-4 vote, denied a stay of execution.

However, as BuzzFeed notes, last month the Supreme Court voted to stay an 
execution by another Alabama man, Thomas Arthur, raising similar claims. A 5th 
vote to stay the Arthur execution came from Chief Justice John Roberts, who 
wrote:

I do not believe that this application meets our ordinary criteria for a stay. 
This case does not merit the Court's review: the claims set out in the 
application are purely fact-specific, dependent on contested interpretations of 
state law, insulated from our review by alternative holdings below, or some 
combination of the 3. 4 Justices have, however, voted to grant a stay. To 
afford them the opportunity to more fully consider the suitability of this case 
for review, including these circumstances, I vote to grant the stay as a 
courtesy. That same "courtesy" vote does not seem to have been offered in last 
night's execution, and as of yet we do not know why the Arthur execution 
merited courtesy and the Smith execution did not. There are several conceivable 
explanations, some more troubling than the others. For instance:

--Perhaps in the intervening month, the justices have had "the opportunity to 
more fully consider the suitability" of review on these issues, and it is now 
clear that there will be no review.

--Perhaps the courtesy vote was a one-time experiment, and for some reason 
unknown to us, it has been deemed a failure.

--Perhaps in the Arthur case the dissenting justices asked nicely or pleaded 
fervently, and in the Smith case they did not.

--Perhaps courtesy votes were a way to build a friendly relationship with 
Justice Stephen Breyer, when it seemed as though Breyer was likely to be in a 
voting majority a lot more often than he is now.

I am not inclined to jump to conclusions and assume that it was one of the 
troubling explanations. But we do not know what the official explanation is. 
For these kinds of decisions - on what I have called the "Shadow Docket" - the 
justices do not usually explain their reasoning at all. And if they do provide 
an explanation, as with the "courtesy" vote last month, they don???t feel any 
obligation to continue providing explanations if they do something different 
later. So it is not clear whether we will ever know why the two cases were 
treated differently.

(source: Will Baude is an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law 
School, where he teaches constitutional law and federal courts----The 
Washington Post)






MONTANA:

Renewed calls for Canadian on death row in Montana to be granted clemency


A petition asking the governor of Montana to spare the life of a Canadian on 
death row is being dusted off and given a fresh look this week.

Ronald Smith, who is originally from Red Deer, Alta., has been on death row 
since 1983 for fatally shooting Harvey Madman Jr. and Thomas Running Rabbit 
while he was high on LSD and alcohol near East Glacier, Mont.

The petition for clemency was given to former Gov. Brian Schweitzer 4 years ago 
but he chose not to deal with it before finishing his term in office.

His successor, Gov. Steve Bullock, has also not dealt with the thorny clemency 
issue. Now elected to his final term in office, Smith's lawyers have officially 
requested Bullock take another look Smith's case.

"Governor Schweitzer chose not to act on it ... so it never went anywhere. It's 
just been sitting on somebody's desk gathering dust," said Smith, 59, in an 
interview with The Canadian Press earlier this year.

"Given the new position of the Canadian government, I think it's time to act on 
it."

Members of Smith's legal team have met with representatives of the Canadian 
consulate who have expressed their support for clemency.

Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion issued a statement earlier this year 
following a meeting with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 
saying Canada opposes the death penalty and "will ask for clemency in each and 
every case, no exceptions."

It's a marked shift from the former Conservative government, which initially 
decided against seeking clemency for Smith or any other multiple murderer 
facing the death penalty in a democratic country.

A court ruling later forced the government to abandon the policy but Smith's 
lawyer accused the Canadian government of "treachery" for its handling of the 
2012 clemency hearing.

Lawyer Greg Jackson said he could file for another hearing but it's 
unnecessary. Bullock could simply take all the material already on the record 
and make a decision on clemency, he said.

"There's a full transcript of the hearing, there's a whole videotape of the 
hearing. Everything is available to him that was available to the original 
board. Probably the easiest, the most economic thing would be for the present 
petition to be reviewed."

Jackson said he had a couple of initial discussions with the governor's staff 4 
years ago but it never went anywhere.

All executions in Montana have been on hold since 2008 when a court fight began 
over the types of drugs used during the process.

"I think the fact is it's been out of sight, out of mind," he said. "I think 
the prevailing thought was there's no immediate prospect of execution. There's 
no reason to act."

Smith thinks this is the best time to renew his efforts.

"It's unlikely there's going to be a death sentence after the legislative 
session anyway. It's highly improbable they will keep it since they can't use 
it. There's no drugs available. There's no other form of execution so I don't 
see it continuing on," he said.

"Given those factors I think now's the time to go to the governor and say maybe 
it's time to revisit this. I believe the Canadian government would be more than 
willing to take me back and take my butt the hell out of the country."

While Smith may have an ally in the Canadian government, family members of his 
victims have lobbied for his death.

"The decisions he made, he has to pay for," Running Rabbit's son told Smith's 
clemency hearing in 2012. "He had no mercy for my father -- a person I have 
never met."

Smith, who initially asked for and was granted the death penalty, later changed 
his mind and has been fighting execution ever since. Despite what appears to be 
a change of fortune, he's not optimistic.

"After 34 years of doing this, that's a no."

(source: cp24.com)