[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----NEV., CALIF., AK., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Dec. 12



NEVADA:

Lawyers raise questions about defendants' mental capacity in death-penalty 
cases


A Clark County judge recently found that a man accused of fatally stabbing his 
pregnant girlfriend should not face the death penalty after defense lawyers 
raised questions about his mental capacity.

District Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez concluded earlier this month that 
psychological analysis revealed that 33-year-old Eric Covington "demonstrates 
significant subaverage general intellectual functioning," which started before 
he was 18, and that he had "significant deficits in adaptive behavior."

That met the 3 concepts the Nevada Supreme Court has determined clarify the 
definition of intellectual disability. In addition to determining intellectual 
and adaptive functioning, a judge must decide whether the mental deficiencies 
began at an early age.

Covington's case is the latest example of a judge granting a seldom-used 
defense in line with requirements set by the U.S. and Nevada supreme courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court has found that executing inmates with intellectual 
disabilities violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In 2014, the high court wrote: "to impose the harshest of punishments on an 
intellectually disabled person violates his or her inherent dignity as a human 
being."

In Covington's case, prosecutors allege that he stabbed his 24-year-old 
pregnant girlfriend, Sagitarius Gomez, more than 100 times because he did not 
want her to be with another man. Prosecutors have said they plan to appeal 
Gonzalez's ruling.

Although another doctor had previously found that Covington has an IQ of 77, a 
psychologist who analyzed him in October found that he has an IQ of 62.

A psychologist for the prosecution examined him in November and found his IQ at 
76.

The judge's decision also meant that the trial, which had been delayed in 
October and was scheduled to resume last week, was canceled.

Around the same time Gonzalez made her ruling, attorneys in two other capital 
cases presented similar arguments, contending that defendants have intellectual 
disabilities that should automatically disqualify them from execution should 
they be convicted.

Next month, District Judge Doug Smith is expected to consider findings from 
Sharon Jones-Forrester, a Las Vegas clinical neuropsychologist who determined 
that suspected serial killer Nathan Burkett has an IQ of 59.

"Burkett is functioning at an extraordinary low level of intelligence," his 
attorneys, Christopher Oram and Betsy Allen, wrote in court papers.

Burkett attended segregated schools in the Deep South and received mostly D's 
and F's before dropping out as a high school sophomore in 1962, his lawyer 
wrote.

His IQ was tested at 55 while he was serving time in a Mississippi prison on a 
manslaughter conviction in the death of his mother.

Gonzalez is also scheduled to hear arguments next month regarding the mental 
capacity of Gustavo Ramos, facing the death penalty for 2 counts each of 
murder, armed robbery and sexual assault in the 1998 killing of 75-year-old 
Wallace Siegel and 86-year-old Helen Sabraw, who were found on back-to-back 
days at their assisted-living home.

His attorneys, Ivette Maningo and Abel Yanez , filed court papers last week, 
saying a California psychologist determined Ramos-Martinez has an IQ between 67 
and 77.

Authorities linked Ramos-Martinez to the slayings in 2010 after he gave a DNA 
sample while serving time in federal prison on an illegal immigration charge.

Raised in "extreme poverty," Ramos-Martinez struggled in school while in Mexico 
and the United States, according to the documents from his lawyers.

"His relatives thought he was 'dumb' because he couldn't learn, and his 
siblings often had to do his homework for him," the lawyers wrote. He had 
trouble following simple instructions as a child, and as an adult "he was 
unable to separate lemons from limes."

He had difficulty maintaining employment for more than a few months, never 
lived independently and does not know how to maintain a banking account.

Ramos-Martinez was first deported in 1998 after pleading guilty to trying to 
stab his girlfriend in a drunken fight a month after the killings. His home at 
the time was an apartment complex less than a quarter-mile from the victims' 
assisted living home.

Prosecutors have yet to file opposition in the cases of Burkett or 
Ramos-Martinez. At times, both sides agree that a defendant may not be mentally 
fit for the death penalty.

Late last month, 25-year-old Jerry Howard was sentenced to life in prison 
without the possibility of parole after prosecutors agreed to withdraw the 
death penalty.

Howard pleaded guilty to 1st-degree murder with a deadly weapon, 1st-degree 
kidnapping, sexual assault with a deadly weapon and robbery with a deadly 
weapon for a vicious attack on 54-year-old Kathy Shines while she was 
collecting cans in the 3300 block of South Nellis Boulevard in January 2015.

Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson said he considered "a substantial 
likelihood" that, because of medical reports on Howard's mental capacity, a 
jury would not impose capital punishment.

(source: Las Vegas Review-Journal)






CALIFORNIA:

Stanislaus County death penalty defendant asks for another delay


A Stanislaus County death penalty case continues to inch toward a February 
trial for a father accused of killing his teenage daughter, but the defendant 
representing himself repeatedly says he is unable to proceed.

Mark Edward Mesiti returned to court Thursday afternoon, telling the judge he 
is not able to start a discussion about a jury questionnaire proposed by the 
prosecution. The questionnaire is needed to begin jury selection for the 
scheduled Feb. 6 capital murder trial.

Mesiti, who has chosen to act as his own attorney, is accused of killing his 
14-year-old daughter, Alycia Mesiti. On March 25, 2009, the girl's body was 
found buried in the backyard of the Ceres home where Mesiti lived at the time 
of her disappearance in August 2006.

The defendant on Thursday told the judge that he assumed a jury consultant 
would be hired to help him review the questionnaire before asking the court for 
any necessary changes to the questions. The court has appointed defense 
attorney Martin Baker to serve as Mark Mesiti's advisory counsel.

Mesiti said in court that Baker had volunteered to hire the jury consultant. 
Baker told the judge he found a consultant who was suitable for this case, but 
the consultant had not returned his phone calls. The attorney said he would 
need more time to complete the task.

Superior Court Judge Dawna Reeves appeared frustrated over another failure by 
Mesiti to be prepared to move forward with the case. She told Mesiti and Baker 
that months have gone by since the court started asking for a review of the 
jury questionnaire.

Reeves told Mesiti that he has chosen to represent himself, and that he can???t 
put off the responsibilities on anyone else. "You are 100 % responsible for 
your defense ... for every task," she said in court.

The judge asked the defendant whether there's anything, so far, he's read in 
the proposed questions that he has an opinion on. "My only opinion is that I 
don't like them," Mesiti answered.

Reeves told Mesiti that his response sounded disingenuous, and it was apparent 
to her that the defendant had not even read the proposed questionnaire. The 
defense had not brought its copy of the questionnaire to court Thursday.

If Mesiti were to change his mind and ask for a court-appointed attorney to 
represent him, it could delay the trial. That scenario could force the court to 
appoint 2 attorneys to defend Mesiti, which is what state law requires in a 
death penalty case.

Reeves on Thursday warned Mesiti that if he wanted an attorney, he should ask 
for one now. But Mesiti said he wants to proceed acting as his own attorney.

The judge reluctantly postponed review of the questionnaire until Wednesday, 
when the court will also schedule a date for the attorneys to argue over 
Mesiti's motion to postpone the February trial.

The defendant said he has lengthy declarations from experts who detail what 
additional work needs to be done before his legal defense can be ready for 
trial. Mesiti on Thursday said he had not yet filed those declarations with the 
court.

Along with the capital murder charge, Mesiti is charged with more than 40 
counts of sexually abusing his daughter, as well as sexual abuse charges 
involving 2 other girls, according to a criminal grand jury indictment.

(source: Modesto Bee)






ALASKA:

David Grunwald's parents call his murder 'unconscionable', make case for death 
penalty in Alaska


Ben and Edie Grunwald are still in shock as they near their 1st Christmas 
without their son.

"He was the one who decorated the tree, so it won't be going up today," Edie 
Grunwald said of her son David, who was found murdered near Palmer on Dec. 2.

They described their son an energetic young man who would come "bounding down 
the stairs" each morning. He had a passion for flying and wanted to join the 
military.

"He loved going places and seeing things, and he just wanted to go, go, go," 
she said.

Edie Grunwald attended a vigil for her son on Friday night. She said it showed 
the outpouring of support they have experienced since David went missing.

"I was just in awe of all the work that went into putting that together," she 
said.

5 teenagers are charged in connection to David's murder. 4 of them were 
arraigned Saturday. Edie Grunwald called her son's death "unconscionable" and 
said the teens suspected of killing her son acted with cowardice.

"You think you're so smart and tough, but you guys are wrong," she said.

The Grunwalds applauded law enforcement on their work thus far, and urged the 
justice system to hold those responsible accountable for their actions. Edie 
and Ben Grunwald said bringing the death penalty to Alaska should be 
considered.

"My son doesn't get to breathe anymore. He's gone," Edie Grunwald said. "These 
kids - or these people - they get to breathe."

Her husband echoed her sentiment, comparing the arrested teenagers to an animal 
that killed a child.

"Would we take that wild animal, catch it, put it in a pen, feed it 3 times a 
day, [and] give it medical attention when it got a sore paw? What would we do?" 
Ben Grunwald said. "We all know what the answer is."

The death penalty has not existed in Alaska since its statehood in 1959.

Ben Grunwald said he wanted to deliver another message to Alaskans.

"Please pray for the troopers and pray for the prosecutor that they have the 
wisdom and the knowledge to do this swiftly and completely," he said.

Edie Grunwald asked a question many people aware of the case are also 
wondering.

"Where are the parents of these kids that are doing this stuff or have done 
this stuff?" she asked. "I don't think David is the only one."

Finally, Edie Grunwald said the charged teens had many opportunities to save 
David after he was beaten, but chose not to.

"They could have stopped at any point," she said. "My son would have been 
broken, [but] things would not have been as bad as they are now."

Both parents made it clear they wanted no leniency for the people involved.

"I hope that everybody prays for the justice system in this case to be fierce," 
Edie Grunwald stated.

Details as to what the 4 newly arrested teenagers told investigators are 
expected to become available once charging documents are released on Monday.

(source: KTVA news)






USA:

Sampson may seek mercy from jury that decides his sentence


Jurors in the federal death penalty trial of Gary Lee Sampson have heard from 
crime scene investigators and heard chilling taped confessions. Jurors were 
brought to tears during testimony from family members of Sampson's murder 
victims.

Now, as Sampson's 2nd death penalty trial heads toward a close, jurors may hear 
from Sampson himself.

His lawyers have indicated that the admitted serial killer could address jurors 
before they decide whether he should be sentenced to death or life in prison 
without the possibility of parole. It would be the 1st time the public has 
heard directly from Sampson, and the testimony could be a gamble, according to 
legal analysts.

"As a practical matter, you have got to have confidence that your client can 
pull it off, that he can testify and make a good impression," said David Hoose, 
a Northampton-based attorney and one of only a few from the region qualified to 
handle death-penalty cases.

"I'm sure that his lawyers have carefully considered that, and my guess is 
they'll probably make a last-minute decision as to whether he can do it or 
not," Hoose added.

Sampson, a drifter from Abington, confessed to killing 19-year-old Jonathan 
Rizzo and Philip McCloskey, 69, during the same week in 2001, as well as 
killing Robert "Eli" Whitney, 58, days later in New Hampshire. A jury agreed to 
sentence him to death in 2003, but a judge vacated that decision after 
discovering that a juror lied during the selection process. Prosecutors are 
retrying the case.

During the sentencing retrial, defense lawyers have argued that Sampson should 
be spared from death because his judgment was impaired by a mental illness 
caused by repeated trauma to the head as a child. They say he turned to drugs 
and alcohol, further affecting his ability to make sound decisions.

Sampson might discuss that history when making what is known as an allocution, 
an opportunity for a defendant to address a court before sentencing. Defendants 
who are found guilty routinely seek leniency from a judge, and the statements 
are not made under oath or subject to cross-examination by prosecutors. 
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev gave such a statement to a judge before he was sentenced to 
death for the Boston Marathon bombings.

In Sampson's case, however, he would be able to make his statement directly to 
the jury, a rare occasion to plead for mercy before the 12 jurors who must be 
unanimous in sentencing him to death.

In court filings, federal prosecutors objected to the allocution, saying 
Sampson has no constitutional right to address the jury.

Letting a defendant address jurors has been controversial in federal courts, 
but US District Judge Leo T. Sorokin ruled in June that allowing Sampson to 
address the jury would allow him to do "what every other criminal defendant is 
permitted to do."

The judge set several restrictions for the allocution: Sampson must read from a 
prepared statement at the defense table, and he may not comment on any 
evidentiary or legal issues.

Sampson's lawyers must show prosecutors the statement at least a week before he 
reads it in court, in case they have objections.

The goal of the statement, legal analysts say, is for jurors to have an 
understanding of Sampson as a person, beyond his crimes.

"I think that the obvious thing is that, even for someone who has admitted to 
such horrible crimes, I think the jury would see that all human beings have 
some spark of humanity," said Hoose, who defended Kristen Gilbert, a veteran's 
nurse who killed patients, in her death penalty trial in a federal court in 
Springfield in 2001.

Analysts also pointed out, however, that the restrictions on what Sampson can 
say will limit his ability to connect with the jury. Jurors could question the 
sincerity of a prepared statement delivered without their ability to engage 
Sampson. Sampson may also feel unable to connect with jurors based on the 
restrictions, reducing the emotional impact of his presentation, said M. 
Catherine Gruber, author of "I'm Sorry for What I've Done: The Language of 
Courtroom Apologies."

"Speaking on an emotional topic, in which you don't get any formal response 
from the person you're addressing, it really limits what you can say from the 
beginning," said Gruber. She researched 52 allocutions that were made directly 
to a judge for her book. Although none of the cases involved the death penalty, 
Gruber found that allocutions that were the most sincere were also the most 
successful.

"An effective allocution involves talking about the harm you caused, expressing 
your understanding of it," Gruber said. "That's really the best way to go about 
it."

Enzo Yaksic, cofounder of the Atypical Homicide Research Group at Northeastern 
University, who has followed Sampson's case since his arrest, said Sampson's 
lawyers will want to try to keep him from becoming combative or indirectly 
blaming his victims, and so a prepared statement may be more proper.

Yaksic questioned whether Sampson could ever seem genuine before a jury, 
considering the brutality of his crimes, though he cited the ability of some 
serial killers to "feign remorse."

There is no general agreement among lawyers who specialize in the death penalty 
on whether jurors respect defendants who give allocutions.

Michael Burt, 1 of Sampson's lawyers, 2 years ago represented a former Army 
soldier who killed his 5-year-old daughter, and the soldier addressed jurors.

"I feel ashamed for all the suffering I caused my daughter," Naeem Williams had 
said. "I can see all of the hurt I caused Talia, who just wanted to be loved 
and be happy."

4 of the jurors refused to vote in favor of the death penalty, and Williams was 
sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

(source: Boston Globe)

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

Why Dylann Roof will get the death penalty in church shooting


Dylann Storm Roof will get the death penalty.

Some aren't so sure about that, now that the police killing of Walter Scott has 
ended in a mistrial in Charleston, right across the street from Roof's trial.

But Michael Slager was a white police officer who killed a black motorist. Roof 
is a white supremacist who killed 9 black people inside historic Emanuel AME 
Church.

The 1st guy gets the benefit of the doubt, even when video evidence cries out 
that he should not. I predict the 2nd will get no such benefit.

Roof, as shooting survivor Felicia Sanders told him from the witness stand, 
embodies evil. If the many tweets advising him to kill himself are any 
indication, America can't wait to see this guy dead.

I mean, for God's sake, the man saved his worst attack of the church massacre - 
11 rounds - for an 87-year-old woman.

Unlike Slager, he will not find that one white holdout juror who will insist on 
saving him, evidence be damned.

His rampage at Emanuel marks a modern-day low for racist evil-doing. Good 
people singled out and gunned down, simply because of their skin color. During 
a church Bible study, of all unthinkable notions. Black or white, rich or poor, 
Republican or Democrat, everybody wants him tossed out like human garbage.

People can't wait to declare that we are not him, and he is not us.

And yet, when Roof is led away to death row, our deep racial and ethnic divides 
will remain. Far from a grotesque aberration, he's our coal-mine canary, a 
warning of where the darkest impulses can lead us in a year when demonizing 
Mexicans and Muslims turns out to be smart politics.

To hear Roof tell it, his path to Emanuel started with him Googling the Trayvon 
Martin shooting case out of curiosity, then growing outraged by (fake) 
statistics on black-on-white crime.

So, race-hatred destroyed him, yes. But also, plain old lazy thinking.<>P> Why 
is that dangerous? Well, one minute you're thinking there are too many black 
people on welfare or committing crimes. The next, you're wondering if black 
people are inherently defective.

The former is public policy. The latter is white supremacy.

See how slippery - and important - that line of demarcation is? Donald Trump's 
"deplorables" need to think about that. The few black activists who cheered cop 
killers in Dallas and Baton Rouge this year have their own demarcation issue to 
ponder.

Stereotyping is intellectually lazy, violence is counter-productive, and racial 
nationalism is a dead end.

We must teach our young these truths. Roof? He will learn them the hardest way 
of all.

(source: Opinion; Eric Frazier----Charlotte Observer)

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

Jurors in capital case to be asked about drugs and guns


About 600 potential jurors in the upcoming death penalty trial of a man charged 
with abducting and killing a supermarket worker in 2005 will be asked about 
drug use and whether they own guns, according to a questionnaire prospective 
jurors will be asked to fill out.

Beginning in February, potential jurors in the retrial of Donald Fell will be 
called to 3 federal courthouses and asked to answer 75 questions in the 33-page 
questionnaire.

"These questions are not meant to ask unnecessarily about personal matters," 
wrote U.S. District Court Judge Geoffrey Crawford, who added in an introduction 
that the answers would help in assembling a fair and impartial jury. "It is 
very important that the answers be yours and yours alone. Remember, there are 
no 'right' or 'wrong' answers; just be completely candid and truthful."

Some of the questions include whether the potential juror is a member of a 
volunteer police group, militia or police auxiliary; if the person owns guns 
and if so what type, how many and if they feel any "bias, sympathy, or 
prejudice" toward Fell, or toward the government, the Burlington Free Press 
(http://bfpne.ws/2hAH6ge ) reported.

Fell, now 36, was convicted and sentenced to death in 2005 for the November 
2000 killing of Terry King, a North Clarendon woman who was abducted when she 
arrived for work at a Rutland supermarket. The conviction was overturned in 
2014 because of juror misconduct.

The new trial is now scheduled for late February.

(source: Associated Press)