[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----MISS., OHIO, KAN., NEB., COLO., UTAH, NEV., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Dec. 18



MISSISSIPPI:

A strong case for the death penalty


I think idealism is as dangerous as it is essential. Nowhere is this more 
obvious than in the endless debates about the death penalty. An article in a 
recent edition of The Clarion-Ledger described the execution of a murderer 
where the drug used was questioned and the sentiment that it was hoped the 
death penalty would be abolished was expressed.

In an ideal world, abolition would certainly be the way to go. In our real 
world, I contend again that the death penalty is a very useful tool for law 
enforcement as a bargaining methodology, that it is a unique punishment that 
recognizes the heinous character of a very few horrific crimes, that it deters 
absolutely one lethal offender, that it saves lives even under the present 
egregious process, and that it speaks clearly to our valuing the lives of the 
murdered and our outrage at the utter unacceptability of their deaths.

I also contend that if we accept DNA as certain proof of innocence then the 
same DNA should stand as certain proof of guilt. The logic of this is 
unassailable. If we do not accept this as tautology, then we should not be 
exonerating anyone based on DNA. This may be a singular time in history when 
the death penalty is logically supported. The science reveals and offers remedy 
for past mistakes prior forensics. We seem to be attempting to abolish the 
death penalty at the very moment logic supports it.

It is my observation as well that the memory of victims and their suffering, 
their heartbreaking stories evaporate like mist at sunrise as time passes and 
all attention and concern focus on the convicted killer. Most of you will never 
know what watching that process feels like - what it's like to sit wide-eyed 
and shocked as people flock to prisons to minister to and advocate for the 
lethal offender, and, in my experience, fail to even ask after the families of 
the dead.

I presume our idealism does not require that.

Ann Pace

Jackson

(source: Letter to the Editor, Clarion-Ledger)






OHIO:

Murder suspect Lance Hundley ruled competent


Judge Maureen A. Sweeney has ruled Lance Hundley competent to stand trial in 
his capital murder case.

The Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judge made her ruling at the end of a 
Friday competency hearing, at which Dr. Delaney Smith, a psychiatrist with Twin 
Valley Behavioral Health Care in Columbus, and Dr. Thomas Gazley, a 
psychologist with the Forensic Psychiatric Center of Northeast Ohio in 
Austintown, testified they found Hundley understood the legal proceedings 
against him and could assist in his defense.

Hundley, 47, of Washington Street, Warren, or Cleveland Street, Youngstown, 
could face the death penalty if he's convicted in the Nov. 6, 2015, slaying of 
Erika Huff, 41, in her Cleveland Street home on Youngstown's South Side.

Hundley is accused of beating Huff to death, beating her mother and setting the 
house on fire.

Police entered the burning house to rescue Hundley and Huff's mother.

Hundley is charged with aggravated murder with a death-penalty specification, 
attempted murder, felonious assault and aggravated arson.

In January, the defense requested Hundley's competence to stand trial be 
evaluated and filed a plea of innocent by reason of insanity.

"We really haven't been able to get anything accomplished on this case because 
we've been jammed up with the competency evaluations, and he's not been 
cooperative," Jennifer McLaughlin, an assistant county prosecutor, said of 
Hundley.

No scheduled trial date is shown on the court docket for Hundley, but a motion 
hearing is set for 8:30 a.m. Jan. 11.

In response to a question from Hundley's lawyer, John Juhasz, Dr. Smith 
testified Hundley refused to answer her questions during the competency 
evaluation about who his lawyers are and what charges he faced.

"He was able to control his behavior when he chose to," Dr. Smith said of 
Hundley's behavior during his 20 days at Twin Valley.

Although Hundley was diagnosed at Twin Valley with anti-social personality 
disorder and malingering of mental illness and memory deficits, Dr. Smith said 
Hundley showed no signs of major mental illness.

"Anti-social personality disorder is basically a life-long character trait, 
where people show a chronic disregard for the rights of others," Dr. Smith 
explained.

"He was cooperative in providing some general information about the 
allegations, but he declined to provide details about the circumstances and 
events in the alleged offenses," Dr. Gazley said of Hundley.

"I don't think he was trying to look as if he was mentally ill, when he 
wasn't," he added.

Dr. Gazley said he found no signs that Hundley was mentally ill.

"Individuals who have anti-social personality disorder can certainly make 
choices," he said.

"They may not have significant foresight enough to recognize the severity of 
any potential consequences at times. They tend to act impulsively," he 
observed.

(source: vindy.com)






KANSAS:

Kahler defense, prosecution spar over mental health in death penalty case


In a case where no one challenged that James Kraig Kahler fatally shot his 2 
teen daughters, his estranged wife and his wife's grandmother, Kahler's defense 
was prejudiced when the judge failed to read an instruction on how jurors 
should consider the evidence provided by expert witnesses testifying about 
Kahler's mental health, an appellate defender told the Kansas Supreme Court on 
Friday.

Kahler's defense in the 4 slayings was that mental illness prevented him from 
being able to form the necessary intent or premeditation for capital murder.

Kahler was apprehended in Shawnee County near Auburn within hours of the 
slayings.

On Oct. 11, 2011, Kahler was sentenced to death in Osage County District Court 
for murdering Karen Kahler, daughters Lauren Kahler, 16, and Emily Kahler, 18, 
and Karen Kahler's 89-year-old grandmother, Dorothy Wight. The 4 were shot at 
Wight's home during Thanksgiving Day weekend Nov. 28, 2009, in Burlingame.

On Friday, Meryl Carver-Allmond of the Capital Appellate Defenders Office 
argued Kahler's convictions and the death penalty sentence should be 
overturned.

In Kahler's appeal, appellate defenders contended psychiatric testimony 
supporting Kahler "provided sufficient evidence to support giving the (expert 
witness) instruction."

Stephen Peterson, a psychiatrist, examined Kahler for his defense and testified 
during the trial about Kahler's severe depression, a single episode of major 
depressive disorder and his post-traumatic stress disorder, according to 
appellate defense records.

Peterson found Kahler was "severely mentally impaired" on Nov. 28, 2009, and 
that Kahler's ability to make rational decisions that evening was "heavily 
influenced by his major depression," defense records contended. But Peterson 
didn't think he was allowed to provide an expert opinion during the trial.

The defense didn't mention a key statement by Kahler "when it sounds like he is 
having an out-of-body experience," Carver-Allmond said.

To not allow the defense to point out this piece of key evidence showing 
Kahler's mental state is harmful to the defendant, Carver-Allmond said.

However, prosecution witness William Logan, a psychiatrist, did give an 
opinion, testifying he didn't see anything in Kahler's initial interview with 
law enforcement officers to suggest he lacked the capacity to premeditate or 
form the intent to kill.

Kristafer R. Ailslieger, deputy solicitor general for the Kansas attorney 
general's office, said a defense attorney did quote Peterson's opinion about 
what Kahler said, and the defense attorney got the point into the court record.

"There was no error, there was no prejudice, there was no harm," Ailslieger 
said.

Ailslieger said Kansas case law spanning years instructs judges to not give 
expert witness instruction to the jury.

Justice Lee Johnson noted 1 expert had expressed an opinion in the Kahler trial 
and 1 hadn't, and perhaps it was time for an exception to the rule to have 
Peterson express an opinion.

Kahler, 53, who is being housed in the El Dorado Correctional Facility, wasn't 
present in the Kansas Supreme Court during the appellate arguments Friday. 
Defendants normally aren't present during appellate hearings.

Because Kahler is sentenced to death, defense and prosecution appellate 
attorneys had a maximum of 1 hour each to argue their points.

Osage County Attorney Brandon Jones, who prosecuted the case with assistant 
attorney general Amy Hanley, sat in the Supreme Court to listen to the 
arguments. Tom Haney defended Kahler in the trial.

The couple's son, Sean Kahler - 10 at the time of the slayings - was the only 
other survivor.

During the capital murder trial, the boy testified about seeing his father 
shoot his mother while he and Karen Kahler were cleaning coins in a kitchen 
sink. Kahler allowed his son to escape unharmed.

During the sentencing of Kraig Kahler, 2 notes from Sean Kahler were read to 
jurors, both opposing imposition of the death penalty.

It's unknown when the court will issue a ruling on the Kahler appeal.

(source: Topeka Capital-Journal)






NEBRASKA:

State renews license to get foreign-made drugs, including for lethal injections


Nebraska's corrections director has renewed his department's license to obtain 
foreign-made drugs, including those used in lethal injections.

Scott Frakes was issued a new license by the U.S. Drug Enforcement 
Administration on November 21st. Voters reinstated the death penalty earlier in 
the month after lawmakers abolished the punishment in May 2015.

The Department of Correctional Services has proposed to change the state's 
current protocol with a new process that would allow drug suppliers to remain 
confidential. A public hearing on the proposal is set for December 30th in 
Lincoln.

A spokeswoman says the department hasn't attempted to import lethal injection 
drugs since executions were put on hold last year and has no immediate plans to 
do so.

(source: Associated Press)






COLORADO:

The facts about the death penalty in Colorado


2 anti-death penalty law professors with negligible experience in criminal law, 
who are not even licensed to practice law in Colorado, took to the pages of The 
Denver Post on Dec. 11 to make the outrageous claim that the application of 
Colorado's death penalty is the product of racial bias and that our law is 
unconstitutional. Their specious claim is based on a self-titled "2012 study" 
commissioned by criminal defense attorneys for a 2-time murderer trying to 
avoid the death penalty.

The "study" produced by University of Denver law professors Justin Marceau and 
Sam Kamin has been rejected by every Colorado court in which it has been 
offered. One court found the professors' study and conclusion "flaw[ed]" and a 
"red herring." Another court was more blunt. It found that the professors used 
"a substantially skewed database" and likened their methodology as "GIGO, which 
stands for Garbage In, Garbage Out." The court concluded "it is clear it was 
not an unbiased study, but one designed to provide support for a particular 
position and designed to reach an anticipated conclusion."

A thoroughly researched and vigorously vetted legal article published by the 
marquee legal publication of the professors' own school, the University of 
Denver Law Review, details the flaws in the professors' study and the reality 
of the law in our state. The facts are these:

Coloradans overwhelmingly want to maintain the death penalty by a 2-1 margin, 
according to almost every poll.

Colorado's current death penalty statutes make the death penalty more difficult 
to obtain than in any other state in the United States, or even in federal 
court.

The race of the defendant is not a factor in the death penalty in Colorado. 
Going back more than 40 years, the small difference between the percentage of 
convicted Colorado murders who are African-American and those receiving a death 
sentence is the result of just a single case.

1 more fact for the professors: Last year, I sought the death penalty against a 
white guy who had a privileged upbringing.

(source: Opinion; George H. Brauchler is district attorney for Colorado's 18th 
Judicial District----The Denver Post)






UTAH:

Trial preparations mark anniversary of 2010 murder case


On Sunday, Leeds resident Ellen Hensley marked the 6th anniversary of her 
daughter's death as she does each year, visiting the grave to reflect on the 
young woman who would have been 26 by now if not for a grisly 
middle-of-the-night slaying in St. George.

"Death day, you just want to forget about that," she said earlier this year.

But she went, alone this time because other family members weren't able to 
accompany her to visit the resting place of Jerrica Christensen in a plot near 
the Iron County line.

On Friday, the man accused of killing Christensen appeared in 5th District 
Court alongside his attorney amid arguments about what testimony should be 
allowed at his trial next month, as the years-long proceedings in 35-year-old 
Brandon Perry Smith's aggravated murder case near a conclusion.

Hensley sat in the courtroom across the aisle from Smith's family members, who, 
like Hensley, have been regular presences during the ongoing court hearings 
since Smith was charged in the hours after the incident and taken into custody.

The trial, scheduled to begin Jan. 30 and last for 10 days, will coincide with 
what would have been Christensen's 27th birthday - a fact not lost on Hensley. 
Hensley stepped out of the courtroom once, briefly, when Friday's discussion 
delved into details of Christensen's death.

"Court today was like ripping off a scab! I forgot how much emotion is brought 
out when I hear someone discuss the details of Jerrica's death," she said 
afterward. "It just got to be too much. I am dreading the trial because (of) 
all of the emotion that I had thought was dealt with, that I am sure will come 
crashing back down."

The hearing dealt with three motions the prosecution filed to bar testimony 
defense attorney Gary Pendleton hopes to introduce in the trial. The testimony 
would involve evidence Smith may have been experiencing the legal definition of 
"extreme emotional distress" at the time of Christensen's slaying, that he may 
suffer a socialization difficulty that makes him vulnerable to manipulation, 
and that notes confiscated from an inmate at the Purgatory Correctional 
Facility during the initial months after the incident show Smith's codefendant, 
Paul Clifford Ashton, may have intended to harm Smith if Smith didn't cooperate 
with him.

Ashton was convicted and sentenced to life without parole 3 years ago for 
killing another woman and non-fatally shooting a man in his home immediately 
before Christensen's death there.

"All of these motions go to the crux of our defense - our defense is extreme 
emotional distress," Pendleton said. "There's a whole laundry list of types of 
emotional distress. They include panic, fear, anything that overwrought you to 
the point where your ability to think rationally as a human being is impaired 
by emotional distress."

Judge G. Michael Westfall questioned how Smith's alleged actions - driving to 
Ashton's house to provide him with the gun and later beating and cutting 
Christensen until she died - would qualify under the emotional distress 
definition.

"If that (emotional) situation is created by your own conduct that leads up to 
the creation of that, you don't have a defense," Westfall said.

Pendleton agreed, but said he is challenging the prosecution's theory Smith 
went to Ashton's house "ready, willing and able to participate in a criminal 
act." Instead, he hopes the testimony will show Smith was manipulated and lied 
to in order to draw him into the incident, and that he then reacted in a highly 
emotional way under impaired judgment that another "reasonable, average person" 
might also experience.

Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap argued that elements of Pendleton's 
plan appear to be a "backdoor" way of asking the jury to find Smith suffered a 
mental illness, just under a different name since Pendleton does not plan to 
argue that Smith is mentally ill.

The intercepted jailhouse communications would substitute for testimony by 
Ashton, in the event that Ashton refuses to testify about the incident at the 
trial. The attorneys on both sides have stated they don't consider Ashton to be 
a reliably truthful witness anyway, but Pendleton argued Friday that the notes 
allegedly written by Ashton prior to his conviction indicate he wanted to 
silence Smith and any other potential witnesses, going so far as to suggest 
paying someone to kill them.

Belnap argued there is no evidence Smith knew of the notes and therefore 
couldn't have been intimidated by them. Pendleton argued the notes suggest 
Ashton's state of mind during the killings may be inferred from the notes as 
hostile toward Smith.

Belnap also argued the inmate who received the notes said he could not state 
with certainty who wrote them.

3 other motions against planned evidence are still pending - 2 by the 
prosecution against witnesses who are medical professionals acquainted with 
Smith, and 1 by the defense asking the court to bar "gruesome" photo and video 
evidence of the crime scene that it considers prejudicial.

The attorneys are working with the court to resolve the issues without further 
delaying the trial. Westfall said he expects to rule on Friday's arguments in 
the near future.

On Tuesday, the state's Indigent Defense Board voted to approve funding for 
Pendleton and co-counsel Mary Corporan above the public defense attorneys' 
normal cap because of "unforeseen circumstances" in Smith's case.

Death penalty off the table in Smith murder trial

In January, the state funding board approved raising the $60,000 cap to $95,000 
- just shy of the $100,000 cap for death penalty cases - to cover outstanding 
bills and further anticipated costs. In February, the prosecution announced 
that it was dropping its push for the death penalty with Hensley's consent.

Under the current public defense contract, that would end funding for 
Corporan's involvement, but no such limitation existed at the time the contract 
for Smith's case was signed so in March the board voted to let Corporan 
continue assisting Pendleton.

Tuesday's vote added an additional $35,000 through the end of trial - raising 
the bar to the $100,000 death penalty cap and adding an additional $30,000 for 
unforeseen complications in the case.

(source: The Spectrum)




NEVADA:

Man sentenced to death in fatal Las Vegas Strip shooting gets new trial in 
rape, robbery case


Ammar Harris, a self-proclaimed pimp sentenced to death for a shooting and 
fiery crash that killed 3 people on the Strip, has been granted a new trial by 
the Nevada Supreme Court on a previous rape and robbery conviction.

A 3-judge panel, in an order dated Thursday, said Clark County District Judge 
Kathleen Delaney erred by not allowing Harris to represent himself at his trial 
for the June 2010 sexual assault and robbery of a woman in Las Vegas.

Justices Michael Cherry, Michael Douglas and Mark Gibbons reversed Harris' 
conviction and sent the case back to District Court. The justices said the 
lower court denied Harris' motion to act as his own attorney "solely on its 
belief that Harris lacked the legal skills and knowledge to represent himself."

The Supreme Court said the "deprivation of the right to self-representation is 
reversible, never harmless error."

"The right to represent yourself is a fundamental right," Harris' attorney, 
Robert Langford, said Friday. "Just as you have a right to have an attorney, 
you have a right to reject an attorney."

Clark County prosecutor David Stanton said no decision has been made on whether 
Harris will be retried. He said his office will evaluate the order in the 
coming weeks before making a determination.

"I'm disappointed in the decision but understand it," Stanton said.

He said the prosecution was not allowed in the courtroom when Delaney held a 
hearing to consider Harris' motion on self-representation, and he noted that 
the transcript of the hearing then was sealed by the court. Stanton said his 
office only received a redacted version of the proceeding.

"We were disappointed that we weren't permitted to be in the hearing at least 
at the time she made her final ruling because we would have raised our concerns 
about the misapplication of the standard," he said.

Harris received a sentence of 16 years to life in prison after a jury convicted 
him of 3 counts of sexual assault and 1 count of robbery.

In January he was formally sentenced to death for a deadly shooting and fiery 
crash that left 3 people dead on the Strip in February 2013.

Prosecutors said Harris pulled alongside Kenneth Cherry Jr.'s car on the Strip 
and shot the 27-year-old, killing him. Cherry's Maserati then slammed into a 
taxi, causing an explosion that killed driver Michael Boldon, 62, and his 
passenger, Sandra Sutton-Wasmund, 48, a mother of 3 from Washington.

Stanton said the previous rape conviction was not used as an "aggravator" by 
the prosecution in arguing for the death penalty in the murder case.

(source: Las Vegas Review-Journal)






CALIFORNIA:

Murder most foul: The execution of Charles Russell


The Charles Russell murder case of 1872 split The City over the death penalty, 
pitted minister against minister and sold a lot of newspapers.

At first glance, it seems like an odd dispute. Neither Russell nor his victim, 
James "Short-haired Jimmy" Crotty, could be considered peace-loving citizens. A 
convicted burglar and San Quentin alumnus, Russell had been recently arrested 
for drawing a deadly weapon. Crotty, a political thug, had been recently jailed 
for assault.

But fate brought them together on Aug. 2 of that year - with fatal results.

Russell and Crotty were drinking together in Cady's saloon when Russell started 
reminiscing about the bad ol??? days. Russell accused Crotty of being a robber; 
Crotty reminded Russell of his time in prison. Both men started fighting and 
threatened each other, but the 2 were quickly separated. Russell left the bar, 
had dinner and ran into a friend. The men returned to Cady's a few hours later. 
Russell saw Crotty standing at the bar, facing the bartender. Russell walked up 
to the bar, pulled out a gun and shot Crotty in the head, mortally wounding 
him. Russell was arrested the next day and charged with murder.

At his trial in January 1873, Russell claimed he thought that Crotty was 
reaching for a gun and shot him in self-defense. But the bartender and others 
testified that Crotty never saw Russell until he was shot. The jury took only 
an hour to find Russell guilty of 1st-degree murder. But by the time of his 
sentencing just a few weeks later, the tone of the press coverage had changed.

"He was neatly dressed, but looked haggard and dejected. He wore a light 
overcoat, dark pants and coat and his whole appearance was quite tasty," 
pronounced the San Francisco Chronicle.

As Judge John W. Dwinelle pronounced the death sentence, he described Russell 
as "a young man in the prime of life, with a countenance beaming with 
intelligence who might have been an ornament to society."

Russell's gentlemanly appearance and his forlorn situation - alone, friendless 
and facing imminent death - brought him much sympathy. His service in the Civil 
War, where he fought in many battles and was promoted to the rank of sergeant, 
also helped change public opinion.

Then, new allegations arose.

Before the murder, Russell had been working for and living at the house of 
James Page, a restaurant owner who had helped Russell after his release from 
prison. In February 1873, Page discovered that Russell had been having an 
affair with his wife. Page gave the newspapers an intimate letter that Charles 
had written to his wife from his jail cell:

In the depths of woe and darkness

To my lost idol, my pet. What might have been, I know is not.

What must be, must be borne. But ah! what has been, will not be

Forget? Never! Henceforth, I am alone, alone! I have seen my first

and holiest love depart, and the hand of death is creeping on my heart ...

Though you should look back upon your love for me as foolish, still I will be 
with you, and my love will ever be the same for eternity."

2 weeks later, in a fit of jealousy, Page shot his wife and killed himself. 
Mrs. Page survived and continued to visit Russell in his jail cell.

Despite this news, Russell's support continued to grow. In June of that year, 
Russell became a born-again Christian. Delighted by the redemption of a 
notorious sinner, ministers flocked to Russell's side.

One minister in particular, Rev. Dr. Carpenter, became obsessed with the case 
and believed all of Russell's claims of innocence.

Carpenter, along with 2 women missionaries, stayed with Russell almost 
constantly during the last 2 weeks of Russell's life. On his execution day, 
Carpenter went so far as to mount the scaffold, stand on the trap and put his 
head in the noose.

Russell's execution, on July 25, 1873, was a social event. Hundreds of 
visitors, invited by the sheriff, crowded around the gallows.

After the hanging, Dr. Carpenter angrily called it, "Murder most foul!" and 
spoke accusingly to newspaper reporters who he said had lied about Russell. 
Carpenter's behavior ignited a storm of angry criticism from fellow ministers 
and others who had a much less forgiving view of murder - more of an Old 
Testament view of justice.

As a result, Dr. Carpenter's views on capital punishment became increasingly 
vague, and Charles Russell faded from public memory.

(source: Paul Drexler is a crime historian and director of Crooks Tour of San 
Francisco----San Francisco Examiner)






USA:

The Demise of Capital Clemency


Over the last four decades, numerous commentators have criticized the 
institution of executive clemency. Opponents of capital punishment have been 
particularly vocal. Their principal complaint has been that, with a few 
isolated exceptions, far too many chief executives have granted condemned 
prisoners clemency far too infrequently. This is an unfortunate development - 
critics argue - one due entirely to the politicization of criminal justice, 
particularly on the subject of capital punishment. Governors are unwilling to 
risk their political future by commuting the sentences of condemned prisoners 
absent proof of their innocence - the argument goes - because they anticipate 
receiving few political benefits from extending mercy to killers, and they fear 
being tarred with the label "soft on crime" in their next campaign. Perhaps 
what frightens governors most of all - critics maintain =- is the prospect that 
commuting a condemned prisoner's sentence could ultimately lead to his release 
and his commission of new, horrific, but preventable, crimes.

This Article maintains that these criticisms are unfounded or overstated. Part 
II describes the new procedures that the federal and state governments have 
instituted to satisfy constitutional capital sentencing requirements that did 
not exist when governors regularly granted condemned prisoners clemency. Part 
II also identifies some of the criticisms leveled against the use of clemency 
in capital cases over the last forty years. Part III addresses the question of 
whether governors should use their clemency power whenever there is a risk that 
a condemned prisoner is innocent. Part III concludes that a governor should not 
merely grant clemency, but also issue a pardon to any offender who proves to be 
innocent of his crime, but notes that the instances in which that scenario 
might occur are few and far between. Part IV deals with the argument that chief 
executives have failed to sift out those cases in which death is an 
inappropriate penalty for a particular offender. It concludes that, given the 
numerous opportunities for the jury and state courts to spare those offenders, 
there is far less need today for a governor to second-guess the unanimous view 
of the local community and state judiciary that a death sentence is the 
appropriate punishment. Finally, critics do not address the horrific facts of 
some capital cases - facts that can signify that death is the appropriate 
penalty.

see full article at: 
http://lawreview.journals.wlu.io/the-demise-of-capital-clemency/

(source: Paul Larkin, heritage.org)