[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., MO., WYO.

[Rick Halperin]

Jan. 2




TEXAS:

Ted Cruz really, really loves the death penalty


Ted Cruz would represent a lot of firsts should he be elected president: He'd 
be the 1st Hispanic president, and the 1st president to be born in Canada (or 
anywhere outside the 50 states, for that matter). But he'd also be the 1st 
president ever to have clerked for the Supreme Court. And Cruz has cited his 
subsequent record before the court, where he has presented oral arguments times 
(8 as solicitor general of Texas), as an important credential both in this 
presidential campaign and in his come-from-behind 2012 run for Senate. 5 of his 
9 Supreme Court appearances related to the same issue: the death penalty. In 
each case, Cruz represented the state of Texas and defended capital punishment 
in cases where even many advocates would normally be squeamish. He defended 
executing rapists who had killed no one; executing the mentally ill; and 
executing a man with an IQ of 78. He lost those 3 cases, all by narrow 5-4 
votes. But his 2 other appearances related to the same case, in which Cruz was 
opposed by the Bush administration, the Mexican government, and the 
International Court of Justice. Cruz won, and the defendant was executed 5 
months later.

The Jose Medellin case

Whatever one thinks about his death sentence and eventual execution, Jose 
Medellin was hardly a sympathetic character. At age 18 he, by his own 
admission, orchestrated the gang rape and murder of 2 girls, ages 14 and 16, in 
1993, committed in conjunction with 5 other members of his gang. Afterward, he 
joyfully bragged about the crime to Joe Cantu, 1 of the gang member's brothers, 
and Joe's wife Christina, as described in a 1997 state appeals court ruling 
upholding Medellin's conviction:

[Christina] asked the group what had occurred and appellant responded that they 
"had fun" and that their exploits would be seen on the television news. 
Appellant [Medellin] was hyper, giggling, and laughing. ... As if to accentuate 
his conquest, appellant showed Christina his blood soaked underwear. Appellant 
related that after another gang member sexually assaulted the second girl, he 
"turned her around" and anally raped her. Appellant also bragged of having 
forced both girls to engage in oral sex with him...

When Christina asked the group what happened to the girls, appellant told her 
that they had been killed so that they could not identify their attackers. 
Appellant then elaborated that it would have been easier with a gun, but 
because they did not have one at the scene of the incident, he took off one of 
his shoelaces and strangled at least 1 of the girls with it. Both Joe and 
Christina noted that appellant complained of the difficulty group encountered 
in killing the girls. After appellant related the difficulty he encountered in 
strangling one of the girls, he said that he put his foot on her throat because 
she would not die.

He proceeded to confess to his participation in the crimes in a written 
statement to police. He and 4 of the 5 other participants were sentenced to 
death. Jose's little brother Venancio, who was 14 at the time, confessed to 
participating in the rape of 1 of the girls but not the murder, and received a 
sentence of 40 years (he has been denied parole 5 times, most recently last 
month). 2 of the 5 perpetrators sentenced to death - Raul Villareal and Efrain 
Perez - saw their sentences commuted in 2005 after the Supreme Court ruled that 
it was unconstitutional to execute offenders for crimes committed while they 
were under 18 (Villareal and Perez were both 17). The other 3 participants - 
Medellin, Peter Cantu, and Derrick Sean O'Brien - were executed in 2008, 2010, 
and 2006, respectively.

The Supreme Court did not take up Cantu and O'Brien's cases. But it did take up 
Medellin's, twice, because his death sentence appeared to run afoul of 
international law. Medell'n was a Mexican citizen, and under the Vienna 
Convention of 1963, foreign nationals must be informed by authorities arresting 
them abroad of their right to contact their consulate for support. Medellin was 
never informed of this right. In 2004, the International Court of Justice - the 
judicial organ of the United Nations, which arbitrates disputes between 
countries - ruled, in response to a complaint by Mexico, that the US had 
violated the Vienna Convention by not informing Medellin and 50 other Mexican 
nationals on death row of these rights, and ordered US courts to review all 51 
convictions and sentences.

That opened the door for Medell'n to launch a new appeal, which Texas 
(represented by Cruz) rigorously fought. The Bush administration - not 
especially known for its fondness for the UN and other multilateral 
institutions - nonetheless took the ICJ's side, telling courts that 
reconsideration was obligatory given the US's treaty obligations. The case 
first hit the Supreme Court in 2005, when the justices ruled that Medellin 
hadn't exhausted his state-level appeals. Once Medellin had exhausted them, the 
case went back to the Court, with arguments in October 2007.

Cruz's contentions were that:

1 Merely ratifying the Vienna Convention, and its "Optional Protocol" allowing 
for ICJ jurisdiction over related issues, did not make the ICJ's decisions 
binding US law. In other words: US courts have no obligation to obey ICJ 
rulings.

2 Bush's memorandum to courts instructing them to obey the ICJ ruling had no 
binding authority.

The Court agreed with him on both counts, ruling 6-3 that the ICJ ruling was 
not binding and Texas could execute Medellin if it so chose. John Paul Stevens 
- normally a liberal vote - joined with the Court's conservatives in ruling for 
Texas, and against Bush and the UN.

The decision brought widespread condemnation both from human rights groups like 
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and from veteran diplomats who 
worried about the precedent it set; Jeffrey Davidow, a former ambassador to 
Mexico, Zambia, and Venezuela, called Medellin's execution "an irrevocable 
violation of the most important treaty governing consular assistance for our 
citizens detained in other countries," a violation that could endanger hundreds 
or thousands of American citizens in legal jeopardy abroad.

But Cruz seized on the victory. In a 2010 article for the Harvard Journal of 
Law & Public Policy boisterously titled, "Defending US Sovereignty, Separation 
of Powers, and Federalism in Medellin v. Texas," he characterizes the issues 
raised by the case this way: "Are the American people governed by judges, 
courts, and laws of nations other than our own, or are they governed by the 
United States Constitution, by the U.S. Congress, the United States government, 
and ultimately by 'We the People'? It is difficult to imagine a more 
fundamental question." At points, the grandiose constitutionalist rhetoric 
reads less like scholarship and more like campaign literature.

And sure enough, the case would become campaign literature. A 2012 TV spot for 
Cruz's Senate primary campaign touted the Medellin case, with a narrator 
booming, "When the UN and the World Court overruled a Texas jury's verdict to 
execute an illegal alien for raping and murdering 2 teenage girls, Ted Cruz 
fought all the way to the Supreme Court, and he delivered."

The rest of Cruz's death penalty record

The other 3 death penalty cases that Cruz argued before the Supreme Court, 
however, weren't as ready-made for campaign advertising, not least because Cruz 
lost all 3.

Seriously. None. Zero relation.

In 2008, Cruz intervened in the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana. Patrick Kennedy 
was convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter, and while the Supreme 
Court had ruled in 1977 that death sentences for raping adults were 
unconstitutional, it had left vague whether sentences for raping children were.

Cruz filed a brief on behalf of a coalition of 9 states - Texas, Alabama, 
Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and 
Washington - which supported Louisiana, and defended the brief in court, 
emphasizing the uniquely grave harm rape inflicts upon children. Another amicus 
brief from a group of nonprofits, including the Louisiana Foundation Against 
Sexual Assault and the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, countered that 
death sentences for child rape increased the odds that child molesters would 
kill their victims, and deterred victims and their guardians from reporting 
family members or family friends.

Louisiana, and Cruz, lost 5-4, with the Court ruling that the death penalty was 
only constitutional as punishment for murder and crimes against the state. 
Embarrassingly, Cruz and his allies didn't know that the US military had in 
2006 adopted the death penalty for child rape, a fact that hurt the Court 
majority's argument that "evolving standards" about punishment precluded the 
use of capital punishment in such cases; if standards in the military were 
evolving the other way, that's quite good evidence in Cruz's favor. But it's 
evidence Cruz didn't uncover in time, nor did anyone else on the case.

In 2007, Cruz argued before the Court in Panetti v. Quarterman, a case that 
weighed whether Texas could execute Scott Panetti, a clearly mentally ill man 
convicted of killing his estranged wife's parents. Panetti, who is 
schizophrenic, has said that a figure named "Sarge" controlled him during the 
murders, and claimed that "demons had been laughing at him" after the murders. 
He represented himself at his first trial, wearing a cartoon cowboy outfit and 
"summon[ing] the pope, John F. Kennedy and Jesus Christ as witnesses." 
Panetti's psychiatric evaluation found that while Panetti was clearly 
delusional about the context of his case, he was aware that he murdered his 
parents-in-law, aware of his punishment, and aware of why Texas wanted to 
execute him. Lower courts had ruled this was enough, and that Panetti was sane 
enough that an execution would not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Cruz, defending Panetti's execution, didn't argue on substantive grounds but 
claimed that Panetti could not validly bring up the issue, as he did not raise 
mental incompetence-based arguments in his first habeas corpus petition seeking 
reprieve from execution. The Court ruled against Cruz and Texas, 5-4, noting 
that Cruz's position has some bizarre implications, such as that a prisoner who 
becomes insane on death row after filing his 1st habeas petition cannot seek 
relief, even though executing him would be clearly unconstitutional under a 
decades-old Supreme Court decision. Panetti is still fighting his execution in 
court, most recently getting a stay last December.

Also in 2007, Cruz argued before the Court in Smith v. Texas. LaRoyce Lathair 
Smith had killed a Taco Bell worker in Dallas in 1991, and received a death 
sentence. But the jury was not allowed to consider that Smith had an IQ of only 
78, and that he was a 19-year-old still in the 9th grade, when it sentenced 
him. Because of that, the Supreme Court overturned his sentence 7-2 in 2004.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals then reimposed the sentence, saying the 
jury not considering Smith's mental disabilities hadn't caused any "egregious 
harm" to the fairness of his sentence. By a 5-4 ruling, the Court disagreed 
with that Court (and with Cruz), rejecting the Texas Court's "egregious harm" 
standard and overturning his sentence yet again. The next year, prosecutors 
reached a plea deal with Smith under which he received life in prison instead 
of death.

The unifying feature of these 3 cases - other than the fact that Cruz lost them 
all - is that they concern boundary cases of capital punishment in which even 
many people who are for the death penalty in general would object to its use. 
Executing people for non-murder crimes is not a particularly popular policy. 
Nor is executing paranoid schizophrenics or the mentally disabled. But Cruz 
defended each of these. Cruz can claim he was merely defending Texas, but that 
would negate his ability to call upon his solicitor general record as a 
credential, as a source of personal achievements. Either he owns his entire 
history before the Supreme Court, or he owns none of it. And owning all of it 
means defending some fairly unsavory losses.

(source: vox.com)






PENNSYLVANIA:

State Supreme Court upholds conviction, death penalty in abuse slaying of 
girlfriend's toddler


The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty and 1st-degree 
murder conviction of a man charged in the physical abuse death of his 
girlfriend's 4-year-old son.

31-year-old Patrick Haney Jr., was convicted and sentenced by a Fayette County 
jury last year in the 2011 death of 4-year-old Trenton St. Clair.

Haney has denied harming the boy and his attorney argued that even if the abuse 
occurred as prosecutors claimed, they didn't prove Haney specifically intended 
to kill the boy.

The high court rejected that in upholding the conviction and death sentence on 
Thursday.

The boy's mother, Heather Forsythe, is serving 2 1/2 to 5 years in after 
pleading guilty to child endangerment by not seeking immediate medical 
attention for the boy, who was abused over several weeks.

(source: Associated Press)






MISSOURI:

It's All In the Past: Civil War execution of Thomas J. Thorpe


Federal executions of Missourians for bushwhacking and other disloyal 
activities were not uncommon during the Civil War. However, they were not 
everyday occurrences.

Authorities were usually reluctant to impose the death penalty except for very 
serious cases and even more reluctant to carry it out. Even when a man was 
condemned to death, the execution sometimes got postponed repeatedly. Such was 
the case of Thomas J. Thorpe of Oregon County.

Thorpe, according to his own statement, joined Thomas Freeman's Missouri State 
Guard regiment (part of Gen. James McBride's division) early in the war. 
Freeman and 29 of his men were captured in February 1862 at the Battle of Crane 
Creek (near present-day Crane), and Thorpe might have been among those taken 
prisoner, although this is not altogether clear.

Regardless, Thorpe said he remained with McBride after he left Freeman's 
regiment. So, he apparently did have some standing as a regular soldier, at 
least during the early part of the war.

However, later in the war, he operated as a partisan or guerrilla in his home 
territory. In October of 1863, he was taken into custody and transported to 
Pilot Knob. According to his own account, he surrendered, but Union authorities 
reported only that he was arrested as a rebel.

On the 19th, he took an oath of allegiance and gave a $1,000 bond. The 
dark-eyed, dark-haired Thorpe was 28 years old at the time and stood 5 feet, 7 
inches, tall. The terms of his oath specified that he must not go south of 
Oregon County and must report to the provost marshal???s office at Pilot Knob 
on the last day of each month.

Sometime after his release from custody at Pilot Knob, he and 2 other men were 
accused of killing a citizen named Obediah Leavitt. On March 20, 1864, Thorpe 
was arrested in Oregon County and charged with murder, violating his oath, and 
being a guerrilla.

He was tried around July 1 and found guilty of murder and being a guerrilla. On 
July 6, he was transported to St. Louis and imprisoned at Gratiot Street Prison 
to await the promulgation of his sentence. The sentence was announced on July 
29 - to be hung by the neck until dead. The execution was scheduled to be 
carried out on Sept. 2 at Pilot Knob.

Thorpe appealed to the president of the United States for a new hearing, but 
Lincoln denied the request and also declined to pardon Thorpe. However, on 
Sept. 1, the day Thorpe was to be escorted back to Pilot Knob to meet his 
death, the sentence was temporarily suspended by Gen. William Rosecrans, 
commanding the Department of the Missouri. On Dec. 3, Thorpe was sent in irons 
to Alton, Illinois, Military Prison to await his fate.

The reason for the 1st postponement of Thorpe's execution is not clear, but it 
was postponed 3 more times during February and March of 1865 on account of his 
poor health. Finally, in late April, he was deemed sufficiently recovered that 
he could be put to death. He was scheduled to hang on May 1.

On April 30, Thorpe was taken from Alton, Illinois, back to Gratiot Street 
Military Prison, where the execution was to take place. The next day, he was 
escorted to the prison yard, where a gallows awaited him. A few spectators and 
2 or 3 reporters were there to witness the event.

Asked if he had any last words, Thorpe replied that he had been accused 
unjustly and that he had never killed anyone nor been a guerrilla. A recent 
convert to Catholicism, he said he would die happy, and he expected to go to 
heaven.

He left a note to his wife asking her to make sure their kids received 
schooling and requesting they be baptized by a priest.

The rope was then placed around Thorpe's neck and he dropped to his death at 
10:48 a.m. He died almost instantly, his neck broken by the fall, but he was 
not declared dead until 11:21 a.m.

(source: leaderjournal.com)






WYOMING:

Prosecutor Says Legislature Must Decide About Death Penalty


The prosecutor who secured a death sentence against Dale Wayne Eaton for the 
murder of a Montana woman nearly 30 years ago says Eaton's continuing appeals 
signal that the Wyoming Legislature must decide whether it truly supports 
capital punishment.

A federal judge last year set aside Eaton's original death sentence in the 1988 
killing of Lisa Kimmell, of Billings, Montana. The judge ruled Eaton had 
received inadequate representation from the Wyoming Public Defender's Office.

The judge last week blocked the state from holding another death penalty 
hearing for Eaton while his federal appeals are pending.

Casper District Attorney Mike Blonigen was the original prosecutor in Eaton's 
2004 trial. Blonigen says that if state lawmakers want Wyoming to have the 
death penalty, they must adequately fund both the prosecution and defense.

(source: Associated Pres)