[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., VA., FLA., ALA., LA., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Jan. 16



TEXAS----impending execution

Texas Prepares to Execute Richard Masterson While Autopsy Data Suggests Death 
Was Not Murder At All


As Texas readies itself to execute Richard Masterson, his lawyers have filed 
new pleadings questioning whether any murder occurred at all and are seeking a 
stay of execution based on what they say is "evidence of State fraud, 
misconduct, and his actual innocence." Masterson's filings challenge the 
forensic testimony presented by the prosecution in the case, the accuracy of 
instructions given to jurors, and the constitutionality of Texas' lethal 
injection secrecy law. Masterson is scheduled to be executed on January 20 for 
the death of Darrin Honeycutt, which medical examiner, Paul Shrode, testified 
had been caused by strangulation. His attorneys argue in a new federal court 
filing that prosecutors concealed evidence that their expert witness and 
attending medical examiner was unqualified to perform Mr. Honeycutt's autopsy, 
botched the autopsy, falsified his credentials, and gave false testimony in 
this case and other capital murder trials. 2 pathologists who examined autopsy 
data say that the Shrode was unqualified and incorrectly ruled Honeycutt's 
death a homicide, when it was most likely caused by a heart attack. In 2010, 
Ohio Governor Ted Strickland commuted the death sentence of Richard Nields 
based upon concerns about Dr. Shrode's assertion that the victim in that case 
had been strangled. Shrode was subsequently fired as chief medical examiner in 
El Paso County, Texas, after discrepancies were found in his resume and 
revelations were made about his unsupported testimony in the Ohio case.

Masterson's attorneys also argue that Masterson falsely confessed to the murder 
charges during a period of withdrawal from addictive stimulants in which he 
exhibited suicidal behavior. In a separate filing, they challenge the fairness 
of his trial because the judge failed to inform jurors that they could convict 
Masterson of a lesser offense, rather than capital murder. A third filing 
challenges the constitutionality of Texas' lethal injection secrecy law, which 
prevents inmates from obtaining information about the source of the state's 
execution drugs.

(source: Death Penalty Information Center)






PENNSYLVANIA:

DA: Death penalty warranted for Cruz


2 days after his 55th birthday, Abraham Cruz Jr. learned the Adams County 
District Attorney's office would be pursuing the death penalty against him.

???As far as I???m aware, this is one of the most heinous murders ever 
committed in Adams County," Adams County District Attorney Brian Sinnett said.

In August, Cruz was arrested and charged with two counts of criminal homicide 
and one count each of conspiracy to commit criminal homicide, arson and 
burglary in connection with the deaths of 17-year-old Deborah Patterson and her 
mother, Nancy Patterson, according to charging documents filed by state police.

It???ll be the first case to seek capital punishment in Adams County since 2012 
when Christopher L. Johnson was convicted of a 2010 murder of conservation 
officer David Grove.

Not all first-degree murder cases warrant the death penalty, Sinnett said. 
Pennsylvania has a set of 18 aggravating circumstances that warrant trying a 
defendant for capital punishment. If the prosecution can match at least one of 
the circumstances, they can file papers to have the defendant tried for capital 
punishment, he said.

Around 3 a.m. on August 30, 1980, Cruz and three other individuals allegedly 
traveled to the Patterson's home, throwing bottles filled with flaming gasoline 
into the home's kitchen, according to the affidavit of probable cause filed 
with District Judge Mark Beauchat. As the family fled the home, Cruz allegedly 
fatally shot Deborah Patterson and Nancy Patterson with a shotgun.

A third person was shot, but survived, according to the affidavit. Two others 
were in the house at the time of the arson but were not injured. After the 
shootings, Cruz threw the gun in the Susquehanna River, the affidavit states.

Based on the description presented, Cruz matches several of the aggravated 
circumstances criteria, Sinnett said. The death of more than one person, the 
alleged burglary and arson of the home and putting other people in danger were 
all factors into pursuing capital punishment, he said. Prior criminal history 
also plays a factor, Sinnett said. Cruz has been arrested 24 times since 1980 
prior to being charged in August, according to the affidavit.

"Aggravated circumstances exist that warrant the death penalty with this case," 
he said. "You had a firebombing of a house and execution of witnesses. The 
death penalty is reserved for those types of 1st-degree crimes."

Sinnett, who was just sworn in as the county's district attorney at the 
beginning of the year, has some challenges facing the case itself, he said. The 
murder took place 35 years ago, meaning that witness availability and 
recollection could be a challenge, he said.

Still, the prosecution feels confident they have enough evidence to convict, 
because they've been able to do it before, Sinnett said. The Adams County 
District Attorney's office was able to charge and negotiate guilty plea deals 
with two other co-defendants related to the case, according to court documents. 
Cruz's uncle, Erasmo Cruz, pleaded guilty in 2014 to criminal homicide and is 
serving 16 to 40 years in prison, according to court documents.

A third man, Ruperto Garcia Jr., pleaded guilty in 2014 to conspiracy to commit 
burglary, documents state. A fourth man, Adalberto Andujar, was allegedly 
involved but died in 2005, according to the affidavit.

"We took all of the information into account for the prosecution of the other 
co-defendants, and we did the same here," Sinnett said.

If the jury convicts Cruz of murder, the same jury would then hold another 
proceeding to determine if Cruz would face the death penalty, Sinnett said. If 
they can't come to a unanimous decision on sending Cruz to death, a more 
standard punishment, like life in prison, would be issued by the judge, he 
said.

Even if Cruz is found guilty and does get sentenced to death, the process 
likely won't end, Sinnett said. There???s the possibility of appeals, which 
could go anywhere from the U. S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals to the state 
Supreme Court, he said.

The appeal process, as it currently stands, is not a quick process, Sinnett 
said. For example, John C. Lesko and Michael J. Travaglia, convicted of a "kill 
for thrill" murder spree in Westmoreland County, originally had executions 
scheduled for Nov. 19, 1985. More than 3 decades later, the men are still 
awaiting rulings from the state supreme court, according to reports from the 
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

???Essentially defendants are able to delay and frustrate the system so that no 
one has been able to carry out the death penalty for years and years," Sinnett 
said. "If we streamline the appellate process for finite and reviewable cases, 
executions could be carried out. There's a process and law on books, if it was 
just adhered to we could do it."

Since 1985, which is just a few years after the death penalty was reinstated 
after a 10-year national moratorium, over 400 death warrants have been signed 
by the state, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections website. 
However, only 3 executions have been carried out -- 2 in 1995 and 1 in 1999 -- 
and all 3 had voluntarily abandoned their appeal right to further due process, 
Sinnett said.

There are 181 inmates currently on death row, according to the department. None 
of them will be put to death in the immediate future, because Pennsylvania Gov. 
Tom Wolf ordered a temporary reprieve of capital punishment in February, said 
Jeff Sheridan, Wolf's press secretary.

The bipartisan Pennsylvania Task Force and Advisory Commission on Capital 
Punishment is putting together a report addressing issues like cost and time, 
among others, for the governor to review, Sheridan said.

"This moratorium is in no way an expression of sympathy for the guilty on death 
row, all of whom have been convicted of committing heinous crimes. This 
decision is based on a flawed system that has been proven to be an endless 
cycle of court proceedings as well as ineffective, unjust, and expensive," Wolf 
said in a February news release.

The Pennsylvania District Attorney's office issued a challenge over the 
reprieve, claiming Wolf overstepped his executive power, but the Pennsylvania 
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the governor in a December hearing, letting the 
reprieve carry on, Sheridan said.

Sinnett and other district attorneys around the state see the reprieve as 
something else, he said. Wolf should not be allowed to issue the reprieve with 
an indefinite timetable, he said.

"I think he would tell you he's opposed to the death penalty," Sinnett said. 
"The committee hasn't met yet, at least to my knowledge. It's a misnomer, I 
think he's using it as a means to just prevent the death penalty from being 
carried out"

The reprieve isn't a ban of capital punishment, it's just a way to critically 
reflect on the system, Sheridan said. There's no timetable on when the reprieve 
will end or if any change will come from it, he said.

In the meantime, those sitting on death row can do nothing but appeal their 
rulings and wait for the reprieve to end, Sheridan said.

(source: Evening Sun)


VIRGINIA:

Setting of Ricky Gray execution date may be affected by appeals court order


The Richmond Circuit Court has scheduled a hearing Tuesday to set an execution 
date for Harvey family killer Ricky Javon Gray, but a federal appeals court 
order Friday may make it moot.

In a 2-1 order, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved a motion by 
Gray???s lawyers to stay its final order in the case while he asks the U.S. 
Supreme Court to take up his appeal.

Michael Kelly, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, said Friday that 
the situation may not become clear until Tuesday morning because Monday is a 
holiday.

"We will make sure the Richmond Circuit Court is notified of this development 
and are working to determine whether it affects the scheduled hearing on 
Tuesday," Kelly said.

Gray, 38, was convicted of the murders of Bryan Harvey, 49; his wife, Kathryn, 
39; and their daughters, Stella, 9, and Ruby, 4, in their Woodland Heights home 
on New Year's Day 2006. Their home was set on fire.

Gray and Ray Dandridge killed the Harveys in a string of slayings that left 7 
people dead in Richmond. Gray was sentenced to life in prison for the slayings 
of Bryan and Kathryn Harvey, and to death for their daughters' killings. 
Dandridge was sentenced to life in prison.

Last November, a split 3-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th Circuit upheld a 
lower court ruling rejecting Gray's claims that his lawyers did not perform up 
to constitutionally acceptable standards.

Last month, the appeals court declined to rehear Gray's appeal. If Tuesday's 
Richmond Circuit Court hearing proceeds, the execution date will be set for no 
more than 60 days later.

Gray's lawyers could not be reached for comment Friday.

Spokesmen with the Virginia Department of Corrections also could not be reached 
for comment on whether the state has an adequate supply of drugs on hand to 
conduct an execution by injection.

Condemned prisoners in Virginia are given a choice between lethal injection and 
the electric chair. Last year, Virginia authorities had to get 1 of the 3 drugs 
used in lethal injections from Texas in order to execute Alfredo Prieto, 
leading to last-minute legal challenges.

(source: Richmond Times-Dispatch)






FLORIDA:

Florida High Court To Hold Arguments In February On Effect Of Death Penalty 
Ruling----After the state's death sentencing scheme was struck down by the U.S. 
Supreme Court, what comes next? The Florida Supreme Court will hear arguments 
on that question on Feb. 2.


The Florida Supreme Court appears to want to move quickly on addressing the 
effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that the state's death penalty scheme 
is unconstitutional.

Earlier this week, the state high court told state officials and lawyers for 
Cary Michael Lambrix, scheduled for execution on Feb. 21, to submit briefing on 
the effect of the Supreme Court's ruling in Hurst v. Florida on Lambrix's death 
sentence.

Lambrix was convicted and sentenced to death in 1984 for the murders of 
Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant.

In Hurst, the U.S. Supreme Court held 8-1 that Florida's death sentencing 
scheme was unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment because it violated the 
right to a jury by making the imposition of a death sentence - specifically, 
the finding of aggravating circumstances - the responsibility of a judge and 
not a jury.

On Friday, the state high court announced it would be not be putting Lambrix's 
scheduled execution on hold at this time, as his lawyers requested. Instead, 
the court scheduled arguments for 9 a.m. Feb. 2 on the Hurst-related questions.

The court told the parties to be prepared to discuss the effect of Hurst on 
Lambrix's convictions and death sentences. Specifically, it wants to hear 
arguments on whether the U.S. Supreme Court's decision is retroactive to cover 
Lambrix's 1984 conviction, whether it applies given the specific facts of 
Lambrix's case, and whether any error that was committed by the state is 
harmless.

(source: buzzfeed.com)

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

Suspend executions in light of Supreme Court ruling


When the U.S. Supreme Court this week invalidated Florida???s death-penalty 
process, justices were telling the state to put jurors back in control of 
deciding who gets the ultimate punishment and who does not.

Florida is an outlier - no surprise there. Justices ruled unconstitutional the 
state's unique system that gives judges the ultimate power to impose the death 
penalty. That power belongs to the jurors, the court said in an 8-1 decision 
that united both liberal justices and most of the conservatives on the high 
court. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. cast the dissenting vote.

And with this ruling, the relatively smooth ride that state lawmakers were 
aiming for during this legislative session in Tallahassee just got a little 
bumpier. In fact, the court's decision has thrown much of the legal system into 
uncertainty, sending defense lawyers, prosecutors, the state attorney general's 
office, legislators and death row inmates themselves scrambling to figure out 
where to go from here.

This case dates to 1998, when Timothy Lee Hurst was convicted of murdering his 
boss at a Pensacola Popeye's restaurant. The jury, voting 7-5, recommended 
death. Jurors cited 2 aggravating circumstances in making their recommendation. 
But it is not clear if all seven agreed on both.

The jury was told that, despite its recommendation, the final decision would be 
left to the judge, who could consider evidence that the jury did not.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision to sentence Hurst 
to death must be based "on a jury's verdict, not a judge's fact-finding. 
Florida's sentencing scheme, which required the judge alone to find the 
existence of an aggravating circumstance, is therefore unconstitutional."

Florida's approach reduces the role of a jury to an advisory position, simply 
making a recommendation to the judge. This is 1 of only 4 states that give 
judges unique authority either to make the final call or, as can happen in 
Alabama, overrule a jury's findings for or against the death penalty.

The Constitution calls for "a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to 
impose a sentence of death," Justice Sotomayor wrote. "A jury's mere 
recommendation is not enough."

Now, in Florida, the search is on for what's next.

Most immediately, it is incumbent on state lawmakers, already in session in 
Tallahassee, to pass clear legislation to ensure that Florida's death-penalty 
process is in compliance. They should work closely with Attorney General Pam 
Bondi.

The Florida Supreme Court wants the state to defend its plans to execute 
murderer Michael Ray Lambrix. He's scheduled to die on Feb. 11 for a double 
murder. Lambrix's lawyers are seeking an indefinite stay of execution. Ms. 
Bondi, in response, said that because Lambrix used a series of delaying tactics 
to avoid execution that his court-ordered fate should not be put off any 
longer.

But the U.S. Supreme Court's finding of unconstitutionality is no mere tactic. 
Its very pointed and resolute ruling leaves little room to do anything else but 
place a stay on this and all other executions until the issue of whether it 
will apply to those already sentenced to die can be determined. And in a state 
that continues to lead the nation in exonerations of wrongfully convicted death 
row inmates, freed before the needle entered their arm, the court decision is 
just one more imperative for Florida to get it right first.

(source: Editorial, Miami Herald)

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

Florida lawmakers to look at ways to fix state's death penalty system


Florida lawmakers are pledging to remedy the state???s death-penalty sentencing 
structure after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that the state's method 
of giving judges the power to impose death sentences is unconstitutional.

But legal experts fear that the Legislature's fix may only be a temporary 
solution for the capital punishment process, one of the most complicated legal 
arenas rendered even thornier after Tuesday's decision.

Days after the 8-1 ruling, leaders in the Republican-controlled Legislature - 
as well as judges, defense lawyers and prosecutors - were scrambling to sort 
out the implications of what some called a deceptively simple order.

What is clear is that lawmakers intend at the very least to resolve the main 
issue addressed by the court in the case, known as Hurst v. Florida.

"This is something that we have to do," House Judiciary Chairman Charles 
McBurney, R-Jacksonville, said. "We will be addressing the issue which was 
raised specifically by the Supreme Court in that decision, and then looking 
beyond the narrow decision to see how it affects other aspects of the death 
penalty statute to ensure its future constitutionality as well."

Florida requires juries to make recommendations to judges regarding the death 
penalty after considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, with judges 
ultimately imposing the sentences.

But Florida's unique law giving judges the power to decide whether defendants 
should face death equates to an unconstitutional violation of the Sixth 
Amendment right to a trial by jury, Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote in the 
majority opinion.

The ruling did not address whether juries??? decisions about imposing death 
sentences should be unanimous, as is required for convictions.

Lawmakers are exploring the issue of unanimous decisions and whether the Hurst 
ruling should apply retroactively to inmates already sentenced to death - 
Attorney General Pam Bondi's lawyers, who represent the state in death penalty 
cases, contend that it should not.

And, in an election year in which swing-state Florida is considered critical 
for a Republican White House win, whether GOP lawmakers will pass any 
legislation that could be perceived as watering down the death penalty is 
questionable.

But doing the minimum to conform Florida law with the high court ruling is 
problematic, said Florida International University law professor Stephen 
Harper, who runs the school???s Death Penalty Clinic.

"My hope is that the Legislature goes far enough to require unanimity in both 
the decision that somebody is death eligible and that somebody will get the 
death penalty. And if they don't do that, they're only inviting more litigation 
and waiting for the next shoe to drop," Harper said.

The Hurst decision also likely comes with a price tag for Florida taxpayers. 
Prosecutors, public defenders and state-paid lawyers representing death row 
inmates told lawmakers this week that Tuesday's ruling will increase their 
workloads.

It is unclear how many of the 390 prisoners on Florida's death row - the 2nd 
highest-number in the nation - may be affected by the decision.

"In theory, any defendant who raised this specific issue on appeal would have 
an argument to go back," said Rep. Jose Javier Rodriguez, a Miami Democrat who 
has renewed his push for unanimous jury verdicts to impose the death penalty.

The sentencing issue has a special sense of urgency because 2 death row inmates 
are scheduled to be executed in February and March.

(source: Palm Beach Post)

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

Supreme Court Update: Hurst v. Florida (14-7505)


Greetings, Court Fans!

... and Happy New Year! Judging by the votes in its first 2 decisions of 
(calendar year) 2016 - an 8-1 decision striking down Florida's capital 
sentencing regime and 9-0 decision addressing filing fees under the Prison 
Litigation Reform Act - you'd think The Nine had resolved to set aside their 
differences and work towards unanimity in the new year. But judging by history, 
we know they're just saving the tough cases for later.

The death penalty rarely yields agreement among the justices (last year's term 
ending 5-4 decision in Glossip v. Gross was one of the most divisive in recent 
memory), but yesterday's decision in Hurst v. Florida (14-7505), proves there's 
an exception to every rule - especially when the case turns on the Sixth 
Amendment, rather than the Eighth. By an 8-1 vote, the Court held that 
Florida's capital sentencing scheme, which permits a judge to have the final 
say over whether a defendant is to be put to death, violates the Constitution.

The Court has long held that the Eighth Amendment requires certain extra 
procedures before a defendant may be put to death. There must be a factual 
finding of aggravating factors, and consideration must be given to whether any 
mitigating factors outweigh those aggravating factors. This job - finding 
aggravating factors and mitigating factors, and weighing those factors - is 
ordinarily done by a jury. If the jury doesn't issue a death sentence, then 
death is off the table. Not so in Florida. While the Sunshine State hasn't 
entirely done away with this process, the jury's determination is merely 
"advisory." It is the judge who must independently find and weigh the 
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and ultimately decide whether to 
enter a sentence of life or death.

Writing for the Court, Justice Sotomayor had little difficulty concluding that 
this sentencing procedure violates the Constitution, under the Apprendi line of 
cases. In Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), the Court held that the Sixth 
Amendment requires that any fact that "expose[s] the defendant to a greater 
punishment than that authorized by the jury's verdict" must be submitted to a 
jury. In Ring v. Arizona (2002), the Court found that this rule extends to 
capital punishment. As the majority saw it, these precedents dictated the 
outcome in Hurst. It didn't matter that Florida's statutory scheme contains an 
advisory jury recommendation. In fact, the Court that this advisory verdict was 
"immaterial" in view of the fact that a judge has the final say, and must make 
independent factual findings.

Justice Breyer concurred in the judgment only. Breyer, of course, has been on 
the prosecution side in the Apprendi line of cases, including Ring, and he 
reiterated his disagreement with the Court's Sixth Amendment analysis here. 
However, he (alone, it appears) concluded that, while the Sixth Amendment does 
not require a jury to make the final decision on a death sentence, the Eighth 
Amendment does.

Alito alone dissented, pointing out that the Court had twice before approved of 
Florida's sentencing approach, albeit in pre-Apprendi cases. In his view, 
before the Court decided to overrule those decisions, it should revisit Ring 
and the other Sixth Amendment sentencing cases, whose constitutional 
underpinnings Alito questioned. He also believed that, given the depravity of 
Hurst's crime and Florida's unique procedure - which does require the jury to 
recommend a death sentence - any error in this case was harmless. That question 
remains open, as the Court remanded the case for consideration of harmlessness 
by the Florida courts.

(source: Tadhg Dooley, Kim Rinehart; jusupra.com)






ALABAMA----impending execution

Alabama Inmate Seeks Stay Of Execution Following U.S. Supreme Court 
Ruling----Alabama's capital sentencing scheme comes under scrutiny after the 
U.S. Supreme Court struck down Florida's death sentencing law earlier this 
week.


Just 6 days before his scheduled execution, the lawyer for Christopher Brooks 
has asked the Alabama Supreme Court to put Brooks's execution on hold so the 
court can assess whether its capital sentencing laws remain constitutional 
following this week???s U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down Florida's 
capital sentencing scheme.

Alabama, like Florida, places the final decision of whether to impose death on 
the judge - not a jury. On Jan. 12, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Florida's 
sentencing scheme, which required the judge alone to find the existence of an 
aggravating circumstance, is therefore unconstitutional."

Since that ruling, Alabama officials have defended their state's law as having 
been previously upheld as constitutional and as being distinguishable from the 
part of the Florida law struck down this week. Criminal defense attorneys have 
said otherwise, and now - in Brooks's case - 1 of those lawyers is asking the 
Alabama Supreme Court to step in.

"Mr. Brooks' death sentence might be unconstitutional under Hurst v. Florida 
and, if it is unconstitutional, he is entitled to relief," the lawyer for 
Brooks wrote, referring to this week's decision. "Mr. Brooks' death sentence 
should not be carried out while critical questions concerning the 
constitutionality of Alabama's capital sentencing scheme remain unanswered."

Brooks was sentenced to death in 1993 for the 1992 murder of Jo Deann Campbell, 
a sentence imposed by Judge James Hard. The jury had recommended a death 
sentence to the judge on an 11-1 vote.

"Mr. Brooks respectfully requests that this Court temporarily stay his 
execution currently scheduled for January 21, 2016, direct the parties to 
present briefs on the applicability of Hurst, and undertake a thorough 
consideration of Hurst's impact on Alabama's capital sentencing scheme," 
attorney Leslie S. Smith, from the Federal Defenders' Office in the Middle 
District of Alabama, wrote in the petition to the Alabama Supreme Court.

After detailing at length the comparisons between the Florida and Alabama death 
sentencing laws, the Friday filing for Brooks cites to a friend-of-the-court 
brief filed by Alabama's own lawyers in the Florida case, stating that the 
arguments made by the state there showed it "recognized that the Supreme 
Court's rejection of Florida's sentencing scheme ... would mean that Alabama's 
nearly identical scheme would almost certainly fail to meet constitutional 
standards."

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange's office, however, maintains that the 
state's death sentencing statute - which only requires the judge to give 
"consideration" to the jury's sentencing recommendation - remains 
constitutional.

More than 20 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Alabama's death 
sentencing scheme in a case brought by Louise Harris in which she questioned 
whether the state's law violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and 
unusual punishments.

"The Constitution permits the trial judge, acting alone, to impose a capital 
sentence," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court. "It is thus not 
offended when a State further requires the sentencing judge to consider a 
jury's recommendation and trusts the judge to give it the proper weight."

Since that time, however, an entire area of caselaw has developed at the 
Supreme Court regarding the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial. A 1999 
decision noted that the court has "suggest[ed]" that "any fact (other than 
prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be 
charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt." In the landmark Apprendi v. New Jersey case in 2000, that principle was 
made law.

2 years later, in Ring v. Arizona, the court expanded that reasoning to the 
capital sentencing realm. Overturning a prior decision of the Supreme Court 
holding Arizona's death sentencing scheme to be constitutional, Justice Ruth 
Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court, "Capital defendants, no less than 
non-capital defendants, we conclude, are entitled to a jury determination of 
any fact on which the legislature conditions an increase in their maximum 
punishment."

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court responded to any perceived ambiguity in Ring, 
with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing for the court: "The Sixth Amendment 
requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence 
of death. A jury's mere recommendation is not enough."

Nonetheless, on Wednesday, a spokesperson for Alabama Attorney General Luther 
Strange told BuzzFeed News that the "ruling regarding the Florida death penalty 
does not affect Alabama's law" - relying in part upon the Eighth 
Amendment-based decision from 1995 in explaining why that was so.

"The U.S. Supreme Court specifically upheld Alabama's current system as 
constitutional in the case of Harris v. Alabama in 1995," spokesperson Joy 
Patterson wrote. She also pointed to other cases to buttress her point - 3 of 
which were cases from recent years in which the Supreme Court declined to hear 
challenges to the Alabama system, which is not a decision on the merits of the 
issue. The other 2 were lower court decisions addressing the Alabama law that 
were handed down before the Supreme Court even accepted the Florida case.

Patterson also attempted to distinguish Alabama's system from the parts of the 
system held to be unconstitutional in Florida.

"In the Florida case, the holding is that a jury must find the aggravating 
factor in order to make someone eligible for the death penalty. Alabama's 
system already requires the jury to do just that," she stated. "The jury must 
unanimously find an aggravating factor at either the guilt or sentencing phase 
- such as when the murder was committed during a robbery, a rape, or a 
kidnapping."

In response, attorney John Palombi - also from the Federal Defenders??? Office 
in the Middle District of Alabama - told BuzzFeed News on Friday night, "That 
is the same argument that Florida made in the Supreme Court and was rejected. 
In Alabama, just like in Florida, there is no death sentence until the judge 
makes the finding of the aggravating circumstance."

As Brooks's lawyer put it in the Friday filing, "As with Timothy Hurst, in the 
absence of the trial court's fact-findings and imposition of sentence, 
Christopher Brooks would not have received a death sentence."

(source: BuzzFeed News)






LOUISIANA:

Serial killer Daniel Blank is given March execution date


A judge has set an execution date for serial killer Daniel Blank after 
rejecting a bid to overturn his death penalty conviction. The Advocate reports 
that Judge Jessie LeBlanc of Louisiana's 23rd Judicial District ruled Thursday 
(Jan. 14) that Blank should be executed March 14.

Blank's appellate attorney, Gary Clements, says Blank won't be executed then. 
He said his client has more appeals left and that Louisiana lacks drugs for 
lethal injections.

In September, LeBlanc rejected Blank's assertions of ineffective defense 
counsel. He upheld the 1st-degree murder conviction and death sentence in the 
1997 killing of 72-year-old Lillian Philippe.

Among Blank's other victims was Joan Brock, 55, of LaPlace, who was beaten to 
death in her backyard in 1997. In exchange for a life sentence, he pleaded 
guilty in 2009 to killing her.

Blank's appellate attorneys said prosecutors in the Philippe case withheld 
investigative reports that would have challenged the reliability of Blank's 
confession to Philippe's and others' murders - and to armed robberies. They 
also say his trial attorneys failed to do enough to exclude use of the 
multiple-crime confession.

(source: Associated Press)






CALIFORNIA:

Inside Death Row, Inmates Disagree on Capital Punishment


Among my 1st impressions of death row when I recently toured San Quentin 
Prison: It's loud. Dimly lit. There's really no privacy. And so many of the 
inmates are elderly that it can at times resemble a high-security old folks 
home.

It's been 10 years since California executed its last death row inmate. Since 
then, the death row population has grown to 745 (all but 21 are men, and the 
women are kept at the Central Women's Facility in Chowchilla).

Since 1978, 117 death row inmates have died, the vast majority from natural 
causes and suicide.

It's very rare for the media to see death row. But recently the California 
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation offered about 20 journalists a 
tour. And of course I went.

I've been to the rest of San Quentin numerous times, and I was struck by how 
different death row is. Members of the general inmate population at San Quentin 
walk around with relative "freedom," creating the feel of a college campus. 
They attend group classes, performances, religious services, etc.

'Some of us are against the death penalty, some of us not so much.'- Charles 
Crawford II, death row inmate

Nothing could be less true for the inmates on death row. Their movement is 
highly restricted. When I was there, one inmate sat in a metal cage in East 
Block (the largest death row housing with 520 cells), waiting for an escort to 
the law library. No one walks around death row alone without a guard and 
restraints. During psychotherapy sessions, the inmates sit in individual cages 
to protect the therapists or, if it's group therapy, the other inmates.

If you violate the rules on death row, you???re sent to the "Adjustment 
Center." But even they get some time outside each week.

Robert Galvan was standing, shirtless, outside in a 12-by-9 rectangular cage 
the day I was there. His body is covered in tattoos. Galvan was sent to 
Corcoran Prison in 1996 - he got a life sentence for robbery, a kidnapping for 
ransom and assault with a deadly weapon.

While he was at Corcoran a few years ago, he killed his cellmate. It was gang 
stuff, he says. That's when he got the death sentence - and was sent here.

Galvan took a break from doing pullups to talk through a chain-link fence.

What's his day like?

"Day at a time, you know," he says. "Work out, same routine every day. Get up, 
eat breakfast, work out. Just take it a day at a time."

Galvan is 42 years old (another thing I noticed - inmates generally look much 
older than they are). He tells me he deserves to be on death row for killing 
his "cellie."

In 2006, federal Judge Jeremy Fogel suspended executions over concerns about 
the state's lethal injection process. With executions on hold for a decade now, 
I ask Galvan if men here think they'll ever resume.

"Some think it ain't going to happen, some think it's, you know, they're going 
to start firing it up, me I'll cross that bridge when I come to it," Galvan 
says. I ask if he worries about being executed, but he doesn't answer.

Nearby, Charles Crawford II is standing in another cage outside. The left side 
of his head is shaved, the rest is tied into a ponytail.

Crawford won't talk about the double homicide that sent him here because he 
says his case is under appeal. He spends his days reading and writing letters 
to his family and friends.

I ask him what death row inmates think about capital punishment.

"Opinions vary, just like I'm sure they vary on the outside," he says. "Some of 
us are against it, some of us not so much. Some of us, it's like if they're 
going to do it, do it and not have us sittin' here for 20 or 30 years."

Even before the federal judge put executions on hold 10 years ago, death row 
inmates easily spent more than 20 years while their cases made their way 
through the courts. Crawford says death just isn???t at the front of their 
minds.

"You know what I mean, it's like an abstract thought," he says. "So it's not 
something that happens every day. Since I've been here they've only carried out 
2 executions, so it's not even like it's a real punishment for a lot of 
people."

East Block is the largest housing unit at death row, with 520 single-cell 
units. As I walked around past the cells, I saw men lying on their beds or 
reading, writing or watching TV. Some joked with corrections staff as they 
walked by. Others shouted out, complaining about the conditions there.

Understandably, many of the men aren't interested in talking to journalists. 
But some are.

Richard Hirschfield says he's against capital punishment on moral grounds.

"If society says that's it's wrong to kill and then they turn around and kill 
people they think are bad and killed other people, then that means that it's OK 
to kill," he reasons.

Apparently Hirschfield, now 66, thought it was OK to kill back in 1980. 33 
years later, he was convicted of killing 2 18-year-old UC Davis freshmen, John 
Riggins and Sabrina Gonsalves, who were dating at the time. They were found 
dead in a ditch. Their throats had been slit and their heads wrapped in duct 
tape. Hirschfield denies he did it.

"I'm not too concerned about being executed," Hirshfield says, "because I 
really don't think that I'm going to be killed."

Raymond Anthony Lewis was sent to death row March 13, 1991.

Lewis stood up in his cell, leaning close to the bars enforced by metal mesh so 
I could hear him. "I'm ready to leave here," he says, meaning he's ready to 
die.

"Just recently within the last year I've asked my attorneys to stop my appeal," 
he says matter-of-factly. I ask him why.

"This is not living," he says. "This is no life in here. It's just existing. 
There's nothing. No emotions. No life. No nothing. And after so long you just 
become numb to it. You know?"

So, I ask, do you think most people here would rather be dead than living here?

"Oh, yes," Lewis says emphatically. "We talk about it every day in the yard. 
People are just tired of it. The state is not killing nobody. Guys here are 
dying from health reasons, old age or committing suicide."

That's one thing I noticed - how old many of these inmates are. Some look so 
frail it's almost hard to imagine the terrible, gruesome crimes they committed.

Lewis is 54, which surprised me. That's 3 years younger than I am, but he 
looked a lot older. He's been on death row since 1991.

"This is the hardest part," he says. "Dying is easy."

And yet some say life is too good on death row.

For example, if they follow the rules and aren't considered too high-risk, they 
get certain privileges, like basketball.

On the day I was there, 5 inmates were shooting hoops on an enclosed cement 
court. As a group of journalists approached, 2 of the men stopped playing and 
turned their backs to us. One of them was Scott Peterson, who was convicted of 
murdering his pregnant wife, Laci, and dumping her body near the Berkeley 
Marina.

Steven Livaditis takes a break from playing basketball to talk with us through 
the fence. He describes the 1986 crime in Beverly Hills that resulted in his 
death sentence.

"I attempted to rob a jewelry store, and (3) people ended up being killed 
because of my actions," Livaditis says. I ask why he killed them.

Livaditis, 51, seemed to be fighting back tears as he answered.

"Because uh, I was an evil person," he says. "I don't know any other way to put 
it, you know?"

Asked if he's still evil, Livaditis says no, because he's accepted Jesus Christ 
as his savior.

No matter how you feel about capital punishment, almost everyone agrees the 
system is broken in California.

2 very different solutions to this legal quagmire are being proposed for the 
November ballot - 1 to ban executions, the other to speed them up. A new Field 
Poll shows Californians are evenly split on the 2 alternatives, with both 
getting about 47 % support.

If proponents collect enough signatures, either or both measures will get a 
hearing from voters later this year.

(source: Scott Shafer, KQED news)






USA:

US Judge Dismisses Death Penalty Appeal for Boston Bomber


The death penalty appeal for the surviving Boston bomber has been rejecetd by a 
U.S. District Judge although it could be years before the sentence is carried 
out.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was denied a new trial to appeal his death sentence Friday 
for his participation in the Boston Marathon bomb attack in 2013.

His lawyers presented several arguments in an attempt to get a retrial, 
including that Tsarnaev didn't have an impartial jury due to the intense media 
publicity of the attacks. The blasts injured more than 260 people, and killed 
three, including 1 child aged 8 years-old.

Judge George O'Toole denied this request in a court ruling, stating that media 
in any district would have given the same coverage to the attack.

"There is no reason to think that if the trial had been moved to another 
district, the local media in that district would not also have given it 
attentive coverage," O'Toole wrote in his 37-page ruling.

The judge also noted comments made by defense attorney Judith Clarke in her 
opening statements that Tsarnaev, along with his older brother Tamerlan, 
carried out the attack, saying "It was him."

Tsarnaev, 22, was sentenced to death by lethal injection in June 2014. His 
older brother Tamerlan also participated in the attack, but died 3 days after 
in a standoff with police, that left an officer dead. According to evidence 
from the trial, both brothers were inspired by Al-Qaeda ideology.

Tsarnaev is currently in a high security prison in Florence, Colorado, and has 
been ordered to pay more than $100 million dollars as restitution to the 
victims.

His defense is still working on appealing the death penalty although they do 
not proclaim the American citizen's innocence.

Some relatives of the victims fear that the appeals could delay Tsarnaev's fate 
for decades. There have been 74 people sentenced to death for federal crimes in 
the U.S. since 1998, of which only 3 have been executed to date.

(source: telesurtv.net)