[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., ALA., NEB.

[Rick Halperin]

Jan. 20



PENNSYLVANIA:

Pennsylvania murder case could be first challenge to capital punishment in 
decades


Can a convicted killer from Pennsylvania help topple the country's 
death-penalty laws?

Activists who've long sought to abolish capital punishment are betting on it.

The U.S. Supreme Court is assessing whether to hear a challenge to a 
Pennsylvania woman's death sentence that some hope might lead to a landmark 
decision to eliminate, or modify, the country's death penalty system.

In June, Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg 
delivered comments that death-penalty critics viewed as a promising omen. Both 
raised constitutional questions about the death penalty in opinions on a case 
narrowly focused on whether Oklahoma's lethal injection method was legal. The 
high court ruled that, when carried out properly, capital punishment is 
constitutional. But the dissents sparked the recent momentum.

"Rather than try to patch up the death penalty's legal wounds one at a time, I 
would ask for full a briefing on a more basic question: whether the death 
penalty violates the Constitution," Breyer wrote in his dissent.

Seeing the remarks almost as an invitation, activists mobilized and cast about 
for the strongest petitioner, and they decided on Shonda Walter.

"It's not that the death penalty is morally reprehensive, although a lot of 
people think it is. It's that the death penalty has so many problems to it that 
it can't be done in a constitutional manner," said Marc Bookman, who heads the 
Philadelphia-based Atlantic Center for Capital Representation. "Shonda Walter, 
in many ways, typifies the problems with the death penalty."

Attorney: Executions 'no longer comport' with modern values

In April 2005, Walter was sentenced to death for killing her elderly neighbor 
by striking him repeatedly with a hatchet.

2 years earlier, Walter of Lock Haven walked over to the home of the victim, 
83-year-old James Sementelli, bent on killing and robbing him. It was part of 
an initiation, authorities said, to join the Bloods street gang.

What happened next, prosecutors argued, underscored how callous and petty the 
murder was: she sat in Sementelli's house and watched television and ate ice 
cream following the lethal bludgeoning. Then she drove away in his car. Shortly 
after, Walter returned and stole $510 in quarters from the World War II 
veteran's home.

But now, Walter's new defense team say her trial lawyers ill-served her. For 
instance, at one point, they admitted to the jury that "there was no way" she 
was not guilty.

More than contending that she had lousy attorneys, though, is the heart of 
Walter's petition, which has a more philosophical thrust.

"Whether, in all cases, the imposition of a sentence of death violates the 
Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments," her 
Philadelphia attorney Dan Silverman wrote.

It's not, Bookman said, that advocates think what Walter did was not an 
appalling act.

"All 1st-degree murders are terrible crimes," Bookman said. "But the question 
goes beyond the facts of her case. We don't keep a failed public policy in 
place because of the visceral facts that may offend us. The alternative is not 
that Shonda Walter goes free. The alternative is that she spends the rest of 
her life in prison."

In an emailed statement, Walter's attorney Silverman further said, "We're 
hopeful the court will recognize that the death penalty no longer comports with 
our values as a nation, and end the practice once and for all."

On Friday, the high court rescheduled a meeting to discuss whether to take up 
the case. 4 of the 9 justices must agree to hear Walter's petition for the case 
to go before them.

"From this point on, people will be bringing this allegation that the death 
penalty violates the Eight Amendment," Bookman said. "If the Supreme Court 
doesn't decide to take any action in Shonda Walter, there's going to be a 
number of other opportunities."

Meanwhile in the commonwealth, executions remain on hold.

Pennsylvania hasn't put an inmate to death since 1999 and only has executed 3 
inmates since 1976. Still, there are 179 men and 2 women on death row, 
according to the state's Department of Corrections. It's one of the largest 
death-row populations in the country.

Gov. Tom Wolf is intent on shrinking the number of people on death row; some 
have been awaiting execution for decades. In December, the state's high court 
backed Wolf's move to halt executions in Pennsylvania and issue reprieves, 
citing flaws with the system.

Despite challenges from Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams and 
Attorney General Kathleen Kane, the effective moratorium will remain in place 
until a legislative commission that's been studying the issue for 4 years 
presents its report to the governor sometime this year.

In response to the state's high court backing Wolf's moratorium, Williams' 
Office said that it extends condolences to the victims of horrendous crimes 
"who will not soon see justice that was imposed by the jury and upheld by the 
courts."

(source: newsworks.org)






ALABAMA----impending execution

Courts deny Alabama death row inmate request to halt Thursday execution


2 courts on Tuesday denied Alabama death row inmate Christopher Brooks' request 
to block his execution on Thursday.

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request late Tuesday 
afternoon. So did the Alabama Supreme Court.

Brooks' attorneys say they will appeal both the Alabama high court and 11th 
Circuit rulings to the U.S. Supreme court.

Brooks is scheduled to be put to death at 6 p.m. Thursday by lethal injection 
at Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore. It would be Alabama's 1st execution 
since July 2013 and the 1st using the state's new 3-drug combination.

Brooks was convicted in the December 1992 rape and beating death of Jo Deann 
Campbell.

Brooks had sought an emergency stay of execution from the 11th Circuit. He 
argued he should be given a chance to have his execution delayed, at least 
until lawsuits by him and other inmates challenging Alabama's new three-drug 
lethal injection protocol have been decided at a trial in April.

23 years after her brutal death, and with her convicted killer just four days 
from his execution, Jo Deann Campbell's 2 sisters remember her as a bubbly 
person who was friends with everyone she met. Christopher Brooks is asked a 
court to stay his execution.

In its opinion this afternoon denying the stay, the court noted that Brooks in 
November had joined a federal lawsuit filed by 5 other death row inmates 
challenging the constitutionality of Alabama's method of execution.

The inmates in that lawsuit claim that Alabama's new three-drug lethal 
injection protocol - which uses midazolam, rocuronium bromide, and potassium 
chloride - created a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Cruel 
and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

A federal judge denied his motion for a stay of execution in December and he 
filed the appeal to the 11th Circuit. The trial court denied his motion for a 
stay, explaining that Brooks had not shown a substantial likelihood of success 
on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim because: he failed to show an 
available and feasible alternative method of execution as required by case law 
and he failed to show that he brought this claim within the applicable 2-year 
statute of limitations.

"Moreover, the district court determined that the balance of equities weighed 
against granting a stay because Brooks unreasonably delayed bringing his 
lawsuit until it was too late to resolve the merits of his claim without 
staying his execution," the appeals court stated.

In its ruling Tuesday afternoon the 11th Circuit affirmed the federal judge's 
ruling and denied Brooks' emergency motion to stay the execution.

Brooks' attorneys on Friday also filed another request for a stay with the 
Alabama Supreme Court, which had already previously denied a stay request.

In last week's request to the state high court Brooks' attorneys had also 
argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled Florida's law allowing judge's to 
override jury sentence recommendations in capital cases was unconstitutional. 
Alabama also is one of two other states that have judicial override.

Brooks' sentence did not result from a judicial override. At his trial the jury 
voted 11 to 1 to recommended death. The judge followed that recommendation.

Under Alabama law fewer than 10 jurors voting to recommend a death sentence 
results in a recommendation of life without parole. But a judge can override a 
life without parole recommendation and impose a death sentence.

Assistant Federal Public Defender John Palombi explained the Florida override 
case and their stance:

"Although Florida's system, like Alabama's, allows for a judge override, the 
Court in Hurst reached its conclusion based on a different part of Florida's 
law that it found unconstitutional," Palombi stated in an email to Al.com. 
"Like Alabama's, Florida's death sentencing scheme has judges as the final 
finders of fact, and that is what the Supreme Court found unconstitutional."

"As in Alabama, Florida judges hear and weigh evidence at a separate sentencing 
hearing, and based on that (plus what they hear at the jury's sentencing 
hearing), they determine whether the sentence is to be death or life without 
parole," Palombi wrote. "In Hurst, the Supreme Court found that it is a 
violation of the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury to have a judge be the 
factfinder who determines that an individual is deserving of a death sentence."

"The bottom line of Hurst is that the jury must have the final say in capital 
sentencing decisions -- its decision must be final, not advisory," Palombi 
stated. "Even though that's closely related to override, it's not the same 
issue, because even juries that "recommend" death in "advisory" capacities, as 
they do in Alabama and Florida, are not the final decision makers."

In Brooks' case, the judge who sentenced him to death considered aggravating 
evidence which had not been presented to the jury, his attorneys said.

Brooks' attorneys issued a statement Tuesday afternoon saying they will appeal 
both the 11th Circuit and Alabama Supreme Court denial of the stay requests.

"We believe the 11th Circuit erred in denying Mr. Brooks' stay motion and his 
appeal, and we will be asking the United States Supreme Court to review the 
decision," the attorneys state.

"As noted in our briefing, we believe the Supreme Court's ruling in Glossip v. 
Gross requires the 11th Circuit to overturn the District Court's ruling and 
allow Mr. Brooks to put on evidence showing that a three-drug protocol 
involving midazolam will leave him aware but unable to communicate while he is 
tortured to death with the 2nd and 3rd drugs," Brooks' attorneys stated. "This 
question of what individuals challenging lethal injection protocols must prove 
in order to succeed affects other Alabama death row prisoners, not just Mr. 
Brooks, and should be considered at a measured pace."

"Furthermore, major questions remain about whether midazolam is suitable as the 
1st drug in a 3-drug execution protocol like Alabama's, and those questions 
will be answered during the April hearing already set on the issue," Brooks' 
attorneys stated. "In 2015, courts in a very similar situation denied a stay to 
Oklahoma inmate Charles Warner, who was executed a week before the Supreme 
Court granted certiorari on the very question his request for a stay was 
connected to. It has since emerged that Mr. Warner was executed using the wrong 
drugs, and now all Oklahoma executions are on hold while the state investigates 
exactly what is going on in its department of corrections."

"It would be a tragedy and a travesty if Mr. Brooks suffered the same fate as 
Mr. Warner and was executed while the rest of his co-plaintiffs benefited from 
having their claims heard and decided," Brooks' attorneys stated.

Brooks' attorneys also stated they will be filing a separate petition asking 
the United States Supreme Court to review the Alabama Supreme Court's denial of 
a stay based on last week's ruling in Hurst v. Florida, in which the United 
States Supreme Court found Florida's death sentencing scheme to be 
unconstitutional. "Since Alabama's sentencing scheme is virtually identical to 
Florida's, we believe the Hurst decision is applicable here as well and that 
the Sixth Amendment requires that he get a new sentencing hearing," Brooks' 
attorneys stated.

The Alabama Attorney General's Office has stated that the Florida ruling does 
not affect Alabama.

(source: al.com)






NEBRASKA:

Nebraskans should end death penalty


One important election that Kansans can't vote in but will watch later this 
year involves our neighbor to the north.

Nebraskans will likely go to the polls in November to decide whether to uphold 
the repeal of the state's death penalty.

Nebraska's Legislature in 2015 voted to repeal capital punishment and then 
overrode a veto by Gov. Pete Ricketts.

By September, a campaign by death penalty supporters had successfully garnered 
enough valid signatures on petitions to put the issue on the ballot.

Ricketts, in a highly unethical move, helped bankroll the petition campaign to 
the tune of $200,000.

So much for grassroots.

Ricketts' involvement in the petition effort faces a court challenge that could 
derail the election. If not, Nebraskans will go to the polls and we hope they 
vote to uphold the repeal.

The costly and immoral policy of state executions needs to be put to rest in 
Nebraska and elsewhere, including Kansas.

Sadly, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has made no move to abolish it here. The 
Kansas Legislature, likewise, has never seriously studied repeal.

Legislative leaders last year hired out-of-state consultants to help them find 
budget efficiencies. If they are legitimately seeking to reduce costs, these 
consultants would advise that death row is fraught with costly appeals and 
isn't worth the expense. It also keeps victims' families on an emotional roller 
coaster for years and years. There is also the concern that an innocent person, 
wrongly convicted, will be executed.

The best approach is repeal. A state should never have the power to put 
prisoners to death. Life imprisonment without parole is the more humane and 
cost-effective alternative for the most serious criminals.

(source: Editorial, The Marysville Advocate)