[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.H., PENN., DEL., S.C., FLA.

[Rick Halperin]

Jan. 28




TEXAS----death penalty overturned

Death penalty thrown out in College Station murder case


A man sentenced to death in the 2010 strangulation of a College Station woman 
will receive a new punishment hearing, according to a Wednesday ruling by the 
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that said there wasn't enough evidence to prove 
capital murder.

The 6-3 ruling from the state's highest criminal court throws out the death 
sentence for Stanley Griffin, though it agrees the now 50-year-old 
intentionally killed Jennifer Hailey, a 29-year-old acquaintance whom he met 
through his girlfriend.

Griffin now will face 5 years to life in prison for the crime.

Hailey's 9-year-old son - who awakened during the incident - was twice ordered 
by Griffin back to his room and eventually was stabbed by Griffin with a 
gardening trowel. The boy lost a significant amount of blood, but regained 
consciousness and called his grandmother, who called 911.

To convict someone of capital murder, the state had to prove that Griffin 
killed a person while also committing another felony, such as kidnapping, 
robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson or burglary. Capital cases don't 
allow for aggravated assaults, injury to a child or attempted murder as the 
secondary crime.

At issue for the 6 appellate judges who remanded the case back to a Brazos 
County courtroom was whether the action taken by Griffin against the boy could 
be defined as a kidnapping, which is what prosecutors asserted and jurors 
believed.

The 10-page ruling, written by Judge Cheryl Johnson, argued that there was no 
proof of a kidnapping, suggesting a more likely secondary charge could have 
been aggravated assault, injury to a child or attempted murder relating to the 
boy.

"Griffin attacked the boy to delay the discovery of the woman's murder and the 
boy's injuries were sustained after the murder," Johnson wrote.

In Kevin Yeary's 57-page dissenting opinion, he said the law did not require 
Griffin to truly hold the boy to be defined as kidnapping, but rather to only 
have had the intent to do so. Yearly said by ordering the child to his room, 
Griffin was preventing him from getting help for himself or his mother.

The Brazos County District Attorney's Office declined to comment because the 
case is pending.

The crime scene

The boy testified during the trial that he had been asleep a few hours before 
getting up to get a drink of water when he saw his mother face down on the 
couch with Griffin on top of her, appearing to the boy like he was hugging his 
mother. The boy said he saw his mother slightly move her hand and could see 
Griffin's hands around his mother's neck.

He called out to his mother and asked Griffin by name what he was doing. 
Griffin tried to convince the boy he wasn't Griffin and ordered him back to 
bed.

The boy told jurors that he left his bedroom about 10 to 15 minutes later and 
stood in the hallway where he could see his mom lying face up on the floor of 
her bedroom. He couldn't tell whether she had fainted or was hurt, so as an 
effort to get closer to his mother, he told Griffin he had to use the bathroom.

Griffin told the boy he wanted to "chill" with him, but the grade-schooler said 
he was going back to bed, in hopes the man would leave.

Griffin instead grabbed him from behind, choked him and repeatedly struck his 
jaw, back and neck with a garden trowel that he plucked from a utility room.

The boy testified that he passed out in the hallway and when he awoke he was 
lying on the floor in the living room under a comforter taken from his mother's 
bed.

Griffin was gone. It was about 5 a.m. when he called his grandmother, who then 
alerted 911, as well as her son. He was able to get to the apartment before 
emergency crews, but his sister didn't respond to CPR.

Both mother and son were rushed to the hospital where she was pronounced dead 
and the boy was admitted with serious injuries.

Appellate disagreement

In Johnson's ruling, he said kidnapping is defined as abducting a person by 
restraining or holding him in a place where he's likely not be found, or by 
using deadly force.

"To equate the mere use of force with kidnapping is to make every assault into 
kidnapping," the opinion states, adding that to prove kidnapping the state must 
prove that he was restrained and there was an intent to keep him from getting 
free or by using deadly force.

Yearly's dissenting opinion disagreed.

"As an adult instructing the boy in no uncertain terms to go back to his 
bedroom, he effectively confined him there," Yearly wrote, adding that just 
because the boy acquiesced doesn't mean he did so consensually. "...The court 
should not construe the definition of restraint to require that the actor 
himself physically move his victim from 1 place to another. It is enough that 
he cause the victim somehow to move or be moved. Otherwise, it would not be 
possible purposes of "restraint" to move a victim by intimidation or deception.

Not mentioned in Johnson's ruling was how Griffin met Hailey. The woman was a 
friend of Griffin's girlfriend, and the girlfriend's daughter occasionally 
babysat Hailey's son.

The girlfriend moved out of the house she shared with Griffin after learning 
his abusive tendencies toward her extended to her son, not just her. She 
continued a romantic relationship with him but refused to let him return to her 
house, according to testimony that detailed how on Sept. 17, 2010 she went to 
church with him at Twin City Mission where he was living. The pair argued in 
the parking lot because she remained firm on not allowing him to move back in. 
The dispute prompted others to get involved and Griffin was barred from staying 
at the mission.

2 nights later he showed up at Hailey's house and unleashed the violence.

(source: The Eagle)

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

Death penalty still up in air


Although Stephen Scott is charged with capital murder in the stabbing deaths of 
his parents, it will be months before prosecutors decide if they will seek the 
death penalty.

Alongside the Denton police investigation, Denton County District Attorney's 
Office officials will conduct a thorough investigation of their own to 
determine if Scott will face the ultimate sentence for the crimes of which he 
is accused.

"It does take quite awhile to do a complete investigation before making that 
decision," said Jamie Beck, first assistant district attorney. "And it's not 
limited to the facts of the offense. There's also an investigation of the 
individual defendant's background, which looks at past records, school history, 
medical records. Anything the investigation leads us to, we will go and dig it 
up."

Scott was indicted by a Denton County grand jury on Jan. 21 in connection with 
the murders of Marion and Linda Scott. According to police, Scott stabbed them 
in their home Jan. 10. Scott is reported to have called police, and confessed 
to the stabbings to a 911 dispatcher. He was arrested later that day.

Since being in Denton County Jail, Scott has been to the hospital to receive 
medical care for what is believed to be a self-inflicted head wound.

Scott's court-appointed attorney, Lee Ann Breading, said she is not waiting for 
the prosecutors to decide, working from the assumption that they will go for 
the death penalty.

"Until they tell me they are not seeking the death penalty, you approach it the 
same way," Breeding said. "Gathering as much information as you can that 
mitigates against the death penalty, trying to find out about your client [and] 
the situation. If they make the decision [to seek the death penalty], you don't 
want to be caught behind the 8 ball."

With the offense happening a little more than 2 weeks ago and Scott being 
indicted, Breading said the prosecution, like herself, has not had a lot of 
time to do background work.

Breading said she still does not have police reports related to the murders. 
This case will be the 2nd capital murder case Breading has defended. She said 
she prosecuted far more in her 7 years in the Dallas County District Attorney's 
Office and 16 years with the Denton County District Attorney's Office.

Denton County courts have not had a death penalty case tried since Paul Johnson 
became district attorney.

Previous cases include James Lee Clark, who had been paroled less than a week 
when he and fellow parolee James Brown were arrested and charged in the 
killings of Shari Catherine Crews and Jesus Garza in 1993. Clark was executed 
in 2007, while Brown was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 20 years.

Christopher Swift, also executed in 2007, was found guilty in the 2003 
strangling deaths of his wife in Dallas County and mother-in-law in Denton 
County. Both murders were witnessed by his 5-year-old son.

Stephen Woods received the death penalty after a jury convicted him of the 2001 
murders of Ronald Whitehead and Bethena Brosz in The Colony. Woods was executed 
in 2011.

If the death penalty is not sought in the Scott case, the punishment would be 
automatic life sentence without parole, said Beck, adding there used to be a 
parole possibility, but it was changed sometime after 2000.

(source: Denton Record Chronicle)






NEW HAMPSHIRE:

It's time for N.H. to abolish the death penalty


Several years ago, on a hot July night, a little girl named Elizabeth Knapp was 
raped and murdered in Contoocook, N.H.

The mother's live-in boyfriend, Richard Buchanan, became the prime suspect and 
was charged with 1st-degree murder. This quickly became a highly publicized 
case and the N.H. attorney general was being pressured in the press, and by 
members of the legislature to upgrade the charge to capital murder and seek the 
death penalty. As a public defender, I was assigned to represent Mr. Buchanan.

The evidence against Buchanan seemed overwhelming. This little girl was raped 
and murdered just feet away from her mother's bedroom. She was sleeping 
virtually inches away from her sister in a very small cluttered apartment. It 
seemed impossible that a stranger could have entered the home and not wakened 
anyone. There were no signs of forced entry. And to make matters worse, after 
over seven hours of intense police interrogation, Elizabeth's mother told the 
police that she witnessed Buchanan rape and strangle Elizabeth.

Even I assumed my client was guilty.

However, Richard Buchanan was innocent. The real person who raped and murdered 
Elizabeth had not worn a condom, and the true killer's semen was collected from 
Elizabeth's body. DNA tests proved that Buchanan was not the assailant and the 
charges against him were dropped.

Many people believe that innocent people can't be wrongfully convicted in New 
Hampshire. It may happen in other places, but not here. But my personal 
experience tells me that New Hampshire is not immune to human errors, mistakes 
and snap judgments and that an innocent person could be convicted and executed 
here for a crime they did not commit.

Richard Buchanan was eventually freed, but I don't take much comfort in that. 
In Buchanan's case, he was lucky that the real assailant had not used a condom. 
If he had used a condom, there would have been no DNA evidence to exonerate Mr. 
Buchanan. The jury would have been rightly outraged by the brutality of this 
little girl being raped and strangled in her own bed and would have likely 
sentenced this innocent man to death.

I have been a trial lawyer in N.H. for over 30 years, 14 of which I served as a 
public defender and prosecutor in the New Hampshire Attorney General's office. 
During those years I saw my share of mistakes: Incomplete investigations, false 
confessions, incorrect eyewitness testimony, lab technicians using outdated 
equipment, and attorneys who misunderstand or mischaracterize evidence. Any of 
these can lead to unfair results. Well-meaning, educated people, all wanting to 
do the right thing - and still mistakes get made.

We don't use the death penalty often here in New Hampshire, but our system is 
flawed and as long as the law is on the books there is a real risk that we will 
execute an innocent person.

(source: Barbara Keshen is a former homicide prosecutor for the New Hampshire 
Attorney General's Office and currently serves as Chair of The New Hampshire 
Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NHCADP). NHCADP has been operating 
since 1999 and has more than 2500 members. The NHCADP's leaders include victim 
families, clergy, law enforcement, corrections officials, former Supreme and 
Superior Court Justices and former Attorneys General----seacoastonline.com)






PENNSYLVANIA----new (NOT serious) execution dates

Notice of execution signed for Adams County man


The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections set execution dates for 3 convicted 
murderers Wednesday, but the executions are unlikely to be carried out as 
scheduled.

Department of Corrections Secretary John Wetzel signed the notices for 3 death 
row inmates, including 32-year-old Christopher Johnson, who was convicted of 
killing Wildlife Conservation Officer David Grove in 2010, according to a news 
release from the department.

The release states Johnson's date of execution as March 18, 2016. But the 
notice is more of a technicality than an actual determination of an execution 
date, according to past reports from the Associated Press.

State law requires the corrections secretary to issue the notices if the 
governor doesn't sign execution warrants during a specified period, the 
Associated Press reported in March. Gov. Tom Wolf, however, ordered a temporary 
reprieve on capital punishment in early 2015.

Wetzel has signed execution notices for several death row inmates since the 
moratorium was instated, but those dates have come and passed without 
executions, with Wolf issuing reprieves.

In addition to Johnson, Wetzel's most recent list of execution notices includes 
Thomas Meadows, of Montgomery County, and Jeffrey Martin, of Greene County. 
Their execution dates were set for March 15 and 16, respectively.

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, 
Adams County District Attorney Brian Sinnett said earlier this month.

(source: The Evening Sun)






DELAWARE:

A quarter of millennials reject the death penalty

Most Americans still favor the death penalty, but a quarter of young Americans 
would refuse to even consider the death penalty if they were on a jury

Delaware may become the latest state to abolish the death penalty as the state 
House votes on whether or not to pass a bill abolish death row in the state. 
Florida's death penalty law was also recently ruled unconstitutional because it 
gave too much power to judges, not juries, to determine whether someone should 
be executed. Currently 19 states do not have the death penalty and the number 
of executions taking place each year has dropped from a peak of 98 in 1999 to 
28 last year.

YouGov's latest research shows that most Americans still favor the death 
penalty for people who have been convicted of murder. Support is highest among 
Republicans (71%) and over-65s (67%). Under-30s are the only group where there 
is not majority support for the death penalty, with 45% people aged 18 to 29 
saying that they favor the death penalty and 35% saying that they are opposed.

Despite the fact that only 58% of Americans actively support the death penalty 
73% say that, if they were on the jury for a murder trial, they would consider 
all sentencing options, including the death penalty. 18% of Americans say that, 
regardless of their jury duty, they would never consider the death penalty. 
Younger Americans are the most likely to say that they could never consider 
condemning someone to death, with a quarter of under-30s (24%) stating that 
they'd never consider the death penalty.

(source: yougov.com)

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

Delaware near historic vote on death penalty


A week ago, a vote on legislation to repeal Delaware's death penalty was 
improbable, but now a historic decision that could end the practice in the 
state will be before the House of Representatives on Thursday.

Both sides are gearing up for the vote - lobbying lawmakers who are on the 
fence, counting heads and making last-minute public pleas.

Those in favor of the legislation say the death penalty is bad public policy 
and has unequally targeted African-Americans and the poor; those against it say 
capital punishment is an effective tool and gives family members justice after 
their loved ones are murdered.

The debate heated up Wednesday when lawmakers, activists and pastors gathered 
at Legislative Hall to call for the bill's passage.

Standing in the location where the vote will take place, Democratic Rep. Sean 
Lynn, the bill's main sponsor, said Delaware is on the edge of an important 
decision.

"In the last few years, we've made huge strides in advancing civil rights," he 
said. "We have accomplished things that seemed impossible even a decade ago, 
ending the status quo in the interest of equality, fairness and tolerance. But 
out battle isn't over."

Lynn said the worst affront to these equal justice efforts is the death 
penalty.

"We are out of patience," said the Rev. Donald Morton, director of the 
Complexities of Color Agenda, an advocacy group seeking to raise awareness 
about race issues. "We are out of patience when black juries are being 
systematically barred from service; we are out of patience when blacks are 
frequently put to death for murdering whites, but whites are not put to death 
for murdering blacks."

Tom Brackin, president of the Delaware State Troopers Association, said the 
death penalty law is not applied based on race.

"It would be great if everything in society was done equally, if in every 
community there was an equal number of each race that the police could arrest 
and each case was identical, but that is not reality," Brackin said. "The 
reality is that each case is judged on its merits."

"We believe that the death penalty does save lives," he added. "It is a vital 
piece of the criminal justice picture here."

Many thought in May that the repeal bill would die after it was blocked in the 
House Judiciary Committee for the 2nd time in 2 years. It passed the Senate in 
April.

The bill, however, got a 2nd chance last week after House leadership 
unexpectedly released it for a full vote on Thursday. Gov. Jack Markell has 
said he would sign the bill into law if it passes.

Democratic Rep. Larry Mitchell, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee and is 
a former New Castle County Police officer, released the bill from his committee 
even though he opposes it, saying the issue deserved a hearing in the full 
House.

Delaware is 1 of 32 states with capital punishment. The last execution occurred 
in April 2012.

14 inmates are currently on Delaware's death row and over 2 dozen more capital 
murder cases are pending trial in Delaware.

In the last year, 2 death row inmates have had their cases overturned by the 
Delaware Supreme Court and granted a retrial.

In another case, a Wilmington man who was once the state's longest serving 
death row inmate was released from prison while the court weighed whether his 
videotaped confession should be allowed to be presented during his retrial. 
Following a Supreme Court ruling granting use of the video, the man turned 
himself into State Police and will await a new trial.

A Delaware Superior Court judge also asked the Delaware Supreme Court on Monday 
to consider whether Delaware's death penalty law is constitutional in light of 
2 recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings for Kansas and Florida. If the state 
Supreme Court were to consider the matter, it could put on hold all pending 
capital murder cases - of which 4 were scheduled to go to trial in the next 120 
days.

These legal and legislative challenges are putting a spotlight on Delaware's 
death penalty law.

Wilmington Councilwoman Sherry Dorsey Walker said Wednesday she supports the 
repeal bill. Her cousin was killed in 1986, and at first she thought vengeance 
was the best option.

But she later turned her "pain into passion."

"If we say we don't want these murders in Wilmington then why do we have 
state-sanctioned murder?" she said. "I ask any legislator who is on the fence 
to take a look at the murder victims families. We are not angry about what 
happened anymore. We want to turn our pain into passion."

Mitchell said he has talked with the families of murder victims.

"When you hear their stories, and you see realize how much they are suffering 
and how long they suffer for, to me there has to be a punishment that rises to 
that level," Mitchell said. "I think capital punishment is that punishment."

(source: KREM news)

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

Widener law prof opines on state Supreme Court death penalty review


A Widener University law professor weighs in on Delaware's Supreme Court's 
review of the state's death penalty law.

Judith Ritter told WDEL News the review comes after a couple of decisions by 
the US Supreme Court.

"Mostly the Supreme Court ruling from last week--Hurst versus Florida--that 
struck down Florida's death penalty on grounds that it was unconstitutional, 
and there are similarities between Florida's death penalty and Delaware's death 
penalty," said Ritter.

Ritter said a key difference is that in Florida, judges alone determine whether 
the defendant in a capital case is death penalty-eligible.

"In Delaware, the jury does decide about death eligibility in terms of finding 
facts that would make a person eligible, but the judge still has the ability in 
Delaware to weigh mitigating factors against aggravating, and ultimately make 
that decision about what the sentence should be," said Ritter.

Ritter said Superior Court judges here asked for the review to help them make 
the right rulings in capital cases set to come before them.

She added it's coincidental that the state's highest court is reviewing 
Delaware's death penalty at the same time there's a movement here to repeal it.

(source: WDEL news)






SOUTH CAROLINA:

Court documents: 600 potential jurors to be called for state's case against 
Dylann Roof


The Charleston County Clerk of Court will call 600 potential jurors as 
attorneys work to seat a jury for the state's case against Emanuel AME Church 
mass shooting suspect Dylann Roof.

The pool of potential jurors will report on June 28, some 2 weeks before the 
start of the July 11 trial, for questionnaires and basic qualifications. Then, 
the jurors not excluded in that initial round will report to court starting 
July 11 in groups of 20 until a full jury is seated for Roof's trial.

Meanwhile, attorneys are finalizing the questionnaires.

The court told attorneys in a separate filing that any changes to the jury 
survey must be submitted by Feb. 15. Two day later, attorneys have to complete 
any motions related to the surveys.

In June, the court will let the defense and the state know which jurors can be 
excused, adding that a hearing could be held on the excusing of jurors on June 
13.

Attorneys have to file all pre-trial motions by June 14. The hearings on the 
pre-trial motions will be held over a 3-day period starting June 28.

And that will lead everyone involved into the start of Roof's trial.

Roof is accused of fatally shooting nine Emanuel AME Church parishioners in a 
racially motivated attack on June 17, 2015. Among the dead was the church's 
pastor, Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who was also a state senator.

Roof sat in a bible study for about an hour before opening fire on the group, 
investigators say.

The state is seeking the death penalty for Roof. His attorneys have said Roof 
is willing to enter a guilty plea if the state removes the possiblity of a 
death sentence.

Roof is also facing federal hate crime charges for the shooting, and that trial 
will commence once the state trial has concluded.

(source: WCIV news)






FLORIDA:

A Lion of the Law' Justice Thurgood Marshall honored by ASALH, ACLU


The St. Petersburg chapter of the Association for the Study of African American 
Life and History (ASALH) held the Speakers for Justice Seminar last Sat., Jan. 
23 honoring Justice Thurgood Marshall at the Dr. Carter G. Woodson African 
American History Museum.

Thurgood Marshall is well known for his civil rights activities; however, his 
jurisprudential style tends to be overlooked.

Master of Ceremonies Attorney Jacqueline Hubbard, president of the St. 
Petersburg Chapter of ASALH gave the audience a brief yet thorough history of 
Justice Marshall's academic, civil rights and legal accomplishments.

According to Hubbard, one of Marshall's most notable accomplishments was his 
instrumental hand in developing the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund in 1940, which 
fights for racial justice through litigation, advocacy and public education. 
Hubbard also highlighted his victory in Brown vs. Board of Education ending 
legal segregation in public schools.

Imam Askia Muhammad introduced Civil Rights Attorney Delano Stewart, the first 
African- American assistant public defender in Hillsborough County. Stewart, 
who started working as an attorney more than 50 years ago, is known for his 
candidness in the courtroom.

"It doesn't matter if a man likes or loathes you, if he respects you, you 
cannot discern the difference," Muhammad quoted Stewart.

Stewart known as the "shield for the oppressed" spoke passionately about civil 
rights focusing on a theme of respect. His powerful anecdotes triggered a vast 
range of reactions from laughter, applause in agreement and silence of 
solemnity as he rapped on the podium to emphasize his points.

ACLU Attorney Adam Tebrugge spoke of Justice Marshall's efforts to discredit 
the death penalty. Marshall believed that the inconsistent death penalty 
convictions violated the Eighth Amendment. For some 20 years, Marshall traveled 
throughout the South defending death penalty cases earning Marshall his 
reputation.

Tebrugge's acknowledgement of Marshall's efforts came 10 days after 8 Supreme 
Court Justices ruled in favor of striking down Florida's death penalty 
practices.

Florida previously allowed the judge, not the jury, to hand down a defendant's 
sentence, a violation of a defendant's constitutional right to have a trial by 
jury. The debate that is sure to follow this decision could render all inmates 
on death row eligible for re-sentencing.

"We have a historic opportunity at this moment in time to reach out to our 
elected representatives and to tell them that we here in the state of Florida 
do not need the death penalty and that we cannot afford the death penalty," 
said Tebrugge.

The Honorable Charles Williams, Chief Judge of the 12th Judicial Circuit 
focused on Marshall as a person and his gregarious nature. Marshall's ability 
to be fluid in different societies and knowing when to be aggressive and when 
not to be aggressive advanced his position in the Civil Rights Movement.

"He is the least known major civil rights figure in America and I think he has 
gotten the least credit," said Judge Williams.

Dr. Gilbert King, author of "Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the 
Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America," concluded the seminar.

King will be the guest speaker at ASLAH's annual Black History Celebration 
event Feb.12 at the St. Petersburg Yacht Club.

(source: The Weekly Challenger)

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

1 week ahead of the Florida Supreme Court Oral arguments in his case, Michael 
Lambrix releases a personal statement


Michael Lambrix has faced already one execution by the electric chair when a 
warrant was signed in 1998; He now faces execution by lethal injection on 
February 11th, 2016

On February 11, 2016 the State of Florida will proceed to put Cary Michael 
Lambrix to death by lethal injection, despite the fact that on January 12th, 
2016 the United States Supreme Court, in an unprecedented 8 to 1 decision, 
declared that the Florida death penalty process is unconstitutional.

All eyes will now be on the Lambrix case - the 1st execution since the landmark 
Hurst v Florida case was released. The Florida Supreme Court will hear 'oral 
arguments' in Lambrix's case at 9.00 am on February 2, 2016.

Today Michael Lambrix comments about the particularly unusual circumstances 
surrounding his imminent execution:

What is most troubling about Florida's continued push to put me to death is 
that this will actually be the 2nd time that the U.S. Supreme Court 
specifically found that the process employed to sentence me to death was 
unconstitutional, only to have the State of Florida circumvent this illegal 
sentence of death by arguing that I am not entitled to relief for no other 
reason but that judicially created 'rules' prevent me from obtaining relief 
since my 1st round of appeals were completed and 'new rules' cannot be 
retroactively applied. See Lambrix v Singletary, 520 US 518 (1997)(Supreme 
Court decision, ruling by marginal 5 to 4 vote that although I was 
unconstitutionally sentenced to death, I was 'time-barred' from relief.)

As if that wasn't enough, the State of Florida intends to put me to death 
despite my innocence. My consistently pled claim of innocence has been 
repeatedly presented to both the State and Federal courts, yet each time the 
courts have refused to address this innocence claim.

What must be emphasized is that by the State's own admission, the evidence 
against Lambrix was totally circumstantial: According to his lawyers, there 
were no eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidence and no confessions. 
Post-conviction evidence was discovered substantiating Lambrix's consistently 
led claim of innocence, but relief was denied on procedural grounds.

Michael Lambrix is an Honorably Discharged "Disabled Veteran" suffering from 
back injury.

To read all appeals and records in Lambrix's case, visit 
www.southerninjustice.net

To get informed about the ongoing campaign, go to 
www.save-innocents.com/save-michael-lambrix.html

(source: save-innocents.com)

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

Florida experts offer fixes to flawed death penalty law


The Florida Legislature got direct but conflicting advice Wednesday on how to 
fix a death penalty sentencing system ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. 
Supreme Court.

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee heard testimony from prosecutors, public 
defenders, retired judges and death penalty experts. All suggested how the 
state should react to the high court's Jan. 12 decision in Hurst vs. Florida 
that said the advisory role juries play in death penalty cases is 
unconstitutional.

But most testimony focused on an issue that was not part of the court's 
decision: whether Florida juries should be unanimous in recommending death 
sentences. Every expert except state prosecutors urged unanimity, and some 
warned that without it, Florida's deeply wounded death penalty law will remain 
under sustained legal attack.

"This is your opportunity," said O.H. "Bill" Eaton Jr., a retired circuit judge 
and nationally recognized death penalty expert. "If you fix those problems, 
then you're going to have as good a death penalty as there is in the country."

Eaton predicted that dozens of Florida inmates sentenced to death in which 
appeals have not been decided by the Florida Supreme Court will have their 
sentences reduced to life in prison without parole.

Florida is 1 of 3 states that does not require that a jury be unanimous in 
recommending a punishment of death, and it is the only state that does not 
require that a jury be unanimous in finding at least one aggravating factor to 
warrant a death sentence over life in prison.

State Attorney Brad King of the Ocala-area circuit said prosecutors statewide 
remain opposed to requiring that all 12 jurors be unanimous in supporting a 
death sentence.

But in a significant policy shift, prosecutors now support changing state law 
so that at least nine jurors must be required to support a death sentence, and 
unanimous findings on aggravating factors.

King said a requirement for unanimous jury verdicts in death cases would give a 
single juror veto power over his 11 colleagues.

"You allow 1 juror with no contact with the system and with no education in the 
law ... absolute control over what that sentence is going to be," King 
testified. "They get to control that decision."

Public defenders, many of whom oppose the death penalty, support the 
requirement for unanimity.

Neal Dupree, a state-appointed attorney who represents death row inmates 
appealing their sentences, urged lawmakers to wait until the Florida Supreme 
Court takes up the case of his client, Michael Ray Lambrix, who's sentenced to 
die by lethal injection Feb. 11.

The state's high court denied Lambrix's motion to delay his execution based on 
the Hurst decision. But justices will hear oral arguments Feb. 2 that Dupree 
said could provide valuable insight on how lawmakers should proceed.

Florida's 2-stage death penalty system has a guilt phase and a sentencing 
phase. A defendant who is found guilty cannot be sentenced to death unless the 
jury finds at least 1 factor, known as an aggravator, to warrant the ultimate 
penalty.

Solicitor General Allen Winsor, a lawyer in Attorney General Pam Bondi's office 
who unsuccessfully argued the state's position in the Hurst case, had no 
recommendations Wednesday.

Legal experts also disagreed on whether the current 15 aggravating factors in 
Florida's death penalty law are too numerous and should be reduced. Aggravators 
include such factors as whether the defendant was on probation, whether the 
victim was under age 12 or whether the crime was especially vicious and cruel.

Public defenders support reducing the number of aggravating factors and 
prosecutors oppose changes.

More than a decade ago, the Florida Supreme Court urged the Legislature to 
require unanimous juries in death cases. But the state took no action, and 1 
expert urged the Legislature to not make the same mistake twice.

"Had the Legislature heeded that warning, we would not be in this posture 
today," said Robert Dunham of the Death Penalty Information Center in 
Washington, D.C. "You can respond narrowly, just to the words in Hurst, or you 
can respond more broadly to prevent future constitutional problems."

2/3 of the 389 people on Florida's death row were sentenced by juries that were 
not unanimous, Dunham said, citing a report in The Villages Daily Sun 
newspaper. "Those cases are in extreme constitutional jeopardy," Dunham said.

The 5-member Senate Criminal Justice Committee that will craft the 1st version 
of a new law is chaired by a strong supporter of the death penalty, Sen. Greg 
Evers, R-Baker, who promised a quick legislative response.

"It [the law] will definitely change in a way that we think will be more 
constitutional," Evers said.

The panel's other Republican members are Sens Jeff Brandes of St. Petersburg 
and Rob Bradley of Fleming Island, and the Democrats are Sens. Jeff Clemens of 
Lake Worth and Audrey Gibson of Jacksonville.

Florida has 389 inmates on death row, but the pace of executions under Gov. 
Rick Scott has slowed considerably because of the pending Hurst decision. 2 
inmates were executed last year - the fewest since 2011.

(source: miamiherald.com)

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

Judge: Florida has 'no death penalty'


A Pinellas County Judge made a ruling that could set a trend in cases where the 
death penalty could be considered. Judge Michael Andrews rejected prosecutors' 
notice they plan to seek the death penalty against defendant Steven Dykes, who 
is accused of killing his 3-month-old daughter.

The judge wrote, "this court concludes that there currently exists no death 
penalty in the state of Florida, in that there is no procedure in place."

He was referring to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, saying the way 
Florida handles death penalty sentences is unconstitutional.

Attorney Anthony Rickman says until legislators change the law, other judges 
will face the same dilemma.

"I have a feeling that other judges will follow suit because its the right 
thing to do," Rickman said.

The way it works now, juries recommend life or death, but a judge makes the 
ultimate decision.

The nation's high court says the method is a violation of the Sixth Amendment. 
Only juries should be allowed to make the decision.

Rickman said, "it's not the prosecutor's fault. It's not the defense's fault. 
It's the law as it stands right now and the law is in flux. It's in limbo."

(source: Fox News)