[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OKLA., NEB., COLO., IDAHO, CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

July 7



OKLAHOMA----new (NOT SERIOUS) execution date

Judge Sets Execution Date For Albert Johnson


Flanked by a total of 4 deputies, convicted killer Albert Johnson made his way 
into the courtroom for his formal sentencing.

Just like during the trial, he refused to show any remorse.

"When people want to have a conversation about abolishing the death penalty, 
they need to think about people like this man who are absolutely a danger to 
anyone they are around any other human being they are around," Oklahoma County 
District Attorney David Prater said.

Johnson and his attorneys refused to comment during his sentencing, but 
Oklahoma County District Judge Donald Deason told him to take a moment to 
???take a breath because it would be the last free breath you'll breathe."

He then proceeded to sentence him to a September 16, 2016 execution date.

"Because there's no other just verdict in a case like this to deal with an 
offender like this," said Prater. "I mean a cold-blooded killer who hurts 
everyone he comes in contact with!"

Prater also confirmed deputies found a shank taped behind the sink inside 
Albert Johnson's jail cell, further proving just how dangerous this man is to 
the public, and why he should be put to death.

Inside the courtroom was the father and sister of Rachel Rogers, the young 
woman who Johnson is convicted of brutally raping and murdering, all because 
she answered a distressed friend's call for help. That friend was Albert 
Johnson's girlfriend at the time.

She was also assaulted, but lived, and testified against him at trial.

Though Johnson received an execution date, it could be years before he is 
actually put to death due to appeals and the state's moratorium on executions.

Johnson's attorney said his client is sorry for what he did, but no one heard 
that from Johnson himself.

(source: news9.com)






NEBRASKA:

Young Professionals host anti-death penalty campaign fundraiser


The death penalty in Nebraska wasn't exactly high on the list of social 
conversation topics among young professionals in Lincoln - until May of 2015.

That's when the Legislature voted to repeal the death penalty, and then to 
override a Republican governor's veto of the repeal, in a state known to be 
conservative and rather set in its ways.

And that's when conversations about the death penalty took off.

"The issue comes up a lot with my friends and a lot of the people that I hang 
out with," said Eric Gerrard, a co-host for a young professionals fundraiser 
Thursday night on behalf of Retain A Just Nebraska, which is working to ensure 
the death penalty repeal stands.

Gerrard, a lobbyist, said he was at the Capitol for all the debate on the death 
penalty repeal bill (LB268) and the votes.

"Because I'm over there quite a bit, my friends will ask me what's going on and 
(about) the arguments on both sides, and I guess I have a difficult time coming 
up with too many arguments for the death penalty," he said.

They talk about whether death or life sentences are more expensive for the 
state. And whether the worst punishment for murder is a death sentence or 
spending a lifetime in prison.

His most conservative friend, who disagrees with him on just about everything, 
agrees with him on this issue, he said.

Convincing a state full of voters to retain the repeal will be a task, Gerrard 
said.

"The death penalty's kind of the easy answer and there's a lot of education and 
thought that has to go into understanding why it isn't the best answer," he 
said. "That takes a lot of research and deep thinking, and I don't know if that 
always happens when people go to cast a vote."

Chris Peterson is a spokesman for the opposing side, Nebraskans for the Death 
Penalty, the group that got the issue onto the November ballot. He said 
supporters of keeping the death penalty in Nebraska cut across all age groups.

"Our recent polling indicates there is no statistical difference of opinion 
about the death penalty for 18-34-year-olds versus all voters," he said. "So 
whether someone is 25, 45 or 65 years old, they have the same probability of 
being among the majority of Nebraskans who support repealing LB268 and keeping 
the death penalty."

Lincoln Sen. Kate Bolz, a sponsor of the fundraiser and a member of the Lincoln 
Young Professionals, said they've had a lot of interest in the death penalty 
from young people, and they wanted to respond to that interest.

"That generation of people is among the most diverse in our country and so the 
idea that the death penalty is unfairly applied resonates," she said.

Liz Ring Carlson, a public relations manager who is a co-host for the event, 
said Lincoln has a history of young people being politically active and wanting 
to have a voice in policy making decisions. "But sometimes they're just really 
not sure how to get involved."

So the purpose of Thursday's gathering is, along with raising money for the 
campaign, to share information and educate people for the November vote, she 
said.

The Legislature brought forward a difficult topic last year, she said.

"That increased their interest in really having an honest and authentic dialog 
around it, not partisan bickering or anything along those lines," Carlson said.

They want to know the facts, she said. Does the death penalty work? Is it more 
expensive? How many people are affected? What percentage of people put to death 
are actually innocent? And why is there a group going against what our elected 
officials said?

Young people see lot of positive things going on in the state, with job growth, 
startup businesses, and the interest in attracting more young professionals to 
the state, she said.

And the death penalty plays into that mindset of what Nebraska's all about, 
especially on the national stage, she said.

The fundraiser is bipartisan, Bolz said, and will be held at Fuse Coworking, 
151 N. Eighth St., from 5:30-7:30.

(source: Lincoln Journal Star)






COLORADO:

Colorado Supreme Court denies petition over fired judge in death penalty 
case----1-page order gives no details on decision on Judge Gerald Rafferty


The Colorado Supreme Court on Wednesday quickly dismissed a petition asking for 
a mysteriously fired judge to be reinstated in the long-running death penalty 
appeal on which he was about to rule.

Lawyers for Sir Mario Owens, 1 of 3 men on Colorado's death row, last week 
asked the state's highest court to put Judge Gerald Rafferty back on the bench 
and to release more information about why he was dismissed from the case he has 
presided over for a decade. The petition accused Colorado court officials and 
the chief justice of the Supreme Court - who also acts as the CEO of the state 
Judicial Branch - of breaking the law in Rafferty's removal.

On Wednesday, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a single-page order denying the 
petition. The order gave no explanation of the denial. Chief Justice Nancy Rice 
did not participate in the decision, according to the order.

Owens and another man, Robert Ray, were convicted and sentenced to death in 
separate trials for the killings in Aurora in 2005 of Javad Marshall-Fields and 
Vivan Wolfe. Marshall-Fields was a witness who was scheduled to testify against 
Ray in a trial over the shooting death of another man.

Rafferty oversaw Owens' trial in Arapahoe County District Court. By law, that 
means he was also the judge to handle the 1st step of Owens' appeal, which has 
stretched on for years and involved dozens of weeks of new hearings. January, 
Rafferty reached mandatory retirement age but struck a deal to resume sitting 
on the bench on a contract basis in March.

In between, though, he worked briefly as a defense attorney in private 
practice. In April, the State Court Administrator's Office announced that the 
outside work meant Rafferty had violated his employment contract with the 
state. He was removed from the bench, and Owens??? appeal was ultimately 
reassigned to another retired judge, who could have to conduct many of the 
appellate hearings all over again.

At the time of his firing, Rafferty's time sheets indicate he was about to 
issue his long-awaited final ruling on Owens' appeal. Owens' attorneys say that 
order would have addressed allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the case, 
though prosecutors deny doing anything wrong. In the petition, Owens' lawyers 
say they weren't told of concerns about Rafferty's outside work, nor have they 
been told who ultimately made the decision to terminate Rafferty's contract and 
what sort of procedures were followed.

(source: Denver Post)






IDAHO:

Teacher remembered as 'wonderful' after being shot to death


Family members, friends and students are mourning the death of a popular 
teacher after investigators say she and her unborn child were brutally murdered 
this week.

A family member found the body of Jennifer S. Nalley, 39, in front of her cabin 
north of Driggs Tuesday morning.

A Jackson, Wyoming man was charged in a Teton County, Idaho court yesterday, 
July 6, for murdering Nalley, who was his girlfriend.

Erik Martin Ohlson, 39, was picked up early Tuesday morning by sheriff's 
deputies near the intersection of Highway 33 and 2500 North in Driggs, Idaho, 
where he had crashed his truck into a power pole.

Ohlson was arrested for driving under the influence and for possessing an open 
beverage container. He was then transported to the Madison County Jail in 
Rexburg.

During the arrest process, Ohlson observed to a sheriff's deputy that he had 
"bigger problems than a DUI and crash" to worry about.

The next morning, at about 11:20 am, the Teton County Sheriff's Office 911 
Dispatch received a call that a relative had found the body of Nalley.

Nalley moved to Driggs in November 2015. She was a physics and math teacher in 
Austin Texas prior. She graduated from Texas State University with Bachelor of 
Science in 2008.

Nalley, who was pregnant, was found with multiple gunshot wounds by sheriff's 
deputies.

The Teton County Fire Department found a Glock model 30 handgun on the north 
side of the road not far from Nalley's residence. According to the sheriff's 
office, the gun "was the same caliber used in the shooting."

That night, Ohlson, who had remained in custody, was interviewed by 
investigators.

The affidavit of probable cause submitted by the investigators said that Ohlson 
admitted to being Nalley's boyfriend, and knowing that she was pregnant for 
weeks.

On the night of the incident, Ohlson said he had been drinking and arrived at 
Nalley's residence that night, "intending to scare" her.

He said he arrived at her front door with his loaded handgun in his back 
pocket. When Nalley came to the door, he said he shot her multiple times, 
"until his gun ran out of bullets."

Ohlson then claimed to leave the scene, "trying to get the courage to kill 
himself." He told investigators he was unable to shoot himself and "threw the 
weapon to the side of the road, went back to his truck and drove away."

Ohlson claimed he intentionally tried to take his life by driving into the 
power pole where he was later found and taken into custody.

Ohlson appeared in court via video Wednesday afternoon on 2 counts of 
1st-degree murder. His next hearing will take place on July 20, 2016. He could 
face maximum penalties, up to and including the death penalty.

Nalley was a member of the Jackson Hole Juggernauts roller derby team and went 
by the name Pixie Tourette.

Her team released the following statement Wednesday evening:

"We are mourning the loss of our dear friend Pixie Tourette. She was the most 
oddly brilliant and wonderful person we've ever met. Fiercely loyal, 
wonderfully inviting - she lived life like we all should. She had no apologies 
for the unique, quirky, lovely soul that she was. She always gave 100% to her 
team, family, students and friends. Roller Derby Queen, physics nerd, punk rock 
enthusiast - you were lucky to have met her. We are extremely devastated, and 
our thoughts are with her family, friends, and derby sisters."

(source: eastidahonews.com)






CALIFORNIA:

California's Dangerous Potential New Death Penalty Initiative----At a time when 
more inmates on death row die from suicide than execution, the Death Penalty 
Reform and Savings Act could cement California as the new death belt.


31 years ago, Kevin Cooper was sentenced to death by a California court for the 
brutal murder of 4 people in a ranch house in Chino Hills, a middle-class 
suburb of Los Angeles.

The bodies of Douglas and Peggy Ryen, their 10-year-old daughter Jessica, and a 
family friend, 11-year-old Chris Hughes, were all found stabbed to death. Josh 
Ryen, the couple's 8-year-old son, managed to survive the attack.

>From the start, Cooper's case has been besieged with controversy: Cooper has 
steadfastly maintained his innocence; the San Bernardino County Sheriff's 
Department destroyed and concealed important evidence; and the case was the 1st 
to make use of then-new DNA testing. One 9th Circuit Judge went so far as to 
write that Cooper "is either guilty as sin or he was framed by the police." In 
a scene seemingly taken straight from The Making of a Murderer, there are 
allegations that the police planted physical evidence implicating Cooper and 
concealed statements from eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen three white men 
leaving the crime scene on the night of the murders.

While no definitive evidence has been found to confirm Cooper's guilt, he 
remains on death row. That's because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
Penalty Act of 1996 constrains his ability to present new evidence. The AEDPA, 
passed during Bill Clinton's administration, was one of a number of laws and 
regulations designed to prevent what were seen as an unending string of appeals 
afforded to those facing execution, particularly those who were claiming 
innocence as a result of newly discovered evidence.

But even judges involved in Cooper's case have expressed doubt as to his guilt: 
One judge on the 9th Circuit called the ruling "wholly discomforting." In 2009, 
the 9th Circuit denied en banc review of Cooper's case, and the powerful 
dissent, joined by 4 other judges, begins: "The State of California may be 
about to execute an innocent man."

Cooper is 1 of 747 people on California's death row, and 1 of the 16 who have 
now exhausted all of his appeals. He faces execution if the backers of the 
(confusingly named) new pro-death penalty initiative, California Death Penalty 
Reform and Savings Act of 2016, have anything to do with it.

Amid declining support for the death penalty across the nation -19 states have 
eliminated it entirely, and 2015 saw a record low in the number of death 
sentences and executions doled out - there's been a joint endorsement by the 
California District Attorneys Association, law enforcement, and a majority of 
prosecutors across the state to enact the CDPRSA. They argue it will fix the 
death penalty.

That's a potentially major shift in a state where more people on death row die 
from suicide than have been executed, and where more inmates have died of 
natural causes (60) than have been executed (13) since 1978. (Visiting San 
Quentin's death row in 2015, the Los Angeles Times described a harrowing scene 
of wheelchairs lining the hallways.) Meanwhile, death row has cost California 
taxpayers $4 billion since it was reinstated in 1978. A Los Angeles Times story 
describes at least 20 death row inmates who are likely "permanently 
incompetent" - deemed to be unqualified for execution because of mental 
illness. While the CDPRSA is being hailed by some as a panacea to prison bloat, 
there's simply no research to support the notion that speeding up executions 
will save money - money that could be better used to solve cold cases or fund 
public defenders.

The death penalty in California has been headed toward extinction for a long 
time. Reinstated in 1978, death sentences, while technically legal, have been 
trapped in a morass of case law, further exacerbated by the unavailability of 
the execution drugs and the desperate attempts by the California Department of 
Corrections and Rehabilitation to write a new lethal injection protocol that 
survived the challenges of advocacy groups. As a result, no one has been 
executed in California since 2006.

With the exception of a few outlier counties, death sentences have gone down 
across the United States. Last year saw the lowest number of death sentences 
and executions in the last 2 decades. According to the Death Penalty 
Information Center, there were 49 death sentences issued in the U.S. in 2015, 
14 of which were in California, more than any other state. (Texas, long a 
staple of the "death belt," had only 2.) These 14 death sentences were not 
evenly distributed throughout the state-Riverside County alone had 8.

There's simply no research to support the notion that speeding up executions 
will save money.

Though California hasn't executed anyone in a decade, certain counties in 
California continue to sentence people to execution at disproportionately high 
rates. As legal expert and senior researcher at the Charles Hamilton Houston 
Institute for Race and Justice's Rob Smith explains, these outlier counties 
account for almost all of the death sentences in the U.S. It so happens that 5 
of these counties are in California-Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, 
Orange, and Kern.

Kern, Orange, and San Bernardino counties have produced more death sentences 
than the three most death-loving Texas counties, despite having fewer people. 
Riverside County, which is home to just 6 % of California's population, has 
produced over 50 % of last year's death sentences, more than Los Angeles 
County, which has over 3 times as many people. Most experts argue that these 
death sentences are the result of overzealous prosecutions, not increased 
crime.

So, is the CDPRSA a ploy to cement Southern California as the new death belt?

The immediate risk posed by the CDPRSA is that innocent people will be 
executed. 3 men have been exonerated from California's death row since its 
reinstatement. And while the district attorney of San Bernardino, Michael Ramos 
(who is sponsoring the initiative and is running to replace Kamala Harris as 
attorney general of California), told me that "California has never executed an 
innocent person," those who know the Tommy Thompson case might disagree. 
Thompson, who was convicted in 1984 in Orange County largely on the basis of 
snitch testimony, went to the execution chamber with many people still 
asserting his innocence. And, despite evidence to the contrary, Ramos remains 
similarly convinced of Cooper's guilt.

Supporters of the CDPRSA argue it will save money and help victims - namely, by 
double-celling death row inmates and saving on their health care and other 
housing expenditures. But there's little evidence to support this argument. In 
fact, there's reason to think the initiative will cost more money than is 
currently being spent on death row, because it moves death cases to the front 
of the docket, pushing out other cases and jamming courts.

Further, the $4 billion that has been spent on death row has come at the cost 
of other public-safety provisions, particularly in the counties that seem to 
favor executions the most. In 2010, the California Supreme Court held that at 
least 18 cases in Riverside against people accused of felonies and serious 
misdemeanors were dismissed because of the "fault or neglect" of the county 
government; the new death penalty initiative would seem to further strain a 
system that has already proven insufficient.

There is also little to no reason to think that victims' families benefit from 
a death sentence. Take the case of Scott Dekraai in Orange County - if the 
prosecutors there gave up the death penalty, the case would be over because no 
one questions Dekraai's guilt. Instead, the Orange County district attorney's 
pursuit of a death sentence, in light of substantial police and prosecutorial 
misconduct, just means the case will be stalled for decades. "Stop the madness. 
Take the death penalty off the table and end all the appeals, all the court 
appearances," a victim's sister said in the local press.

Rather than creating justice, speeding up the death penalty increases the risk 
of a dreadful mistake, all to satisfy a handful of prosecutors who should be 
focused on following the law, not making it. Courts will be blocked up and 
costs will increase. And while the Supreme Court decided not to take up the 
issue of whether the death penalty itself violates the 8th Amendment, Justice 
Stephen Breyer has given hints that he is watching the issue closely.

California's showdown on whether the death penalty should be resuscitated will 
indeed be an interesting battleground to watch.

(source: psmag.com)

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

Loretta Sanchez backs repeal of California's death penalty


Decrying California's administration of capital punishment as unfair, 
inefficient and ineffective, U.S. Senate candidate Loretta Sanchez on Wednesday 
endorsed a fall ballot initiative to repeal the state's long-dormant death 
penalty.

"Despite decades of research, commentary and judicial review, the death penalty 
in California remains an ineffective deterrent and does not meet the 
constitutional standards of due process," Sanchez, a veteran Democratic 
congresswoman from Orange County, said in a prepared statement announcing the 
endorsement.

The measure, which will appear in the Nov. 8 ballot as Proposition 62, is being 
advanced by former M*A*S*H star Mike Farrell. It would replace the death 
penalty with life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

While California has not executed a death row inmate since 2006, supporters say 
the measure is needed to guard against a process they consider costly, inhumane 
and destined to end the life of people who are wrongly convicted.

"When society undertakes to impose the ultimate sentence on its citizens it 
must meet the most stringent standards of fairness and due process," Sanchez 
said.

The race to succeed departing Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer pits Sanchez 
against California Attorney General Kamala Harris. Harris does not take 
positions on ballot measures because of her office's role in preparing their 
titles and summaries.

Still, Harris has long opposed the death penalty, a position that nearly 
sidetracked her rise in California politics when her 2010 opponent, then-Los 
Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, a Republican, criticized Harris 
for refusing to seek the death penalty for the 2004 killer of San Francisco 
police Officer Isaac Espinoza.

As attorney general, Harris promised to follow the law, and even defended the 
death penalty in court. She reiterated her personal opposition in a recent 
interview with The Sacramento Bee???s editorial board.

"Your question asks, 'How will it end?' My answer is, 'With the voters.'" 
Harris said. "I think, ultimately, the voters of California are going to make 
the decision."

(source: Sacramento Bee)






USA:

Public defender: Solicitor 'reckless' in quest to try Dylann Roof


Charleston's top public defender said in a court filing Wednesday that a state 
prosecutor's attempt to try Dylann Roof before federal authorities is "reckless 
and shortsighted."

Ninth Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson asked a state judge last month to set 
Roof's death penalty trial sooner than the Nov. 7 federal proceeding. She cited 
legal rules calling for the jurisdiction that first charges a defendant to 
first impose a sentence.

But Circuit Public Defender Ashley Pennington called her argument "inaccurate 
and misleading." Such a shuffle risks violating Roof's due process rights, 
which could jeopardize the trial's outcome on appeal, and the legal fight over 
it has created an "unseemly spectacle," he said.

The effort "to move the trial even earlier is just the sort of reckless and 
shortsighted ... tactic that has led to reversals and retrials," Pennington 
wrote in the document. "Altering the established trial dates ... will serve no 
interest but her own desire."

The filing is the latest salvo amid a conundrum posed by 2 jurisdictions 
seeking Roof's execution at the same time - a 1st in history. A judge did not 
immediately rule on whether to adjust the Jan. 17 state trial date.

"We stand on our (memo supporting the change) and believe it accurately 
highlights legitimate issues in this case," Wilson said Wednesday. "The 
defense's response does not alleviate my concerns."

Pennington shed light on how hard state judges also have pushed to try Roof 
quickly.

In June 2015, Roof was accused of fatally shooting 9 black people at Emanuel 
AME Church. The white supremacist's hatred fueled his crimes, authorities said. 
Pennington said he learned when Roof appeared for a bond hearing 2 days later 
that the state's then-chief justice, Jean Toal, had asked a local circuit judge 
to try the case promptly. The judge, J.C. Nicholson, suggested a March date, 
only 9 months after the shooting. That was too soon, Pennington protested.

The trial was later set for July but eventually postponed to January when 
Roof's lawyers said they needed time to finish a mental health evaluation.

Perturbed by the delay in the state case and the defense team's request for a 
speedy trial in federal court, where people are less likely to get the death 
penalty, Wilson asked Nicholson to speed up the process because South Carolina 
would actually carry out the punishment. The state also has "primary custody" 
of Roof, Wilson said, meaning that he might have to serve his sentence in that 
jurisdiction before the federal one.

In his pointed response, Pennington said none of the legal precedents cited in 
Wilson's argument support her theory that the state might not give up custody 
of Roof for a federal death sentence to be imposed. He called the contention 
"simply ludicrous."

Pennington added that FBI agents were the 1st and only investigators to do a 
recorded interview with Roof after his arrest in North Carolina. Federal 
authorities, though, didn't indict him until the next month.

Miller Shealy, a local attorney and former federal prosecutor, agreed with 
Wilson that it would be unusual for a current prisoner to be transferred to 
serve a sentence in a different jurisdiction. While the issue sounds like a 
technicality, Shealy said, it could be problematic later on.

It's also unusual for the Department of Justice to simultaneously prosecute 
someone, he said. The agency typically comes in after a state case fails, such 
as the one that prompted the acquittals of Los Angeles police officers in 
Rodney King's 1991 beating.

"Usually, the feds don't jump in unless there's a miscarriage of justice," he 
said. "It baffles me as to why this is the case that the DOJ jumped in on. As a 
result, there are too many cooks in the kitchen."

(source: The Post and Courier)