[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----S.DAK., NEB., COLO., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

July 8



SOUTH DAKOTA:

Death penalty upheld in 1992 murder of Rapid City man at doughnut shop


The U.S. District Court for South Dakota has upheld the conviction and death 
sentence for a man convicted in the 1992 murder of a 22-year-old Rapid City man 
who was stabbed to death at a doughnut shop.

According to state Attorney General Marty Jackley, the motions filed by Charles 
Russell Rhines were denied by the federal court. Rhines had sought a motion for 
habeas corpus relief and to amend the penalty he received.

Rhines was convicted in the murder of 22-year-old Donnivan Schaeffer in Rapid 
City on March 8, 1992.

Rhines, now 59, was charged with fatally stabbing Donnivan Schaeffer, 22, 
during a burglary at a Rapid City doughnut shop in March 1992. Schaeffer, a 
part-time employee at the shop, walked in on Rhines while he was robbing the 
shop.

"The Federal Court's ruling affirms that Charles Russell Rhines' murder 
conviction and capital sentence for the horrific murder of Donnivan Shaeffer 
are constitutional. My thoughts and prayers are with the Schaeffer family, who 
have waited 24 years for justice in this case," Jackley said in a news release 
on Thursday.

A Pennington County jury convicted Rhines of 1st degree murder in 1993 and 
returned a sentence of death. Rhines' conviction and death sentence were 
affirmed on direct appeal by the South Dakota Supreme Court in 1996. Rhines' 
conviction and sentence were also affirmed on state habeas proceedings by the 
state trial court and South Dakota Supreme Court.

With the conclusion of his federal trial court habeas corpus proceedings, 
Rhines can file a notice of appeal within 30 days to the United States Court of 
Appeals for the 8th Circuit and, ultimately, to the United States Supreme 
Court. Rhines must obtain permission from the federal court to pursue an 
appeal.

(source: Rapid City Journal)






NEBRASKA:

Nebraska Supreme Court rejects challenge to death penalty petition drive


The Nebraska Supreme Court has rejected a legal challenge of a ballot question 
that asks voters to reinstate the death penalty.

Lawyers for death penalty opponents had argued a successful petition drive was 
legally invalid because organizers failed to list Gov. Pete Ricketts as a 
sponsor. Ricketts and his family gave $300,000 to the petition drive in 2015 
after the Nebraska Legislature overrode the governor's veto of death penalty 
repeal legislation.

"The alleged failure to include his name in the list of sponsors did not make 
the referendum petition legally insufficient," Judge Lindsey Miller-Lerman 
wrote in the court's opinion. The high court upheld the decision of Lancaster 
County District Judge Lori Maret.

The legal requirement to list sponsors is intended to let voters know which 
individuals, organizations or corporations are behind a petition drive before 
signatures are collected.

Friday's ruling paves the way for the ballot question to appear before voters 
when they go to the polls Nov. 8.

(source: Omaha World-Herald)

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

High court: Ricketts not a 'sponsor' of death penalty referendum


Death penalty opponents lost a bid Friday to keep the question of whether the 
ultimate penalty should return to Nebraska off the ballot in November.

Christy and Richard Hargesheimer of Lincoln had sought an injunction to keep 
Secretary of State John Gale from placing the question on the ballot, saying 
the petition drive that gathered some 169,000 signatures failed to disclose 
Gov. Pete Ricketts as a sponsor.

But the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state and a pro-death 
penalty group, which argued that Ricketts wasn't a sponsor, despite the fact 
that he and his father contributed 1/3 of the $913,000 raised by Nebraskans for 
the Death Penalty and his close allies took roles to promote it.

In Friday's order, Supreme Court Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman said sponsors 
are individuals or entities who assume responsibility for the initiative or 
referendum process, so Ricketts would not be required to be listed as one.

Lawmakers didn't define "sponsor" or say what it meant to sponsor a petition in 
the statute, which left it a question for the court to decide.

Attorneys for the Hargesheimers contended it was important for the public to 
know about Ricketts' contributions, both financial and otherwise. But the 
state's high court found that the disclosure of financial backers was met by 
other statutes that require their identification.

And the court affirmed Lancaster County District Judge Lori Maret's dismissal 
of the suit in February.

(source: Lincoln Journal Star)






COLORADO:

Lack of answers in Colorado Supreme Court's firing of judge unacceptable


The remarkable removal of a judge from a death-penalty appeal shortly before he 
was set to make a significant ruling demands public explanation. Lawyers for 
convicted murderer and death-row inmate Sir Mario Owens are right about that, 
whatever the value of the remaining claims they made in a legal filing last 
week with the state Supreme Court.

Judge Gerald Rafferty's dismissal from Owens' case in April may in fact have 
been justified. But who can tell given the secrecy surrounding the process by 
which the Colorado Supreme Court yanked Rafferty off the case. A press release 
that said Rafferty "breached the terms of the contract" as a senior judge 
hardly qualifies as sufficient.

"To remove a sitting judge ... at exactly the same moment that he was issuing 
his final order, which would largely decide Mr. Owens' fate and whether he 
lives or dies, is literally unprecedented, not only in a Colorado case of this 
magnitude, but in the annals of law," Owens' lawyers wrote.

It is also costly, since it negates much of the lengthy hearings held in 
Rafferty's courtroom. Evidence will have to be presented anew and witnesses 
required to repeat their testimony. This may be unavoidable, but it is also 
extraordinary. What did Rafferty do to merit such treatment?

The public interest goes well beyond the extra price tag, too. Owens' attorneys 
contend that Rafferty was poised to find major flaws in the original 
prosecution. The dark implication of interference is obvious, and should not be 
allowed to linger when a straightforward explanation for Rafferty's departure 
could clear the air.

Yet on Wednesday the high court refused to reconsider pulling Rafferty, and it 
did so with a terse, one-page order that provided no explanation for the 
denial.

Ironically, Owens' appeal involves one of the first tests of what a Denver Post 
article by John Ingold describes as a "new process for death-penalty appeals in 
Colorado, which lawmakers hoped would speed up the execution process. Instead, 
the system has bogged down, mired for years without even clearing the 1st step 
in the process."

But such delays are par for the course in death-penalty cases. Despite 1 
attempt after another by diehard proponents of capital punishment to see the 
penalty enforced, Colorado has had only 2 executions in the past half century, 
with the most recent occurring nearly 20 years ago. Meanwhile, juries have 
become reluctant to mandate death even for the likes of heinous mass murderers 
such as James Holmes and Dexter Lewis.

Owens was convicted in 2008 for a crime that occurred 11 years ago, and his 
case could easily drag on for additional years. If nothing else, this latest 
strange saga of his appeal should provide more evidence to lawmakers that the 
death penalty statute is not working and cannot be made to work. It's time that 
it was repealed.

(source: Editorial, Fort Morgan Times)






CALIFORNIA:

Death penalty is destructive to California


In 1978, my family wrote and sponsored the ballot initiative that expanded the 
death penalty back to California. We worked tirelessly to pass the initiative, 
putting in long days gathering signatures and late nights stuffing envelopes. 
Instituting the death penalty, we thought, would save Californians money, bring 
safety to our communities and provide closure to victims' families.

We could not have been more wrong.

Though I was once California's biggest proponent of the death penalty, I now 
feel compelled to admit the policy is destructive to our great state. What we 
didn't know then is that the death penalty would become an industry that 
benefits only attorneys and criminals, and no one else. It's an extreme expense 
to taxpayers, does not make our communities safer and fails to deliver the 
justice it promised.

Since the initiative became law, California taxpayers have unknowingly spent 
more than $5 billion to maintain a death row that now houses 747 convicted 
criminals. During this time, only 13 people have been put to death, at an 
eye-popping price tag of $384 million per execution.

Beyond its economic burden, the death penalty in California is a myth.

Not a single individual has been executed in the past 10 years because of many 
problems. An exhaustive appeals process, guaranteed by our Constitution, can 
drag on for decades. Meanwhile, death row inmates are kept in private cells, 
don't have to work and are afforded privileges they would not be getting in the 
general prison population.

Because of all this, the death penalty costs taxpayers 18 times more than a 
sentence of life in prison. So why are Californians paying for an exorbitant 
capital punishment program that does not accomplish justice?

The constitutionally mandated appeals keep the wounds of victims' families 
open. The death penalty does not make our communities any safer, either. New 
studies conclusively show that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. 
My family and I believed the death penalty would serve as the ultimate warning 
to criminals, but nearly 40 years of evidence proves it does not work.

Don't get me wrong - I'm still as tough on crime as I've ever been. I firmly 
believe those who committed the most heinous acts should do the hardest of time 
and never again see the light of day. But it's time to face facts: the ultimate 
punishment has become the ultimate failed government program.

Fortunately, we now have the chance to deliver real justice. The Justice That 
Works Act - Proposition 62 on the November ballot - would replace the death 
penalty with a punishment that brings swift and certain justice: life in prison 
without the possibility of parole.

Instead of paying for endless appeals, we would lock up the worst criminals and 
throw away the key forever. It would also force inmates to work and pay 
restitution to their victims' families while saving California taxpayers $150 
million annually - money that could go to programs that can prevent crime.

Another initiative on the ballot - Proposition 66 - promises to fix the death 
penalty by hiring more attorneys. But do not be deceived. It's a sloppy 
initiative that will make things worse.

Every attempt to fix the death penalty over the past 40 years has only made it 
slower and more expensive, wasting resources on criminals, attorneys and a 
bloated bureaucracy.

The only real solution is to replace the death penalty with life in prison 
without parole.

Like my family, California thought expanding the death penalty initiative was 
the right thing to do in 1978. We were wrong. Now as a state, we have the 
chance to end the wasteful program and maintain our commitment to tough justice 
by passing Proposition 62.

(source: Opinion; Ron Briggs is a former supervisor of El Dorado 
County----Sacramento Bee)






USA:

US Attorney pens letter to Charleston church shooting families


Acting U.S. Attorney Beth Drake has written an open letter to the relatives of 
9 black parishioners fatally shot in a Charleston church last year and to 3 
survivors of the shooting.

In a letter posted online Wednesday, Drake told the families that both the 
federal government and state prosecutors are seeking justice as they prepare to 
try accused shooter Dylann Roof.

The comment is Drake's 1st since taking over the office for Bill Nettles, who 
resigned last month as South Carolina's top federal prosecutor.

Roof's federal death penalty trial is set for Nov. 7. State prosecutors' 
capital case is scheduled for January, although state Solicitor Scarlett Wilson 
has said her case should go 1st.

In her letter, Drake calls Wilson a "terrific, capable, smart and excellent 
trial lawyer" who also at one point worked as a federal prosecutor. While it 
may seem at times state and federal officials disagree, Drake wrote, "at the 
end of the day, we are all after the same thing -- justice."

(source: Associated Press)