[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., S.C., ARK., COLO., USA

[Rick Halperin]

July 13



PENNSYLVANIA:

Judge upholds death penalty for Frein


A Pike County Court judge denied 2 requests from the attorney of Eric Matthew 
Frein, who is accused of killing 1 state trooper and wounding another in a 
September 2014 ambush.

The Honorable Gregory H. Chelak turned away a motion to take the death penalty 
off the table, and another motion that "aggravated circumstances" had occurred 
during Frein's arrest.

Frein was arrested after an extensive monthlong manhunt, after he fatally shot 
State Trooper Cpl. Bryon Dickson and seriously wounded Trooper Alex Douglass. 
The case caught national attention.

Frein's attorney, Michael E. Weinstein, said that due to "aggravated 
circumstances" during Frein's arrest, the case should be tried as a non-capital 
case. He argued that the death penalty should be taken off the table 
altogether, calling it was unconstitutional.

In the court documents, the judge said recent developments in Pennsylvania do 
not apply to the Frein case, specifically: Governor Tom Wolf's temporary 
moratorium on the death penalty, and the report from the Pennsylvania Supreme 
Court's Committee on Racial and Gender Bias in the Justice System and the 
American Bar Assessment Team stating that the "death penalty in Pennsylvania 
has not been administered in an 'evenhanded manner,' and in substantial 
noncompliance with American Bar Association's guidelines."

Judge Chelak said the supreme court's decision didn't deny Pennsylvania the 
right to have death penalty, and that the temporary reprieve ruling said the 
governor does have the right to do so.

Chelak also dismissed the idea that the death penalty is unconstitutional.

"Supreme Court has recognized the continued application of the death penalty in 
appropriate capital cases," he said.

Frein is charged with Murder of the 1st Degree and Murder of a Law Enforcement 
Officer in the 1st Degree. By Pennsylvania Criminal Code, "a person convicted 
of one of both of the aforementioned Murder offenses shall be sentenced to 
death or a term of life imprisonment."

In a separate, earlier ruling, the judge stated that Frein's trial will take 
place in Pike County, but that jurors will be brought in from outside the 
county.

(source: Pike County Courier)

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

Death penalty demands strong defenders ---- Take the case of Mark Spotz.


In 1995, the Clearfield County man went on a rampage in 4 Pennsylvania 
counties, killing 4 people, including 1 in York County.

His crimes were beyond senseless. They were beyond brutal. They were heinous.

If anyone deserves to die strapped to a gurney at the State Correctional 
Institution at Rockview, it is Mr. Spotz.

That is clearly an emotional argument. The reality of the matter is that during 
his trials, Mr. Spotz chose to defend himself. The old joke, any defendant who 
chooses to do so has a fool for a client, has some validity. It could be said 
that Mr. Spotz did not receive adequate legal representation, especially 
considering the gravity of the offenses and the ultimate penalty.

That is a difficult argument to make, since Mr. Spotz chose, by his free will, 
out of either hubris or stupidity, to act as his own attorney.

Mr. Spotz has been appealing his multiple death sentences. After his initial 
appeals had been exhausted, the Federal Community Defender Office became 
involved in his case. The non-profit organization has expertise in death 
penalty cases and is permitted to represent some of the most notorious and 
reprehensible killers on death row in state court.

In the course of Mr. Spotz's appeals, former state Supreme Court Chief Justice 
Ronald Castille was highly critical of the office, writing, in essence, that 
its attorneys were too good at their jobs, litigating death penalty cases with 
the kind of thoroughness and attention to detail that you would expect from a 
private law firm with more than adequate resources.

"A zealous representation of your client - that's fine," he said in a recent 
interview. "But being a zealot is different."

Maybe it's a fine line.

But does not change the simple fact that, no matter how you feel about the 
death penalty, our justice system demands that a person facing the loss of his 
or her life for committing the most terrible offenses receive the best legal 
representation possible.

That's why some death-row inmates - including 4 current condemned men from York 
County - have sought representation by the Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal 
Community Defender Office. The organization specializes in representing 
death-row inmates, a specialty that few legal general practitioners focus upon.

The office, which gets some of its funding from the federal government, usually 
practices in federal courts, and not all of the agency's offices become 
involved in what are considered state-level cases.

But in Pennsylvania, the office serves a definite purpose. The commonwealth is 
the only state in the country that does not provide funding for defense counsel 
in capital cases in instances in which defendants cannot afford attorneys.

Its attorneys are thorough. Benjamin Lerner, a former Philadelphia Common Pleas 
Court judge, said that whenever one of the office's attorneys appeared in his 
court, he knew he would have to work "awfully hard." The attorneys, he said, 
litigated every relevant issue, and those cases did not return to his court 
with appeals citing inadequate counsel.

Lerner summed it well: "We have no right, I think, as a society to say, 'On the 
one hand we want to have the death penalty, but on the other hand, we aren't 
going to provide the resources for a constitutionally adequate defense for 
people who we're seeking to put to death,'" he said.

That is the issue in a nutshell. And it provides more than enough justification 
for Gov. Tom Wolf's 2015 moratorium on executions, an executive decision that, 
by the way, has been upheld by the state Supreme Court.

Prosecutors had sought to forbid the office from representing defendants in 
state court, citing, among other things, jurisdictional issues, a tactic that 
was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The court's 
chief judge, Theodore McKee, wrote that systemic attempts to disqualify the 
office's lawyers was "all the more perplexing and regrettable" considering the 
volume of evidence suggesting that inadequate representation risks gross 
miscarriages of justice.

The bottom line is that our Constitution requires even those accused of the 
most heinous acts receive more-than-adequate representation in court. That is 
essential for our criminal justice system to function properly.

Without it, we not only violate the rights of people like Mark Spotz, but we 
also diminish ourselves.

(source: Editorial Board, York Daily Record)






SOUTH CAROLINA:

Solicitor: Justice unlikely in federal church slayings trial


A federal trial for the man charged in the slayings of nine black church 
members is unlikely to deliver the death penalty and he should be tried in 
state court first, where there is a better chance for capital punishment, a 
prosecutor said.

Dylann Roof, 22, faces possible death sentences in state court, where he is 
charged with murder, and in federal court, where he is charged with hate crimes 
and other counts. The charges stem from the slayings of 9 black parishioners 
during a Bible study at Emanuel AME Church in June 2015.

Roof, who is white, posed with the Confederate battle flag before the killings 
and talked of trying to start a race war.

Currently, the federal trial is set for November while the state case is 
scheduled for January.

"The federal government's track record suggests an unwillingness to carry out a 
death sentence," prosecutor Scarlett Wilson wrote in court documents filed late 
Tuesday.

She renewed her request that judges in the state and federal cases get together 
and set a trial schedule that lets South Carolina try Roof first.

Circuit Judge J.C. Nicholson, the state judge, has set a hearing on the matter 
Wednesday.

Wilson said the federal government hasn't carried out a death sentence in 
years. The last person executed by the federal government was in 2003.

"A federal trial may be unnecessary to achieve justice for Roof if a state 
trial results in a death sentence since the state sentence would be carried out 
before any federal sentence," the documents said.

Public Defender Ashley Pennington, who is defending Roof in state court, said 
earlier that if Wilson wants justice, she should accept Dylann Roof's offer to 
plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence. Roof's attorneys in the federal 
case have made a similar offer.

Complicating the trial schedule is a 2nd high-profile case.

Wilson is also slated to try former North Charleston police officer Michael 
Slager in the April 2015 shooting death of black motorist Walter Scott. That 
trial is now set for Oct. 31 and will likely be underway at the time of Roof's 
federal trial.

Slager is also charged in federal court, but the federal trial has not yet been 
scheduled.

(source: Associated Press)






ARKANSAS:

Arkansas Governor Hopes To Start Executions By January


Gov. Asa Hutchinson is hoping Arkansas will resume executing death row inmates 
before January, when 1 of the 3 drugs used in the state's lethal injection 
mixture will expire.

On Tuesday the Arkansas Department of Correction announced the state had 
replenished supplies of a different drug, the paralytic vecuronium bromide, 
which expired last month.

Talking with reporters Wednesday, the Republican governor praised a recent 
state law that keeps suppliers of lethal injection drugs secret.

"The confidentiality law had the desired effect and increased the opportunity 
for that supply," Hutchinson said. "The next step is to await the mandate from 
the Arkansas Supreme Court. Nothing can proceed until the mandate is issued on 
the pending cases. Once the mandate is issued the attorney general will take 
the next step to advise of any individuals who are subject to execution and 
request that dates be set. It'll be my obligation under law to set the dates."

Last month the Arkansas Supreme Court determined the state's secrecy law was 
constitutional, but the ruling won't go into effect until justices consider a 
petition by 8 death row inmates to re-hear the case. The governor said he'll be 
ready to act expediently if the re-hearing issue is resolved in the state's 
favor.

"I certainly would expect to set dates before January, absolutely," he said. 
"It's been way too long and painful for the victims and their families. We 
would set the dates without any undue delay. As to how many requests are sent 
by the attorney general remains to be seen, as to whose dates will be set 
remains to be seen and the specific timeframes ... but it is my job as chief 
executive to faithfully execute the laws."

There are 34 Arkansans on death, all our male. 18 are black and 16 are white. A 
U.S. Census Bureau report from 2015 identified 15.7 % of the state's population 
as African-Americans. The demographic makes up 45 % of those on death row. When 
asked, Governor Hutchinson said there is no evidence of racial biases at play 
in who receives the death penalty in Arkansas.

"That's the kind of question that is resolved by constitutional challenges to 
convictions. In each of the instances that are before the court ... the Supreme 
Court now, that has been affirmed and we're waiting to mandate on ... there has 
been no constitutional issue raised that has been found to have merit by the 
court and therefore it's my duty to execute the law based on the Supreme 
Court's review and affirmation of the convictions," said Hutchinson.

The governor continued, "In terms of more broad criminal justice reform, it is 
a very legitimate point of evaluation to make sure our criminal justice system 
is working fairly and that we're incarcerating the right people and that 
there's not any racial bias in our system. I hope we continue to debate it and 
try to get it right and that we listen to each other when there are legitimate 
concerns to be raise."

The state has not held an execution since 2005, largely due to legal challenges 
and drug supply issues.

(source: ualrpublicradio.org)






COLORADO:

Questions raised in 2nd death penalty case over judge's firing --- Lawyer for 
death row inmate Robert Ray wants answers in Judge Gerald Rafferty's removal


A lawyer for a 2nd Colorado death row inmate has filed a lawsuit seeking 
answers about why a judge who once presided over 2 of the state's most 
high-profile appeals was removed from both.

The lawsuit, filed last week in Denver District Court, accuses state court 
officials of violating open-records rules in not revealing more about what led 
to the dismissal of Judge Gerald Rafferty.

Rafferty was fired in April from his contract position in Arapahoe County 
District Court as he was about to issue a final order in an appeal involving 
death row inmate Sir Mario Owens. The new lawsuit, though, also raises 
questions about why Rafferty was removed months earlier from overseeing the 
appeal of Robert Ray, who was convicted in connection with the same killings as 
Owens and was also sentenced to death. The 2 cases are the only ongoing death 
penalty appeals in Colorado.

"If Judge Rafferty was removed from Mr. Ray's case for reasons that have 
anything to do with the content of his finished order in Mr. Owens' case, this 
would have as much of an effect on Mr. Ray's case as it would have on Mr. 
Owens' case," the lawsuit states.

Rafferty presided over the trials for both Owens and Ray, both of whom were 
found guilty of murder in the 2005 deaths of Javad Marshall-Fields and Vivian 
Wolfe in Aurora. By law, that meant Rafferty would also oversee the 1st review 
of the convictions on appeal.

In January, after working for more than 3 years on a ruling in Owens' appeal, 
Rafferty reached the state's mandatory retirement age for judges and had to 
step down. In March, he was re-hired on a contract basis to finish his order in 
Owens' case.

However, in April, court officials abruptly ended his contract and Colorado 
Supreme Court Chief Justice Nancy Rice rescinded his appointment over 
allegations that Rafferty had breached the terms of his employment deal. The 
deal prohibited Rafferty from performing outside work while also serving as a 
judge. Rafferty had worked between January and March at the Denver law firm of 
Collins & Coldwell, a fact e-mails suggest the State Court Administrator's 
Office may have been aware of prior to the start of Rafferty's judge contract. 
Court officials have not said whether they believe Rafferty continued to work 
at the firm after resuming the bench.

By the time he was fired, though, Rafferty was no longer in charge of Ray's 
appeal. Court records show that Arapahoe County Chief Judge Carlos Samour Jr. 
transferred Ray's appeal away from Rafferty and to himself in November 2015. 
The new lawsuit alleges that Samour "apparently did not tell Judge Rafferty" 
about the transfer for a month. Both Ray's and Owens' appeals have since been 
assigned to other judges.

Earlier this month, lawyers for Owens unsuccessfully asked the state Supreme 
Court to order more information released about Rafferty's firing and also to 
overturn his dismissal. Lawyers for Owens said they believed Rafferty, in his 
never-released final order in Owens' appeal, would have addressed several 
defense allegations of prosecutorial misconduct that could have led to a new 
trial for Owens.

In the new lawsuit, an attorney for Ray, Mary Claire Mulligan, is suing 2 
officials in the State Court Administrator's Office, alleging they violated the 
court system's public-records rules by withholding information about why 
Rafferty was removed from Ray's appeal and later fired. Mulligan says she asked 
for copies of e-mails about Rafferty going back to the start of 2015 but that 
much of her request was denied based on privacy justifications. Court officials 
have not yet responded to the lawsuit.

(source: The Denver Post)






USA:

Texas Sens. Cornyn, Cruz propose bill to make killing of cop a federal crime


2 senators from Texas introduced legislation making it a federal crime to kill 
a police officer nearly 1 week after 5 officers in Dallas were killed by a 
sniper.

Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, both Republicans, co-sponsored the Black and 
Blue Act of 2016, which would make it a federal crime to kill a law enforcement 
office, public safety officer, or federal judge, and carries a mandatory 
minimum sentence of 30 years and the possibility of the death penalty.

The bill also increases penalties for the attempted murder of a police officer, 
and would make it legal for officers to carry their firearms into federal 
buildings.

"Law enforcement officers selflessly put their lives on the line every day to 
protect our communities, and in return they deserve our unparalleled support 
for the irreplaceable role they serve," Cornyn said in a statement . "The Back 
the Blue Act sends a clear message that our criminal justice system simply will 
not tolerate those who viciously and deliberately target our law enforcement."

The bill is being publicly supported by the National Fraternal Order of Police, 
the National District Attorneys Association, the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Sergeants 
Benevolent Association, and the Department of Justice's VALOR program.

(source: United Press International)