[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----N.C., OHIO, OKLA., USA

[Rick Halperin]

July 22




NORTH CAROLINA:

Panel moves closer to approving rule on innocence evidence


A North Carolina State Bar panel agreed Thursday on language requiring 
prosecutors to disclose evidence of innocence obtained after someone is 
convicted of a crime, advancing on a proposal to address wrongful convictions 
like rules adopted in a handful of other states.

The State Bar's ethics subcommittee, at a meeting in Chetola, agreed 
unanimously on wording for a proposed rule for what prosecutors should do with 
post-conviction evidence of innocence. The subcommittee is expected to meet 
later on a full draft proposal though no meeting date has been set.

Existing rules and law in North Carolina already address evidence obtained 
before and during a trial, but just 14 states have a rule about prosecutors and 
post-conviction evidence of innocence, according to the American Bar 
Association. It is recommending that the state approve such a rule.

The subcommittee also discussed how attorneys could disclose evidence without 
violating attorney-client privilege.

"The unanimous vote in support of the (prosecutor) rule is indicative of the 
times we're in - that people recognize that wrongful convictions happen," said 
attorney Chris Mumma, executive director of the N.C. Center on Actual 
Innocence, speaking by phone after the meeting.

The proposed rule for prosecutors would direct them on what to do when they 
learn of "new, credible evidence or information creating a reasonable 
likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the 
defendant was convicted." It includes a clause that would protect prosecutors 
who act in good faith even if their decision that the evidence didn't have to 
be disclosed proves to be incorrect.

Alice Mine, the State Bar's assistant executive director and ethics counsel, 
will write a formal proposal for the subcommittee to consider at its next 
meeting.

The 5-member subcommittee agreed in principle that any attorney who discovers 
post-conviction evidence of innocence must turn over that evidence as long as 
it doesn't breach attorney-client privilege or substantially harm the client's 
interest.

Members also discussed modifying language to another proposed rule that would 
allow a lawyer to reveal information relating to the representation of a client 
if that's necessary to prevent death or substantial bodily harm. The proposed 
language would define bodily harm to include wrongful imprisonment.

Such a rule "would put us ahead of other states in recognizing the obligation 
to ensure that an innocent person is not in prison when there is evidence to 
the contrary," Mumma said.

Advocates cite a murder case in Buncombe County at a prime example of why North 
Carolina needs the rule for prosecutors. 5 innocent men served prison time in 
connection with a 2000 home invasion murder they didn't commit.

Another man confessed in 2003 and implicated an accomplice whose DNA was 
eventually found on masks and bandanas near the scene. The district attorney 
said in a deposition that he didn't believe the confession and that he never 
saw the DNA evidence, although the report from the State Bureau of 
Investigation showed it was copied to the DA.

One defense attorney - the one representing the last man sentenced - also 
received the confession as pretrial evidence but didn't turn it over to the 
other men, who had already been sentenced, or their attorneys, said David 
Rudolf, an attorney for one of those men.

The 5 received a total $8 million for their wrongful convictions. Some of them 
had pleaded guilty to avoid the threat of the death penalty.

The panel is just the 1st step in a lengthy process that - if the rules are 
approved at each step - involves the full ethics committee, public comment, the 
full State Bar Council and finally, the state Supreme Court.

(source: Associated Press)






OHIO:

Attorney: Mom facing death penalty has low IQ


A woman charged in the killing of her 2-year-old daughter - who officials said 
was starved and tortured most of her life - "has the mentality of a child," her 
attorney said, which could affect whether she faces the death penalty.

Experts have determined that Andrea Bradley's IQ is in the mid-60s, her 
attorney Will Welsh said at a hearing Thursday in Hamilton County Common Pleas 
Court.

An IQ below 75 is considered an intellectual disability, according to the Ohio 
Department of Education.

"This was someone with the mentality of a child raising children," Welsh told 
The Enquirer. "I think we can convincingly prove that she has critical 
developmental disabilities."

If Bradley is ruled to have an intellectual disability, she would no longer 
face the death penalty and instead would face up to life in prison without 
parole. A hearing surrounding the issue is set for Sept. 7 before Judge Robert 
Ruehlman.

Bradley, 30, is charged with aggravated murder in the 2015 death of 2-year-old 
Glenara Bates. The child's father, 34-year-old Glen Bates, also faces the death 
penalty. Glenara was beaten severely, starved and made to sleep in a bathtub 
containing feces and blood, according to prosecutors.

Bradley and Bates were in an abusive relationship where Bates had taken 
control, according to her attorneys. She has been diagnosed with depression and 
bipolar disorder, and has been under psychiatric care most of her life, Welsh 
has previously said.

The couple lived in East Walnut Hills with 6 of Bradley's children, including 
Glenara. The children ranged in age from 1 to 8. The other children are now in 
foster care. Only 2-year-old Glenara was severely mistreated, according to 
previous statements by prosecutors.

The pair were arrested March 29, 2015, the same day Bradley brought Glenara's 
cold and limp body to Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Glenara 
had no body fat, no urine in her bladder, and no evidence of food in her 
system, officials said. She was pronounced dead at the hospital. She weighed 13 
pounds and had bite marks, numerous lacerations as well as marks from being 
whipped with a belt.

Prosecutors offered Bradley a plea deal in May that would have meant she faced 
the possibility of spending the rest of her life in prison, instead of the 
death penalty. She rejected that deal.

Bradley's attorneys on Thursday filed an "Atkins motion," which refers to a 
2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Atkins v. Virginia, that determined legal 
guidelines for mental competence in death penalty cases.

According to statements in court, there are hundreds of pages of Bradley's 
records from Hamilton County Job and Family Services that her attorneys will 
have to sort through.

(source: cincinnati.com)






OKLAHOMA:

U.S. Supreme Court could revisit ruling on controversial Oklahoma execution 
protocol


A controversial death penalty case in Oklahoma is back in the national 
spotlight.

The U.S. Supreme Court could revisit a ruling involving Richard Glossip.

You may remember, his attorneys challenged the use of a certain lethal 
injection drug used in our state.

The new developments are stemming from a big case in Arkansas.

Attorneys for 9 death row inmates challenged Arkansas's execution protocol, and 
when their state supreme court upheld it, the justices cited the ruling in the 
Richard Glossip case.

"The Glossip case has resulted in an unmitigated disaster in Oklahoma," 
attorneys representing the Arkansas death row inmates wrote in a recent court 
filing.

Now, those attorneys are taking a possible loophole in the Glossip case to the 
U.S. Supreme Court.

"They challenged the execution method by saying for example, a person can be 
put to death by firing squad. Apparently, the Arkansas Supreme Court said that 
may be true, but that???s not a method that???s authorized by law here in 
Arkansas," criminal defense attorney David Smith said.

Legal experts say the U.S. Supreme Court left some things unanswered in the 
Glossip case.

Richard Glossip's attorneys challenged the constitutionality of Midazolam, the 
sedative used in Oklahoma's executions.

"The Supreme Court says you have to identify another method of execution that's 
available and feasible, it's known and attainable, but they don't say whether 
it has to be something authorized by state law of that state," Smith said.

In Oklahoma, there are only 3 drugs authorized for use in executions.

Last year, officials discovered a wrong drug was about to be used on Richard 
Glossip, and Gov. Fallin issued a last-minute stay.

That was months after that same wrong drug was actually used in the execution 
of Charles Warner.

For now, it's up in the air whether a new ruling could affect future Oklahoma 
executions, but legal experts say more clarity in the Glossip ruling is 
critical.

"It's kind of a splitting of a hair, but it's a pretty important hair," Smith 
said.

The executions for those Arkansas inmates are on hold right now.

Their attorney told NewsChannel 4 that he will file a petition to the U.S. 
Supreme Court soon.

He has 90 days.

Richard Glossip's attorney told Newschannel 4 he's hopeful the U.S. Supreme 
Court will hear the case.

(source: KFOR news)






USA:

Judge: Roof attorney motion to block evidence to be sealed


A federal judge has ruled Dylann Roof's attorney does not have to explain 
publicly why she wants to keep some evidence out of Roof's Charleston church 
shooting trial.

Assistant U.S. Public Defender Sarah Gannett wants to block admission of 
videos, transcripts and other documents affecting Roof's constitutional rights 
to be free from unreasonable searches and self-incrimination.

Gannett asked the court's permission to file the motion under seal, saying to 
make it public could affect the court's ability seat an impartial jury in 
Roof's trial in November.

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel issued an order Thursday saying the motion 
could be filed under seal and asked prosecutors to respond the same way.

Roof faces the death penalty in the shootings of 9 black parishioners at 
Emanuel AME Church in June 2015.

(source: Associated Press)