[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, MASS., N.C., FLA., ALA., CALIF.

[Rick Halperin]

June 20



TEXAS:

In State with Most Executions, a Texas Republican Judge Questions 
Constitutionality of Death Penalty


Texas' highest criminal court should consider whether the death penalty is 
being fairly applied and should still be constitutional, 1 of the 9 judges on 
the all-Republican court wrote in a dissenting opinion issued Wednesday.

Judge Elsa Alcala, who was appointed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 
2011 by then-Gov. Rick Perry, agreed with the court's decision to order a lower 
court to consider overturning the conviction of Julius Murphy, who was 
sentenced to death for the 1997 killing of 26-year-old Jason Erie. However, in 
a dissenting opinion she challenged the court's decision to reject, without 
elaboration, Murphy's lawyers' contention that "evolving standards of decency" 
show the death penalty should be deemed unconstitutional.

"In my view, the Texas scheme has some serious deficiencies that have, in the 
past, caused me great concern about this form of punishment as it exists in 
Texas today," Alcala wrote.

She wrote that the court has been ignoring similar claims from other inmates as 
a matter of routine without regard for "more current events," and said Murphy's 
appeal "has presented arguments that are worthy of this court's substantive 
review."

The court historically has shown little sympathy for condemned inmates, 
although Alcala has been critical of some past rulings. It is the last state 
judicial stop for condemned prisoners in Texas, which executes more prisoners 
than any other state - 537 since 1982.

In Murphy's case, the appeals court ordered the trial court to resolve Murphy's 
appeal and deliver its findings on challenges alleging that prosecutors 
improperly withheld evidence showing that two key witnesses were pressured into 
testifying against him and that one of the witnesses gave false testimony.

Murphy's attorneys argued that the U.S. executes fewer people than it used to, 
that more states have decided to abolish or to not use the death penalty, and 
that delays in carrying out death sentences mean prisoners are kept in solitary 
confinement for excessive lengths of time, which amounts to cruel and unusual 
punishment.

They also questioned whether race has resulted in a disproportionate number of 
minority inmates on death row.

Murphy is black, like 44 % of the 246 Texas death row inmates. As of Jan. 1, 
1,227 of the country's 2,943 condemned prisoners were black, or 42 % of them. 
Hispanics, meanwhile, make up 27 % of Texas' death row inmates and 13 % of the 
nation's.

"Given both state and federal case law and the history of racial discrimination 
in this country, I have no doubt that race has been an improper consideration 
in particular death-penalty cases, and it is therefore proper to permit 
(Murphy) the opportunity to present evidence at a hearing about the specifics 
in his case," Alcala wrote.

Murphy, 37, was convicted of killing Erie, who was attacked in September 1997 
after his car broke down near his father's house in Texarkana. Murphy was 
scheduled to die last November but the appeals court gave him a reprieve. The 
same court stepped in to halt his scheduled lethal injection in 2006.

Alcala was elected to a full 6-year term on the criminal appeals court in 2012.

(source: Associated Press)






MASSACHUSETTS:

We need the death penalty


How soon we forget. Another police officer was recently killed. Another 
horrible and needless tragedy. Another good man gone. Another criminal turned 
murderer. We need the death penalty as a deterrent. Prison time is too easy.

It is time the public learned to respect the police and any directives they 
make. Incidents of police use of force would thus be avoided. The killing of an 
officer is the ultimate proof of lack of respect for all the police stand for 
which is law and order.

Parents have a job to do and that is to teach moral standards, common decency 
and respect for authority. It is not the responsibility of the taxpayers. It is 
time for us to demand cooperation as required or face anarchy. It is time to 
stop retribution against the police for doing their jobs. They put their lives 
on the line to protect ours. It's time to ask if we are worthy of their 
sacrifices.

Priscilla J. Ham

Shrewsbury

(source: Letter to the Editor, Worcester Telegram)






NORTH CAROLINA:

4-year-old murder case slated for trial


An Elizabeth City man accused of stabbing his former girlfriend to death at a 
local motel in 2012 is slated to go on trial - more than 4 years after he was 
initially charged in the crime.

The state's capital murder case against Gerard La???Tea Patterson is scheduled 
for trial the week of Oct. 31, District Attorney Andrew Womble said in a recent 
email.

Patterson, 28, is charged with first-degree murder in the death of 24-year-old 
Shawntae McPherson. Patterson is accused of stabbing McPherson to death with a 
knife in a motel room in late April 2012.

If Patterson is found guilty of 1st-degree murder, the state plans to seek the 
death penalty against him.

According to Superior Court records, Chief Assistant District Attorney Kimberly 
Pellini said in a filing in January that the state plans to call an analyst 
from the N.C. State Crime Laboratory as an expert witness during the trial. The 
analyst is prepared to testify that the DNA profile obtained from the blade of 
the knife used to kill McPherson is consistent with a mixture of Patterson's 
DNA, Pellini???s filing states. The analyst also will testify that the 
predominant profile taken from the knife's handle matches the defendant's DNA.

Patterson's attorneys asked for a continuance in the case so a defense medical 
expert could review the medical records, documents show. Superior Court Judge 
J.C. Cole signed an order April 5 setting the case for trial during the Oct. 31 
session of court.

Patterson remains confined at Albemarle District Jail, where he???s been since 
Elizabeth City police arrested him on April 22, 2012, the day after a police 
officer found a wounded McPherson in the lobby of the Elizabeth City Econo 
Lodge on South Hughes Boulevard.

Patterson was first charged with attempted murder, but after McPherson died at 
Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in Virginia on April 24, 2012, he was charged 
with murder. Patterson's secured bond remains at $1 million.

Neither Patterson's attorney, Jack Warmack of Rich Square, nor attorney Sam 
Dixon of Edenton, who is assisting Warmack in the case, could be reached for 
comment.

Prosecutors first decided to seek the death penalty against Patterson in 
February 2013.

At the time, then District Attorney Frank Parrish met with Warmack, then-Chief 
Assistant District Attorney Nancy Lamb and Senior Resident Superior Court Judge 
Jerry Tillett to discuss the state???s plans in the case.

Because the case involved a possible death sentence, Tillett had to order a 
second attorney to assist with Patterson's defense. Warmack has filed extensive 
motions with the court objecting to lethal injection as a form of punishment in 
the case.

Womble said last October that he still plans to seek the death penalty against 
Patterson.

(source: Daily Advance)

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

Up-to-date information on Onslow murder cases


The Onslow County District Attorney's office is currently preparing for eight 
murder cases, and law enforcement is working on four unsolved murder cases. 
Below, find where each case currently stands, recent updates and where the 
alleged offender is currently. For a more in-depth background on each case, 
visit the links below.

George Shafto

What: Shafto is accused of killing his girlfriend, who died April 2 after being 
found unconscious 3 days before.

Charge: Murder.

Arrest: June 16, 2016

Bond: None.

Suspect status: In custody in Tennessee, awaiting extradition to Onslow County.

Next court date: Not scheduled.

Case status: Shafto was arrested in Tennessee on June 16. The same day, his 
neighbor Wendy McFarlan was charged with accessory after the fact for allegedly 
driving him there.

Previous articles:

http://www.jdnews.com/news/20160616/man-accused-of-beating-girlfriend-to-death-woman-accused-of-driving-him-out-of-state

http://www.jdnews.com/news/20160617/more-details-released-in-domestic-homicide

Nashid Porter

What: Porter is accused of killing a man in Duplin County on Nov. 12, 2014, and 
a man who was the key witness in his 2012 Pender County murder trial.

Charge: 1st-degree murder

Arrest: Nov. 13, 2014

Bond: No bond

Suspect status: In jail

Next court date: He was convicted of the Pender County case on Thursday. and 
the Duplin County trial dates will soon be decided.

Case status: Porter previously rejected a plea deal in the Duplin County case 
in May 2015, and the District Attorney's Office announced they would seek the 
death penalty on Feb. 25, 2016.

Previous articles:

http://www.jdnews.com/20150529/man-accused-of-killing-witness-rejects-plea-deals/305299943

http://www.jdnews.com/20150611/man-charged-in-2-killings-removed-from-courtroom/306119959

http://www.jdnews.com/article/20160225/NEWS/160229334

http://www.jdnews.com/news/20160519/update-counsel-assigned-to-homicide-suspect

(source: Jacksonville Daily News)






FLORIDA:

Death penalty bad for economic reasons


Whether you're a bleeding heart liberal or a right-wing tea-party conservative, 
or anything in between, you care about money.

The fact is, it costs millions more tax dollars to try a death penalty case and 
for subsequent appeals and incarceration, than for simply locking the 
individual away for life. That's millions of dollars times thousands of cases. 
Got a calculator?

Mat Graves, Monticello

(source: Letter to the Editor, Tallahassee Democrat)






ALABAMA:

The Death Penalty Case Where Prosecutors Wrote the Judge's 'Opinion' ---- Is 
that fair? The U.S. Supreme Court could soon decide.


In "Case in Point," Andrew Cohen examines a single case or character that sheds 
light on the criminal justice system.

When judges make a decision - especially in a death penalty case - we'd like to 
think they weigh all sides, consider the law and come to a measured, 
independent conclusion. Not so in Alabama, where a judge's shortcut in the case 
of Doyle Lee Hamm has shown how often the state makes a mockery of the appeals 
process.

The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering whether to take up the case of Hamm, 
an intellectually disabled and possibly brain-damaged man who was sentenced to 
death in 1987 for killing a motel clerk during a robbery. Doyle went to his 
fate after a rushed trial marked by an anemic defense and constitutionally 
murky decisions by prosecutors and the judge. That's sadly common in Alabama.

What happened next also is common in Alabama - but pretty much nowhere else.

12 years after Hamm was sentenced to death, an Alabama judge rejected an 
attempt by his new attorneys to win another sentencing hearing for their 
client. The lawyers wanted to present facts from Hamm's grim life that might 
have convinced a jury not to impose death - so-called mitigation evidence - 
that Hamm's 1st lawyer failed to unearth during his trial. That, too, happens 
all the time.

But in turning down the appeal, the judge exposed the entire process as a sham. 
He signed an 89-page order written entirely by the Alabama Attorney General's 
Office - and did it within 1 business day of receiving it. He didn't even take 
the time to cross off the word "Proposed" in the title, "Proposed Memorandum 
Opinion." Hamm's attorneys allege the judge never read the opinion before 
signing it, and no state attorney has ever refuted that.

Many judges across the country routinely sign perfunctory orders drafted by 
lawyers, usually 1- or 2-page documents. But only in Texas and Alabama, 
evidently, is this done with substantive opinions on which appellate judges 
later rely.

In the Hamm case, the "opinion" is the lynchpin of Alabama's decades-long 
defense of its conviction and death sentence. It has been cited as gospel over 
and over again since 1999 by state and federal judges to justify their refusal 
to give Hamm a new sentencing hearing. Over and over again, the argument 
justifying this practice has been the same: it doesn't really matter who wrote 
the opinion or even whether the judge who signed it ever read it because Hamm 
hasn't proven that the contents of the order were wrong.

No one disputes Hamm's culpability in the murder of Patrick Cunningham. 2 
accomplices, who at first claimed they had been kidnapped by Hamm, agreed to 
testify against him. But prosecutors probably didn't need them. Hamm confessed 
after a lengthy interrogation. The statement was read for the jury, which took 
just 50 minutes to come back with a guilty verdict.

It was the next phase of Hamm's trial - the sentencing phase - that raises the 
questions now on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Hamm's trial attorney did virtually nothing to try to spare his client's life 
and called only two witnesses in his 19-minute defense: Hamm's sister and a 
bailiff. When prosecutors improperly introduced evidence of Hamm's prior 
convictions in Tennessee - convictions that may have been based on flawed 
procedures - Hamm's attorney did nothing to correct the error. It took the jury 
just 45 minutes to come back and recommend a death sentence.

Jurors were never told that Hamm had been diagnosed as borderline mentally 
retarded as early as 1969, nearly 2 decades before the crime. They were not 
told about a school record that repeatedly cited his intellectual deficits. Nor 
were jurors given any expert evidence about Hamm's lengthy history of seizures, 
head injuries and drug and alcohol abuse. The fuller portrait of Hamm's life 
was that of a barely literate, brain-damaged man with little impulse control, 
someone who might have been perceived as having diminished criminal 
responsibility.

Alabama prosecutors maintain that information would have made no difference in 
his sentencing. The 1999 opinion naturally took a took a dim view of the 
relevance and timeliness of the evidence presented by Hamm's new defense 
attorneys. The opinion states the evidence wasn't "new" but "cumulative" - 
essentially, repetitive - a legal standard that makes a difference in winning a 
new hearing. How evidence that was never introduced at trial could be 
considered "cumulative ' 12 years later was a question left unanswered.

No judge evaluating this case has ever declared the "Proposed Memorandum 
Opinion" invalid. The closest anyone came was last year, during oral arguments 
before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, when an incredulous Judge 
Adalberto Jordan questioned Alabama attorneys about the appearance of 
partiality created by the "opinion." Wouldn't you be hollering if the judge had 
rubber-stamped an 89-page ruling drafted by defense attorneys, the judge asked 
state lawyers? And isn't there something fishy about such a detailed opinion 
being signed on a Monday after being submitted on the previous Friday?

The state had no good answer to those questions, but it didn't matter. Jordan, 
like all the judges before him, shrugged and joined 2 other appellate judges in 
denying relief to Hamm.

Both in and out of court, Alabama has defended both Hamm's sentencing hearing 
and the ghostwriting episode. The "Proposed Memorandum Opinion" is sound no 
matter who wrote it, state lawyers argue, and there is no reason to think it 
unreasonable that the judge who signed it did so without considering its 
contents.

It would be one thing if the ghostwriting scenario that took place in the Hamm 
case was a one-off event. It is not. In support of Hamm, a group of former 
Alabama judges and past state bar presidents told the justices in Washington 
that it is routine practice in Alabama for prosecutors to write proposed orders 
for judges in capital cases. In 2003, a study found that in 17 of 20 recent 
capital cases the judge had denied relief in orders written entirely by 
prosecutors.

Sure, the criminal justice system would move more quickly if prosecutors 
ghostwrote appellate decisions in capital cases. No defendant ever would win an 
appeal. No conviction or sentence would ever be adjudged unfair or unjust. 
Judges could knock off early. But that's not how our system works, at least not 
beyond the borders of Alabama. Hamm may be a convicted murderer. But that 
doesn't mean the state can subvert his rights in such a blatant fashion.

This shouldn't be a tough call for the Supreme Court. The case presents a 
straightforward opportunity to send a clear message to lower court judges: 
whatever else due process means, whatever else federal habeas corpus rules 
mean, they require a judge to at least pretend to carefully consider the 
evidence before rendering judgment in a capital case. If the Supreme Court does 
this and no more in the Hamm case, it will be furthering the interests of 
justice.

(source: themarshallproject.org)






CALIFORNIA:

Democrats back pot legalization, repeal of death penalty


The California Democratic Party on Sunday stayed true to its left-leaning 
political ideals, voting to support ballot initiatives to legalize pot and 
repeal the death penalty.

The party's executive board voted to endorse the recently qualified November 
ballot measures during a weekend meeting in Long Beach. Delegates at the 
party's convention in February already had voted to endorse initiatives to hike 
cigarette taxes, affirm a law banning plastic grocery bags and impose stricter 
gun control.

The only mild surprise was the party's decision to take no position on an 
initiative by the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation to bar the state 
from paying more for prescription drugs than the cost negotiated by the U.S. 
Department of Veterans Affairs. Drug companies have mounted an aggressive 
opposition campaign to the measure.

Among the measures supported by the party:

-- Marijuana : The so-called Adult Use of Marijuana Act would legalize 
recreational pot use, allowing those 21 and older to possess and use up to an 
ounce. The measure would impose a 15% tax on retail sales of the drug and 
require the state to regulate the cultivation, distribution and sale of 
recreational marijuana.

-- Death penalty : A measure that would eliminate death sentences and replace 
them with a sentence of life without parole.

-- Citizens United: A symbolic measure that asks voters whether lawmakers 
should attempt to overturn the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens 
United vs. the Federal Election Commission. The ruling in favor of a 
conservative nonprofit group opened the door to unlimited spending by 
corporations and unions in federal candidate campaigns. The measure carries no 
force of law.

Among the initiatives opposed by the party's executive board:

-- Condoms: An initiative that would require porn actors to wear condoms.

-- Death penalty: The measure expedites appeals of death row inmates, with the 
intent of speeding up executions.

(source: Los Angeles Times)