[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----VA., N.C., FLA., ALA., LA., ARK.

[Rick Halperin]

June 24



VIRGINIA:

American Bar Association asks U.S. Supreme Court to hear Ricky Gray appeal


The American Bar Association is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the 
appeal of condemned killer Ricky Javon Gray.

Gray and accomplice Ray Dandridge, both 39, killed 7 people in Richmond in 
2006, including 4 members of the Harvey family on New Year's Day. Gray was 
sentenced to death for the capital murders of the Harvey daughters, Ruby, 4, 
and Stella, 9. Dandridge was sentenced to life.

In May, Gray's lawyers asked the high court to hear his appeal, in part to 
determine the obligations of state courts to provide adequate review of alleged 
constitutional violations and the obligation of federal courts to resolve such 
allegations when state court review is inadequate.

The Virginia Attorney General's Office has until July 22 to respond to Gray's 
request.

Gray's lawyers allege Virginia courts "unreasonably failed to provide Gray with 
a meaningful opportunity to develop and present allegations challenging the 
constitutionality of his death sentence." Among other things, their petition 
complains that the Virginia Supreme Court did not order a hearing to get to the 
bottom of disputed allegations.

In a statement Thursday, the ABA said it filed a brief in the case because the 
state court, without an evidentiary hearing, dismissed allegations that Gray's 
death sentence was imposed in violation of his constitutional rights. The 
Richmond-based 4th U.S. Court of Appeals upheld that decision.

In its brief, the ABA wrote that the case "presents an ideal opportunity for 
the court to address an important, recurring question of federal law: What are 
the minimum post-conviction procedures that a state must follow when 
adjudicating claims that a death-sentenced prisoner's constitutional rights 
have been violated."

The ABA's 31-page brief questions whether a "state court fact-finding process 
that does not provide the type of adversarial process historically thought 
essential to the truth-finding function of a court is adequate for reaching 
reasonably correct results and for the ascertainment of truth."

Gray's execution had been set for March 16 but was stayed when his lawyer said 
they would appeal.

In arguing against the stay, the Attorney General's Office wrote earlier this 
year that there was no reasonable probability the U.S. Supreme Court would 
agree to hear the case "and no significant possibility" the appeals court 
decision would be reversed even if the justices took the case.

The ABA petition asserts that as part of a comprehensive review of 
death-penalty procedures in various states, an ABA expert assessment team 
confirmed that Virginia's post-conviction procedures are inadequate to present 
and develop claims of constitutional error.

"The system prioritizes finality and expediency at grave costs," the ABA wrote.

(source: Richmond Times-Dispatch)






NORTH CAROLINA:

DA will seek the death penalty for suspect in 2014 double murder


Prosecutors in Columbus County will seek the death penalty for one of the 
suspects in a 2014 double murder case.

Justin Reynolds and Megan Haynes were arrested in February in connection to the 
murders of Jeanette Thut and Donna Gore.

Reynolds, who is Gore's son, and Haynes both face 2 counts of 1st-degree 
murder.

At a press conference held earlier this year, Columbus County District Attorney 
Jon David said he would consider seeking the death penalty in this case.

We've learned the DA will seek the death penalty for Reynolds.

Thut's daughter, Kathy Hensley, said she was relieved to hear of the decision.

"What they did to them, our whole family thinks they deserve the death 
penalty," said Hensley. "If they don't get it, they definitely deserve life 
without parole."

Hensley said it could be years before the trial begins. She said forensic 
testing is still taking place and it could be a long time before the results 
are returned for a trial.

Hensley said her mother was good friend with Gore. The 2 had moved in together 
in a home in Bolton. Shortly after, Hensley's mother let Reynolds and Hayes 
move into a nearby camper of hers so they could "get on their feet."

Gore was reportedly strangled while Thut was stabbed about 17 times. 
Investigators found their bodies in a storage building behind Thut's house on 
Blacksmith Road in Bolton on Nov. 3, 2014.

"My mother gave them a place to live rent-free," she said. "She loved them like 
a grandmother and for them to go in their home and do this, it's unbelievable."

Hensley lives in Virginia but has been making trips back and forth to attend 
court hearings on the case. She is also working to become a victim's court 
advocate in Virginia, so she can help other families going through similar 
situations.

(source: WECT news)






FLORIDA:

Prosecutors seek death penalty for 2 suspects in doctor's murder, including her 
husband


Prosecutors in the murder case of a beloved Florida doctor announced Wednesday 
they plan to seek the death penalty for 2 suspects in her gruesome killing, 
including her husband.

Teresa Sievers, 46, a holistic physician and mother of 2, was found bludgeoned 
to death in the kitchen of her Bonita Springs home last June. Investigators 
recovered a hammer with blood and hair on it nearby.

The doctor reportedly had returned home early from a vacation in Connecticut, 
leaving her husband and children behind to go to work.

Prosecutors initially filed murder charges against 2 men from Missouri: a 
friend of Sievers' husband and a man spotted at a Fort Myers Walmart near the 
Sievers' home the day before the doctor's body was found.

However, in December, investigators announced a stunning twist in the case. 
They said Sievers' husband, Mark, orchestrated the attack to cash in on 
insurance policies, and promised the 2 Missouri men a chunk of the $4.4 million 
payout.

Police had arrested the first 2 suspects, 26-year-old Jimmy Rodgers and 
46-year-old Curtis Wayne Wright, in August.

Mark Sievers, 48, tried collecting the insurance weeks before those arrests, 
The News-Press reported. The insurance company, Ohio National Life, refused to 
pay him citing the criminal investigation.

Wright pleaded guilty to 2nd-degree murder in February in exchange for a 
25-year prison sentence. He agreed to help prosecutors in their case against 
Mark Sievers, the newspaper added. The state also took custody of the children 
- ages 9 and 11 - in February.

After prosecutors announced they intended to seek the death penalty against 
Sievers and Rodgers, the husband's defense attorney Antonio Faga responded, "We 
are not surprised that the state has taken this position, however we feel it is 
not an accurate position based upon the fact Mr. Sievers is innocent." There 
was no immediate response from Rodgers' attorney.

(source: Fox News)






ALABAMA:

Lawyers: Condemned inmate mentally incompetent for execution


The U.S. Supreme Court has said death row prisoners must have "rational 
understanding" that they are about to be executed and why, but lawyers for a 
condemned Alabama inmate say stroke-induced dementia has left their client 
unable to pass that test.

A 3-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta seemed 
skeptical of the state of Alabama's arguments that Vernon Madison didn't need 
to remember the crime he was convicted of to have a rational understanding of 
it.

"If the state of Alabama thinks it can execute people who have no memory of 
what they did, that's a disconnect for me," Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan 
said.

His comment came during arguments in the case of the 65-year-old Madison, who 
was convicted in the 1985 killing of a Mobile, Alabama, police officer. The 
appeals court panel in May halted Madison's execution just 7 hours before he 
was to receive a lethal injection so it could consider his lawyers arguments 
that he is not mentally fit to be executed.

Angie Setzer, a lawyer for Madison, told the court Madison has no independent 
recollection of the crime and, therefore, cannot rationally understand why the 
state plans to execute him.

Alabama Deputy Solicitor General Brett Talley countered that a person does not 
need to specifically remember an event to have a rational understanding of it 
and argued that Madison does understand why the state is trying to put him to 
death.

Madison was convicted in the slaying of Mobile police Officer Julius Schulte, 
who had responded to a domestic call involving Madison. Prosecutors said 
Madison crept up and shot Schulte in the back of the head as he sat in his 
police car.

While the high court ruled condemned inmates must have a "rational 
understanding" that they are about to be executed and why, it has left it to 
lower courts to determine what that means.

At least 2 strokes, in May 2015 and January of this year, as well as other 
medical conditions, have left Madison unable to walk independently, disoriented 
and with significant memory deficits, Setzer said.

A defense expert testified in state court that Madison suffers from vascular 
dementia and is unable to connect the crime to the planned punishment, Setzer 
said.

Circuit Judge Charles Wilson asked Setzer why the court should rely on that 
expert's testimony when the testimony of a court-appointed expert seemed to 
contradict it. The court-appointed expert didn't disagree with the defense 
expert's findings but rather interpreted the issues in the case more narrowly 
and didn't believe those findings applied, Setzer said.

Not all death row inmates with dementia are incompetent to be executed, Setzer 
said, but a state court judge improperly excluded evidence of dementia and 
related impairment when weighing Madison???s competence.

Talley said the court-appointed expert found that Madison was able to remember 
very specific details from throughout his life, which strains the credibility 
of assertions that he doesn't remember the crime. When pressed by Wilson as to 
whether the court-appointed expert ever directly said that Madison remembers 
the crime, Talley said the expert testified that Madison remembers "the events 
surrounding the crime."

Circuit Judge Beverly Martin said she didn't see anything in the 
court-appointed expert's testimony that indicated that Madison understood that 
he killed the officer and why he was to be executed.

(source: Associated Press)

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

In Alabama death penalty cases, judges' opinions are routinely written by 
prosecutors


We have long been assured that state governments treat the death penalty with 
the utmost reverence and solemnity. There are lots of checks and balances to 
prevent the execution of innocent people. Prosecutors are extra careful to dot 
every "i" and cross every "t." Judges provide extra scrutiny. Appeals courts 
carefully review jury decisions. Defendants are given more than adequate 
representation. Executions follow strict protocols. And in the end, we're told, 
only the "worst of the worst" are subject to the ultimate penalty.

We now know, of course, that this is far from the truth. Those checks and 
balances have utterly failed at keeping frauds and charlatans from using fake 
science to send defendants to their deaths. In countless cases, prosecutors 
have been caught withholding exculpatory evidence, engaging in blatant racial 
discrimination during jury selection and making illegal and inflammatory 
statements to juries. We've also seen prosecutors, even entire district 
attorneys' offices, treat executions as a badge of honor.

Some police officials have perfected the art of ginning up fake testimony from 
dubious jailhouse informants to seal a conviction. Appeals courts are generally 
uninterested in revisiting the facts of capital convictions, only in seeing to 
it that trials followed the proper procedures. Criminal defense attorneys have 
been caught sleeping and drinking through capital cases. Those who are 
competent tend to be overworked. As we've seen in recent years, most recently 
in Oklahoma, despite the emphasis on largely symbolic rituals such as last 
meals and written protocols, the rush to execute often takes priority. Several 
recent executions have been badly botched, and in some cases were incredibly 
cruel. Some states are now buying the drugs they use to kill off the black 
market. Others are passing laws to make the entire process as opaque as 
possible. This is the most profound power we grant to government, and lawmakers 
are making it increasingly secretive.

Finally, far from the assertion that only the most violent, dangerous and 
clearly culpable defendants are sent to die, which people convicted of murder 
get executed is largely a lottery. We're executing the mentally ill, the 
mentally disabled and the elderly. In an Oklahoma case recently heard by the 
Supreme Court, a man who was alleged to have ordered a killing (and who 
maintains his innocence) was sentenced to death based almost entirely on the 
testimony of the man who admitted to committing that murder. The actual killer 
avoided death, largely because of his testimony. Missouri recently executed a 
man who was missing part of his brain. We've executed accomplices, in some 
cases while letting the actual killers live. And we've executed plenty of 
people for whom there was compelling evidence of innocence. In fact, you could 
argue that the system is more likely to execute the less culpable. The more 
culpable party is generally more likely to offer to testify against any 
accomplices. The guilty can sometimes spare themselves death by admitting guilt 
and taking a plea bargain. Meanwhile, the system tends to be particularly harsh 
on people who maintain their innocence.

I bring all of this up because a recent story out of Alabama may be the best 
example yet of just how un-seriously death penalty states treat capital cases. 
>From the Marshall Project:

The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering whether to take up the case of [Doyle 
Lee] 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.

This was to determine Hamm's sentencing, not his guilt or innocence. (Hamm???s 
guilt isn't really disputed, though he, too, may be mentally ill.) Still. The 
judge couldn't even write his own opinion? He couldn't even read the state's 
brief before adopting it as his order?

This is just 1 instance, you might say. It was a lazy judge. That isn't an 
indictment of the death penalty in general. But as Andrew Cohen explains, what 
happened in the Hamm case is actually common in Alabama.

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.

The Supreme Court is currently considering whether to take up the case. That 
it's even up for debate speaks volumes about all of that reverence and 
solemnity with which the criminal-justice system allegedly treats the death 
penalty.

(source: Radley Balko, Washington Post)






LOUISIANA:

Louisiana governor signs law reallocating money from death penalty appeals to 
local public defenders


Amid high-profile problems with its indigent defense funding, the state of 
Louisiana is revamping how its existing funds are allocated.

According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Governor John Bel Edwards signed a 
law on Monday that changes how Louisiana's Public Defender Board allocates its 
funds. The law guarantees that at least 65 % of state funding for indigent 
defense would go to local offices. Currently, those local offices are receiving 
about 50 % of the funding.

Indigent defense funding is a major concern in Louisiana at the moment. As of 
March, 33 of the state's 42 public defender offices had started refusing cases, 
using waitlists or otherwise restricting services. Among those is the Orleans 
Public Defenders, whose district includes New Orleans, which was sued over its 
waiting lists in January by the ACLU. The lawsuit, which also names the head of 
the Louisiana Public Defender Board, argues that Louisiana has failed to 
adequately fund indigent defense at the state level.

That caused a backlash from some Louisiana prosecutors, who argued that funding 
is sufficient, but that the state Public Defender Board is moving money around 
to manufacture a funding crisis with the ultimate goal of abolishing the death 
penalty, according to the Advocate. Louisiana State Public Defender Jay Dixon 
denies this. Although capital cases are less than 1 % of all Louisiana criminal 
cases, Dixon says about 28 % of the board's budget goes to death penalty cases, 
which are notoriously slow and expensive.

The new law doesn't change the total amount allocated to the Louisiana Public 
Defender Board, but it affect how much of the state money can be allocated to 
capital cases. It also doesn't address local funding, which is the bulk of 
public defender offices' funding and comes mostly from local traffic tickets 
and court fees. As a result, Dixon told the Times-Picayune in April, this law 
doesn't address the underlying funding problem. It could help create more 
stability in funding for local offices, which could helpful for them - but it's 
also likely to slow down death penalty cases.

The Chief Justice of Louisiana, Bernette Johnson, told the state legislature in 
March that insufficient funding for public defenders could cost the state more 
in the long run because it puts convictions at risk of being retried or 
reversed, reported the Times-Picayune in an earlier story. A judge in New 
Orleans ruled in April that the state must release seven defendants accused of 
serious crimes because they had been held without counsel for several months.

(source: ABA Journal)






ARKANSAS:

Both Sides of Debate React to Death Penalty Ruling


Arkansas' Supreme Court has upheld a relatively new and controversial death 
penalty law that could mean lethal injections will resume soon.

But questions remain about what will happen to 8 inmates already cleared for 
execution and 26 others on death row.

The decision came down 4-3 on the most crucial parts of the case overriding a 
lower court ruling saying Arkansas' death penalty procedure is 
unconstitutional.

After the ruling, both sides of the death penalty debate weighed in.

"It's the law," said State Rep. Doug House, R-North Little Rock, who sponsored 
the 2015 legislation setting the 3-drug protocol to be used in lethal 
injections. It also provides public disclosure exemptions keeping secret the 
drug suppliers.

"The people have expressed their opinion, and the supreme court has ruled," he 
said.

"Everyone at the coalition was surprised," said Furonda Brasfield, executive 
director of Arkansas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. "We were saddened 
by the ruling."

Lawyers representing death row inmates challenged the law, but the state 
supreme court says it does not violate protections for due process or against 
cruel and unusual punishment.

Last summer, the Arkansas Department of Correction acquired lethal injection 
drugs, but some are set to expire June 30, and supreme court rulings usually 
don't become final for 18 days

Therefore, it appears Arkansas will need to acquire new lethal injection drugs 
to resume executions.

That could be difficult as some suppliers have been reluctant to sell to states 
for use in administering the death penalty.

In the meantime, a lawyer for death row inmates says he plans to petition the 
supreme court for a rehearing.

"Once the stay has been lifted, I will inform the governor of the inmates that 
have exhausted all their appeals," Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said during 
a phone interview on Thursday. "We'll ask that execution dates be set for those 
inmates."

(source: arkansasmatters.com)

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

Arkansas governor applauds execution ruling


A spokesman for Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he applauds the Arkansas 
Supreme Court's ruling that upheld the state's execution secrecy law.

Spokesman J.R. Davis says Hutchinson believes the lower court judge had 
overstepped his authority by saying the state must disclose information about 
the drugs. Davis says Hutchinson is talking with the attorney general's office 
to determine "the appropriate next steps."

Hutchinson set dates in September for what would have been the state's 1st 
executions since 2005. Court challenges to different execution protocols and 
issues obtaining drugs had stalled executions.

Arkansas would have 7 days to conduct the 8 pending executions before its 
supply of vecuronium bromide, the paralytic in the 3-drug protocol, expires on 
June 30.

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

Death row inmates' attorney to seek rehearing


An attorney for the death row inmates who challenged Arkansas' execution 
secrecy law says he anticipates filing a petition for a rehearing due to the 
state Supreme Court's decision to uphold the law's constitutionality.

The court ruled in a split 4-3 decision Thursday to uphold the law and dismiss 
the inmates' challenge.

Jeff Rosenzweig represents 9 death row inmates, including eight whose 
executions have been stayed while the court heard the challenge.

He says he does not know when the petition would be filed.

1 of the drugs needed for the state's execution protocol expires on June 30.

(source for both: Associated Press)