[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ME., PENN., DEL., GA., FLA., ALA., MISS.

[Rick Halperin]

March 2



MAINE:

LePage right on return of death penalty


I applaud Gov. Paul LePage for his recent comments about injecting traffickers 
with their own medicine, reinstituting the death penalty, and bringing back the 
guillotine. I've been saying it for years in letters to the editor - Maine 
should bring back the death penalty for certain crimes, and like LePage said, 
"I don't care which way they do it," either.

There's no excuse, rehabilitation or forgiveness for what many convicted 
criminals have done to their victims and families, and they should receive the 
ultimate punishment - death.

Wellman Cromwell

Pittston

(source: Letter to the Editor, centralmaine.com)






PENNSYLVANIA:

Previously-convicted killer can avoid death penalty with plea deal


An agreement with Bucks County prosecutors may help an inmate of nearly 26 
years avoid execution.

Frank Robert Chester, 49, is expected to plead guilty to 1st-degree murder in a 
deal that will spare the formerly convicted killer the possibility of the death 
penalty, District Attorney David W. Heckler said Tuesday.

Heckler said Chester's plea, should he go through with entering it, may come as 
soon as March 14 when he is scheduled to appear in county court.

A federal judge in 2011 overturned the man's conviction and death sentence, a 
verdict rendered upon both Chester and his co-defendant Richard Laird by a 
county jury in 1989.

The jury convicted the pair in the Dec. 15, 1987, slashing death of 
Levittown-based artist Anthony Milano. Prosecutors say Chester and Laird 
abducted Milano, 26, of Bristol Township, from a Route 13 bar, forced him to 
drive to a wooded area near the township's Venice Ashby section, where they 
beat him and hacked out his throat with a utility knife.

Laird, 52, also saw his sentence vacated, was retried in 2007 and once again 
convicted of 1st-degree murder and sentenced to death.

"He's languishing once again on death row," Heckler said.

Prosecutors argued Chester and Laird targeted Milano because they believed he 
was gay. Their trial has been described as the 1st U.S. death penalty case for 
an anti-gay hate crime.

(source: The Intelligencer)

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

Attorney general candidates speak on Kane, death penalty


The 5 men seeking to become Pennsylvania's next top prosecutor all said at a 
forum Tuesday that Attorney General Kathleen Kane has mishandled the 
pornographic email scandal that has roiled her agency. They also proposed how 
they'd improve office morale and overhaul its operations.

The 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans running in the April 26 primary spent about 
90 minutes fielding questions during a forum sponsored by the Philadelphia Bar 
Association. Kane, a Democrat, recently announced she will not seek a 2nd term 
while she fights criminal allegations she leaked secret grand jury material and 
lied about it.

The 1st question concerned the email ring that has caused dozens of agency 
employees to be fired or disciplined, led one Supreme Court justice to abruptly 
retire and has a 2nd facing ethics charges, and largely defined Kane's term in 
office as she has disclosed some but not all of the salacious and offensive 
content.

State Sen. John Rafferty, R.-Chester and Northampton County District Attorney 
John Morganelli, a Democrat, both criticized Kane's decision to bring in former 
Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler to review a vast trove of office emails, 
a process that is underway.

Republican candidate Joe Peters, an ex-federal prosecutor who formerly served 
as Kane's official spokesman, said he would have already released much of the 
material, saying he would "start from the assumption that the citizenry who 
elected you, and the media, deserve as much sunshine as possible."

Montgomery County Commissioner Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said he would have 
disclosed "all the emails" and determined if criminal acts or ethical 
violations occurred.

"I don't see a crime, and absent a crime I would send these emails to the 
appropriate agency," said Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala, 
the other Democrat.

All 5 described themselves as at least qualified supporters of the death 
penalty at a time when Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf has imposed a temporary 
moratorium on executions.

Shapiro said he supports it for "the most heinous of crimes" but believes the 
current system needs to be fixed. Zappala said he is concerned that 
23-hour-a-day solo confinement for death row inmates may violate the 
constitutional proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Morganelli 
said he supports the death penalty, but might support new limits on who 
qualifies.

(source: philly.com)






DELAWARE:

Delaware Supreme Court to consider constitutionality of state's capital 
punishment scheme in light of Florida decision.


3 assistant public defenders have argued to the Delaware Supreme Court that the 
death penalty law is unconstitutional - and therefore needs to be fixed by 
lawmakers.

The attorneys from the Office of Defense Services filed a written argument 
Monday explaining why they believe Delaware's capital punishment policy 
violates the U.S. Constitution, especially in light of a recent U.S. Supreme 
Court decision that deemed Florida's similar scheme unconstitutional.

"The Delaware statute contains a number of unconstitutional provisions that 
cannot be exercised by this court in an effort to salvage the statute," the 
58-page argument said. "Because these multiple constitutional problems require 
Delaware's death penalty scheme to be substantially restructured, that task is 
for the legislature, not the courts."

The Delaware Department of Justice now has 30 days to respond to these 
arguments.

The last execution in the state was in 2012, when Shannon Johnson, 28, was 
killed by lethal injection. Johnson had been convicted in the 2006 shooting 
death of Cameron Hamlin, 26, an aspiring musician.

Delaware is 1 of 32 states with capital punishment.

The U.S. Supreme Court in January continued a trend of eliminating outlying 
death penalty practices when it ruled 8-1 that Florida's procedure for death 
sentences is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to judges, and 
not enough to juries.

The opinion stemmed from the case of Timothy Lee Hurst, who was convicted of 
the 1998 murder of his manager at a Popeye's restaurant. A Florida jury was 
divided 7-5 in favor of death, and a judge imposed a death sentence.

Delaware, Alabama and Florida are the only states that allow judges to override 
a jury's recommendation of life and, instead, impose a sentence of death. 
However, judges in Delaware have not been using that power.

After the court reiterated that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a 
judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a death sentence, attorneys and 
judges questioned what that could mean in Delaware, where there are over 2 
dozen pending death penalty cases and 14 men on death row.

The Delaware Supreme Court agreed to consider 5 questions of the law and to 
hear arguments from both sides. At the same time, President Judge Jan R. Jurden 
issued a temporary stay on all pending capital murder trials while the issue is 
resolved.

The court is using as a test case that of Benjamin Rauf, the Temple University 
law graduate charged with gunning down classmate Shazi Uppal, 27, in the 
parking lot of a Hockessin nursing home last summer. State prosecutors are 
seeking the death penalty for Rauf.

In Delaware, the process of sentencing someone to death requires multiple 
steps.

Once a person is found guilty of 1st-degree murder, the jury must unanimously 
agree that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that at least 1 of 22 
statutory aggravating factors has been met.

Then, each juror has to decide whether the aggravating factors outweigh the 
mitigating factors. That decision does not need to be unanimous, and the judge 
is not bound by those findings.

The jury's verdict is advisory, leaving judges with the final authority in 
sentencing.

Attorneys from the Office of Defense Services said in their argument that it is 
"crystal-clear that the judge is the independent and paramount capital 
sentencer" in Delaware. They went on to argue that Delaware is violating the 
Sixth Amendment by requiring a judge to make findings regarding aggravating and 
mitigating circumstances, and their relative weight, before a death sentence 
can be imposed.

"As the opinion in Hurst makes clear, any fact-finding that is a necessary 
precursor to a death sentence, rather than one of imprisonment, must be 
performed by a jury," the argument said. "The highest courts and legislatures 
of several states have likewise acknowledged that the Supreme Court's Sixth 
Amendment jurisprudence requires the jury to determine the presence of 
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as well as the weight of each."

The attorneys went on to say that the practice of allowing juries to be 
non-unanimous is also unconstitutional.

"There is a nationwide consensus against non-unanimous jury verdicts in capital 
cases," the attorneys wrote. "No existing state statute currently permits a 
non-unanimous determination of aggravating factors, and only 2, in Alabama and 
Delaware, permit a jury's sentencing determination to be less than unanimous. 
That only 2 states permit non-unanimous jury verdicts in capital cases weighs 
heavily against its constitutionality."

Robert Dunham, executive director of the nonprofit Death Penalty Information 
Center in Washington, D.C., said the issue of non-unanimous jury verdicts "is 
something in which Delaware is at constitutional risk."

He pointed out that Florida has found that non-unanimous verdicts are less 
reliable and account for a significant portion of the exonerations in the 
state. Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Florida Senate and House 
agreed about eliminating the judicial override option, but are split over 
whether to eliminate the practice of non-unanimous juries.

In Alabama, state lawmakers have not introduced legislation that would 
eliminate the practice of judicial overrides, but did recently introduce a bill 
aimed at creating a commission to review the innocence claims of felons.

Delaware is grappling with its own fate regarding the death penalty. On top of 
the legal questions before the Delaware Supreme Court, a bill to abolish the 
death penalty failed in the state House of Representatives last month.

The House voted 23-16 against the bill after about two hours of emotional 
testimony and comments from lawmakers. One of the no votes was a strategic 
decision that was made so that a lawmaker who supports the legislation can file 
a motion to reconsider the bill.

The reconsideration will take place next week.

(source: delawareonline.com)






GEORGIA:

Jurors brought to tears as death penalty phase starts for man who killed 2 
teens


Emotional testimony came from parents whose children were stabbed to death as 
they returned from a run to the store to get snacks.

It was testimony during the sentencing phase of the death penalty trial for 
William Felts. And it was testimony that had some jurors in tears.

"I miss my child," father Chris Kimble said in tears from the witness stand. He 
broke down on several occasions as he told a jury how the murder of his 
daughter has adversely impacted his life. "I am forced to live a life without 
another hug from her," he said.

Chrisondra Sierra Kimble, 13, and her cousin, Dell Mattox Jr., 15, were both 
murdered as they walked through a wooded area behind Bethune Elementary in 
April 2007. Prosecutors say their killers planned to rob them.

A jury just convicted Felts for his role in the murders. It took them less than 
2 hours to return with a verdict of guilty on 10 or 11 counts, including 
murder, kidnapping and aggravated assault during a robbery.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. The victims' families gave tearful 
impact statements during sentencing.

Jurors cried as Dell's mother explained how the murders made her 
over-protective of her younger son. "I didn't want what happened to Dell to 
happen to Donovan," Rhonda Mattox tearfully explained. "It's not fair to him."

Dell's father says his son used to call him every day from the bus stop. "I 
still expect that phone call sometimes. It don't ring. It doesn't ring. He 
doesn't call me anymore," Dell Mattox Sr. said sadly.

All of that is why Sierra's mother asked the jury to give Felts the death 
penalty. "And I know that it won't bring my sunshine back to me but it will 
give me that knowledge that justice was served," Zondra Mathis said from the 
witness stand.

Felts' attorney asked the jury to sentence him to life. Life with or without 
parole. They even had an attorney for Felts' co-defendant, Jeremy Moody, take 
the stand and say Moody admitted Felts had nothing to do with the murder. But 
prosecutors say Moody also admitted that Felts did have something to do with 
it.

Jeremy Moody was sentenced to death for his role in the murders in 2013.

A jury will begin deliberating Felts' fate Wednesday after they hear one more 
witness.

(source: WSB TV news)






FLORIDA:

State objects to life sentence in key death penalty case


Attorney General Pam Bondi's office is disputing arguments that a death row 
inmate should receive life in prison after he successfully challenged Florida's 
death-penalty sentencing system in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bondi's office filed a document Monday in the Florida Supreme Court arguing 
that what is known a "harmless error analysis" should be conducted in the case 
of Timothy Lee Hurst. An attorney for Hurst filed a motion last month asking 
the state Supreme Court to send the case to a lower court for imposition of a 
life sentence.

A challenge by Hurst led the U.S. Supreme Court in January to issue an 8-1 
ruling that found Florida's death-penalty sentencing system unconstitutional. 
The ruling said juries -- not judges -- should be responsible for imposing the 
death penalty and that Florida's system of giving power to judges violated 
Hurst's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury.

Lawmakers are moving forward with plans to change the sentencing system to 
comply with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In the document filed Monday, 
Bondi's office said the U.S. Supreme Court required a "harmless error analysis" 
in the Hurst case. Broadly, such analyses determine whether errors are serious 
enough to require overturning earlier court decisions -- in Hurst's case, the 
decision to sentence him to death. "If the United States Supreme Court felt it 
appropriate to commute appellant's (Hurst's) sentence to life imprisonment, it 
could have done so,'' the document filed by Bondi's office said. "Instead, the 
High Court specifically remanded this case to this (Florida Supreme) Court with 
directions to conduct a harmless error analysis."

Hurst was sentenced to death for the 1998 killing of fast-food worker Cynthia 
Harrison in Pensacola. Harrison, an assistant manager at a Popeye's Fried 
Chicken restaurant where Hurst worked, was bound, gagged and stabbed more than 
60 times. Her body was found in a freezer.

The motion filed last month by Hurst's attorney did not take issue with his 
guilt. But it said Hurst should be sentenced to life in prison because he has 
"fundamentally been denied his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial" in 
sentencing.

(source: news4jax.com)

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

Death-penalty trial for man accused of rape and murder of Cherish Perrywinkle 
likely to be delayed----Donald James Smith is still scheduled to go on trial 
with prosecutors seeking the death penalty on April 4.


The man accused of sexually assaulting and killing 8-year-old Cherish 
Perrywinkle is still scheduled to go on trial with prosecutors seeking the 
death penalty on April 4.

But that date is looking increasingly unrealistic due to uncertainty over the 
death penalty in Florida and disputes between media and the lawyers for Donald 
James Smith over what information in his case should be released to the public.

Smith, 59, was in court Tuesday for a hearing that addressed multiple issues in 
his case. Near the end Senior Circuit Judge Mallory Cooper said it was 
difficult to imagine that everything would be ready in time for the a trial 
that is just over a month away.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys did not disagree. Rayne Perrywinkle, 
Cherish's mother, appeared upset by the thought of another delay, although she 
did not speak with the media afterward.

Cherish was abducted from a Jacksonville Wal-Mart and strangled in June 2013. 
Smith is charged with 1st-degree murder, kidnapping and sexual battery. He is a 
registered sex offender who was released from prison three weeks before Cherish 
was killed.

This year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Florida's death-penalty procedures 
violate the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the final decision 
on life or death is made by a judge and not a jury. Smith's defense attorney, 
Julie Schlax, argued Tuesday that Smith can no longer be sentenced to death 
since the state doesn't have any legal death-penalty procedures.

Assistant State Attorney Mark Caliel disagreed and said the death penalty was 
still constitutional, it was only the state's sentencing procedures that were 
thrown out.

The Florida Legislature will likely pass new death-penalty procedures in the 
next 10 days before the Legislature adjourns for the rest of the year March 11. 
The Florida Senate is scheduled to consider a proposal Wednesday that would 
require at least 10 of the 12 jurors to recommend the death penalty for the 
sentence to be imposed.

Caliel told Cooper that Smith could be tried and sentenced to death even 
without the Legislature passing new procedures if she would just allow jurors 
to make a finding that Smith deserved death.

But Cooper indicated she wasn't comfortable with that, and Caliel agreed that 
it was better to wait for the Legislature to act.

However, if the Legislature does not act, his office still believes a death 
penalty trial can occur, Caliel said.

If the Legislature passes new procedures, Schlax plans to argue that Smith 
cannot be sentenced to death retroactively based on procedures that were not in 
place when he was charged.

Attorneys representing The Florida Times-Union and WJXT TV-4 also intervened in 
the hearing to oppose a motion filed by Schlax that would seal public materials 
in the case. The materials involve conversations Smith had with a man now on 
death row, Randall Deviney, when both men were housed in isolation at the Duval 
County jail.

Caliel said the 2 men began communicating with each other via a pipe chase - a 
tunnel-like space for hiding pipes or to run electrical conduit - that existed 
between their 2 cells. Both men were being kept in isolation and weren't 
supposed to talk with other inmates.

When police and prosecutors were tipped off that the 2 were talking, a 
recording device was put in the pipe chase.

Deviney later said he had information on another murder Smith committed and 
offered to tell prosecutors if they let him avoid death row. Prosecutors for 
both Deviney and Smith said they weren't interested. Caliel and prosecutor 
Bernie de la Rionda said Deviney was "perpetuating a fraud on the court."

Prosecutors never said why they were so sure Deviney was lying, but the tapes 
suggest that this was a scheme between the 2 men that was devised while 
prosecutors and police were listening in.

Deviney's claim did lead to the office of Public Defender Matt Shirk being 
removed as the lawyer for both Deviney and Smith after the 1st District Court 
of Appeal in Tallahassee ruled that the office couldn't represent the 2 men 
because there was a conflict of interest. Schlax was then appointed as Smith's 
attorney at the taxpayer's expense.

Deviney was later convicted of the murder of Delores Futrell and Cooper 
sentenced him to death. Shirk's removal from the case has delayed the trial for 
at least a year as Schlax and co-counsel Charles Fletcher have gotten up to 
speed on everything.

Tuesday, Schlax argued that the 72 hours of recordings between Smith and 
Deviney should not be released to the public because it would allow the media 
to further "demonize" her client.

She said the recordings will never be allowed into the murder trial and she is 
planning to file a motion to suppress them as evidence. She said releasing them 
would only make it harder to seat a fair and impartial jury.

Schlax has sought to move Smith's trial out of Jacksonville because of the 
pretrial publicity, saying he cannot get a fair trial. Cooper has refused to do 
that.

Media attorneys Jennifer Mansfield and Edward Birk argued that there was no 
good reason to suppress the tapes and also said Florida public records law does 
not create a provision that allows them to remain unavailable.

Cooper responded by saying she would need to listen to all 72 hours of the 
tapes herself before she could rule on the issue. That will likely take several 
weeks and makes the possibility of an April 4 trial even more unrealistic, 
Cooper conceded.

Cooper did not issue any rulings Tuesday. The next hearing on the case is 
scheduled for March 8.

Prosecutors say Smith befriended Cherish, her mother and siblings at a Dollar 
General store in June 2013 and convinced them to go to Wal-Mart on Lem Turner 
Road in his van after offering to buy them clothes and food.

Perrywinkle told police that Smith offered to buy the family hamburgers at the 
McDonald's inside the Wal-Mart. Cherish went with him to get the food, and they 
did not return.

Cherish's body was found near a creek off Broward Road the next morning.

(source: jacksonville.com)

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

Devin Chandler set to stand trial later this month as death penalty issues 
remain unresolved


Devin Chandler is set to stand trial later this month for the fatal shootings 
of 2 brothers during an armed robbery in a Palmetto convenience store.

Chandler tried to change his plea to guilty last week while issues surrounding 
the death penalty are argued. Circuit Judge Diana Moreland denied the motion to 
accept Chandler's change of plea after the defense argued to strike the state's 
intent to seek the death penalty and rule the death penalty was no longer 
applicable to the case.

Assistant Public Defender Franklin Roberts argued that the death sentence is no 
longer applicable because of a Jan. 12 Supreme Court decision in Hurst v. 
Florida that found it unconstitutional that judges, not juries, in Florida have 
the final decision in the death penalty.

But Moreland citing the 1977 Supreme Court case Dobbert v. Florida, said the 
state had the right to give notice of its intent and that at the time of the 
slayings the death penalty was an option. Both attorneys were asked to submit 
written briefs on how Dobbert should or shouldn't be applied by 5 p.m. Friday.

Moreland extended the deadline one week, to Friday.

With the speedy trial time limit, which Chandler refused to waive, set to 
expire, Moreland set the case for trial beginning at 9 a.m. March 28.

The denial to accept Chandler's change of plea was without prejudice, allowing 
it to be pursued again once the other issues are resolved.

At about 2:30 p.m. on Labor Day, detectives say Chandler is seen by the video 
surveillance walking into the Snappy's Mart, 559, 17th St. W., Palmetto. He 
picked an item off a shelf and then approached the counter as if he were going 
to pay.

Instead of taking out money to pay, Chandler reportedly pulled out a handgun 
and shot Khasem Yousef, 23, who was standing next to him in front of the camera 
and then shooting Faares Yousef, 17, who was behind the camera.

Chandler then jumped over the counter, took cash from the register and 
cigarettes from a rack before jumping back over and leaving the store.

A customer found the bodies soon after the shooting and called police. The 
following day, U.S. marshals arrested Chandler at a Tampa home.

A grand jury indicted him later that month.

Chandler is scheduled to appear in court at 8:30 a.m. March 17 so the defense 
can ask for the victims' school records from the Manatee County School District 
and State College of Florida. Both schools have refused to produce the records 
which the defense states are necessary for in order to prepare for trial.

(source: bradenton.com)






ALABAMA:

Alabama can't justify continuing to execute people


In January, Bishop Baker, head of the Birmingham Catholic Diocese, penned a 
letter to Governor Bentley asking him to stop the execution of convicted 
murderer Christopher Brooks. As expected, the Bishop's words were largely 
ignored, and Alabama carried out its 1st execution since 2013.

Even more recently, Pope Francis, in relation to the Year of Mercy, released a 
statement urging leaders and politicians who adhere to the Catholic faith to 
"make a courageous and exemplary gesture" by not allowing any executions this 
year.

I suspect that the Pope's words, much like Bishop Baker's, will also fall on 
deaf ears in Alabama.

However, if there is a sliver of hope for those of us in opposition to capital 
punishment, it is that both Francis and Baker's pleas are among a larger, more 
diverse, and growing opposition to the death penalty in our country.

Unfortunately, unless Bernie Sanders wins the election come November, there 
will be no movement to end the death penalty on a federal level. Which means 
that, for the foreseeable future, those of us who oppose it will have to hope 
and pray that the individual states will take it upon themselves to end to 
capital punishment. Some already have (17, to be precise). Others, like 
Alabama, seem pretty intent on keeping it around.

Yet, despite our state government's undying allegiance to the death penalty, I 
want to urge Alabama leaders and citizens alike to make a collective effort to 
outlaw this barbaric practice, and I offer three reasons why we should.

It's entirely unnecessary

In very extreme situations of self-defense, I believe taking a life can be 
viewed permissible. But just because something can be justified doesn't 
automatically make it good. Taking another human life, no matter the reason, is 
an unnatural act, and it should always be viewed as a negative. As a civilized, 
advanced species, we shouldn't desire death for anyone.

Therefore, in any instance where we do not have to kill, why should we?

Killing in return for killing isn't justice. It's vengeance. And the rule of 
law does not operate on vengeance. The central purpose of our justice system is 
to protect the people from danger - which we can successfully do through 
imprisonment. Being that we have the means of protecting our citizens from 
violent criminals without having to resort execution, what justifiable reason 
is there to practice the death penalty?

It's fiscally wasteful

The U.S. Constitution guarantees an automatic appeal to anyone given the death 
penalty. The expenses of housing such a prisoner in a separate cellblock 
combined with court costs, attorney fees, and lethal drugs/execution expenses 
costs taxpayers millions of dollars.

As a result, across the country, capital punishment has been found to be 
significantly more costly than life imprisonment. In fact, according to the 
Death Penalty Information Center, it can cost any state up to $30 million to 
carry out a single execution.

In Washington, it was found that the death penalty costs, on average, $1 
million more than a case where the death penalty was not sought. In Kansas, 
defending a death penalty case cost 4 times more than a trial where the death 
penal was not sought. In California, the death penalty has cost taxpayers $4 
billion since 1978. In Maryland, there have been only 5 executions in the last 
40 years, but they've cost taxpayers $186 million.

It doesn't work

Theoretically, the death penalty is supposed to act as a deterrent to crime. In 
reality, however, it's entirely ineffective.

Just an hour into 2016, Alabama was already dealing with its first murder. 
Within two weeks, there had been 4 reported homicides. Nationally, the homicide 
rate increased in 2015. And, perhaps most damning, the South has the highest 
murder rate in the country and the highest number of executions.

Something about that just doesn't add up.

According to a survey of the nation's top criminologists, 88% of experts 
rejected the notion that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. And 
should we be surprised? It is completely illogical to expect anyone depraved 
enough to take an innocent life to have any regard for consequence.

There are other ways to lower the murder rate that don't involve state 
sanctioned killing. When considering crime as a whole, the FBI reports a 
handful of factors that affect the volume and frequency of crimes. These 
include:

--Stability of the population

--Family life

--Strength of law enforcement

--Economic status

--Education

If the fear of death doesn't stop murder, perhaps we should focus our efforts 
on increasing the quality of life for our citizens.

Despite the fact that executions have, thankfully, decreased over the years, 
Alabama still has over 100 people sitting on death row.

(source: Matthew Tyson, al.com)

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

Stephon Lindsay: Gadsden man convicted of capital murder in death of 1-year-old 
daughter


An Etowah County jury has convicted Stephon Lindsay of capital murder in the 
death of his 1-year-old daughter Maliyah.

The toddler's partially decapitated body was found in a wooded area off of 
Plainview Street in Gadsden in March of 2013.

During the trial, Lawyers for Lindsay argued mental disease played a role in 
the toddler's death. However, prosecutors say the girl was killed as part of a 
ritual for the Yahweh religion.

The sentencing portion of Lindsay's trial begins Wednesday.

Jurors will decide whether Lindsay will be sentenced to life in prison or the 
death penalty.

(source: ABC news)






MISSISSIPPI:

Mississippi Senate passes execution secrecy bill


The names of employees and family members at an execution, as well as the 
pharmacy providing lethal drugs, would be kept secret under a bill passed 
Tuesday by the Mississippi Senate.

Senate Bill 2237 passed 32-18, but it was held for the possibility of more 
debate before moving to the House.

The measure says anyone disclosing a secret name could be sued for money in 
civil court. Shielded are current or former members of the state execution 
team, current or former suppliers of the drugs, or witnesses who want to remain 
confidential.

Senate Judiciary A Committee Chairman Sean Tindell, R-Gulfport, said secrecy is 
needed. Opponents, though, say the secrecy is troubling considering the gravity 
of an execution, and said restraining reporters and other witnesses from freely 
naming people they see at an execution appears illegal under the First 
Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and publication.

"If we're going to be in the business of putting people to death, there needs 
to be as much openness as possible," said Layne Bruce, executive director of 
the Mississippi Press Association. The trade group represents newspapers.

Similar proposals have been adopted in other states, and Mississippi's law 
could impact an ongoing court case aimed at forcing the Mississippi Department 
of Corrections to disclose details about its execution procedure and drug 
supplier. The Mississippi Supreme Court heard arguments in November, but has 
not ruled, on a lawsuit that seeks to compel the state to disclose information 
about the supplier of execution drugs. A lower court judge ruled for disclosure 
as a public record in March, but the information has remained secret while the 
state appeals the decision.

Tindell said Attorney General Jim Hood's office had warned of anonymous threats 
and harassing phone calls in which execution team members where called 
"murderers."

"We've had honest, hard-working Mississippi residents who have refused to work 
on the execution team because of fear for the safety of their families and 
concerns about retaliation inside and outside the prison," Hood said in a 
statement. "As long as we have the death penalty in Mississippi, we have a 
responsibility to protect the state employees who assist in carrying out 
executions. The businesses that agree to supply lethal injection drugs must 
also be free from the intimidation and strong-arm tactics of some anti-death 
penalty activists."

Jim Craig, the lawyer suing the state on behalf of some death-row inmates, 
disputes claims that any person or business has been threatened. The state has 
introduced no specific evidence to that effect in court.

Tindell said the amendment would allow drug suppliers to be public, but not the 
name of the in-state pharmacy. However, he said the pharmacy compounds the 
drugs, which means it manufacturers it on site from raw ingredients instead of 
just dispensing drugs made elsewhere. Many manufacturers refuse to sell drugs 
for use in execution, which has forced states to adopt new drugs.

Family members of victims and the condemned deserve privacy when witnessing an 
execution, Tindell said, likening bars on reporting their names as similar to 
the confidentiality shrouding a juvenile court proceeding.

"I think it's important to the victim's family and the condemned's family," he 
said. "Those people don't want to have their names plastered all over the 
newspaper."

Hood said he supported the restriction "out of an abundance of respect for the 
families of murder victims."

Prior restraints on publication are typically unconstitutional.

---

Online: Senate Bill 2237: http://bit.ly/21AC7kP

(source: Associated Press)