[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., VA., FLA., IND., USA

[Rick Halperin]

March 2



PENNSYLVANIA:

Man seeks to represent self in death penalty trial


A man who wants to act has his own attorney in a death penalty murder case in 
eastern Pennsylvania has been ordered to have a psychiatric evaluation before 
he will be allowed to fire his attorneys.

26-year-old Jeffrey Knoble of Riegelsville is charged in Northampton County in 
the March death of 32-year-old Andrew "Beep" White. Authorities call the victim 
a "good Samaritan" who rented a Quality Inn room for Knoble because he had no 
place to stay.

Knoble earlier sought to fire his public defenders, complaining that they were 
urging him to accept a plea bargain calling for life without parole. He now 
wants to represent himself, but Judge Emil Giordano told him Wednesday that he 
recommended against that idea. Jury selection is scheduled to begin May 31.

(source: Associated Press)

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

A Supreme screw-up. Ex-Justice Castille never should have heard death penalty 
case he prosecuted


So consider this one for a moment: You're a tough-as-nails prosecutor with a 
reputation for sending the baddest of the bad guys to death row.

Then, a few years later, you're running for state Supreme Court, where you're 
touting that record.

Then, quite a few years after that, you're the Chief Justice, and you're ruling 
on the appeal of a man you personally sent to death row when you were a 
prosecutor.

Sound too fantastical to ever happen? Well it did. And it happened in 
Pennsylvania.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments from lawyers 
representing Terrance Williams, a Philadelphia man who was sent to death row in 
1986 by then Philadelphia District Attorney (and later Justice) Ronald 
Castille.

According to published reports, Williams, then 18, was convicted of killing a 
man named Amos Norwood with a tire iron.

At the trial, Williams denied knowing Norwood.

A Pennsylvania death row inmate has a simple challenge for the U.S. Supreme 
Court: The same person shouldn't be both his prosecutor and his judge.

Former prosecutors who are serving as judges shouldn't be allowed to review 
their own actions.

But as it turns out, Williams' co-defendant later admitted "that the reason for 
the murder was not robbery, as he had testified at trial, but Norwood's sexual 
abuse of Mr. Williams and other underage boys. Using that admission, Williams 
challenged his death sentence on the grounds that prosecutors knew he had been 
sexually abused but had told the trial judge there was no evidence Mr. Norwood 
had abused anybody," The New York Times editorialized last week.

A lower court later ruled that prosecutors lied and vacated Williams' sentence.

The state Supreme Court unanimously reversed that ruling. And Castille, by then 
chief justice, wrote an opinion criticizing the lower court for "condemning" 
the prosecutors in the case.

In other words, ... Castille himself.

Amazingly, Castille, who's now retired, didn't recuse himself from hearing 
Williams' case, even though, as The Times notes, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 
in 2009 that judges had to recuse themselves when the risk of bias is "too high 
to be constitutionally tolerable."

At oral arguments last week, lawyers for the Commonwealth argued that such a 
standard would mean that judges, who are almost always former prosecutors, 
would have to recuse themselves all the time.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, quite sensibly, wasn't buying it. Castille wasn't just 
some lawyer in the case.

"The judge here actually signed his name to the review of the facts and the 
decision to seek the death penalty," she said, according to The Associated 
Press.

In an interview last week, Castille defended his decision not to recuse 
himself, arguing that, "In Pennsylvania, we leave it up to the judge's personal 
conscience. I've always been confident that I can be fair and impartial."

Sorry, what?

Let's review: Castille, as DA, signed the order seeking the death penalty. As 
Chief Justice, he wrote an opinion critical of the lower court's condemnation 
of his former office's administration of the case.

Shawn Nolan, who handles death penalty cases for the Federal Community Defender 
Office in Philadelphia pretty much nailed it:

"The issue being raised is prosecutorial misconduct, in his office, at the time 
he was the boss," he said. "It's just not right."

Yes. If the Castille case doesn't beg for recusal, there is no case that does.

And, fortunately, there were encouraging signs last week that the nation's 
highest court was siding with Williams and his attorneys.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who at times seemed skeptical of Williams' case, 
seemed to agree with arguments made by Stuart Lev, the assistant federal 
defender in Philadelphia who is representing Williams.

Lev said the vote to overturn the lower court's ruling should be tossed out 
because no one knows, other than the Pennsylvania justices, what took place in 
their closed-door deliberations, The Associated Press reported.

"I mean, if the individual who should have been recused occupied a dominant 
role in the discussion and was successful in persuading colleagues and all that 
- and of course, that's the sort of evidence you certainly can't have access 
to," Roberts said, according to the AP.

Without addressing whether you support the death penalty or not, reasonable 
people can agree on this much: Everyone deserves a fair and unbiased shake 
before the court. And it's pretty clear that even that minimum standard wasn't 
met here.

Castille should have known better. That he didn't just strikes another blow to 
Pennsylvanians' shattered confidence in their highest court.

The U.S. Supremes have a chance to make it right. They should send a clear 
message that former prosecutors who are serving as judges shouldn't be allowed 
to review their own actions.

(source: John Micek, pennlive.com)






VIRGINIA:

Report: Matthew to be spared death penalty in Va. student murders


2 remarkably similar murder cases that amplified concerns about campus safety 
are expected to end when a Virginia man enters a plea deal that will spare him 
a possible death sentence.

Jesse LeRoy Matthew Jr., 34, is expected to enter pleas resolving the Hannah 
Graham and Morgan Harrington cases Wednesday, according to Albemarle County 
Commonwealth's Attorney Robert N. Tracci. The prosecutor did not disclose the 
terms of the plea agreement ahead of the hearing.

Sources told CBS affiliate WTVR Matthew is expected to plead guilty to 
1st-degree murder and intent to defile in both cases. WTVR reporter Laura 
French reports via Twitter that Matthew is expected to serve 4 life sentences 
with no eligibility for parole. The deal will spare him the death penalty, 
sources told the station.

The former hospital orderly and cab driver is charged with capital murder in 
the September 2014 death of 18-year-old University of Virginia student Graham. 
He also faces a 1st-degree murder charge in the 2009 death of Harrington, a 
20-year-old Virginia Tech student. He already is serving 3 life prison terms 
for a sexual assault in northern Virginia.

According to authorities, Graham and Harrington were young women in vulnerable 
straits when they vanished in Charlottesville 5 years apart. Harrington 
disappeared after she stepped out of a University of Virginia arena during a 
Metallica concert and was unable to get back in. Graham, after having dinner 
and attending parties off campus, was captured on surveillance video walking 
unsteadily, and sometimes running, past a service station and a restaurant. She 
texted a friend that she was lost.

Additional video showed Graham crossing Charlottesville's downtown pedestrian 
mall, then leaving a restaurant with Matthew, his arm wrapped around her.

Graham's disappearance, which came at a time of rising national concern about 
sexual assaults and other crimes on college campuses, prompted a massive 
search. Her body was found 5 weeks later on abandoned property in Albemarle 
County, about 12 miles from the Charlottesville campus and 6 miles from a 
hayfield where Harrington's remains had been found in January 2010.

After police named Matthew a person of interest in Graham's disappearance, he 
fled and was later apprehended on a beach in southeast Texas. He was charged 
with abduction with intent to defile, a felony that empowered police to swab 
his cheek for a DNA sample. That sample connected Matthew to the 2005 sexual 
assault in Fairfax, a Virginia suburb of Washington, according to authorities.

The DNA evidence in the Fairfax sexual assault, in turn, linked Matthew to the 
Harrington case, authorities have said.

The charge against Matthew in the Graham case was later upgraded to capital 
murder, giving prosecutors the option to seek the death penalty.

Both the Harrington and the Graham families are supportive of the deal, WTVR 
reports. Both families requested to give victim impact statements at the 
Wednesday afternoon hearing.

"This is not a celebratory time of time of fist-pumping joy," Gil Harrington, 
Morgan Harrington's mother, told the station. "Our daughter is still as dead as 
she was in 2009... "We have seen Morgan's broken bones and cannot comprehend 
what one human could have so desperately needed to have hurt and murdered our 
daughter."

Matthew, who was a taxi driver before going to work at the University of 
Virginia hospital, also had been accused of raping students in 2002 and 2003 at 
Liberty University and Christopher Newport University, where he had played 
football. But those cases were dropped when the women declined to press 
charges.

(source: CBS news)






FLORIDA----impending execution

Florida Supreme Court considers Jacksonville man's pending St. Patrick's Day 
execution


The life of Jacksonville white supremacist Mark James Asay hung in the balance 
Wednesday as the Florida Supreme Court considered whether to allow his St. 
Patrick's Day execution to move forward.

But the future of the death penalty in Florida also was an issue with the 
justices trying to figure out how to move forward after the U.S. Supreme Court 
declared the state's sentencing procedures unconstitutional for those cases.

For now Asay's fate appears tied up in the larger issues the courts are 
grappling with. Asay, 51, is scheduled to be the 1st person executed since the 
U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and his lawyers are asking for the execution to be 
indefinitely delayed until lawmakers and judges figure out how to deal with the 
situation.

The U.S. Supreme Court determined that Florida violates the Sixth Amendment to 
the Constitution because the judge, and not a jury, makes the final decision of 
whether someone is sentenced to death. The Florida Legislature is in the 
process of amending the law, but nothing has been passed yet.

Martin McClain, Asay's attorney, said he should not be executed with so much 
uncertainty. Instead he should be re-sentenced to life in prison because the 
jury didn't have the final say in his death sentence.

Assistant Attorney General Charmaine Millsaps disagreed saying the March 17 
execution should proceed as scheduled because the U.S. Supreme Court ruling 
isn't retroactive. The court didn't rule 1 way or the other on retroactivity, 
and it may be up to the state Supreme Court to determine that issue.

Asay was sentenced to death for the murders of Robert Lee Booker and Robert 
McDowell in 1987. Booker was black and McDowell was a cross-dressing prostitute 
who was actually white, but Asay believed he was a black woman.

McClain also argued that new evidence suggests Booker and McDowell weren???t 
killed by the same gun and said police abandoned looking at suspects in one of 
the murder cases once the cases became linked.

The gun was never found, so ballistics only had the bullets to compare to each 
other.

But justices appeared skeptical, wondering if that was too late to introduce.

McClain said the case should be sent back to the trial judge to determine its 
validity, but Millsaps countered by saying the evidence was inconclusive and 
there was enough evidence outside the bullets to prove Asay was guilty of both 
murders.

McClain also said Asay had not had a lawyer appointed to defend him in state 
court for 10 years until he was appointed in January after Gov. Rick Scott 
signed the death warrant.

Asay did have a lawyer representing him in federal court, but McClain has 
expressed frustration at some of those lawyers because they allowed files in 
the case to become damaged and ended up being destroyed.

Justice Barbara Pariente indicated she was open to sending the case back for an 
evidentiary hearing, calling the facts "unusual" and saying she was bothered by 
Asay going 10 years without a state lawyer.

Prosecutors with the offices of Attorney General Pam Bondi and 4th Circuit 
State Attorney Angela Corey have both argued that the U.S. Supreme Court 
decision is merely procedural and shouldn't interfere with planned executions 
or future trials where someone is facing the death penalty.

But Florida Supreme Court justices have appeared skeptical of this, expressing 
disagreement at times with Millsaps' view of the case. Justice Peggy Quince 
indicated Wednesday that she didn't think the ruling was purely procedural.

The Supreme Court is considering Asay's appeal on an expedited basis due to the 
looming execution date. A ruling is likely this week.

(source: jacksonville.com)

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

Florida Senate narrowly votes down death penalty change


A sharply divided Florida Senate is rejecting a proposal to require a unanimous 
jury recommendation in death penalty cases.

The Senate voted twice Wednesday on whether to require all 12 jurors to agree 
on death sentences. The proposal was rejected by votes of 22-18 and 23-17.

Florida doesn't require unanimous jury recommendations. But the Legislature is 
poised to change the law, requiring at least 10 out of 12 to recommend 
execution in order for it to be carried out.

The Senate originally wanted to require all jurors to agree on a death 
sentence. But senators agreed to switch to 10 jurors as part of a compromise 
with the House.

The Legislature is rewriting the death penalty law after the U.S. Supreme Court 
ruled last month that the current method is unconstitutional.

(source: Associated Press)






INDIANA:

Supreme Court denies hearing Indiana death penalty case


The United States Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari filed in the case 
of Tommy Pruitt, meaning the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that 
reversed the death penalty for Pruitt will stand.

Pruitt will be resentenced in Dearborn County later this year. Pruitt shot and 
killed Morgan County Deputy Sheriff Dan Starnes in June 2001.

The Indiana Supreme Court upheld Pruitt's death penalty sentence, but the 7th 
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed it, saying Pruitt was intellectually 
disabled.

"We conclude that Pruitt has established that he is intellectually disabled and 
categorically ineligible for the death penalty and that trial counsel were 
ineffective in their investigation and presentation of evidence that Pruitt 
suffered from schizophrenia," Circuit Judge John Tinder wrote for the panel 
when the decision was reversed in June 2015. "We therefore reverse the district 
court's judgment and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this 
opinion."

(source: The Indiana Lawyer)






USA:

Judge dismisses defense attorney in rare federal death penalty case


A judge in a federal death penalty case involving an alleged Newark gang leader 
has dismissed his lawyer from the case, ruling that the lawyer had a "serious" 
conflict of interest.

In an amended opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas ruled 
that Thomas Ambrosio, the lawyer appointed to represent Farad Roland, had to 
step down. Salas said Ambrosio's previous representation of a witness who 
agreed to testify against Roland created the conflict.

Roland is facing rare federal death penalty charges for racketeering and 
murders he allegedly was involved in as part of the South Side Cartel, a wing 
of the Bloods street gang.

Roland was appointed in September to represent Ambrosio.

Over that period of time, Ambrosio said in an interview, they developed "a very 
trusting and productive relationship."

The conflict arose in March 21, 2014, when Ambrosio was tapped to represent an 
unnamed individual facing criminal charges in New Jersey. Ambrosio and the 
witness met 5 days later for him to sign an agreement that he would cooperate 
in upcoming federal cases. It was their only meeting, court records say.

Last September, Ambrosio was asked to represent Roland. At the time, government 
attorneys failed to note that Ambrosio had once represented one of their future 
trial witnesses, the cooperating witness.

Ambrosio said he couldn't have known at that time who the government would call 
as witnesses, so he could not have identified a potential conflict. Ambrosio, 
in any case, denied he had a conflict.

When prosecutors finally realized Ambrosio's work for the cooperating witness, 
they objected, saying he "has ethical obligations not to reveal client 
confidences from his representation of the cooperating witness, but on the 
other hand, he owes a duty to Roland to represent him vigilantly and 
zealously," according to Salas' opinion.

Ambrosio, court records show, submitted a sworn declaration that he had no 
discussions that crossed ethical lines with either the witness or Roland.

Roland wanted Ambrosio to remain as his attorney, but the U.S. Supreme Court 
has ruled that defendants with court-appointed attorneys do not have the right 
to choose who will represent them, Salas' ruling said.

After several hearings earlier this year, Salas ruled that a conflict existed, 
and wrote that it occurs "when the attorney's representation of the defendant 
is impaired by loyalty owed to a prior client."

The ruling also says her finding at this point cannot be appealed.

Salas appointed a "very experienced" lawyer, Stephen Turano of Newark, to take 
over for Ambrosio. She also said the court will modify its schedule to give him 
at least 3 additional months to prepare for a trial that will begin sometime in 
2017.

"It's a significant amount of information to process in a relatively compressed 
time," Turano said, adding that the court has been sensitive to the issue of 
making sure Roland has a fair defense.

Ambrosio said he believes he has an ethical responsibility to share what he has 
learned about the case with Turano, but is seeking legal guidance to avoid 
violating any court orders.

Prosecutors in 2015 told the court they intended to pursue a death penalty case 
against Roland, 31, for violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt 
Organizations Act, murder, kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, drug conspiracy and 
other violent acts.

Roland's is the 2nd federal death penalty case to be tried in New Jersey and 
the 1st since 2007.

(source: nj.com)