[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., N.C., S.C., FLA., ALA.

Sat Mar 19 10:05:59 CDT 2016

March 19

TEXAS:

Freed from death row, Anthony Graves uses compensation to help other inmates - 
including his best friend

Nanon Williams expected to walk out of prison in 2010, just about the same time 
as his close friend and former death row mentor Anthony Graves.

For the 3rd time, a court had reversed Williams' murder conviction, and he was 
just waiting for the final nod of approval before leaving behind the cell for 
the 1st time in his adult life.

A half-decade later, he still waits - wearing the same prison whites that have 
been his uniform since age 17, still overwhelmed by the pain of the appeals 
court decision that denied his pleas of innocence.

"I got sent back to prison, and he walked out the door,' said Williams, now 41.

>From his cell at the Ramsey Unit, where he is serving a life sentence for the 
fatal 1992 shooting of 19-year-old Adonius Collier in Houston, Williams has 
watched with awe and pride as his friend blossomed in freedom.

>From the moment Graves was exonerated in 2010, he set out to reform the 
criminal justice system that stole 18 years of his life. He was determined to 
help others who have suffered under a regime he believes is fundamentally 
flawed.

In the last 2 years, Graves has invested more than $150,000 - part of the money 
the state paid him to compensate for the years he spent wrongly imprisoned - to 
launch the Anthony Graves Foundation. The still budding nonprofit is dedicated 
to freeing other innocent inmates and providing health care to recently 
released prisoners with medical problems and no means to pay for treatment.

But seeing Williams, the wild, angry young man who arrived on death row the 
same day he did, walk free is near the top of the 50-year-old's long to-do 
list.

"I was on death row with a lot of men that I believe are guilty," Graves said. 
"I learned that this young man was innocent."

Graves was convicted in 1994 of one of the most heinous crimes the small 
community of Somerville had ever seen. Bobbie Davis, her daughter and her 4 
grandchildren were stabbed and the house they were in was set aflame. Just days 
before Robert Carter was executed in 2000 for his role in the crime, Carter 
admitted he had been the lone killer. Graves, he said during a deposition, was 
innocent. Nearly a decade later, Graves was exonerated and released from 
prison.

In 2011, Texas wrote Graves a check for $1.45 million for the years he spent 
wrongfully imprisoned. He will receive the same amount in an annuity that is 
paid out monthly for the rest of his life.

People often ask Graves why he didn't head for the beach after so many years of 
undeserved punishment. He said he didn't lose nearly 2 decades to spend the 
rest of his free years lounging.

"No, I wanted to make a difference," he said.

Long before he was released, Graves began making plans to help from the other 
side. The 1st job he got after leaving prison was helping investigate cases for 
the Texas Defender Service, a nonprofit organization that represents death row 
inmates.

The case of Alfred Brown, a death row inmate who was exonerated last year, was 
among the 1st in which he played a pivotal role, persuading a crucial witness 
who had lied at trial to recant her testimony.

2 years ago, Graves decided to started his own innocence project.

In many ways, Brown's case was similar to Graves'. Unlike hundreds of 
exoneration cases that make headlines, there was no DNA evidence to prove them 
innocent. Clearing their names required relentlessly chasing leads until the 
truth was revealed.

Most innocence projects won't take on such a labor-intensive proposition. Those 
organizations use strict criteria, often accepting only cases in which forensic 
testing could lead to new evidence of innocence.

Graves started the Humane Investigation Project within his foundation to clear 
away that red tape.

"I'd be dead today, because I had no DNA in my case," he said. "A lot of guys 
fall through the cracks because of the criteria of these projects."

Hundreds of requests for help flood into his office each week. Graves said he's 
homed in on 10 that he believes have legitimate innocence claims.

"We go talk to the witnesses, we go and really investigate the case, as opposed 
to sitting behind a computer," he said.

C.J. Connelly is the director of Graves' project. For now, he's a volunteer. 
Graves can't afford to pay him a full-time salary. That will come later, he 
hopes, with grant money and more fundraising efforts.

By day, Connelly is an educator, but he spends dozens of hours each week 
investigating innocence claims. Connelly has pored over documents and 
interviewed scores of witnesses in the case of Pablo Velez, a Houston man 
serving 30 years for the fatal 2004 shooting of Emerson Bojorquez outside a 
Houston pool hall.

Police targeted Velez because the killers' getaway car, a gold Cadillac, was 
registered under his name. Velez contends he was at his girlfriend's place at 
the time of the murder. He said he sold the Cadillac days before but hadn't yet 
changed the title.

Connelly said he might have enough evidence to prove Velez is innocent and the 
man who bought the Cadillac was the actual killer. The Houston Police 
Department has agreed to reopen its investigation of the crime. Graves and 
Connelly also secured a new lawyer for Velez: Patrick McCann, a lawyer who 
helped in Graves' exoneration and now serves on the foundation board.

"Anthony has credibility and reach that I would never have had," Connelly said.

For years before he met Connelly, Velez said, he wrote to dozens of innocence 
organizations asking for help.

"If my case didn't have nothing to do with DNA, they didn't want to bother with 
it," he said.

After a decade in prison, he said, he is allowing himself to hope that he'll be 
reunited with his 10-year-old daughter, Iris. She was 27 days old when he was 
convicted. Her name and birthday are tattooed under his left eye.

"I just want to get home to her," he said.

The case that is perhaps dearest to Graves, though, is Williams'. The 2 men 
spent about a decade together on death row. For 3 years, they were side-by-side 
in solitary confinement where the only means of communication was the air vent 
between their cells. They exercised together, doing push-ups and running in 
place for an hour inside their cells at 5 a.m.

They edited each other's letters and poems, planned for their futures and 
consoled one another when friends left for the death house.

Williams called Graves "Milk Dud" because of his shiny bald head. Graves called 
him "Meathead," a nickname the beefy former football player's grandpa had given 
him.

Williams came to death row filled with spit and vinegar, spoiling for a fight, 
Graves said, and has transformed into an educated writer whose works inspire 
others.

"I watched him grow up into a man," Graves said.

After the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 declared it unconstitutional to execute 
people who were minors at the time of their crimes, Williams' sentence was 
commuted to life in prison. 3 courts have overturned his conviction and ruled 
that he deserves a new trial. Each time, a higher court has reversed that 
decision.

Graves and Williams contend that faulty ballistics evidence led to the 
conviction and that a new look at the evidence will show that the fatal bullet 
did not come from Williams' gun.

After 24 years in prison - his entire adult life - and 3 heart-wrenching 
brushes with freedom, Williams is hesitant to reignite his legal battle. In 
recent years, he has focused his efforts on pursuing his education - he's 
getting a master's degree - and helping other young men avoid the pitfalls of 
drugs and violence that put him at the scene of a crime that ruined his life.

Mostly, though, Williams doesn't want to see his family crushed again. His 
mother is 65 and lives in California, where he grew up. He last saw her 2 years 
ago.

"It makes me feel like a used car salesman selling them false hope," Williams 
said, his eyes welling. "It's tiresome."

Graves, though, never seems to tire. After years of waking to prison guards' 3 
a.m. breakfast calls, he said he rarely sleeps more than a few hours each 
night. He's too busy sending emails and text messages, preparing speeches and 
working to build his foundation and a community willing to help inmates that he 
says society has discarded.

This month, Graves opened a small health clinic to provide low-cost and free 
care to those leaving prison and their families. On one side of the 
foundation's rented office space across the street from a church in a rough 
Houston neighborhood are antiseptic-smelling exam rooms with equipment that 
still has the manufacturers' stickers. On the other side, Graves and his small 
cadre of interns and volunteers take calls and read piles of letters from 
aggrieved inmates. When he left prison, Graves said, doctors told him his 
arteries were clogged, the result of poor diet and health care. But he had 
money to see a doctor. Most recently released inmates don't. They're too busy 
finding a job and housing and reuniting with family to think about their 
health.

"He needs a fresh start, and that includes his body," Graves said. Eventually, 
he also plans to hire caseworkers to help connect former convicts with 
resources like housing, drug treatment and mental health services to reduce the 
likelihood they'll return to prison.

The clinic is just getting off the ground, but Graves has already hired a 
doctor. Dr. Lester Minto, who lives in Austin, learned about the foundation 
through a friend and agreed to help out for a minimal fee.

"I've always liked the thought of helping people who are less privileged," he 
said, "people who don't fit in the system."

Paul Cates, spokesman for the New York-based Innocence Project, said many 
exonerees feel like Graves, compelled to fight for change in a criminal justice 
system that wrecked their lives. Dallas exoneree Christopher Scott, who was 
freed in 1999, created the House of Renewed Hope to help other wrongly 
convicted inmates.

"It doesn't destroy their souls, and almost all of them somehow find a way to 
get beyond what happened," Cates said.

Graves is not oblivious, though, to the steep road ahead for both his 
foundation and the inmates he wants to help.

He knows he'll need much more funding to keep his clinic and the innocence 
project up and running.

He knows that in Texas' conservative court system, his friend Nanon Williams' 
chances for success are slim.

But he's never been one to let long odds get him down.

"I always stay positive," he said. "That's how I came home."

(source: Dallas Morning News)

PENNSYLVANIA:

Caretaker charged with beating 17-month-old girl to death

A Bangor man was charged Thursday with beating a 17-month-old girl to death 
after she was left in his care.

Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli said the child died Feb. 
24, 2015, after being left in the care of 32-year-old Gary A. Foley at a home 
in the 100 block of Duke Street in Lehigh Township.

Foley said she was choking after he fed her cut-up hot dogs, but an autopsy by 
the Carbon County coroner found she died from multiple blunt force injuries to 
her head and neck.

The injuries were acute, meaning they were recently delivered, the coroner 
found.

"This is a tragic case, a very upsetting case," Morganelli said.

The girl's mother, 28-year-old Heather Marie Surget of Great Meadows, New 
Jersey, is charged with endangering the welfare of the 17-month-old as well as 
other children in the home.

Lehigh Township Police Chief Scott Fogel said the conditions in the home were 
beyond deplorable.

Morganelli said dirty dishes and garbage were strewn about the kitchen. Bugs 
crawled on the countertop and table. The home had no running water and frozen 
pipes. The occupants relied on space heaters to keep warm even though the low 
temperature that day was minus 8.

"The floor had holes in it where if you weren't sure where to step you could 
fall through the floor of the mobile home," Fogel said.

Living in the home with Foley and Surget were Foley's 4-year-old son and 
Surget's 3-year-old, 2-month-old and the 17-month-old victim. All the children 
are now in the custody of the Northampton County Office of Children, Youth and 
Families.

Morganelli said Surget told police she met Foley online not long before the 
incident. He moved in with them a week before the child's death, and she 
trusted him to watch the children while she was at work, he said.

Morganelli said Foley was the only one home with the child when the child fell 
ill. The child died in Palmerton Hospital an hour after Foley dialed 911.

The 4-year-old had brown and chipped teeth, police said. The boy had cuts and 
bruises that Morganelli is investigating as possible signs of child abuse.

Foley and Surget are each in Northampton County Prison. Homicide suspects may 
not post bail in Pennsylvania. Surget's bail is $1,000,000. Foley is also 
charged with endangering the welfare of the children.

Morganelli said Foley could face the death penalty since the victim is under 12 
years old, but he hasn't decided whether he'll pursue the death penalty in this 
case.

Morganelli called the case "really, really depressing for us."

"The Commonwealth believes this to be a very serious case and another example 
of individuals who have absolutely no responsibility with respect to taking 
care of numerous children in their welfare," Morganelli said.

Morganelli waited a year before filing charges to obtain a toxicology report, 
to try to extract witness statements and to try to find more details about 
Foley's alleged attack.

Drugs don't appear to be a factor in the case. Morganelli said he has enough 
evidence at this point to build a circumstantial case against Foley.

(source: lehighvalley.com)

NORTH CAROLINA:

Tragedy of Darryl Hunt: how exonerated man came to take his own life ---- 
Wrongly convicted man dedicated his life to reform within the justice system 
and recent death leaves unanswered questions of why

On the morning of 6 February 2004, the eyes of Winston Salem fell upon Darryl 
Hunt, who had calmly waited for this day, uncertain if it would ever arrive. By 
noon that Friday, judge Anderson Cromer would exonerate the 38-year-old inmate 
for his role in the 1984 murder of Deborah Sykes; but first, he listened to her 
mother, Evelyn Jefferson, who berated him for a ruling that would "set free a 
guilty man".

Before Hunt left the courthouse, he turned toward Jefferson, his voice warbling 
with emotion, and told her: "I feel the pain you felt."

Starting that day, Hunt devoted his life to reforming a criminal justice system 
that had stripped him of nearly 2 decades of his life, becoming a globally 
known advocate for the wrongfully convicted with a similar kind of grace he 
showed Jefferson.

Last weekend, the 51-year-old advocate was found dead in a friend's locked 
pick-up truck with a gun in what police have deemed a suicide.

"Physical evidence found inside the vehicle, as well as other investigative 
findings thus far, is indicative of Darryl Hunt having suffered a 
self-inflicted gunshot wound," Winston Salem police said in a statement.

The police force that found him was the same one that arrested him 32 years ago 
for the rape and murder of Sykes, a 25-year-old copy editor for the 
Winston-Salem Sentinel. When attorney Mark Rabil first met Hunt, he was struck 
by the teenager's peaceful demeanor and unfettered willingness to prove his 
innocence no matter the costs.

"I was scared," Rabil recalls. "Everything that had been in the media, [the 
police] said they had all these witnesses, and I assumed they had the guy, and 
our job was to save him from the death penalty. In my 35 years practicing law, 
there's never been this suddenness of me being convinced of innocence as I was 
in that first hour with Darryl."

In 1985, Hunt was convicted of 1st-degree murder, but thanks to a lone juror, 
was spared the death penalty. However, a higher court overturned his conviction 
on a technicality, granting him his freedom in 1989. Faced with a retrial in 
rural Catawba County, prosecutors offered a plea bargain to Hunt that would 
have set him free. Rather that admit guilt, Hunt turned down the deal, leaving 
his fate in the hands of an all-white jury, which went on to convict him in 
1990.

4 years later, DNA testing found Hunt's semen didn't match the evidence 
collected from the crime scene. But it wasn't until a series of appeals and 
another DNA test in December 2003 linked the crime to Willard Brown, who later 
confessed, that Hunt was released.

That Christmas Eve Hunt signed the papers for his release, and left the Forsyth 
County Jail for good.

Hunt, who would receive more than $2m in compensation from the city and state, 
immediately began to speak out about his wrongful conviction after his 
exoneration. Stephen Dear, executive director of People of Faith Against the 
Death Penalty, believed he had every right to retreat from the public 
spotlight. Instead of leaving Winston Salem behind, Hunt stayed so that no one 
would forget what had happened.

"His face was a reminder to the people who put him away," Rabil says. "Certain 
district attorneys would cross the street rather than face him. Everything 
would go quiet when he walked in a courtroom."

Hunt founded the Darryl Hunt Project for Freedom and Justice to help exonerate 
wrongfully convicted individuals. Over the years, a documentary and 2 books 
would be released about his life. Hunt received countless offers to speak about 
his wrongful conviction, which turned him into a well-known criminal justice 
activist around the world.

"This community, locally and statewide, had such high expectations of him," 
says Phoebe Zerwick, an investigative reporter who covered Hunt's case for the 
Winston-Salem Journal. "It must have been a huge burden. At the same time, it 
gave him purpose."

According to Dear, Hunt played a crucial role in turning North Carolina from a 
state that once had the 5th-highest execution rate to 1 that has had a 
moratorium in place for nearly a decade. Hunt also pushed for the passage of 
the North Carolina Racial Justice Act of 2009 that banned race from being used 
as a factor in determining whether someone should be executed. (State lawmakers 
would repeal the act in 2014.)

Ultimately, Dear says, Hunt's lasting impact may very well be that his case 
helped bring about the creation of the North Carolina's Innocence Inquiry 
Commission, a state agency tasked solely with investigating wrongful 
convictions. In nine years, the commission has exonerated 9 inmates.

Theresa Newman, co-director of Duke University Law School's Wrongful 
Convictions Clinic, also watched Hunt's devotion to his cause in smaller arenas 
such as talking to students at law school orientations. Zerwick, who now 
teaches writing at Wake Forest University, said he was even willing to speak to 
her undergraduate freshmen students. That desire to help others trickled down 
to nearly every local person leaving prison who sought a smooth transition back 
into society. Though admirable, Newman says, Hunt also struggled to say no to 
people, even if it would be better for his health.

"He felt like he owed something and had to pay it back," Newman says. "I've 
never met everyone who was more selfless. He never really took time for 
himself. He wasn't a good caregiver to himself."

As the years passed, his friends watched the work take a toll on Hunt. At one 
point, Zerwick recalls, Hunt stopped watching the documentary that would screen 
before his panel discussions because it became "too difficult to constantly 
relive that horrible experience." Nevertheless, Hunt continued to "give 
injustice a face and a name," Newman said.

"He was the voice of the voiceless," Rabil said, "who was wounded by 20 years 
of wrongful incarceration and taking on the burdens of so many people and 
fighting systems that can't be changed in 1 lifetime."

Over the past few years, Hunt fell upon a period of increasing hard luck that 
started with a divorce from his wife. In September 2014, April Hunt filed a 
domestic violence complaint in which he allegedly "talked about how worthless 
he is and [that he] should die". (Hunt's lawyer, David Hough, denied those 
claims at the time.) Soon after, Hunt left town for metro Atlanta in search of 
his long-lost sister. After finding her, Hunt rented a house in Jonesboro, 
Georgia, where he stayed with his sister and her teenage kids, all while he 
underwent treatment for prostate cancer.

In early 2016, Rabil said, Hunt returned to Winston Salem because he "missed 
the work". Upon moving back, he discovered his assets had been frozen, which 
led to the repossession of his truck due to a missed payment. As that happened, 
his cancer had advanced to a Stage IV prognosis. All the while, Hunt's 
depression seemed to grow, becoming increasingly evident to his friends, 
despite his private nature.

In the last month of his life, Hunt traveled to the University of Virginia for 
a speaking engagement at its public policy school. Though Rabil says he seemed 
"distracted", Hunt had planned to speak at a retreat for a new nonprofit called 
Healing Justice, which seeks to mend the "extensive human damage" stemming from 
wrongful convictions, and receive an award from the American Civil Liberties 
Union's North Carolina Chapter.

"He's always struggled," Rabil said. "But future things were being planned."

(source: The Guardian)

SOUTH CAROLINA:

Dylann Roof waives right to appear in April 5 federal court meeting

The man accused of killing nine parishioners during a bible study at Emanuel 
AME Church last June has asked to waive his right to appear at a federal court 
meeting next month.

Dylann Roof filed the waiver of appearance Thursday. He has not appeared in a 
courtroom in months, instead letting his attorneys handle the case and relaying 
to him the specifics afterwards.

Joey Meek, Roof's friend and the man federal investigators say knew of the 
planned attack on Emanuel AME, has not yet filed paperwork to stay out of court 
on April 5.

District Judge Richard M. Gergel scheduled a bar meeting for 10 a.m. on April 5 
at the courthouse in downtown Charleston.

While state prosecutors have said they are seeking the death penalty for Roof, 
federal prosecutors are still waiting on a Department of Justice panel to 
decide if the federal government will also seek the death penalty for nearly 
three dozen hate crime charges in connection to the shooting.

Currently, Roof's state trial is set to begin on July 11.

The scheduled bar meeting comes roughly 9 months after the June 17 shooting. 
Federal prosecutors said in previous hearings they thought the justice 
department would render a decision on the death penalty in that time.

It's not clear from the filing what attorneys and Gergel will discuss on April 
5, or if the hearing was requested by federal prosecutors.

(source: WCIV news)

FLORIDA:

Lawyers argue competency of murder defendant accused of stabbing wife

For the 2nd time in 5 months, a circuit judge is considering whether a Lakeland 
man who prosecutors said has admitted killing his wife is competent to stand 
trial.

In a hearing Wednesday, two psychologists testified that Michael Finn, who was 
declared incompetent in October, is legally eligible to proceed with his 
criminal case. A 3rd psychologist said Finn meets the state's criteria for 
competency on 4 levels, but questions remain concerning his ability to assist 
his lawyers.

Circuit Judge Jalal Harb has taken the motion under advisement.

Finn, 46, was arrested May 9, 2015, after his wife, Kristen, called 911 when he 
threw a baseball at her and hit her in the face during an argument on their 
patio at 1263 Scottsland Drive in Lakeland.

She told emergency operators her husband had attacked her before and was on 
probation, according to Polk County Sheriff's Office reports. During the 
conversation, operators heard her telling her husband to stay away, then she 
began screaming.

When deputies arrived at the house, Kristen Finn, 34, was running from her 
husband, who was wielding a knife. Deputy Dennis Jones reported she looked as 
if she'd been stabbed several times.

Jones ordered Michael Finn to drop the knife, and took him into custody.

As he was being arrested, Finn told his 15-year-old daughter from a previous 
marriage "I should have killed her," according to Sheriff's reports.

Kristen Finn died at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center that afternoon, an 
hour after she called 911.

After Finn was found incompetent to stand trial in October, he underwent 
treatment at Treasure Coast Forensic Treatment Center in Indiantown until late 
December, when staff psychologist John P. Mihalovich, who testified Wednesday, 
determined he was competent to stand trial.

Finn was brought back to the Polk County Jail for further evaluation.

Defense lawyers representing Finn said Wednesday his condition has deteriorated 
since his return to Polk County because of stresses at the Polk County Jail, 
and asked Harb to return him to Treasure Coast.

Harb is expected to issue a written ruling.

Prosecutors said they are seeking the death penalty against Finn, but have 
offered life imprisonment if he would plead to the murder charge.

Assistant Public Defender Tonmiel Rodriguez declined to comment on the plea 
deal.

(source: The Ledger)

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

Court: New death-penalty sentencing process should apply to ongoing cases

Florida's new death-penalty sentencing process should apply to prosecutions 
that were already underway when the new law went into effect this month, a 
state appeals court ruled Friday.

The 5th District Court of Appeal also decided that a U.S. Supreme Court 
decision, in a case known as Hurst v. Florida, did not strike down the state's 
entire death penalty as unconstitutional, but instead overturned the procedure 
for imposing death sentences.

But because the issues "involve questions of great public importance," a 
3-judge panel asked the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the Hurst 
decision declared that the state's death penalty is unconstitutional and if the 
new law applies to cases already in the pipeline before the new sentencing 
process went into effect March 7.

In a Jan. 12 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court found that Florida's system of 
giving judges, and not juries, the power to impose death sentences was an 
unconstitutional violation of defendants' Sixth Amendment right to trial by 
jury.

The 8-1 U.S. Supreme Court decision dealt with the sentencing phase of 
death-penalty cases after defendants are found guilty, and it focused on what 
are known as aggravating circumstances that must be determined before 
defendants can be sentenced to death. A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in a 
case known as Ring v. Arizona, requires that determinations of such aggravating 
circumstances must be made by juries, not judges.

The ruling left Florida temporarily without a death-penalty sentencing 
structure, prompting the Legislature to hurriedly pass a bill intended to fix 
the process. Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill March 7, and it went into effect 
immediately.

Under Florida's new law, juries will have to unanimously determine "the 
existence of at least 1 aggravating factor" before defendants can be eligible 
for death sentences. The law also requires at least 10 jurors to recommend the 
death penalty in order for the sentence to be imposed, and it did away with a 
feature of the old law that had allowed judges to override juries' 
recommendations of life in prison instead of death.

The Florida Supreme Court, which indefinitely put on hold two executions after 
the Hurst ruling, has been grappling with how --- or whether --- to apply the 
ruling to inmates already on death row. The questions posed Friday by the 
appellate judges are part of a process known as "certifying" questions to the 
Florida Supreme Court.

Friday's ruling came in the consolidated cases of Larry Darnell Perry, accused 
of killing his 3-month-old son in 2013, and William Theodore Woodward, charged 
with murdering 2 of his neighbors in 2012.

After the Hurst decision, Perry and Woodward asked judges in their cases to bar 
prosecutors from seeking the death penalty. The judges agreed with the 
defendants' lawyers, who argued that, because there was no constitutionally 
permitted death penalty process in Florida at the time, the state could not 
pursue death sentences in the cases.

But the appellate court on Friday sided with the state, saying that blocking 
the death penalty "impermissibly invades" the discretion of the state to seek 
the sentence.

The appeals court also rejected arguments that the new sentencing law should 
not apply in the cases of Perry and Woodward because of a 1972 law that 
provides alternative sentences if the death penalty is deemed unconstitutional. 
The 1972 law, which required that all death sentences be converted into life 
imprisonment, came in response to a ruling in a case known as Furman v. Georgia 
that resulted in a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty.

In the 10-page decision issued Friday, appeals-court Judge Richard B. Orfinger 
wrote that the Hurst ruling "struck the process of imposing a sentence of 
death, not the penalty itself."

Orfinger, joined by judges Kerry I. Evander and F. Rand Wallis, also disagreed 
with the defendants' contention that the application of the new law to pending 
cases would amount to an "ex post facto" violation of both the Florida and U.S. 
Constitutions.

That constitutional problem would only arise if the new law retroactively 
altered the definition of crimes or increased the punishment for the crimes, 
Orfinger noted.

While Florida's new law changes the process used to determine whether the death 
penalty will be imposed, it does not modify the punishment attached to 
1st-degree murder, Orfinger wrote.

"The new sentencing statute added no new element, or functional equivalent of 
an element, to 1st-degree murder. Hence, the changes to our capital sentencing 
procedures do not resemble the type of after-the-fact legislative evil 
contemplated by the ex post facto doctrine," he wrote.

(source: The Gainesville Sun)

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

Court Backs New Death Penalty Law But Asks Florida Supremes to Rule on 
Constitutionality

Florida's new death-penalty sentencing process should apply to prosecutions 
that were already underway when the new law went into effect this month, a 
state appeals court ruled Friday.

The 5th District Court of Appeal also decided that a U.S. Supreme Court 
decision, in a case known as Hurst v. Florida, did not strike down the state's 
entire death penalty as unconstitutional, but instead overturned the procedure 
for imposing death sentences.

But because the issues "involve questions of great public importance," a 
3-judge panel asked the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the Hurst 
decision declared that the state's death penalty is unconstitutional and if the 
new law applies to cases already in the pipeline before the new sentencing 
process went into effect March 7.

In a Jan. 12 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court found that Florida's system of 
giving judges, and not juries, the power to impose death sentences was an 
unconstitutional violation of defendants' Sixth Amendment right to trial by 
jury.

The 8-1 U.S. Supreme Court decision dealt with the sentencing phase of 
death-penalty cases after defendants are found guilty, and it focused on what 
are known as aggravating circumstances that must be determined before 
defendants can be sentenced to death. A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in a 
case known as Ring v. Arizona, requires that determinations of such aggravating 
circumstances must be made by juries, not judges.

The ruling left Florida temporarily without a death-penalty sentencing 
structure, prompting the Legislature to hurriedly pass a bill intended to fix 
the process. Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill March 7, and it went into effect 
immediately.

Under Florida's new law, juries will have to unanimously determine "the 
existence of at least one aggravating factor" before defendants can be eligible 
for death sentences. The law also requires at least 10 jurors to recommend the 
death penalty in order for the sentence to be imposed, and it did away with a 
feature of the old law that had allowed judges to override juries' 
recommendations of life in prison instead of death.

The Florida Supreme Court, which indefinitely put on hold 2 executions after 
the Hurst ruling, has been grappling with how - or whether - to apply the 
ruling to inmates already on death row. The questions posed Friday by the 
appellate judges are part of a process known as "certifying" questions to the 
Florida Supreme Court.

Friday's ruling came in the consolidated cases of Larry Darnell Perry, accused 
of killing his 3-month-old son in 2013, and William Theodore Woodward, charged 
with murdering two of his neighbors in 2012.

After the Hurst decision, Perry and Woodward asked judges in their cases to bar 
prosecutors from seeking the death penalty. The judges agreed with the 
defendants' lawyers, who argued that, because there was no constitutionally 
permitted death penalty process in Florida at the time, the state could not 
pursue death sentences in the cases.

But the appellate court on Friday sided with the state, saying that blocking 
the death penalty "impermissibly invades" the discretion of the state to seek 
the sentence.

The appeals court also rejected arguments that the new sentencing law should 
not apply in the cases of Perry and Woodward because of a 1972 law that 
provides alternative sentences if the death penalty is deemed unconstitutional. 
The 1972 law, which required that all death sentences be converted into life 
imprisonment, came in response to a ruling in a case known as Furman v. Georgia 
that resulted in a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty.

In the 10-page decision issued Friday, appeals-court Judge Richard B. Orfinger 
wrote that the Hurst ruling "struck the process of imposing a sentence of 
death, not the penalty itself." (Orfinger is the brother of Flagler County 
Circuit Judge Michael Orfinger.)

Orfinger, joined by judges Kerry I. Evander and F. Rand Wallis, also disagreed 
with the defendants' contention that the application of the new law to pending 
cases would amount to an "ex post facto" violation of both the Florida and U.S. 
Constitutions.

That constitutional problem would only arise if the new law retroactively 
altered the definition of crimes or increased the punishment for the crimes, 
Orfinger noted.

While Florida's new law changes the process used to determine whether the death 
penalty will be imposed, it does not modify the punishment attached to 
1st-degree murder, Orfinger wrote.

"The new sentencing statute added no new element, or functional equivalent of 
an element, to 1st-degree murder. Hence, the changes to our capital sentencing 
procedures do not resemble the type of after-the-fact legislative evil 
contemplated by the ex post facto doctrine," he wrote.

(source: flaglerlive.com)

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

Court backs use of new law in death penalty cases

Florida's new death-penalty sentencing process should apply to prosecutions 
that were already underway when the new law went into effect this month, a 
state appeals court ruled Friday.

The 5th District Court of Appeal also decided that a U.S. Supreme Court 
decision, in a case known as Hurst v. Florida, did not strike down the state's 
entire death penalty as unconstitutional, but instead overturned the procedure 
for imposing death sentences.

But because the issues "involve questions of great public importance," a 
three-judge panel asked the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the Hurst 
decision declared that the state's death penalty is unconstitutional and if the 
new law applies to cases already in the pipeline before the new sentencing 
process went into effect March 7.