[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, FLA., ALA., LA., OHIO

[Rick Halperin]

May 12




TEXAS:

State, Lawyers Debate Identifying Execution Drug Supplier


Revealing Texas' supplier of execution drugs could have a harmful effect on the 
provider and as a result leave the state empty-handed, a lawyer for the state 
suggested Wednesday during an appeals court hearing.

State Deputy Solicitor General Matthew Frederick told a 3-judge panel on the 
Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals that a "substantial risk" comes with naming 
the state's supplier. Specifically, he said, people who are against the death 
penalty might lash out against the supplier.

"Pharmacies don't have security details," Frederick said. "Their only 
protection is anonymity."

But 3 lawyers who have filed suit to release the identity of lethal injection 
drug suppliers say that no "substantial threat of physical harm" exists; 
therefore, the information legally cannot be withheld, their attorney, Philip 
Durst, argued.

The appeals court had challenged attorneys for the Texas Department of Criminal 
Justice and the group of 3 lawyers - who have represented clients on death row 
- to differentiate between risks and threats when explaining what the harm is 
in identifying a compounding pharmacy that has provided the state with lethal 
injection drugs. The court did not offer a timeline for when it would make a 
ruling, but either party could appeal a future ruling to the Texas Supreme 
Court.

The 3 lawyers sued the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in 2014 after the 
agency refused a request to identify the compounding pharmacy that supplies the 
state with lethal injection drugs. The attorneys - Maurie Levin, Naomi Terr and 
Hilary Sheard - had made the request through the state's Public Information 
Act.

A state district court later that year ordered the prison agency to release the 
pharmacy's identity because it was public information, but the agency appealed. 
Since then, major pharmaceutical companies have refused to supply capital 
punishment states with the drugs needed to execute the condemned, forcing Texas 
to scramble and find alternative providers. In 2015, Texas made it legal to 
conceal the identity of parties that supply lethal injection drugs to the 
state.

As a result, the attorneys are challenging the Department of Criminal Justice 
to release the identity of lethal injection drug suppliers from before the law 
went into effect last September.

The 3 lawyers say that identifying lethal injection drug providers makes it 
easier to hold them accountable. But the state argues that releasing that 
information could lead to physical harm of its supplier. There may be risk, but 
there is no sign of an imminent threat, attorneys for both sides acknowledged 
before the appeals court.

Justice Bob Pemberton pushed back Wednesday on the state's "substantial risk" 
characterization, saying that there is a difference between a risk and a 
threat, and that individuals such as former Gov. Rick Perry have been vocal 
about their position on capital punishment, which hasn't led to threats being 
realized. A pharmacy supplier is a soft target, though, Frederick responded.

Also, Frederick referenced the 2013 revelation that the Woodlands Compounding 
Pharmacy supplied the state with execution drugs led to significant amounts 
hate mail and messages. As providers have been identified over the years, they 
have stopped making the drugs, according to multiple media reports.

Equating people who oppose the death penalty to anti-abortion activists, Durst 
said that such activists generally protest peacefully. There's never been 
anything other than "How could you?" and other responses protected by the First 
Amendment, he said.

The judges also asked how allowing the supplier's identity to remain secret 
because of safety concerns would not gut the state's Public Information Act. 
Frederick said that keeping the identity secret falls in line with the physical 
safety exemption from complying with a public information request. Durst said 
that labeling someone or something a threat should be based on concrete 
evidence. Theories from experts alone is not enough, he said.

"It can't be that," Durst told the panel.

Until a few years ago, major pharmaceutical companies provided execution drugs 
to death penalty states, Frederick said. As soon as smaller companies are 
identified, they might leave the market, he said.

"They don't want to stick around long enough to see what happens," he said.

After the larger companies dropped death penalty states as clients, Texas began 
seeking alternative providers to make the lethal drugs, but the federal 
government has weighed in on a couple of occasions.

In April, the Food and Drug Administration barred the Texas Department of 
Criminal Justice from importing sodium thiopental, a drug used in executions. 
Last year, Texas and Arizona reportedly tried to import execution drugs from 
India but were unsuccessful.

(source: Texas Tribune)






FLORIDA:

Death penalty challenge rational


Florida's death penalty law is in limbo once again. A Miami-Dade judge ruled 
Monday that a jury must vote unanimously in order to invoke the death penalty.

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the legality of the penalty phase 
of murder trials in Florida, ruling that juries, not judges, had the final say 
in doling out a lethal injection.

The state legislature rewrote the law, to reflect the ruling. But the new law 
read that a 10 of 12 majority was necessary to do so. The high court did not 
rule on the unanimity issue in January.

Back to Monday's ruling, involving a defendant awaiting trial on a 1st-degree 
murder charge. It challenged the state's new law, charging that the jury 
recommendation must be unanimous. Currently only Florida and Alabama do not 
require unanimity in a death penalty.

Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch based the ruling on the Florida Constitution and 
common law, not federal requirements.

In it he made thoughtful points. Among them:

-- That the public will support a verdict based on the notion that the jury 
has spoken. But not in cases "as to which the most that can be said is that 
some jurors have spoken."

-- That a verdict is a jury's pronouncement, not 12 separate announcements.

-- That the process of mandating a unanimous verdict of guilt, but not of the 
penalty for it, is non-sequitur.

He wrote: "A decedent cannot be more or less dead. An expectant mother cannot 
be more or less pregnant. And a jury cannot be more or less unanimous. Every 
verdict in every criminal case in Florida requires the concurrence, not of 
some, not of most, but of all jurors - every single one of them."

What this will likely mean is the legislature will go back to square one in 
January and require the unanimous death penalty recommendation. That could very 
well trigger sentence reduction of death to life in prison for the state's 390 
death row inmates.

This will be painful for many families of the victims of these convicted 
killers.

What it does not mean is that the death penalty is overturned in Florida.

Juries will simply bear the same burden in executing a defendant as in 
convicting one.

Florida has the highest count of death penalty exonerations in the country, at 
23.

Hirsch concluded "We will take no Floridian's liberty upon a 
less-than-unanimous verdict, although liberty taken today can be restored 
tomorrow. We dare take no Floridian's life upon a less than-unanimous verdict. 
The life taken today can never be restored."

We can think of few arguments to counter his rationale.

(source: Editorial, St. Augustine Record)

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

Forget the fixes, get rid of executions


The Florida Legislature should get the message about the death penalty.

It's not that lawmakers haven't tried to fix our flawed system of execution. 
But fearful of appearing soft on crime, they refuse to do what makes sense.

Given the extraordinary costs of capital cases, the state's track record of 
getting it wrong and the reality that life without parole is its own cruel 
punishment, abolishing the death penalty is the best solution.

Absent that, lawmakers should fix the process to require a unanimous jury 
verdict for sentencing someone to death. For defending the indefensible is 
costly and misguided.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court said Florida's process for imposing 
the death penalty was unconstitutional because judges, rather than juries, made 
the final call.

So this spring, lawmakers changed the law to require that juries make the final 
decision, not simply a recommendation. And though the justices said nothing 
about Florida's refusal to require that the jury be unanimous, lawmakers 
decided to tinker with that part of the law, too.

After much debate, they agreed to require that to impose the ultimate sentence, 
10 of 12 jurors must agree. Previously, only a 7-5 simple majority was needed.

However, this week Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch became the 1st 
Florida judge to declare that failing to require a unanimous jury verdict is 
unconstitutional.

Hirsch's ruling is welcome and right. After all, we require a unanimous verdict 
to convict someone of murder, robbery and other crimes. Why require less when 
sentencing someone to die?

Every other state except for Alabama and Delaware require a unanimous jury 
verdict for the death penalty.

But you can be certain taxpayers will fund another lengthy legal battle, given 
that prosecutors are expected to appeal. Stephen Harper, co-director of the 
Florida Center for Capital Representation at Florida International University's 
College of Law, says it's possible Florida's new law will wind up before the 
U.S. Supreme Court.

Haven't we had enough of death penalty fixes and court battles and attorney 
fees and delays while lawyers fight over execution methods?

Nineteen states have abolished the death penalty. Last year, Nebraska became 
the first conservative state in several decades to do so. It's time Florida did 
the same.

Florida already has a death penalty reputation that won't be easily shed. More 
inmates have been executed on Gov. Rick Scott's watch - 23 - than any previous 
governor. Tragically, Florida leads the nation with 26 death row exonerations, 
meaning we've gotten it wrong 26 times. And almost 400 inmates currently on 
Florida's death row are waiting to see what the high court's last ruling means 
to them, so expect more huge legal costs.

As more states rid themselves of the death penalty - 7 in the last decade - 
they're also executing fewer people. And research by Harper and others finds 
there is no correlation between abolishing the death penalty and any rise in 
violent crime.

Life in prison has proven to be less expensive than the years-long legal 
process it takes for an execution. And you can make the argument that life in 
prison without parole could be easier on families, allowing them to get on with 
their lives and sparing them years of hearings and appeals.

Florida has created too many fixes and too many mistakes with the death 
penalty. The sooner we get rid of it, the better.

(source: Editorial, Sun-Sentinel)






ALABAMA----impending execution

Alabama prepares to execute man for killing police officer


Alabama is preparing to execute a man convicted in the 1985 killing of a police 
officer.

Vernon Madison is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection at 6 p.m. 
Thursday at the state prison in Atmore.

Madison was convicted of killing Mobile police Officer Julius Schulte. Schulte 
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.

A circuit court last month ruled Madison was competent to be executed despite a 
decline in his cognitive abilities after a stroke.

Madison would be the 2nd inmate executed in Alabama this year.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Who is Vernon Madison? Alabama cop-killer facing execution has claimed 
insanity, incompetence


Vernon Madison, 65, has spent nearly 1/2 of his life on Alabama's death row 
after being convicted of killing a Mobile police officer. The state of Alabama 
plans to execute him on Thursday at 6 p.m. at Holman Correctional Facility in 
Atmore.

Madison is represented by the Equal Justice Initiative, a Montgomery-based 
nonprofit law firm that primarily represents prisoners and the poor.

EJI attorneys argue that Madison should not be executed for several reasons: a 
judge overrode the jury's recommendation of life without parole and sentenced 
him to death, and several strokes and dementia have left him unable to 
rationally understand why the state seeks to execute him.

So far, several judges have rejected arguments that Madison is incompetent to 
be executed.

Madison's attorneys have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 
Circuit. They also have requested a stay of execution from the Alabama Supreme 
Court based on two recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have "raised 
fundamental questions about the constitutionality of the use of judicial 
override in Alabama."

Greene, who recovered from her injuries, later testified that there had been 
"increased tension" between her and Madison. She said Schulte hadn't pulled a 
gun or threatened Madison.

"Vernon had been for several weeks in a very agitated state," she said during a 
1985 hearing. "He was not communicating well with me at that point, or with 
anyone. He seemed angry about everything. Vernon's sister was murdered Feb. 26. 
She was buried a week later. From that point on he remained agitated. He was 
not acting rationally anymore."

Madison had three prior convictions in Mississippi: robbery in May 1971, 
assault in June 1973 and assault in July 1977, according to news reports.

After 14 years in prison in Mississippi, he had been paroled, partially through 
the efforts of John Langham, a former Prichard city councilman and business 
owner who knew Madison's mother.

"Something had to push that boy to that," Langham told the Press Register in 
1985. "He wanted to stay out of trouble."

At a hearing in July 1985, Madison entered a plea claiming his innocence and 
wrote a letter to the court saying his civil rights were being violated.

"I am of poverty, but I'm not without knowledge of the law," he wrote. "I am 
denied the use of the law library here and I'm also deprived of privileges in 
which all county inmates enjoy while confined in jail."

A psychiatrist who evaluated him said he continually displayed antagonism 
toward doctors and nurses, who said he refused to clean his cell and turned 
down jail food in favor of candy bars and chips.

Madison later amended his plea to guilty by reason of insanity. Defense 
attorneys said that he received psychiatric assistance at least 33 times while 
incarcerated in Mississippi. A prison psychiatrist previously had determined 
that Madison suffered from "a paranoid illness of profound proportion."

Madison's first trial took place in September 1985 before Mobile County Circuit 
Judge Ferrill McRae. Prosecutors presented several witnesses from the night 
Schulte was killed. Defense attorneys contended that Madison was emotionally 
unstable when the incident occurred, and a psychiatrist testified that he 
suffered from mixed personality paranoid disorder and antisocial disorder.

He was convicted, but a state appellate court sent the case back for a 
violation involving race-based jury selection.

His second trial took place in 1990. Prosecutors presented a similar case, and 
defense attorneys again argued that Madison suffered from a mental illness. 
They did not dispute the fact that Madison shot Schulte, but said he did not 
know that Schulte - dressed in plain clothes and driving an unmarked police 
cruiser - was a police officer.

He was again convicted, and a jury recommended a death sentence by a 10-2 vote.

"The murder of Julius Schulte was a pitiless and totally amoral act committed 
by a man whose life history is but 1 sequel after another of violent, 
assaultive acts against other human beings and total disregard for our laws and 
those who are charged with enforcing them," McRae said when sentencing Madison 
to death in November 1990.

At the sentencing hearing, Madison's attorney read a 3-page handwritten 
statement from Madison in which he maintained his innocence.

"I've sat meekly listening to the many lies told on me and the ugly things said 
about me and none were true," Madison wrote. "I am not a murderer nor a hateful 
or vindictive soul. I am not some wild beast nor am I insane. I am just as 
intelligent as anyone among you."

An appellate court again sent the case back to Mobile County for a retrial, 
this time based on improper testimony from an expert witness for the 
prosecution.

Madison's 3rd and final trial took place in April 1994. He was convicted, and 
the jury recommended a life sentence after both Madison and his mother, Aldonia 
McMillan, asked for mercy.

McMillan broke down as she spoke to jurors, ''If you want to put him away, put 
him away. I don't want to see my child die in the electric chair. He's the best 
one I got and I'm the mother of 7 boys.''

Judge McRae, as in the previous 2 trials, chose to sentence Madison to death - 
this time overriding the jury's recommendation.

In a 2011 interview with the New York Times, McRae addressed Alabama's practice 
of judicial override.

"If you didn't have something like that," he told the newspaper. "A jury with 
no experience in other cases would be making the ultimate decision, based on 
nothing. The judge has seen many, many cases, not just one."

EJI notes that McRae overrode 6 jury recommendations for life without parole to 
impose a death sentence, the most of any judge in Alabama. U.S. Supreme Court 
Justice Sonia Sotomayor specifically cited McRae in a dissent over the state's 
allowance of judicial override in capital cases.

"Alabama's capital sentencing scheme has exactly the same defect that the 
Supreme Court declared unconstitutional earlier this year in Hurst v. Florida," 
according to an EJI news release.

Their request for a stay pending before the Alabama Supreme Court is based on a 
potential challenge to the state's death penalty sentencing scheme in light of 
the Hurst decision.

Incompetent to be executed?

A state circuit court judge on April 29 denied a request for a stay of 
execution, based on testimony and arguments offered during a competency hearing 
earlier that month. On Tuesday, a federal judge agreed with the state judge's 
ruling, paving the way for the execution to go forward.

"It is unconstitutional to execute an individual who is mentally incompetent," 
an EJI news release stated. "Despite evidence that Mr. Madison is incompetent, 
a federal judge denied his request for a stay of execution late [Tuesday]."

Madison has suffered several strokes, which, coupled with diabetes, 
hypertension and debilitating headaches, have led to significant cognitive 
decline. His speech is slurred, he is legally blind and he can no longer walk 
independently.

According to court documents, Madison most recently was found unresponsive in 
his prison cell in January. Doctors determined he had suffered a stroke that 
resulted in retrograde amnesia, leading to an inability to independently 
recollect the offense of which he was convicted.

"Mr. Madison could not recall any of the 25 elements in a brief story vignette 
[a psychologist] read him, could not remember the alphabet past the letter G, 
could not perform serial three additions, could not remember the name of the 
previous United States President, named Guy Hunt as the governor of Alabama, 
and could not remember the name of the Warden at Holman Correctional Facility," 
EJI attorneys have written in motions seeking to halt the execution.

Over the past few months, his attorneys say he has become less lucid, more 
disoriented and increasingly disheveled.

(source: al.com)






LOUISIANA:

Documents reveal allegations of evidence being left out in Darrell James 
Robinson death penalty trial


We are learning more about new developments in the case against Darrell James 
Robinson. Robinson was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1996 quadruple 
murder of a family in Poland, Louisiana. Among the dead was an infant.

On Monday, a motion to vacate the conviction and death sentence was submitted 
in the Rapides Parish courthouse by Robinson's attorneys to Judge Patricia 
Koch. It was a move that district attorney's office never objected to. On 
Wednesday, we got an explanation why.

Attorneys for Robinson allege that evidence was withheld from Robinson's 
original defense attorney, Mike Small. It's evidence they believe could have 
led to an acquittal at the time of the trial.

On Monday, 2 attorneys representing Robinson, as well as, current District 
Attorney Phillip Terrell and Assistant District Attorney Greg Wampler agreed to 
a "joint stipulation of facts."

Inside the document is an agreement that said Small never had access to key 
pieces of evidence including photographs of physical evidence taken at the 
crime scene and at the crime lab, as well as scene sketches and ballistics 
bench notes.

"Those stipulations were based upon things that were told to us and Mr. 
Robinson's lawyers by Mr. Small and Mr. Shannon," said Terrell. "Obviously, Mr. 
Shannon is still employed here. I assume because my assistant district attorney 
tells me that all of those things are true, so I assume they are."

However, the signature of Mike Shannon, the prosecutor during the trial and 
co-counsel now was left off the joint stipulation agreement signed Monday. Yet 
Terrell said Shannon helped draft the stipulations.

"In fact, if you notice on the stipulations, absolutely he was," explained 
Terrell. "If you notice on there, there is some handwriting on there, those 
were done based on assertions that Mr. Shannon made while we were talking about 
the stipulations."

However, when asked why Shannon's name was not signed Terrell said "I...just 
because he didn't. I don't know. We didn't put it on there."

If Judge Koch approves that agreement, it could pave the way for a motion to 
vacate Robinson's conviction and sentence to be granted. Yet Terrell said they 
are filing a motion on the matter for an official hearing to take place 
mid-July.

"We certainly oppose the motion to vacate and we're going to do everything we 
can to make sure that the sentence stands," said Terrell.

We caught up with Sheriff William Earl Hilton to discuss these new 
developments.

"The damn guy is guilty," said Sheriff Hilton. "He is as guilty as a human 
being can get."

He said, Mike Shannon and those involved with the case followed the law when 
prosecuting it.

"I have all of the confidence in the world in Mike Shannon," said Sheriff 
Hilton. "I would like to see him prosecute this case again if it gets to that 
point. i don't have any doubt about his capability."

Sheriff Hilton said if Robinson were to be released then he would most likely 
kill again.

"It's very, very possible," insisted Sheriff Hilton. "I know some things about 
him that I'm not privy to reveal. But, he is a weird, weird individual."

(source: KALB news)






OHIO:

Death Penalty Arguments to Begin for Convicted Killer of 3


The troubled background of an Ohio man who killed 3 women, including reports of 
childhood beatings and malnourishment, likely will frame arguments that his 
life be spared.

Defense attorneys are scheduled to begin making arguments Thursday against a 
death sentence for Michael Madison.

Madison, 38, was convicted last week in a Cleveland courtroom of aggravated 
murder and kidnapping, charges that include death penalty specifications.

Prosecutors said Madison deserves to die for murdering 38-year-old Angela 
Deskins, 28-year-old Shetisha Sheeley and 18-year-old Shirellda Terry, whose 
bodies were found in July 2013 wrapped in garbage bags near the East Cleveland 
apartment building where Madison lived. A medical examiner ruled that Deskins 
and Sheeley were strangled, but couldn't determine how Terry died.

Authorities said Madison confessed to killing 2 of the women after his arrest, 
but couldn't recall having killed the third. His attorneys conceded at trial 
that he had killed the women.

The same jury that convicted Madison now will decide his fate, with the judge 
having the final say. In Ohio, a judge can reject a death sentence, but can't 
impose one if a jury doesn't vote for it.

If appeals court documents are any indication, Madison's attorneys will argue 
that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from abuse when 
he was a young child.

Madison was beaten by his mother and stepfather during the early 1980s when he 
was around 3 or 4 years old, according to a summary of an investigative report 
prepared by the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services.

An investigation found that Madison's mother beat him with a cord, picked him 
up by his hair and gave him a black eye. He also was malnourished. The report 
said his stepfather beat him for not picking up his toys, and he was sent to 
live with his grandmother.

PTSD is a recognized mental disorder with a long list of criteria for a 
qualified diagnosis, some of which are subjective, according to Cleveland-based 
forensic psychiatrist Sara West. Jurors must decide the significance of the 
disorder if PTSD is one of the facts Madison's attorneys present in favor of 
sparing him.

"It's not a psychotic disorder," West said. "It doesn't alter one's perception 
of reality."

A doctor in 2010 diagnosed Madison with depression, sleep disturbance and 
anxiety. His attorneys have said he has drug and alcohol dependence.

Those convicted of crimes punishable by death often face long odds at 
sentencing, said University of Dayton law professor Lori Shaw. Jurors have 
already indicated that they're not opposed to the death penalty and, as in the 
Madison case, have seen and heard grisly testimony about horrific killings, 
Shaw said.

Even if Madison is sentenced to die, an execution would be years off. The state 
currently doesn't have execution drugs and the Supreme Court already has 
scheduled more than 2 dozen executions into 2019.

(source: Associated Press)