[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ARIZ., NEV., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

May 19



ARIZONA:

Judge allows inmate challenge to death penalty to proceed


A court challenge to the way the state of Arizona carries out the death penalty 
will proceed, according to a court order filed late Wednesday.

The plaintiffs in the case are death row inmates and the First Amendment 
Coalition of Arizona, which advocates for open government on behalf of the 
media. Their attorneys had argued that the state is violating the First and 
Eighth amendments in its execution process.

At issue, according to the plaintiffs, is a lack of transparency about how the 
executions are carried out, including where the state obtains its execution 
drugs and the state???s pattern of changing execution procedures at the last 
minute.

Federal Judge Neil Wake dismissed the First Amendment claims.

"The press has no such right, (of access to all aspects of the execution 
process) not without the court making new law that extends beyond historical 
practice and legal authority," he wrote.

Wake allowed the claims questioning the drug combination the state is using and 
the failure of the state to follow its execution protocol without significant 
last-minute changes to proceed.

Arizona is under a death penalty moratorium until this case, which was filed in 
2014 after the execution of convicted murderer Joseph Rudolph Wood took nearly 
2 hours, is resolved.

Wood's execution was described by some as "botched."

(source: azfamily.com)






NEVADA:

Lethal Drug Stoppage Shows Death Penalty Divide


The Nevada Department of Corrections is still moving forward with plans for a 
new execution facility in Ely in light of pharmaceutical powerhouse, Pfizer, 
halting its sell of lethal injection drugs last Friday. Reno Public Radio's 
Marcus Lavergne reports:

Department of Correction's spokeswoman Brooke Keast says plans for the nearly 
$858,000 facility will continue, but she doesn't know how quickly.

"It's our legislature, the voters and the people of Nevada that will ultimately 
make the decision on what happens with this stuff," Keast said.

Pfizer is the most recent company to discontinue the use of its Food and Drug 
administration approved-drugs for lethal injection, the only method for 
execution used in Nevada.

The move represents a national distancing by drug makers from the death 
penalty.

Currently, 82 Nevada death row inmates don't have court-ordered execution 
dates, but Keast says Nevada will have the appropriate means to execute if the 
order comes through.

(source: KUNR news)






CALIFORNIA:

Showdown Set Over Future of California's Death Penalty


Death penalty supporters are setting the stage on Thursday for a November 
showdown over whether to speed up executions in California or do away with them 
entirely.

Crime victims, prosecutors and other supporters plan to submit about 585,000 
signatures for a ballot measure to streamline what both sides call a broken 
system.

No one has been executed in California in a decade because of ongoing legal 
challenges. Nearly 750 convicted killers are on the nation's largest death row, 
but only 13 have been executed since 1978. Far more condemned inmates have died 
of natural causes or suicide.

Supporters plan 10 news conferences statewide to promote an initiative they say 
would save taxpayers millions of dollars annually, retain due process 
protections and bring justice to murder victims and their families.

The measure would speed what is currently a lengthy appeals process by 
expanding the pool of appellate attorneys and appointing lawyers to the death 
cases at the time of sentencing.

Currently there is about a 5-year wait just for condemned inmates to be 
assigned a lawyer. By contrast, the ballot measure would require that the 
entire state appeals process be completed within 5 years except under 
extraordinary circumstances.

To meet that timeline, appeals would have to be filed more quickly and there 
would be limits on how many appeals could be filed in each case.

Appeals currently can take more than 2 decades, according to the nonpartisan 
Legislative Analyst's Office.

"Justice denied is not justice," former NFL star Kermit Alexander said as he 
choked up while testifying at a legislative hearing on the measure this week. 
"My mother, sister and two little nephews still remain in their graves and my 
family is still having to fight for justice."

They were killed in South Central Los Angeles in 1984, and he has since become 
the proponent and most prominent public figure for the reform measure.

Additional provisions would allow condemned inmates to be housed at any prison, 
not just on San Quentin's death row, and they would have to work and pay victim 
restitution while they wait to be executed.

"What is the point of seeking the death penalty in the state of California if 
it doesn't work?" Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert, 
another proponent, asked at the same hearing.

Opponents say their measure, too, would save money by doing away with the death 
penalty and keeping currently condemned inmates imprisoned for life with no 
chance of parole.

They submitted about 601,000 signatures on April 28 with much less fanfare, 
said deputy campaign manager Quintin Mecke. Each side needs nearly 366,000 
valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

"It's unfortunate that the DAs (district attorneys) want to double down on a 
fundamentally broken death penalty system that simply can't be fixed," Mecke 
said. "You can't streamline or reform a failed policy."

A similar attempt to abolish the death penalty failed by 4 % points in 2012. 
Besides the latest initiative put forward by opponents, that failed effort 
spurred this year's counter-move by law enforcement and crime victims.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Ballot measure seeks to speed up executions in California


The measure, which organizers hope will qualify for November ballot, would also 
enact other reforms. Supporters plan Thursday news conference in Riverside.

The Inland district attorneys, Mike Hestrin of Riverside County, left, and Mike 
Ramos of San Bernardino County, are scheduled to speak on Thursday, May 29, in 
support of an initiative that would streamline death row executions.

If you go

The organization Californians for Death Penalty Reform and Savings has 
scheduled a news conference for 2:30 p.m. Thursday, May 19, at the Historic 
Courthouse, 4050 Main St., Riverside.

Information: www.deathpenaltyreform.com

T10 years after the most recent execution of a death row inmate in California, 
an organization plans to submit signatures Thursday, May 19, to place a measure 
on the state's November ballot that, if approved by voters, would speed the 
demise of the condemned.

Californians for Death Penalty Reform and Savings say the initiative - the 
Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016 - also would provide protections 
for inmates as well as justice for survivors and save the state millions of 
dollars in prison-housing costs.

The organization plans to submit 585,000 signatures. California requires 
365,880 valid signatures to place a measure on the ballot, said Rachel Smith, a 
spokeswoman for the group.

News conferences are scheduled around the state Thursday, including one at 2:30 
p.m. at the Historic Courthouse in Riverside with scheduled appearances by 
Riverside County District Attorney Mike Hestrin and San Bernardino County 
District Attorney Mike Ramos.

Riverside resident and former NFL player Kermit Alexander also is scheduled to 
appear, a news release said. Alexander's mother, sister and 2 nephews were 
killed in 1984 by a gang member who went to the wrong house while carrying out 
a murder for hire; the shooter, Tiequon Cox, remains on death row.

The Death Penalty Reform organization's website links to a statement by Ramos 
in support of the initiative that appears on the website of news aggregator 
Flashreport.org.

"To protect public safety, bring justice to the worst criminals and closure for 
the families whose loved ones were taken from them, California's death penalty 
must be reformed so that it can actually be used," Ramos wrote.

The initiative would:

-- require special death penalty counsel to be appointed sooner to stop legal 
delays,

-- require death row inmates to work while awaiting appeals and pay 
restitution to their victims' families,

-- allow death row inmates to be housed in double cells in any 
maximum-security prison instead of a single cell at San Quentin, and

-- replace the current, three-drug lethal injection cocktail with a 
single-drug protocol that was approved for physician-assisted suicide in 
California.

There are 747 inmates on death row, according to the California Department of 
Corrections and Rehabilitation. Those include 124 who were tried in Riverside 
or San Bernardino counties.

Inland victims of current death row inmates include Riverside police officers 
Ryan Bonaminio, Dennis Doty, Phillip Trust and Doug Jacobs.

(source: The Press-Enterprise)





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

California considers making its own lethal drugs for the death penalty


Under new rules proposed by the California Department of Corrections and 
Rehabilitation, prison officials would be allowed to manufacture barbituates to 
carry out the death penalty at its own compounding pharmacies, immunizing 
prison officials from the growing problem of pharmaceutical companies refusing 
to sell lethal drugs for the purpose of killing the condemned.

Last week, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced it would no longer allow 
states to buy its drugs to put people to death. Pfizer's decision won't affect 
California because it does not manufacture the 4 drugs prison officials propose 
to use in the new regime now under consideration.

The plan would allow prison authorities to use 1 of 4 barbiturates for lethal 
injection: amobarbital, pentobarbital, secobarbital and thiopental.

Amid court challenges to lethal injection and a shortage of drugs, the state 
hasn't executed anyone in more than a decade.

CDCR spokeswoman Terry Thornton declined to comment on Pfizer's decision - nor 
that of other companies now refusing to sell the barbituates California would 
need. But she pointed out language in the current proposal that lays out the 
department's options, which include sidestepping the big drug companies 
altogether.

"California law requires that state resources be utilized when available before 
contracting with private sources for good or services is permitted. CDCR has 
compounding pharmacies," the proposal states. It goes on to say if the 
department cannot compound the chemical, it is "permitted to contract with a 
private non-state compound pharmacy."

Unlike regular pharmacies that sell major label drugs, compounding pharmacies 
manufacture their own drugs, often in doses designed for individual patients.

The state prison system indeed has its own pharmacies that are licensed to 
produce "sterile and injectable drugs," said Megan McCracken, a law professor 
at the death penalty clinic at the Berkeley School of Law. That would include 
the barbituates California wants to use.

But prison officials have been vague about how that would work and whether they 
would also use private compounding pharmacies, said McCracken. While such 
pharmacies are less regulated than big drug companies, they must follow certain 
guidelines.

They are prohibited from simply copying barbituates and other drugs already on 
the market, she said. They also require the pre-existence of a doctor patient 
relationship, a patient with a particularized need, and a prescription for the 
specific compound from the doctor.

"Do doctors want to write these prescriptions that are putting their patients 
to death?" asked McCracken, who does not take a position on the death penalty.

Texas, Georgia and Missouri already use a one drug procedure by injecting 
compounded pentobarbital. It's unclear if they make it at prison pharmacies or 
use private companies, said McCracken, because states are increasingly 
secretive about how they are getting their lethal injection drugs.

Another concern with compounded drugs is their quality.

"There is a higher risk the dose will be wrong," said Anna Zamora of the 
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which opposes the death 
penalty. "At the end of the day, my biggest concern is botched executions in 
California."

Supporters of the death penalty are equally frustrated with drugs companies 
refusing to sell the drugs needed to carry out lethal injections, and support 
the state's effort to get the drugs in other ways.

"This is an ongoing debate across America and I don't want to argue with the 
companies over whether its proper," said San Bernardino District Attorney Mike 
Ramos. "It's their company."

"The biggest frustration for me is the victim. They deserve justice," said 
Ramos, who chairs the campaign for a November ballot initiative designed to 
speed executions in California.

A 2nd initiative expected to appear on the ballot would eliminate the death 
penalty in California.

In the meantime, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation continues to 
take public comment on its proposed regulations through July 11. By law, the 
department must consider and respond to each comment. Prison officials could 
chose to change the proposed regulations based on the comments.

(source: scpr.org)

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

How Death Penalty Initiatives Seek To Solve A Broken System


California voters will likely decide in November whether to abolish the death 
penalty or to streamline the process. Proponents for 2 competing ballot 
initiatives met for a hearing at the Capitol Tuesday.

They argued whether the death penalty is moral, necessary, or just, but also if 
the state's current broken system can be fixed.

California spends upwards of $150 million a year on the death penalty and has 
hundreds of death row inmates, but hasn't executed anyone in more than a 
decade.

"We're just spending a lot of money and not getting justice for it," says 
defense attorney and Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen.

Uelman testified in favor of a ballot measure to abolish capital punishment.

8 years ago, he helped come up with a different solution. Uelman led a 
state-appointed commission of prosecutors, defenders, police, and victim 
advocates that made a unanimous recommendation about how to make the death 
penalty process work.

"If we really want to fix the system, we need to spend the money to have a 
cadre of professional lawyers who are doing nothing but death penalty cases," 
Uelman says.

The commission estimated it would cost the state $100 million a year to hire 
enough public defenders and other attorneys.

Uelmen says the other initiative headed to the November ballot does not solve 
that problem. The measure seeks to jumpstart the death penalty, largely by 
hastening an appeals process that currently can drag on for decades.

Contra Costa County District Attorney Mark Peterson says death penalty 
supporters have also found a workaround for adding more attorneys, one that 
doesn't increase state spending.

"Death penalty cases aren't as complicated as some might think," Peterson says. 
"They're murder of a police officer. Is that particularly complicated? No."

The measure would allow trial courts to appoint attorneys who don't specialize 
in capital punishment, but who handle other serious crimes.

Peterson says the initiative was drafted to follow other recommendations in the 
2008 report--although increasing spending on attorneys was the only one that 
received unanimous agreement.

Proponents plan to submit enough voter signatures to qualify the pro-death 
penalty measure for the ballot on Thursday.

The measure to abolish the death penalty has already submitted signatures.

(source: capradio.org)






USA:

Why Protecting the Innocent From a Death Sentence Isn't Enough


I've always been known as a tough-on-crime, pro-law enforcement individual, and 
I still am. During my years as a North Carolina State Senator, I vigorously 
advocated for the death penalty. As a superior court judge, I presided over 
trials where the death penalty seemed like the only suitable punishment for the 
heinous crimes that had been committed. Finally, as a Justice, and then as 
Chief Justice, on the Supreme Court of North Carolina, I cast my vote at 
appropriate times to uphold that harsh and most final sentence.

After decades of experience with the law, I have seen too much, and what I have 
seen has impacted my perspective. First, my faith in the criminal justice 
system, which had always been so steady, was shaken by the revelation that in 
some cases innocent men and women were being convicted of serious crimes. The 
increased availability of DNA testing in the early 2000s highlighted this 
problem so clearly to me. I spent the next decade working with others to devise 
systems and develop task forces dedicated to the prevention of wrongful 
convictions in North Carolina. I take, I believe, justifiable pride in the fact 
that North Carolina established the 1st state Innocence Inquiry Commission in 
the country. Numerous legal experts publicly acknowledge that the safeguards 
that have been implemented in North Carolina are wildly successful. However, 1 
thing we did not adequately address is that individuals with intellectual 
disabilities, mental illness, and other impairments are more likely to be 
wrongfully convicted. The case of Henry McCollum and Leon Brown makes that 
point vividly clear. McCollum was 19 and Brown was 15 when they confessed to 
the rape and murder of 11-year-old Sabrina Buie. Both men are intellectually 
disabled, which greatly increased their susceptibility to false confession. As 
a result, they spent 31 years in prison, including time on death row, for a 
crime they didn't commit.

The death penalty is not and should not be available as a punishment for all 
homicides. In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Court found that under the Eighth 
Amendment, capital punishment "must be limited to those offenders ... whose 
extreme culpability makes them the most deserving of execution." Both the crime 
itself, and the offender, must be deemed the so-called "worst of the worst." 
The Court has categorically barred persons with intellectual disability and 
juveniles from execution because they have diminished culpability, and 
defendants are also allowed to introduce mitigating evidence to demonstrate 
impairments. However, I've seen how these safeguards can fail to adequately 
protect individuals with significant impairments.

Last year in America, over 1/2 of the individuals that were executed had severe 
mental impairments. Too much reliance is put on jurors to identify those who 
are the "worst of the worst." As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North 
Carolina, I was responsible for assessing the personal culpability of 
defendants in capital cases to ensure that the punishment would be applied 
appropriately, so I understand just how difficult this task can be.

In order for mitigation evidence to be considered it must be collected and 
introduced at trial. In states where indigent defense systems are woefully 
underfunded, as it is in North Carolina, or where standards of representation 
are inadequate, this evidence regularly goes undiscovered.

Additionally, a number of impairments are difficult to measure. For 
intellectual disability, we can use an IQ score to approximate impairment, but 
no similar numeric scale exists to determine just how mentally ill someone is, 
or how brain trauma may have impacted their culpability. Finally, even when 
evidence of diminished culpability exists, some jurors have trouble emotionally 
separating the characteristic of the offender from the details of the crime.

The categorical exclusions for juveniles under the age of 18 and those with 
intellectual disability are simply drawn too narrowly to encompass everyone who 
has diminished culpability. These categorical exclusions are particularly 
inadequate when multiple impairments exist. Take for instance the case of 
Lamondre Tucker, whose case will be conferenced by the Supreme Court this week. 
Tucker was convicted of murdering his pregnant girlfriend in Caddo Parish, 
Louisiana. He was just 18 years old at the time of the offense, and was 
repeating his senior year of high school. He has an IQ score of 74. Taken 
together, these factors indicate that he is most likely just as impaired as 
those individuals that the Court has determined it is unconstitutional to 
execute. Yet, because of a variety of systemic factors, including ineffective 
legal representation, Tucker sits on death row. 10 former State Supreme Court 
justices signed an Amicus brief last month questioning the constitutionality of 
Tucker's death sentence due to his impairments. Today I join my colleague's 
call.

After spending years trying to instill confidence in the criminal justice 
system, I've come to realize that there are certain adverse economic conditions 
that have made the system fundamentally unfair for some defendants. These 
systemic problems continue to lead to the conviction of the innocent, as well 
as those individuals for whom the death penalty would be constitutionally 
inappropriate, regardless of the crime. Our inability to determine who 
possesses sufficient culpability to warrant a death sentence draws into 
question whether the death penalty can ever be constitutional under the Eighth 
Amendment. I have come to believe that it probably cannot.

(source: I. Beverly Lake, Jr. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 
North Carolina----Huffington Post)