[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., OHIO, NEB.

[Rick Halperin]

May 25



PENNSYLVANIA:

Jury To Mull Death Penalty Arguments In Sisters' Slayings


A jury must determine whether a Pittsburgh man deserves the death penalty or 
life in prison for killing his next-door neighbors, 2 sisters of an Iowa state 
lawmaker, while stealing a bank card from them in February 2014.

The same jury convicted 45-year-old Allen Wade of 1st-degree murder and other 
charges in the deaths of Sarah and Susan Wolfe. The jury will hear closing 
arguments in the penalty phase of Wades murder trial Wednesday. The jury must 
then unanimously vote for the death penalty, otherwise Wade gets life in 
prison.

The women were sisters of Democratic Iowa state Rep. Mary Wolfe when Wade shot 
them, separately, as they returned from work that night. Allegheny County 
prosecutors say he used the card to withdraw $600 he needed for rent.

(source: cbsnews.com)




OHIO:

Mom rejects plea deal, still faces death penalty in death of daughter----Andrea 
Bradley, Glen Bates accused of killing toddler


A mother charged with the murder of her 2-year-old daughter will take her 
chances with a jury, she told the court during a Wednesday hearing.

The parents of a 2-year-old girl are facing murder charges in her death and 
could face the death penalty if convicted.

Andrea Bradley, 29, of Cincinnati, declined a plea deal which would have taken 
the death penalty off the table.

The accusations against Bradley and her boyfriend Glen Bates, 33, of 
Cincinnati, are disturbing - that's why the prosecutor is asking for the death 
penalty.

Bradley and Bates are charged with the death of 2-year-old Glenara Bates.

The girl was taken to Children's Hospital in March 2015, where she died a short 
time later.

Prosecutors described disturbing injuries - including bite marks, belt marks 
and broken teeth.

She weighed just 13 pounds when she died. The coroner said starvation and blunt 
force trauma were the cause of death.

As Bradley came into court before Judge Robert Ruehlman Wednesday morning, it 
was still unclear if the deal would go through.

Her defense attorneys explained that they had a potential agreement in place 
that would have taken the death penalty off the table, but Bradley turned it 
down. Her attorney Will Welsh went on the record today to make it clear she 
knows the stakes of going to trial.

"By continuing on this path she is exposed to the possibility of receiving a 
death sentence and she fully acknowledges that, understands, and wishes to 
proceed," Welsh said.

Rather than admit to killing her daughter, she will head to trial.

Another member of her defense team, Scott Rubenstein, described the plea offer 
as "the holy grail" in a death penalty case - avoiding death row.

"That was on the table and we'd be in a position to argue for a possibility 
that she would be paroled at some point, but she's not comfortable with that 
and we have to respect what our client wants to do," Rubenstein said.

Her attorneys could not discuss why she turned down the deal.

Bradley's father was at the courthouse on Wednesday. He didn't want to talk on 
camera, but he said his daughter has mental health problems and he was happy 
she did not accept the plea.

But talk of a deal may not be done yet.

"Obviously, if there is a way to resolve it short of that and avoid the death 
penalty that's something that we'll certainly consider and I hope our client 
will too," Rubenstein said.

Bradley will be back in court on this case next month. This could go to trial 
later this year.

Bates is scheduled for trial in September, where he could also face the death 
penalty.

(source: WLWT news)





NEBRASKA:

Attorneys battle over whether death penalty should end up on November ballot


A legal battle over whether the death penalty question will be put to Nebraska 
voters in November reached the state's highest court Wednesday.

Death penalty opponents Christy and Richard Hargesheimer of Lincoln contend the 
petition drive that gathered some 169,000 signatures should be deemed invalid 
because it failed to disclose Gov. Pete Ricketts as a sponsor to those signing.

But the state and a pro-death penalty group both contend that even though 
Ricketts and his father contributed one-third of the $913,000 raised by 
Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, the governor was not a sponsor.

Last year, the Hargesheimers sought an injunction to keep Secretary of State 
John Gale from placing the question on the ballot. Lancaster County District 
Judge Lori Maret dismissed it in February, and the couple appealed to the 
Nebraska Supreme Court.

In oral arguments Wednesday, an attorney for the couple got 15 minutes then 
attorneys for Nebraskans for the Death Penalty and the state got a shared 15 
minutes to state their position and answer questions from the Supreme Court 
justices.

Nebraska law requires a sworn list of sponsors of a referendum be provided but 
does not define how one qualifies as a sponsor, and many of the justices' 
questions went to that issue.

Lincoln attorney Alan Peterson, who represents the Hargesheimers, said a 
reasonable approach would be to define sponsor as the primary initiating force. 
Further, he said, it seems like "the public has to be informed who is behind 
the initiative."

But Assistant Attorney General Ryan Post said that proposed standard is 
"unworkable and would chill the democratic process."

He and Omaha attorney Steven Grasz, who represents the pro-death penalty group, 
contended that sponsors are those who assume statutory responsibility for a 
referendum once a petition process begins.

Grasz said the other side was "grasping at straws" in raising one additional 
issue: Alleging it was an error for Judge Maret to consider a sworn statement 
of petition sponsors in her decision to dismiss the lawsuit.

He said Peterson hadn't raised the question until a reply brief to the Supreme 
Court, so couldn't raise it now.

"It was a question of law and it was decided on the face of the complaint," 
Grasz argued.

At most, Grasz said, it was harmless error, and therefore not worth a reversal.

On the other side, Peterson said he raised the issue in his reply brief in 
response to a misstatement of facts. He argued a statement regarding sponsors 
was not sworn because those who signed it were not under oath and that the 
judge was wrong to rely on it in reaching her decision.

"There is a difference and it is critical," he said.

The Supreme Court took the case under advisement.

(source: Lincoln Journal Star)