[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----CONN., PENN., MISS., NEB., UTAH, ARIZ., CALIF.

[Rick Halperin]

May 27



CONNECTICUT:

Supreme Court Right To End Death Penalty


The death penalty has been rightly put behind us. The Connecticut Supreme Court 
on Thursday ruled, for the 2nd time, that the statute prohibiting capital 
punishment must apply to all, including those already sentenced and on death 
row.

In 2012, the General Assembly abolished the death penalty, but only for future 
cases. That contortion of the law - banning capital punishment except for those 
already on death row - had been a way to ensure that Steven Hayes and Joshua 
Komisarjevsky, sentenced to death for the brutal assaults and murders of the 
Petit family in Cheshire in 2007, would still face execution.

And in that respect, this decision is difficult to swallow.

The entire state wept for William Petit Jr. after his family's tragedy. For 
many, the unimaginable horrors suffered by his wife and daughters made the best 
possible case for the death penalty. There was a sense that firm justice - and, 
yes, vengeance - was not just expected but required.

Mr. Petit crusaded for the death penalty for his family's killers, and when the 
Supreme Court last summer ruled that the exemption for those already convicted 
was unconstitutional, he criticized the decision, as did prosecutors, who 
challenged it.

But, ultimately, the court was right then and is right in the current decision. 
The law banning the death penalty cannot be selectively applied.

The death penalty has cost untold millions in legal appeals, has been unevenly 
applied and for many victims' families has provided no real feelings of 
closure. It also, as Justice Richard N. Palmer said in last year's decision, 
"no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency." It's time to leave 
it to history.

The Cheshire killers will not be executed but will rot with the rest of the 
murderers on the former death row.

Steven Hayes, who last year claimed he was enduring "hostile living conditions" 
on death row, pleaded to have his execution sped up. Now he will have a long 
time to endure whatever discomfort his punishment brings him.

That's justice enough.

(source: Editorial, Hartford Courant)






PENNSYLVANIA:

Wade sentenced to life in prison without parole for killing Wolfe sisters


After 20 days of testimony and deliberations, the jurors who convicted Allen 
Wade of murdering his East Liberty neighbors, sisters Susan and Sarah Wolfe, 
could not agree on whether to sentence him to death.

The jury deliberated for five hours Wednesday and 3 1/2 hours Thursday before 
announcing they were deadlocked over whether to sentence Wade, 45, to the death 
penalty or to life without parole for the Feb. 6, 2014, slayings.

"I like it that Wade's in prison," said Kevin Wolfe, 1 of Susan and Sarah's 
brothers, after the sentencing. "We don't have the death penalty in Iowa, but 
he is in prison, and he is marked as a murderer of 2 women."

As the law requires, Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Edward Borkowski 
imposed a sentence of life without parole. He gave Wade 2 consecutive life 
sentences, 1 for each victim, plus 3 consecutive terms of 10 to 20 years for 2 
counts of robbery and 1 count of burglary.

The same jury of 7 women and 5 men had convicted Wade on Monday on all charges, 
including 2 counts of 1st-degree murder, for killing the Wolfes in their 
Chislett Street home, stealing their bank cards and Sarah Wolfe's car, and 
withdrawing $600 from Sarah's bank account.

Defense attorneys Lisa Phillips and Lisa Middleman hugged each other and shook 
Wade's hand just after court staff shared the jury's statement about the 
impasse.

"We've taken several votes. ... It doesn't look like we are going to be able to 
move one way or another," the statement read.

The panel was split 9-3 in favor of the death penalty, but the holdouts could 
not be swayed, jurors said afterward.

"I think the jury was very conscientious, and I think we were very thorough," 
said Gwendolyn Kerr, an alternate brought in to replace original Juror No. 4 
after he looked up Wade's criminal history and brought it up to other jurors on 
the 1st day of deliberations on whether Wade was guilty.

Kerr noted that after the judge instructed the rest of the panel to disregard 
the dismissed juror and what he said, the topic never came up. She didn't learn 
why she had been called until after the trial was over.

Kerr, a former hospital lab technician, said she found it easier to grasp the 
DNA evidence in the case than other jurors did.

"Everyone had differing reasons for their conviction. Different things swayed 
different people," Kerr said.

But during the penalty phase, jurors couldn't agree on how much weight to give 
the Wade family's testimony about his helpful nature as a child or his love for 
his late grandmother, Kerr said. One refused to consider the death penalty at 
all, so the majority gave up on convincing the other 2.

Another juror, who declined to give her name, said she was upset over the 
deadlock but glad Wade was convicted.

"Justice was not served here," she said.

The other jurors declined to give their names or comment further, though the 
foreman said the past 20 days was a heavy burden that finally has been lifted.

Christy Wolfe, 1 of Susan and Sarah's sisters, praised the jury and said she 
felt it ruled with thoughtfulness and a sense of duty.

"I could say so much about Suzy and Sarah, but I think the best thing is just 
that they were, they were ... so important," she said.

In victim impact statements read Tuesday, she and her sister Katie Wolfe told 
jurors how much Sarah, 38, and Susan, 44, meant to them and their children. 
Katie's oldest daughter had planned to move in with the sisters after high 
school and volunteer at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic in Oakland, 
where Sarah was a psychiatrist.

Though the defense alleged investigators rushed to pin the murders on Wade 
under pressure from prosecutors and the media, Kevin Wolfe said he has great 
respect and admiration for the prosecutors and homicide detectives. At one 
point, investigators flew to meet the family at their Iowa home to review 
evidence.

As he was led from the courtroom, Wade told his parents in the gallery, Vivian 
"Bunny" Wade and Allen "Sonny" Wade, that he loved them. Afterward, his 
great-aunt, Jeanette Howard, apologized to the Wolfe family and said things 
were "in God's hands."

Prosecutors Bill Petulla and Rob Schupansky declined to comment, as did defense 
attorneys Middleman, Phillips and Aaron Sontz.

Middleman told Borkowski that post-sentencing motions will be filed on Wade's 
behalf that will challenge aspects of the conviction, and will seek extra time 
because of the need to prepare a transcript of the lengthy trial.

(source: triblive.com)






MISSISSIPPI:

Mississippi Supreme Court rejects Curtis Giovanni Flowers' motion


The Mississippi Supreme Court has rejected Curtis Giovanni Flowers' emergency 
appeal to get his hands on discovery documents that might help in the appeal of 
his conviction and death sentence in his 6th trial.

In June 2010, Flowers was convicted in Montgomery Circuit Court and sentenced 
to death for killing Winona furniture store owner Bertha Tardy and 3 of her 
employees in 1996.

The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision released Thursday, 
refused Flowers' motion to force District Attorney Doug Evans to turn over law 
enforcement and prosecution files in his case as well as Evans' notes, jury 
strike sheets, and other documents relating to jury selection in Flowers' 6th 
trial.

"This was a ruling on the narrow scope of discovery documents," Flowers' 
attorney, David Voisin of Jackson, said Thursday. "It's not a big deal. His 
overall post-conviction appeal is still before the court."

The state Supreme Court upheld a ruling earlier this year by Circuit Judge 
Joseph Loper Jr., who presided over Flowers' sixth trial, denying Flowers' 
motion to force Evans' office to provide the requested documents.

Flowers is seeking the documents as part of his appeal of the latest 
conviction.

After Flowers' conviction in 2010, Loper issued a 42-page opinion denying his 
motion to throw out the jury verdict, or, as an alternative grant him a new 
trial. The state Supreme Court affirmed Flowers' conviction.However, Flowers 
has filed a new post-conviction appeal, citing prosecutorial misconduct.

Voisin said normally there is presumption that the prosecution has fully 
disclosed all information.

"Ordinarily, we presume that public officials have properly discharged their 
duties. However, this is no ordinary case," Voisin said in the motions. 
"Instead, the lengthy and tortured history of this case includes an extensive 
history of prosecutorial misconduct, to be detailed in petitioner's forthcoming 
petition for post-conviction relief."

The state Supreme Court reversed Flowers' conviction 3 previous times.

STATE SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS

Evans said he believes Flowers' last trial was completely fair.

One of the grounds cited by Flowers for a new trial was too few African 
Americans were among the final jury pool.

The jury, which was sequestered, was made up of 11 whites and 1 African 
American.

But Loper said in his opinion that Flowers had the option of seeking a change 
of venue if he was concerned about whether he could receive a fair trial in the 
county where the crime was committed.

"On 2 previous occasions, Flowers sought and was granted changes of venue. He 
chose not to seek one again," Loper said. "Flowers certainly had the 
constitutional right to be tried in the county where the crimes were committed. 
However, he should not be heard to complain about the racial makeup of the 
jury, since the overwhelming majority of the members of his race stated that 
they could not sit in judgment of him because of kinships, friendships and 
family ties."

The jury that was drawn represented a fair cross-section of Montgomery County, 
Loper said.

"Additionally, given the prominence of the Flowers family in Montgomery County 
and given their large extended family, it is far from certain that another 
venire would have resulted in more African Americans serving on the jury," he 
said.

Flowers was first convicted in 1997 for killing Bertha Tardy and then in 1999 
for killing Derrick Stewart. He received the death penalty in both trials, but 
the state Supreme Court reversed the convictions on appeal.

In 2004, Flowers was tried when all 4 killings were consolidated into one 
trial, and he again received the death penalty. The Supreme Court reversed that 
decision as well.

Flowers' next 2 trials ended in mistrials, 1 in 2007 and the other in September 
2008.

Benny Rigby, whose wife Carmen was one of the murder victims, said after the 
last conviction he was thankful the conviction made it past the 1st hurdle.

"We're just hoping and praying that it sticks this time," he said. "I don't 
know of anything you could come back on with this one."

(source: Clarion Ledger)






NEBRASKA:

Nebraska Supreme Court hears arguments over whether ballot initiative to 
reinstate death penalty is valid


Death penalty supporters convinced nearly 167,000 people to sign a petition to 
let voters decide whether to reinstate capital punishment in Nebraska.

On Wednesday, they tried to convince seven judges on the Nebraska Supreme Court 
that a legal challenge to their petition was properly tossed out by a lower 
court.

A lawyer for death penalty opponents, meanwhile, raised a new issue during oral 
arguments Wednesday: He said organizers of the petition drive failed to submit 
a legally required sworn statement by the sponsors. Instead, the petition 
organizers filed a notarized sheet signed by Omaha City Councilwoman Aimee 
Melton, 1 of 3 ballot committee members listed on the document.

"It is not a sworn statement," Lincoln attorney Alan Peterson said. "It is an 
acknowledgment of signature, not a sworn statement. There is a difference, and 
it is critical."

Attorney Steve Grasz of Omaha, who represents Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, 
characterized the scrutiny of the document as a last-ditch argument, one that 
wasn't even raised when the case was heard by the lower court. He pointed out 
that the document in question was subtitled "Sworn List of Sponsors."

"The appellants are grasping at straws here," Grasz said.

Facing a mid-September deadline to distribute statewide ballots for the Nov. 8 
general election, the Supreme Court is expected to decide the appeal relatively 
quickly. But if the judges send the case back, another appeal of a second lower 
court ruling is almost assured.

The main issue before the Supreme Court involves a requirement that petition 
organizers file a sworn statement listing the names and addresses of "every 
person" who sponsors the effort. The requirement is intended to let voters know 
which individuals, organizations or corporations are behind a petition drive 
before signatures are collected.

After state election officials validated 143,000 voter signatures to put the 
death penalty question on the ballot, opponents quickly challenged the legality 
of the referendum. They alleged that the sponsor list failed to include Gov. 
Pete Ricketts, who gave $200,000 to the campaign after the Nebraska Legislature 
overrode his veto of the death penalty repeal in 2015.

Death penalty opponent Christy Hargesheimer of Lincoln, the lead plaintiff in 
the case, said after Wednesday's arguments that it bothers her that the 
governor appears to be trying to settle a score with the Legislature.

"We struggled for many, many years to repeal the death penalty," she said.

Ricketts has said he believes that capital punishment is needed in rare cases 
to protect public safety and the lives of corrections officers and other 
inmates.

Lawyers for death penalty supporters argued Wednesday that the intent of the 
law was not to require every significant financial backer to be listed as a 
sponsor. Voters can learn the identity of petition donors through compulsory 
filings with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission.

Lancaster County District Judge Lori Maret sided with petition organizers 
earlier this year by ruling that the governor's financial and political support 
did not make him a sponsor by default.

On Wednesday, Supreme Court Judge Lindsey Miller-Lerman asked the attorney for 
the death penalty opponents to define what the law means by "sponsor." Peterson 
said it means the "primary initiating force" behind the petition.

Lawyers for death penalty supporters argued that a sponsor is someone willing 
to take legal responsibility for the petition drive on the day the paperwork is 
filed with the Secretary of State's Office. Requiring petition organizers to 
anticipate and list every major financial supporter when they launch their 
drive would "chill" the democratic process, said Assistant Attorney General 
Ryan Post, who represented Secretary of State John Gale.

"This court cannot adopt obstructions that hinder the people's referendum 
rights," he said. "It needs to facilitate that process."

Peterson also told the Supreme Court that the trial judge improperly ruled that 
the sponsor's statement was valid. The document is not a sworn statement, as is 
required under the law, but a signature by one sponsor that was witnessed by a 
notary public.

"It clearly shows it was not an affidavit or a sworn statement," he said.

Chief Justice Mike Heavican asked Peterson whether he was raising an argument 
that was not made in the trial court. In its role as an appellate court, the 
Supreme Court passes judgment on lower court decisions but does not typically 
issue original rulings.

Peterson acknowledged that the argument wasn't raised at trial but said the 
lawsuit itself challenged the validity of the petition documents. Because the 
document was in dispute, he said, the lower court erred by determining that it 
was valid.

Grasz, the lawyer for the death penalty supporters, previously filed a motion 
to strike Peterson's argument regarding the sworn statement. He argued that the 
Supreme Court should not even consider it because the argument was not raised 
earlier.

Grasz went on to cite previous Supreme Court rulings defining what constitutes 
an oath and a sworn statement. By those definitions, the petition document was 
valid, Grasz said.

"Clearly Councilwoman Melton had a conscious notion that she was signing a 
sworn statement because that's what it said on the face of the statement," 
Grasz said.

Nebraskans for the Death Penalty ultimately collected about 143,000 valid 
signatures to get the referendum on the ballot. The number also was enough to 
put the repeal on hold until the November vote, although authorities have said 
they will not pursue an execution until the voters have spoken.

(source: omaha.com)



UTAH:

Utah Considering Death Penalty by Firing Squad


With the drugs most commonly used for lethal injections no longer available, 
Utah may revert to carrying out death sentences with a firing squad.

The state of Utah has used lethal injection for most of its executions since 
1977, but firing squads have remained an option in some cases.

Ronald Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said 
the Utah Legislature passed a bill in 2015 specifying that firing squads would 
be used if lethal drugs could not be obtained.

"The reason they went to lethal injection was because they did not like the 
image that was portrayed by using a firing squad," he said. "They thought it 
was bad for the state."

Utah has used firing squads throughout most of the state's history, and most 
recently used one in an execution in 2010. Dunham says there are currently nine 
people waiting on Utah's death row, although no execution dates have been set. 
He said earlier this year, a bill to end the death penalty passed in the state 
Senate but never came to a vote in the House.

Dunham says since the drug company Pfizer banned the use of its drugs for 
executions, only three states have announced they would use an alternative 
method. In addition to Utah, Oklahoma will use a gas chamber and Tennessee an 
electric chair. Dunham said most other states have taken a wait-and-see 
attitude.

"For the most part, states have chosen to do nothing, because most states 
aren't executing anybody right now and their constituents are not disappointed 
by that," he added.

According to Dunham, in recent years, several polls have shown that among 
people who back the use of the death penalty, the majority support lethal 
injections but do not approve of using other, more violent methods. There are 
currently 19 states without a death penalty.

(source: Utah Public Radio)






ARIZONA:

Federal appeals court upholds death sentences in 1977 Maricopa murders


A federal appeals court Thursday upheld the death sentences against Joseph 
Clarence Smith for the 1976 murders of two teenage girls while he was on 
probation for a previous rape.

A 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected 7 challenges 
from Smith, including a claim that autopsy evidence showing his "exceptional 
violence" violated his right to confront his accuser.

It marks the 3rd time the 9th Circuit has ruled on Smith's case - but likely 
not the last. An attorney with the federal public defender's office in Arizona 
said Thursday that the office already plans to ask for a review by the full 
appellate court.

Smith was on parole for the 1973 rape of Alice Archibeque in 1976 when he 
murdered Sandy Spencer and Neva Lee and raped Dorothy Fortner in 3 separate 
incidents, according to court documents.

Fortner was 4 or 5 months pregnant when Smith told her he knew her boyfriend 
and convinced her take a ride from him. He drove her into the desert where he 
threatened her with a knife and raped her repeatedly before ultimately letting 
her go.

Fortner would later testify against Smith during his sentencing in the murders 
of Spencer and Lee. He had picked them up in separate incidents and drove into 
the desert where each was tied up and stabbed multiple times by Smith, who 
killed them by stuffing dirt into their mouths and nostrils and taping them 
shut.

Their nude, mutilated bodies were found in the desert outside Phoenix within a 
month of each other in early 1976. He was convicted of both murders in 1977 and 
sentenced to death for each.

In one of his appeals, Smith raised a diagnosis of "sexual sadism" as a defense 
against the imposition of the death penalty - opening the door for prosecutors 
to introduce autopsy reports and other evidence of Smith's many previous 
crimes.

In his opinion for the appeals court, Judge Richard Paez said there is "little 
doubt that the prosecution's powerful rebuttal evidence was prejudicial to 
Smith." But he said prosecutors were still well within their rights to present 
it.

"Witness after witness testified in detail about the psychological and physical 
violence that Smith inflicted on his victims, painting a picture of exceptional 
violence," Paez wrote.

"Nonetheless, in light of Smith's reliance, minimal as it may have been, on his 
sexual sadism diagnosis ... it was reasonable for the Arizona Supreme Court to 
conclude that the evidence fell within the boundaries of due process," the 
opinion said.

The court rejected Smith's other claims, including a claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel, noting that the "evidence in both the Spencer and Lee 
sentencing hearings was extensive."

The panel also rejected Smith's claim that executing him now, after he has 
spent 35 years on Arizona's death row, would be cruel and unusual punishment.

"Joe Smith has been on death row for 40 years, he is one of the longest death 
row inmates in the U.S.," said Dale Baich, an assistant public defender with 
the Arizona Federal Public Defender's Office. "He's in a single cell for 23 
hours a day."

The Arizona Attorney General's office did not return a call Thursday asking for 
comment on the ruling.

(source: Cronkite News)






USA:

Ahead Of Resentencing Trial, Defense Works To Spare Gary Lee Sampson's Life


12 years after he was sentenced to death for the carjacking murders of 2 
Massachusetts men, Gary Lee Sampson is returning to federal court in Boston for 
a new trial this September.

Jurors will decide whether or not to impose a sentence of death and Sampson's 
new attorneys are filing some bold motions to help spare his life.

Among the arguments why Sampson should be put to death, the government says he 
poses a future danger to inmates and guards if he is sentenced to life in 
prison.

That's based on past behavior at the federal prison in Terra Haute, Indiana, 
the prosecution asserts. Records show that during 10 years on death row, 
Sampson kicked a guard in the head and lunged at another with a sharpened broom 
handle. Sampson attempted numerous assaults and also threatened to kill people, 
telling one official "I'm a stone-cold killer."

The defense says the government's assertion of future dangerousness is wrong. 
And anticipating the need to rebut the argument at trial, defense attorneys are 
asking the judge to order the government to find and turn over a wide range of 
data for a wide range of federal prisoners - every inmate since 1988 who's been 
charged with a crime that is death penalty eligible. The defense hopes a 
statistical analysis will show Sampson is less dangerous than the average 
inmate.

"It's 27 years of data for thousands of inmates," prosecutor Zack Hafer told 
the judge. "It's nuts. That's the best legal term I can think of."

Defense attorney Jennifer Wicht argues that "the burden on the government for 
finding and turning over the records is not a valid reason to deny the 
discoverable evidence."

But the government argues the jury need only look at Sampson's behavior in 
prison to judge whether he is a future danger.

In another eye-catching motion, the defense has presented pages of what they 
are called mitigating factors that the jury should consider in determining 
whether to impose the death penalty. They include low intelligence, a history 
of drug and alcohol dependency, brain damage, mental illness and abuse by 
Sampson's father.

In the 1st Sampson trial, the defense presented 19 mitigating factors. In the 
trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, lawyers presented 21. Sampson's new attorneys 
propose 308 factors.

(source: WBUR news)