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

[Rick Halperin]

May 28



TEXAS----stay of impending execution

A court just stayed this Texas man's execution because a witness was hypnotized


Charles Flores, a Texas death row inmate who was scheduled to be executed next 
week June 2, was granted a stay of execution late Friday afternoon.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed Flores' execution date and sent his 
case back to the trial court for a hearing based on his claim that improper 
hypnosis was used on the main eyewitness in his murder trial.

As Fusion reported earlier this month, Flores was convicted for the 1998 murder 
of Elizabeth "Betty" Black in a Dallas suburb. A jury sentenced him to death 
the following year even though prosecutors presented no physical evidence 
linking him to the crime, and the only witness who saw him at the scene, Jill 
Barganier, was hypnotized by police.

As part of Flores' final appeal, which was filed last week, psychology 
professor Steven Lynn said in an affidavit that recent research shows the 
hypnosis could have made Barganier create false memories. "Clearly, the 
techniques that were used to refresh Ms. Bargainer's memory would be eschewed 
today by anyone at all familiar with the extant research on hypnosis and 
memory," Lynn wrote.

That hypnosis was the crux of the appeals court's ruling. The court approved 
his application for a writ of habeas corpus by essentially finding reason to 
believe a reasonable juror may not have convicted him if they had heard 
evidence like Lynn's testimony.

Now, the trial court in Flores' case will hold a hearing specifically on the 
hypnosis issue and the eyewitness identification. If Flores' lawyers can show 
by a preponderance of the evidence that a jury would acquit him today after 
hearing new scientific evidence, it would lead to a brand new trial for Flores, 
more than 17 years after he was convicted.

"We're ecstatic for Charles right now," said Gregory Gardner, 1 of Flores' 
attorneys. "This hypnosis was always very troubling from the beginning... and 
we're thrilled that now the Texas courts are going to take a closer look at 
it."

The warden at the Polunksy Unit, the Texas death row prison where Flores is 
housed, is expected to notify him of the ruling later tonight.

While the appeals court focused on the hypnosis issue in its ruling, Flores 
also brought up other issues in his appeal - including the fact that his white 
co-defendant received a much shorter sentence than he did and is currently out 
of prison on parole.

2 of the 9 judges on the appeals court, which is the highest court in Texas 
that hears criminal cases, dissented from granting a stay. Only 1 of the judges 
who supported Flores' application, David Newell, wrote an opinion explaining 
his thinking.

"Eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions 
across the country," Newell wrote. "We may ultimately grant relief. We may 
ultimately deny relief. But either way, given the subject matter, by granting a 
stay this Court acknowledges that whatever we do, we owe a clear explanation 
for our decision to the citizens of Texas."

(source: fusion.net)

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

Issue of Mental Health Assessment a Focus as 3 Fight Death Sentences


Throughout Mental Health Month in May, The Texas Tribune is partnering with 
Mental Health Channel and KLRU to focus on some of Texas' biggest challenges in 
providing mental health care. See all the stories in this series. Randall Mays 
is on death row for killing 2 sheriff's deputies. Scott Panetti was sentenced 
to die for killing his estranged wife's parents. And a jury condemned Robert 
Roberson for killing his 2-year-old daughter.

Beyond being on Texas' death row, the 3 share another common thread: their 
attorneys are challenging whether the criminal justice process addresses the 
issue of mental illness fairly and comprehensively when weighing the death 
penalty for killers.

In each case, trial prosecutors and attorneys for the state have argued the men 
intentionally killed their victims and understand why they were convicted and 
sentenced to death, a constitutional benchmark before the condemned can be 
executed.

But attorneys for the men argue that although their clients are killers, their 
documented mental health histories could negate the intentional killing 
argument and therefore raise the question of whether execution is cruel and 
unusual punishment. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states can't 
execute the intellectually disabled, an exact legal definition of that 
condition remains open to debate. Any of these three cases could ultimately 
help clarify that issue for others in similar situations.

Mays' and Panetti's attorneys argue their clients aren't competent to be 
executed. Roberson's attorneys say his right to due process was violated at 
trial.

Criminal justice experts say that determining mental health can be hard for 
anyone, including judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors and jurors. They say 
the cases of Mays, Panetti and Roberson are key in furthering the discussion in 
how mental health is gauged when applying the death penalty.

"When a defendant has mental or emotional problems, those problems don't just 
affect his or her conduct at the time of the crime," said Robert Dunham, the 
executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "They affect the 
way he or she is able to relate to his [or her] lawyers, to the defense 
lawyers, and the way they appear to the court and the way they appear to the 
jury."

Thoroughly gauging one's illness takes training, which many in the criminal 
justice system may not have, he said.

"Mental illness is a complicated phenomenon, which some people who are luridly 
psychotic, the disorder may be obvious, but even people who are psychotic are 
not psychotic all the time," Dunham said.

Robert Roberson

Roberson, 49, was sentenced to death in 2003 for fatally beating his 2-year-old 
daughter, Nikki, in Palestine. He faces a June 21 execution.

During his trial, his attorneys argued that he was trying to quiet his daughter 
and lost his temper as a result of a brain injury. Roberson's fight might not 
see a happy ending.

But prosecutors said the killing was intentional, calling witnesses who said 
that his daughter's injuries were consistent with signs of shaking, bruising 
and blunt force trauma. Witnesses testified that Roberson had a bad temper and 
would shake and spank Nikki when she wouldn't stop crying.

Roberson's attorneys have said his due process was violated because Roberson 
wasn't allowed to have an expert testify at his trial that he thought Roberson 
suffers from mental lapses from his brain injury. Saying that a jury probably 
wouldn't have found him guilty if it had heard about his mental history, the 
attorneys are asking an appeals court to throw out his conviction. He's now 
represented by Texas Defender Service attorneys, who declined to comment on his 
case.

Doug Lowe, the Anderson County district attorney during the trial, told The 
Texas Tribune that if Roberson wanted to raise his mental health as an issue at 
trial, he should have pleaded insanity. You either have insanity or you don't, 
Lowe said.

"So they're saying we don't want to go [for] insanity, but we do want to slip 
this evidence in to say that he didn't intend to commit the crime and therefore 
it's not murder," Lowe said. "It wasn't an intentional or knowing act. They 
want to have it both ways."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2006 case that states aren't required to 
admit mental health evidence by the defense if they aren't pleading insanity.

During the appeals process, the state has pointed to that case, Clark v. 
Arizona. Roberson did not launch an insanity defense at trial.

When insanity isn't used as a defense, judges often determine that mental 
health evidence is irrelevant, said George Dix, a professor in the University 
of Texas School of Law. Intent to kill is not a complicated mental state to be 
in, he said.

"In many of the cases, if you carefully analyze what the expert is offering to 
testify to, he's essentially offering to testify that although the defendant 
did intend to kill, or intended to assault in other cases, his decision to do 
that was influenced by a pretty distorted perception of reality," Dix said.

Denied relief twice by the U.S. Supreme Court, Roberson has shifted focus to 
clemency, with a request before the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Randall Mays

On May 17, 2007, Henderson County sheriff's deputies responded to a domestic 
disturbance call at a Payne Springs home. Randall Mays and his wife were 
arguing.

When a deputy tried to arrest Mays, Mays got a rifle and began shooting, 
drawing return fire from deputies. During the firefight, Mays killed Inspector 
Paul Steven Habelt and Deputy Tony Price Ogburn, and wounded Deputy Kevin 
Harris. Mays surrendered after being shot himself.

He pleaded not guilty to the killings, claiming his history of mental illness 
did not allow him to knowingly and intentionally kill his victims.

At Mays' trial, witnesses testified that he was friendly but had a history of 
mental illness. A psychologist for the defense explained that paranoia could 
become exaggerated in a moment of crisis, but even someone who is paranoid can 
intentionally and knowingly kill someone. The psychologist spoke in general and 
never interacted with Mays, so she couldn't speak to the case specifically.

Psychiatrist Theresa Vail diagnosed Mays with depression and a psychotic 
disorder, according to court records. Vail, who treated Mays when he was in 
jail, said "that he suffered from delusions and hallucinations and that he was 
afraid that he was being poisoned and plotted against."

Vail said Mays' mental illness was severe and possibly permanent due to a 
history of drug abuse that would have damaged his brain. She did not talk to 
Mays about killing the deputies. Gilda Kessner, a psychologist also testified 
that Mays had paranoid personality disorder and psychosis but never spoke to 
Mays herself. Another psychiatrist, David Self, testified that he did not 
examine Mays directly but believed Mays suffered from delusions and paranoia, 
court records show.

A prosecutor told jurors that Mays could not be both a "nice guy" and a 
"paranoid psychotic."

"He's apparently the friendliest, most trusting guy they've ever met. And yet 
on the other hand, the Defense wants you to believe that he's some sort of 
paranoid psychotic," the prosecutor argued at Mays' trial. "You can't just 
throw all the defenses against the wall and see what sticks. There has to be - 
there has to be a theory here."

The jury took an hour to find Mays guilty of capital murder.

Now, Mays' attorneys say he is not competent to be executed, citing his mental 
health record. Mays, now 56, has a history of mental illness dating back to the 
1980s, when he was committed twice to a state hospital, and was characterized 
as "actively psychotic," delusional and combative, according to details from a 
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals opinion.

The court has placed his execution on hold, intervening after his attorneys 
argued his competency has not fully been evaluated. A Henderson County court 
ruled Mays did not provide a "substantial showing" to prove that he lacks the 
competency to be executed. The Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed and returned 
the case to the same county, where Mays' attorneys will get another shot at 
arguing that their client is not competent for execution.

Mays is represented by public defenders in the state's Office of Capital and 
Forensic Writs attorneys, who declined to comment for this article.

Scott Panetti

Panetti, 58, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, shot and killed his in-laws, 
Joe and Amanda Alvarado, in 1992. After 2 hearings to gauge his competency to 
stand trial for capital murder, Panetti dropped his legal counsel, against the 
judge's advice.

He rejected an offer to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence and, 
representing himself, offered an insanity defense without calling mental health 
witnesses. Panetti tried to call John F. Kennedy, Pope John Paul II and Jesus 
Christ as witnesses. He was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to 
death in 1995.

Panetti's case went before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007. The question before 
the court: can Texas execute someone who understands the crime they committed 
but not why they're condemned to death? Justices said no and returned his case 
to Texas so his competency could be evaluated. Nearly a decade later, the issue 
is still not resolved.

Part of Panetti's story includes tales of religious delusions and hearing 
voices. Texas has said, though, Panetti is not mentally ill. Then-Attorney 
General Greg Abbott addressed the case during a 2014 interview with Mark Davis, 
the host of a Dallas-Fort Worth radio talk show.

"Anyone can do strange things, and if strange things were good enough to get 
criminals off of death row, believe me, they'd be doing strange things all the 
time, every day," said Abbott, now Texas governor. "Based upon the conclusions 
of many judges in this case, this guy is not insane, and at some point in time, 
that decision just needs to be put to rest."

Panetti was scheduled to die in 2004 and again in 2014. Both times, the 
executions were halted so courts could weigh competency concerns. An appeals 
court now is weighing whether to send Panetti's case to another court to 
determine whether he can have federally appointed counsel and funds for an 
evaluation by a mental health expert. Panetti can't afford legal costs on his 
own.

Judges with the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals asked last year why Texas 
doesn't provide funding for death row convicts to file and support incompetency 
claims. It's not required to, an attorney for the state said. Asked about the 
Panetti case, a spokeswoman for the Texas attorney general's office referred to 
the brief filed in the case.

The state insists Panetti can make the claim he shouldn't be executed, but one 
of his pro bono attorneys, Kathryn Kase, says he can't afford to do it, nor 
does he have the mental capacity to on his own.

Panetti's lawyers say they can't file a case arguing his incompetence for 
execution because he hasn't received a mental health evaluation for more than 7 
years.

Jack Stoffregen, chief public defender with Texas Regional Public Defenders for 
Capital Cases, told The Texas Tribune in September that it's hard for 
defendants to make the argument that they shouldn't be executed due to mental 
illness if they don???t have access to an expert evaluation.

"If the defendant's incompetent, how is that defendant even going to know to 
ask, to make the request for a counselor?" Stoffregen said.

Panetti doesn't take medication because of a previous allergic reaction to 
psychotropic drugs, said Kase, executive director of Texas Defender Service.

After years of not being medicated and schizophrenia having brain-deteriorating 
effects, Panetti is "still very ill," she said. Leaving death row would not 
mean freedom for Panetti, the attorney said.

"If Scott Panetti were out in the world, he wouldn't be wandering around 
freely," Kase said. "He would be in a mental institution. He's that sick."

(source: Texas Tribune)

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

Brownlow gets death penalty


Even up to the last moment before convicted murderer Charles E. Brownlow Jr. 
was sentenced to death on Friday he tried to blame his father for the 
executions he committed.

Brownlow was convicted of capital murder on April 28 for the Oct. 28, 2013, 
slaying of store clerk Luis Gerardo Leal-Carillo at Ali's Market.

(source: Kaufman Herald)

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

Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----19

Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----537

Abbott#--------scheduled execution date-----name------------Tx. #

20---------June 21------------------Robert Roberson-------538

21---------July 14------------------Perry Williams--------539

22---------August 19----------------Ramiro Gonzales-------540

23---------August 23----------------Robert Pruett---------541

24---------August 31----------------Rolando Ruiz----------542

25---------September 14-------------Robert Jennings-------543

26---------October 19---------------Terry Edwards---------544

(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)






CONNECTICUT:

William Petit speaks out on death penalty ruling


The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld its landmark ruling declaring the state's 
death penalty unconstitutional and abolishing capital punishment on Thursday.

The decision affirms the justices' ruling last August that declared the death 
penalty unconstitutional for all, including the 11 inmates currently on death 
row.

Thursday's high court decision changes the inmates sentence to life in prison, 
with no possibility of parole.

This decision is not sitting well with a man whose family was taken from him by 
2 of those inmates.

"It brings back all the memories, brings back all the emotions," Dr. William 
Petit said referring to Thursday's decision. "I'm sure most victims, myself 
included, don't want to live it over and over and over again."

Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky are responsible for the Cheshire home 
invasion in 2007. The 2 men sexually assaulted and murdered Dr. Petit's wife 
Jennifer Hawke-Petit and their 2 daughters. Dr. Petit was attacked, but 
survived.

He is a supporter of capital punishment, believing that is the appropriate 
penalty for the 2 men who tore apart his family.

"I think when people willfully, wantingly, without any remorse take someone 
else's life they forfeit their right to be among us," he said.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and lawmakers in 2012 abolished the death penalty, but 
only for future murders, which kept the Cheshire killers on death row.

"Those legislatures were doing their job responding to the will of the people, 
that time, and the governor similarly," Jim Bergenn with Shipman & Goodwin LLP 
said. "On the other hand they both know it's the constitution that trumps and 
the supreme court has to interpret the constitution and if the constitution 
which protects each of us individually says, sorry legislature you can't do it, 
even if they mean well, it doesn't work."

The court released its 5-2 decision Thursday in the appeal of Russell Peeler 
Jr., who had been on death row for ordering the 1999 killings of a woman and 
her 8-year-old son in Bridgeport. The boy, B.J. Brown, was to testify against 
Peeler in another murder case.

In another death row inmate's appeal last year, justices ruled 4-3 that the 
2012 abolishment must apply to those who remained on death row because the 
death penalty was unconstitutional. Justices reconsidered that decision in 
Peeler's appeal.

"Today's decision is another example of the ongoing saga where it appears that 
more attention is paid to the perpetrators, the convicted criminals, than to 
the victims," Dr. Petit said.

He said one of the hardest parts of Thursday's decision is that it reminds 
victims' families of what they went through.

"You never forget obviously, your wife, your children, sisters, brothers, 
mother, father, whatever the case may be, but you put aside some of the anguish 
of going to court every day or going to jury selection, listening to day after 
day after day of sometimes what seems like ridiculous testimony," he said. 
"This just brings it all back up again and I'm sure it causes a lot of people a 
lot of nausea, agita, hard feelings, depression, tears, I know that's how I 
feel every time it gets dug up, so I think it's just difficult for everybody."

(source: Fox News)






PENNSYLVANIA----female faces death penalty

Mom accused of tossing baby from bridge back in court


It's been 1 year after an Allentown woman allegedly threw her baby off a city 
bridge, and her criminal case is nowhere close to trial.

Johnesha Perry, 20, of the 200 block of North Hall Street, is charged with 
homicide and child endangerment for death of her son, Zymeir Perry. Prosecutors 
plan to seek the death penalty if the mother is convicted of 1st-degree murder.

Johnesha Perry was in court Friday afternoon for another status conference, and 
attorneys decided they won't meet in court again until September for another 
status conference in the case.

Perry's attorneys said they have received 7 binders full of records, and are 
still waiting on more from from the Children and Youth division in Chester 
County. A forensic psychologist's report on Perry cannot be completed until all 
the records are gathered.

Perry's attorneys plan to focus on her mental state at the time of the 
incident.

"I'm just glad and happy that my lawyers are working on my case. I just have to 
be patient," Perry told the judge.

After Perry was brought into the courtroom in shackles, Judge Kelly Banach said 
Perry looked upset. Perry said she was upset about her biological mother being 
in the courtroom for the hearing.

"Don't you think she care what happens to you?" the judge asked.

Perry shook her head no.

Banach said she couldn't ask Perry mother's to leave, but "you don't have to 
acknowledge her."

City police said Perry was pushing her son in a stroller the afternoon of May 
3, 2015, and stopped on the Hamilton Street bridge.

Witnesses told police Perry put the boy on the railing, gave him a kiss and 
pushed him over the edge into the Lehigh River before jumping in herself.

The boy was taken out of the river by officers, and both mother and son were 
taken to Lehigh Valley Hospital in Salisbury Township for treatment.

Zymeir Perry died later that week from complications from blunt force trauma 
and drowning, according to the Lehigh County coroner.

(source: lehighvalleylive.com)






NORTH CAROLINA:

That pesky 'due process' thing is back


Didn't even notice, did you? The highest court in the land said this week that 
two is too many of something that North Carolina and other states have done 
many times: weight juries against black defendants in capital cases by culling 
blacks from the jury pool.

It's not permissible for prosecutors to do that through the use of peremptory 
strikes, meaning the kind they don't have to explain. But, under the same 1986 
ruling that prohibited what had been until then a common and largely 
undisguised practice, the court all but invited prosecutors to continue, but to 
camouflage their discrimination by offering other explanations for it.

The ink on that ruling was barely dry when an African American defendant named 
Foster was convicted of capital murder in a Georgia court and sentenced to 
death by an all-white jury. Prosecutors had not yet taken to coaching each 
other and passing around cheat sheets. Maybe that's why the prosecutor in 
Foster's case invested little effort in fanny-covering until Foster belatedly 
made an issue of it. (Don't jump to the conclusion that defense attorneys are 
above such things. That's just not what this appeal was about.)

Anyway, according to 7 of the Supreme Court's eight justices, prosecutors were 
unable to provide plausible non-racial excuses for dumping 2 of the black jury 
prospects in Foster's case, and that's 2 too many.

What the justices intend for Georgia to do about it is unclear. But other 
things are clear enough to inscribe a bright line that leads right back home to 
North Carolina and Cumberland County.

We had, briefly, a state Racial Justice Act whose sole mission was to grant 
review of appeals by death row inmates alleging racial discrimination at trial. 
If a death sentence was found to have been substantially influenced by race, 
the case didn't go back for retrial, nor was the verdict overturned. The inmate 
was moved from death row to serve a sentence of life, without possibility of 
parole.

The first cases landed here, in Superior Court, which was soon awash in 
evidence so powerful that little effort was made to rebut any of it and some of 
it was openly admitted. That evidence still exists but the RJA, the mechanism 
for acting on it, does not. In fact, the same zealots who led the fight for its 
repeal have redoubled their efforts to have death row inmates killed off 
faster, before all these annoying questions about process and fairness are 
brought to light.

I'm not a typical death penalty opponent. I don't believe it's 
unconstitutionally cruel, because the Constitution says we can't execute people 
without "due process of law" - which hints at what the Framers had in mind for 
those who DO get due process. And I believe that there are among us people who 
deserve to die; I just haven't met anyone of my species whom I trust to get it 
right 100 % of the time.

I think, though, that the morally correct, legally sound and economically smart 
way to approach capital punishment is just to say to hell with it and settle 
for putting the most dangerous predators in cages for the rest of their lives.

Don't talk to me about deterrence. In general, people do not premeditate murder 
with the expectation of getting caught and tried.

When the only people you might get executed are people who, like Dylann Roof 
and our erstwhile neighbor Frazier Glenn Miller, not only proclaim a 
first-degree motive in public but provide aggravating circumstances; when 
lawmakers hasten to redefine "evidence" and rewrite judicial procedure to 
ensure that no one beats a rap no matter how many others we kill who deserved 
lesser charges, lesser sentences and retrials; when lawyers use parlor tricks 
to ensure that prohibited discrimination remains part of the calculus even as 
cases move up and down the judicial ladder at taxpayer expense, I think we're 
venting our righteous wrath by beating our heads against a rock.

(source: Gene Smith is the Observer's retired senior editorial 
writer----Fayetteville Observer)






ALABAMA:

Man confesses in killing of Prattville's Carol Nunnery


Willie Foster confessed to authorities that he caused the death of Carol Parker 
Nunnery, Autauga County Courthouse records show.

Nunnery's body was found Tuesday afternoon off of County Road 3 near 
Autaugaville, said Sheriff Joe Sedinger. She was 72 and a Prattville resident. 
Her death has been ruled a homicide, said Police Chief Mark Thompson. Her car 
was found in Prattville off Highway 14, a short time after a passerby 
discovered her body, Thompson said.

Both lawmen confirmed Foster's confession during a Thursday afternoon press 
conference.

Nunnery lived downtown and was a Prattville native. She was active in The 
Autauga Creek Improvement Committee, which touted the creek's recreational 
possibilities. She was also involved in other charitable efforts in town.

Her home is near Prattville Kindergarten School and she had a habit of keeping 
tabs on things by riding around the area on her golf cart.

"Miss Carol never would have hurt anybody," said JoAnne Harrison, who lives 
downtown. "She rode that little cart everywhere. If she saw us outside or 
working in the yard, she would always stop. Everybody loved Miss Carol."

Foster, 31, is charged with murder in the case, court records show. On Thursday 
morning he made his initial court appearance before Autauga District Judge Joy 
Booth.

"I don't know what's going on," Foster told Booth. He stood before the bench 
dressed in blaze orange jail garb restrained by handcuffs.

"You're charged with murder," Booth answered.

She then read Foster his arrest warrant, which said he is charged with causing 
the death of Nunnery by "... a blunt object and or a vehicle ..." and that he 
"confessed" to investigators.

"I still don't know what's going on," Foster said after Booth's recitation was 
through.

Booth then ended the proceeding, which lasted less than 5 minutes, and Foster 
was escorted back to the jury box to sit with other inmates.

Earlier in the proceeding, Booth raised Foster's bond from $150,000 to 
$250,000. Prosecutors requested a higher bond.

"Judge, due to the seriousness of the charge and the fact that Mr. Foster fled 
the scene, we consider him to be a flight risk," said Desirae Lewis, an 
assistant district attorney. "He had left Autauga County and was arrested in 
Elmore County."

Then there was an exchange between Booth and Foster about his address. Autauga 
Metro Jail records list his address as being in Prattville. He was arrested at 
an uncle's home in Eclectic, where he told Booth he lived.

The investigation points to robbery being a motive in the case, Sedinger said. 
Foster allegedly went to Nunnery's home after 6:30 p.m. Monday. Foster had 
worked for Nunnery in the past, doing mostly yard work at her residence, the 
sheriff said. At some point during the evening Nunnery and Foster left her home 
to take Foster home. Foster drove to an area off County Road 3 and tried to get 
money from the victim, Sedinger said.

"We think this whole thing is about money, Foster trying to get money," he 
said.

Investigators believe Nunnery received her fatal wounds on County Road 3.

Capital murder charges could be pending in the case, said C.J. Robinson, chief 
assistant district attorney. The fact that Nunnery was murdered during the 
commission of a robbery could meet the requirements for a capital case, he 
said.

"Right now the investigators from the sheriff's office and police department 
still have a tremendous amount of work to do," he said. "This investigation is 
not over just because an arrest was made. We will wait until we get a complete 
case file and we will go where the evidence takes us. But yes, capital murder 
charges are a possibility, if the evidence supports those charges."

The only punishment for a capital murder conviction is the death penalty or 
life in prison without the possibility of parole. The decision on if 
prosecutors would seek the death penalty would be made at a later date, 
Robinson said.

"It's way too early to make that decision," he said.

Nunnery's death was the 2nd homicide in Prattville in a space of 2 days.

On Sunday at 1 a.m., officers found John Michael Taylor, 56, in the middle of 
Cobbs Ford Road suffering from a gunshot wound, Thompson said. Before 
succumbing to his wound, he told officers he had been robbed by 3 men.

Police charged a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old, both from Montgomery, with 
murder in the case. At large is Santwone Cornelius Jones, 24, also of 
Montgomery, Thompson said.

Nunnery's case is a joint investigation being conducted by the police 
department and sheriff's office.

Thompson said the level of cooperation between the 2 agencies and the quick 
arrest of Foster should help calm rattled nerves in the community.

"What we would hope that the citizens get out of this is how quick these cases 
were solved," he said. "The dedication, the resources that were put into these 
cases. And arrests have been made in these cases. We hope to send a message to 
people that are coming to Prattville, or anyone in Prattville, that wants to 
commit a crime, we are going to pursue it until we make an arrest. And we are 
going to prosecute to the fullest.

"We still feel like Prattville is a safe community, and we are going to strive 
to keep it that way."

(source: Montgomery Advertiser)