[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----IDAHO, USA

[Rick Halperin]

May 28



IDAHO:

Documents: Murder suspect laughed after knocking victim out with 2???4 board


Timothy Blaney was so irate when he found his wife in bed with another man that 
he grabbed a 2-by-4 piece of wood and beat the the man unconscious, according 
to court documents and incident reports obtained by EastIdahoNews.com.

The 22-year-old victim, Skylar Huffield, was rushed to the Portneuf Medical 
Center, where he died.

Blaney, 20, was charged with 1st-degree murder Thursday and could face the 
death penalty.

Court documents show Blaney and his wife separated in February but are still 
legally married and have a child together.

Blaney recently moved to Oregon, and his wife met Huffield on Facebook. They 
began having a relationship in Pocatello earlier this week, according to 
documents.

Incident reports show Blaney's wife and Huffield were in bed together at a home 
on the 3800 block of Hawthorne Road around 3 a.m. Wednesday.

Blaney's wife told investigators that she was awakened by Blaney turning on the 
lights in the bedroom.

Blaney asked, "Is this the guy you're sleeping with?" then left the room and 
returned with a piece of wood, according to documents.

"Blaney began striking Huffield in the head with the 2-by-4 as he was lying on 
the bed," documents state. "(Blaney's wife) said she climbed over Huffield and 
grabbed Blaney around the waist in an effort to prevent him from hitting 
Huffield but was unable to stop him."

A man who was sleeping in the front room on a couch heard the commotion and 
woke up. He saw Blaney walking back and forth from the bedroom to the kitchen.

"I caught my wife sleeping with another guy, he woke up and I knocked him back 
out," Blaney allegedly told the man.

"(The witness) said Blaney laughed as if this was amusing to him," reports 
state.

Blaney's wife called police and he left the home in his vehicle. Officers 
arrived and Huffield was unresponsive, so paramedics were called.

A short time later, an officer spotted Blaney at a Pocatello gas station. He 
was arrested and taken into custody.

Huffield was rushed to Portneuf Medical Center and had massive swelling to his 
brain, according to court documents. Doctors told detectives he would not 
survive his injures, and he was pronounced dead at 2:22 p.m. Wednesday.

Blaney was arraigned Thursday in Bannock County. Magistrate Judge Rick 
Carnaroli ordered that Blaney remain in the Bannock County Detention Center on 
a $1 million bond.

Randall D. Schulthies is the public defender representing Blaney, who is due 
back in court for a preliminary hearing on June 8.

Blaney faces a potential death penalty or imprisonment of life. Bannock County 
prosecutors have 60 days to determine if they will seek the death penalty.

(source: eastidahonews.com)






USA:

To Save Our Justice System, End Racial Bias in Jury Selection


The Supreme Court ruled correctly on Monday when it found that Georgia 
prosecutors in Foster v. Chatman had illegally barred African-Americans from 
serving as jurors in a death penalty trial. But the decision does not end 
racial discrimination in jury selection. The best way to do that is to limit 
the number of jurors that lawyers can strike for no reason at all to just 1 or 
2 per side.

Both prosecutors and defense lawyers can exclude any number of prospective 
jurors for legitimate reasons - if a juror knows the defendant, has formed an 
opinion about the case or is unlikely to be impartial. But lawyers can also 
dismiss several more potential jurors simply because they do not want them - 
without explaining why. In federal felony trials, the prosecutor has six 
peremptory challenges and the defense usually has 10. In federal death penalty 
cases, each side has 20. State numbers vary.

In the Foster case, which dates from the 1980s, the prosecutors eliminated 
people simply because of race. Timothy Foster, a black man, stood accused of 
killing an elderly white woman when he was a teenager. The prosecutors worked 
conscientiously to exclude the potential black jurors; they marked their names 
with a "B" and highlighted each black juror???s name in green on four different 
copies of the juror list. Those jurors were ranked against one another in case, 
one member of the prosecutorial team said, "it comes down to having to pick one 
of the black jurors." The plan worked, and an all-white jury sentenced Mr. 
Foster to death.

This was an egregious case, but not a unique one. Far too often in criminal or 
death penalty cases that involve a black defendant, prosecutors try to exclude 
black jurors because they believe it will increase the chances of a conviction. 
In Houston County, Ala., prosecutors struck 80 percent of qualified black 
jurors from death penalty cases from 2005 to 2009.

If these strikes are challenged, prosecutors can claim race-neutral reasons. In 
Mr. Foster's case, prosecutors said one prospective juror who was excluded 
didn't make enough eye contact. Another seemed nervous. Moreover, some of the 
reasons prosecutors gave for striking black jurors were inaccurate. Other 
excuses applied to white jurors who were selected.

Not only is this practice unconstitutional, but all-white juries risk 
undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a 
mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same 
sentence.

The Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, which is part of the 
Judicial Conference, the federal court system's principal policy-making body, 
should propose sharply reducing the number of jury strikes allowed in federal 
trials.

Several Supreme Court justices have suggested as much. Justice Thurgood 
Marshall endorsed such a reform in his concurring opinion in the 1986 case 
Batson v. Kentucky: "The decision today will not end the racial discrimination 
that peremptories inject into the jury-selection process. That goal can be 
accomplished only by eliminating peremptory challenges entirely." In 2005, 
Justice Stephen G. Breyer also urged reconsideration of the peremptory 
challenge system.

Total abolition of peremptory challenges would most likely face vigorous 
opposition from prosecutors and some defense attorneys. And it's unlikely to be 
achieved, either for federal or state criminal trials. But reducing the number 
will do significant good.

In 1879, the Supreme Court declared that to single out African-Americans for 
removal from jury service "is practically a brand upon them affixed by the law, 
an assertion of their inferiority, and a stimulant to that race prejudice which 
is an impediment to securing individuals of the race that equal justice which 
the law aims to secure all others." All-white juries will continue to be a 
blight on the American system of criminal justice until federal and state rule 
makers significantly reduce the number of peremptory challenges.

(source: Op-Ed; Jon O. Newman is a senior judge on the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Second Circuit----New York Times)





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

Family Members Showed Dylann Roof Mercy. Why Can't Prosecutors?


Support for the death penalty is declining, with executions and death sentences 
now at their lowest level in decades.

Polls show a majority of Americans are against the death penalty when presented 
with alternatives, like life without parole. It looks like the death penalty is 
on its way out, though Texas (responsible for roughly half of all executions) 
may beg to differ.

Nevertheless, the question must be asked: Doesn???t the death penalty still 
have a place in our contemporary world for the "worst of the worst," for people 
like Dylann Roof?

It's hard to find any mercy for this young man who killed nine 
African-Americans as they gathered for prayer, worship, and Bible study in the 
historic Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C. He spewed racism and hatred on 
social media and even at the scene of the crime, where he said to church 
members: "You rape our women and you're taking over our country. And you have 
to go."

And now he faces the death penalty - with 33 federal charges including hate 
crimes, obstruction of religion, and firearms offenses.

Mercy seems like an unreasonable thing to ask.

But mercy is precisely what flowed from the hearts of the families of the 
victims after the killing. And as we consider justice for the victims' 
families, it only seems reasonable to listen to what they said:

"I forgive you."

Those were the words of Nadine Collier, as tears rolled down her face for her 
70-year-old mother, Ethel Lance. And she didn't stop there:

"You took something very precious away from me. I will never get to talk to her 
ever again. I will never be able to hold her again, but I forgive you, and have 
mercy on your soul. ... You hurt me. You hurt a lot of people. But God forgives 
you, and I forgive you."

Then there was Anthony Thompson, the husband of Myra Thompson: "I would just 
like him to know that ... I forgive him and my family forgives him. But we 
would like him to take this opportunity to repent."

Those words were said 2 days after the crime before the bodies of those killed 
were even laid to rest. Grace and mercy are hard things to justify or 
legitimate. They don't seem instinctive or sensible. But they do sound like 
Jesus who said, "Inasmuch as you forgive you will be forgiven" and "Blessed are 
the merciful, for they will be shown mercy."

It seems that only a profound faith in Jesus could give someone the strength to 
say to their transgressors, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what 
they do." Especially, when it seems like they know exactly what they're doing.

Felicia Sanders, who survived the massacre by faking dead but lost her 
26-year-old son, prayed that God would have mercy on Roof.

Wanda Simmons, granddaughter of Daniel Simmons, declared with defiant hope: 
"Although my grandfather and the other victims died at the hands of hate ... 
hate won't win."

Even in the midst of unthinkable evil, love can still win. This truth lies at 
the heart of the Christian faith, as Jesus forgave those who were killing him.

President Obama went down to Charleston and applauded the mercy of the 
survivors, and ended one of his best speeches by singing "Amazing Grace."

It's noteworthy that the words of that song - "Amazing grace how sweet the 
sound, that saved a wretch like me" - were written by a recovering racist. John 
Newton was a former white supremacist, a captain who drove slave ships and 
later decried the evils of his past and committed his life to Jesus.

So now grace will be put on trial. Mercy will face cross-examination.

Federal prosecutors will pursue the death penalty.

A federal prisoner hasn't been executed in the U.S. in over a decade. Only 3 
federal prisoners have been executed in the past half-century. This case will 
raise the most urgent question: Can we, as a nation, do better than killing 
those who kill in order to show that killing is wrong?

Is there not a better way? After all, we do not rape those who rape, or maim 
those who maim. Could it be that we are beginning to see that violence is the 
disease, not the cure?

We know that forgiveness does not mean excusing or pardoning an offense, but 
forgiveness opens the door to real justice, redemption, and reconciliation. We 
can protect society from violent criminals without using violence. We can teach 
that killing is wrong without the death penalty. We can insist, as Wanda 
Simmons did, that "hate doesn't have to win."

Pope Francis has declared that we must abolish the death penalty. And it was 
Martin Luther King, Jr. who said, "Capital punishment is society's final 
assertion that it will not forgive."

I cannot think of a better way to honor the victims of the Charleston massacre, 
and the Jesus they worship, than by insisting on another form of justice for 
Roof.

We can do better. And we must. In the name of the victims in Charleston, and in 
the name of the Jesus they worship, let's not kill Dylann Roof.

(source: Shane Claiborne, Sojourners)