[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., N.C., GA., FLA., ALA., NEB., CALIF.

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 4




TEXAS:

Fort Worth man guilty of capital murder in deaths of boy, 2 women


A Fort Worth man was found guilty of capital murder Thursday for shooting his 
pregnant girlfriend, her 10-year-old brother and their 39-year-old mother.

Amos Joseph Wells III elected to not to have anyone testify on his behalf in 
the guilt/innocence phase of his case, paving the way for the Tarrant County 
jury to begin deliberations.

Wells, 26, was accused of killing his estranged 22-year-old pregnant 
girlfriend, Chanice Reed; her mother, Annette Reed, 39; and Chanice's 
10-year-old brother, Eddie McCuin Jr., inside the family's east Fort Worth 
house on July 1, 2013.

Wells just shook his head as one of his relatives stormed out of the courtroom 
crying and shouting: "You all are just murderers. No DNA. Just murderers."

Tarrant County prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. A defense motion 
asking the court to set aside the death penalty was denied July 13. The jury 
was released for the remainder of Thursday and instructed to return to the 
courtroom Friday to begin hearing evidence in the punishment phase.

In his closing arguments, Tarrant County Prosecutor Kevin Rousseau told jurors 
there should be no doubt in their minds that Wells was guilty of killing 
Annette and Chanice Reed.

Rousseau projected the evidence of the defendant's guilt on a screen under the 
label "Amos Wells is Guilty" and showed it to the jury. Among the evidence was 
the fact that 12 shells were missing from a box of ammunition found in Wells' 
room - the exact number of shells used at the residence where first responders 
found the 3 mortally wounded victims.

Prosecutors also showed the jury that all the bullets came from the same type 
of handgun authorities believe were used in the slayings.

Wells surrendered to Forest Hill police, asking to be shot and killed, 
prosecutors said.

(source: Fort Worth Star Telegram)






PENNSYLVANIA:

Kevin Murphy execution date for 3 murders set, quickly stayed


State Corrections Secretary John Wetzel signed a notice of execution Wednesday 
for an Indiana County man convicted in 2013 of 1st-degree murder for shooting 
his mother, sister and aunt just seven months after the state Supreme Court 
upheld his death sentence.

However, department of corrections documents indicate the death warrant setting 
Kevin Murphy's execution for Dec. 19 was almost immediately stayed this 
morning, allowing the 55-year-old a chance to appeal.

The state Supreme Court upheld Murphy's death sentence in March. A Westmoreland 
County jury convicted him of shooting Doris Murphy, 69; Kris Murphy, 43; and 
Edith Tietge, 81, at Ferguson Glass in Loyalhanna Township on April 23, 2009. 
The 3 women worked at the family business, which Kevin Murphy owned.

Murphy used a .22-caliber revolver to shoot the women in the head because they 
disapproved of his romantic relationship with a married woman and didn't want 
her live at the family home near Saltsburg, police said.

The jury imposed the death penalty for Doris Murphy's killing and imposed life 
sentences in the deaths of Kris Murphy and Tietge.

In prior appeals, Murphy has argued prosecutors failed to prove he was the 
killer and the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.

In a 14-page last spring, 5 Supreme Court justices disagreed.

"Viewed in its totality, we find the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence 
to enable a reasonable jury to find all elements of the crimes of 1st-degree 
murder beyond a reasonable doubt," they said in an opinion authored by Chief 
Justice Thomas Saylor.

Jurors imposed the death penalty based on evidence Murphy "deliberately and 
maliciously" killed his relatives, according to the opinion, and prosecutors 
"plainly established ... aggravating circumstances found by the jury, given the 
multiple killings involved."

Justices Max Baer, Debra Todd, Christine Donohue and Kevin M. Dougherty joined 
in the opinion. Justice David N. Wecht did not participate in the proceedings.

Gary Heidnik was the last person to be executed in Pennsylvania in 1999 for 
murdering 2 women he had imprisoned and tortured in the basement of his 
Philadelphia home.

Murphy is incarcerated at SCI Greene in Waynesburg.

(source: triblive.com)






NORTH CAROLINA:

Black juror's dismissal, death penalty revisited in double homicide


A black man facing execution for a pair of South Asheville murders could come 
off death row, brought on by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding 
racial bias in jury selection and a woman who arrived at the Buncombe County 
courthouse wearing a cross earring and Tweety Bird shirt.

That woman, Wanda Jeter, was called as a prospective juror in the 1997 
sentencing of Phillip Antwan Davis, who had already pleaded guilty to 2 counts 
of 1st-degree murder, the 1st for fatally shooting his 17-year-old cousin, and 
then shooting and attacking her mother with a meat cleaver.

The only eligible African-American called for jury duty in the case, Jeter was 
removed by prosecutors over objections from attorneys for Davis. He faced an 
all-white panel of jurists, who could decide between life without parole or 
death.

They chose death, making Davis, then 19, the youngest inmate facing execution 
in North Carolina.

Late last month, Buncombe County District Attorney Todd Williams in court 
documents agreed that Davis should have a new sentencing hearing, one that will 
again consider whether he should spend his life in prison or remain on death 
row.

The hearing is scheduled for Nov. 14 before a Superior Court judge.

Defense attorney Mark Kleinschmidt had earlier filed a motion that largely 
argued Jeter was removed because she was black, a violation of constitutional 
protections.

"Discrimination affecting one individual is too much discrimination. Making a 
decision that's influenced by racial bias that affects one person is one person 
too many," Kleinschmidt said. "This is an issue that doesn't belong just to the 
defendant. It's important to jurors and to public confidence in our criminal 
justice system."

The state's death row is home to 9 men who committed murders in Buncombe 
County, all of them sent there during the 24-year tenure of former District 
Attorney Ron Moore.

Williams won that office in 2014, and has declined to comment on the new 
hearing, but his response in court documents to the Davis motion - one that 
does not offer objections to the claims - suggests the state may join in 
recommending a term of life without parole.

Top guns

When Jeter arrived as a prospective juror in 1997, the Supreme Court's ruling 
in Batson v. Kentucky had already been in place for a decade. That decision, 
hailed as a landmark case, found that jurors could not be removed from service 
based on race.

It was also nearly toothless.

Legal practitioners have long known that African-Americans tend to be more 
adverse to the death penalty and skeptical of police, who are often key 
witnesses for prosecutors. Research into juries indicates an all-white panel is 
more likely to find for the death penalty than a jury box that includes one or 
more African-Americans.

In jury selection - 1 part science, 1 part art and a healthy dose of gut 
instinct - the courts seek fair and open-minded jurists, but attorneys on both 
sides of a case also look to seat individuals inclined to favor their 
arguments.

The Batson decision was initially viewed as a way of precluding the practice of 
striking black juror-candidates because they are black and required attorneys - 
usually prosecutors - to explain why they did not want to seat an 
African-American.

In 1995, North Carolina's conference of district attorneys provided a 
workaround. It offered "Top Gun II," a training course that held to the letter 
of the Batson decision, while disregarding its spirit. It provided reasons 
prosecutors could cite in striking jurors - inappropriate dress, lack of eye 
contact with a prosecutor, a disheveled appearance - none of them relying on 
race.

While those reasons are valid, critics say they are applied unevenly depending 
on the skin color of the prospective jury member.

Both attorneys who prosecuted Davis, Moore and his top assistant Kate Dreher, 
had attended Top Gun II. Nether Moore nor Dreher returned calls for this story.

After Wanda Jeter was summoned as a potential juror, Dreher sought to remove 
her, prompting a Batson challenge from Davis' attorney.

The prosecutor explained the cartoon character on Jeter's shirt indicated she 
might not take her duty seriously, while her cross earring suggested a 
religious consideration that could complicate her ability to find for death.

Jeter was never questioned about her religious beliefs or church attendance, 
though most of the final jury, one that included a Catholic, a Christian 
Scientist and Baptists, indicated they often attended church.

Judge Ronald Payne disregarded the earring and shirt, but allowed prosecutors a 
third reason to strike Jeter: She testified her brother had a criminal history 
in Buncombe County, and believed it was related to forgery. The case might have 
been pending, she told them, but she didn???t ???keep up??? with her brother, 
and was uncertain of the details.

Dreher explained to the court that the brother had a pending sex offense or 
rape case, and after she was dismissed, Jeter testified in an affidavit that 
she learned the charge related to indecent liberties with a child.

In that document, she described Moore's questioning as hostile, and remembered 
saying she wasn't close to her brother.

"After I had been questioned by Mr. Moore, I was dismissed and told that I 
wouldn't be serving on the jury," she told investigators for Davis. "I felt at 
the time that Mr. Moore was looking for an all-white jury."

Jeter could not be reached for comment for this story.

In their motion, Davis' attorneys allege that prosecutors were uninterested in 
the familial criminal histories of white jurors.

2 women, 1 with a brother who had a recent embezzlement conviction, were seated 
after indicating on jury questionnaires they had family or a close friend with 
criminal histories.

According to Davis' motion, neither prosecutor asked follow-up questions about 
those criminal issues.

A 3rd woman wrote on the jury questionnaire that she had no relatives with 
criminal histories, though current defense attorneys for Davis found her 
husband had 3 times been charged with driving while impaired, most recently in 
1996.

Another woman, also white, wrote on her jury questionnaire that she had no 
criminal history, but under questioning from Davis' attorney, admitted she had 
a previous conviction for driving under the influence. She was removed by 
lawyers for Davis.

30 years of Batson

Jeter was not the only black person to appear in court, but 6 others were each 
removed for cause, typically a common-sense reason that prevents jury service.

A prospective juror who is friends with the judge or the defendant is typically 
excused, as are those who admit their own unyielding beliefs about a trial 
issue, such as the death penalty, will color their decision.

But the use of peremptory strikes, used at the discretion of attorneys, 
continues to raise concerns among researchers studying the legal community, 
decades after the Batson ruling.

Neither North Carolina's Court of Appeals nor its Supreme Court have ever found 
intentional discrimination in peremptory strikes favoring a defendant in the 3 
decades since the nation's highest court weighed in, according to a study 
published earlier this year in the North Carolina Law Review.

"In other Southern states, there have been lots of Batson violations found. 
What's happened in North Carolina is the appellate courts have not enforced 
Batson and we're hoping that's going to change because the U.S. Supreme Court 
has issued a series of decisions," said Ken Rose, attorney with the 
Durham-based Center for Death Penalty Litigation. "There have been many 
Superior Court judges who have enforced Batson."

Superior courts have upheld Batson both during jury selection, he said, and 
sometimes in motions years or decades after the original case, though their 
rulings are not always consistent.

The new Davis hearing comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued 
this past term, one that found Timothy Foster, a black Georgia man sentenced to 
death, is entitled to a new hearing after he discovered prosecutors highlighted 
the names of all black prospective jurors, later striking them. He was handed 
death by an all-white jury, and state appellate courts later denied his Batson 
claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court case determined the federal courts had jurisdiction to 
review Batson challenges.

Unlike the Foster case, much of the jury paperwork in the Davis case no longer 
exists. The judge asked both sides to turn over those documents to the court 
clerk as the sentencing hearing got underway, but Dreher said theirs had 
already been shredded, "so that we're not cluttered up with paper."

Then a high school student, Davis moved in with his aunt because his mother, 
who had long been drug addicted, was arrested on a probation violation. His 
father was not present.

According to his attorneys, he has an IQ of 78, placing him in a borderline 
intellectual capacity.

Shortly before the murders, Joyce Miller discovered $800 had disappeared and 
suspected her nephew, who had purchased new clothes and a gold chain. She 
returned the clothes and hid the necklace. Davis threatened his cousin, 
demanding its return.

Following the deaths, he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in both cases 
and left his sentencing fate to a jury.

He was taken to death row and his mother, Phyllis Moore, moved to California. 
She said she's clean now, and for the last 15 years has returned annually to 
see her child on North Carolina's death row.

Should he win life, Moore knows she will never see her son outside of a prison, 
but she hopes to be able to reach out to him, to give him a hug. Her visits now 
are through a small window laced with chicken wire.

"It's not been easy. Only by the grace of God giving me strength. I did go 
through a lot of depression," she said through tears. "I'm waiting on the day, 
and I will one day, as far as I know, have a contact visit."

About the crime

Time of crime: May 24, 1996, about 5:30 p.m.

Demographics: Black male, 18 years old at crime, now 38

Victims: His aunt, Joyce Miller, 43, and her daughter, Caroline Miller, 17.

The crime: Davis, who lived with the Millers, shot Caroline in the head and 
chest. When her mother arrived home more than an hour later, Davis shot her in 
the head before attacking her with a meat cleaver.

Motive: Joyce Miller believed Davis had taken a missing $800, buying clothes 
and a gold chain. Miller returned the clothes and hid the necklace. Davis told 
his cousin, "Well, if I don't get my chain, it's only going to hurt you in the 
long run."

Initial charges: 2 counts 1st-degree murder, eligible for death penalty.

Plea: Guilty to 2 counts of 1st-degree murder.

Jury sentencing: Death penalty in his aunt's death; life without parole in his 
cousin's death.

Current disposition The case is scheduled for a new sentencing hearing on Nov. 
14, one in which a judge with consider if Davis should remain on death row or 
be moved to life without parole.

(source: Asheville Citizen-Times)

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

State seeking death penalty against quadruple murder suspect


The state plans to seek the death penalty for a man charged with beating his 
wife and children to death with a hammer.

On Thursday during a Rule 24 hearing at the Pitt County Detention Center, 
District Attorney Kimberly Robb told Superior Court Judge J. Carlton Cole that 
aggravating circumstances apply in the cases against Dibon Jad Toone and 
qualify for the death penalty.

Toone, 40, is charged with 4 counts of 1st-degree murder and 1 count of felony 
larceny of a vehicle. He is accused of killing his wife, Garlette Rose Howard, 
32; their 2 daughters, Ayona Toone, 7, Myona Toone, 5; and his stepdaughter, 
Bryana Nicole Carr, 11, sometime before Aug. 16, when their bodies were found 
in Apt. A-2 at 1101 Grovemont Drive in Greenville.

Toone was arrested in Richmond, Va., after he allegedly stole Howard's 
work-issued vehicle. Law enforcement authorities used the OnStar tracking 
device in the vehicle to locate it at a convenience store there.

Robb told the judge that when police went to do a welfare check on Aug. 16, 
they found 4 people deceased that appeared to have been killed with a hammer. 
The mother was in her bed, and the children were in and around their beds, she 
said.

For a case to be eligible for the state to seek the death penalty, there must 
be 1 or more aggravating factors as defined by state law.

Robb said the 1st aggravating factor was that the deaths of the children was to 
avoid or prevent arrest.

"There is some evidence that the children may have been murdered to prevent 
them from calling 911 after the mother was killed," she said.

Another aggravating factor would be that the killings were committed for 
financial gain, Robb said. In addition to allegedly stealing the vehicle, there 
is evidence that Toone may have left the apartment and returned to take items 
such as TVs and jewelry to pawn, Robb said.

Another aggravating factor would be that the deaths were especially heinous, 
atrocious and cruel, Robb said.

"I don't think that once the court sees the evidence, there would be any 
question about that," she said.

Another aggravating circumstance would be "course of conduct," meaning the 
defendant was engaged in other crimes of violence against another person or 
persons, Robb said.

Pitt County Public Defender Ann Kirby was appointed to represent Toone. Because 
the case is capital, the Capital Defender's Office will appoint another 
attorney to work with Kirby.

Toone, wearing an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs, did not speak during the 
hearing and shook his head no when the judge asked if he had any questions.

(source: Greenville Daily Reflector)






GEORGIA----impending execution/volunteer

Clemency hearing scheduled for Georgia man set for execution


The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has scheduled a clemency hearing for a 
man who's set for execution later this month.

Steven Frederick Spears is to be put to death Nov. 16 at the state prison in 
Jackson. The parole board set a hearing for Nov. 15. Clemency hearings aren't 
open to the public or media

The 54-year-old was convicted of murder in the August 2001 death of his 
ex-girlfriend Sherri Holland at her Dahlonega home.

A Georgia Supreme Court summary of the case says Spears killed Holland because 
he suspected she'd been romantically involved with someone else. The summary 
says Spears choked her, wrapped tape around her mouth and face and put a 
plastic bag over her head.

Spears would be the 8th Georgia inmate executed this year.

(source: The Republic)






FLORIDA:

Lawyers for Death Row inmate fire back at Bondi


Lawyers for a death row inmate Larry Darnell Perry are blasting Attorney 
General Pam Bondi's request that the Florida Supreme Court clarify a decision 
that struck down a new law because it did not require unanimous jury 
recommendations in death-penalty cases.

In the Oct. 14 decision in Perry's case, a 5-2 majority of the court found that 
the law was unconstitutional because it only required 10 of 12 jurors to 
recommend the death penalty and that it "cannot be applied to pending 
prosecutions."

Bondi's lawyers, in the request for clarification, maintained that cases in 
which prosecutors are seeking the death penalty can move forward, even without 
a change in the law, so long as trial courts require unanimous recommendations.

But in a response filed Thursday, Perry's lawyers accused Bondi of essentially 
asking the courts to rewrite the law, something the defense lawyers argued can 
only be done by the Legislature.

"Simply put, there is no need for this court to 'clarify' its decision - which 
could not be clearer - and which properly respects the role of the Legislature 
under the Florida Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. Indeed, it is 
obvious that respondent (Bondi's office) is not seeking 'clarification' at 
all," lawyers J. Edwin Mills and Frank Bankowitz wrote in the 12-page document.

The response by the lawyers representing Perry, who was convicted in the 2013 
murder of his infant son, is the latest in a drawn-out battle over the state's 
death penalty.

In a case known as Hurst v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court in January ruled 
that the state's death-penalty sentencing system was unconstitutional because 
it gave too much power to judges, instead of juries.

At the urging of Bondi and prosecutors, the Legislature in March passed a law 
that requires at least 10 jurors to recommend that the death penalty be 
imposed.

Defense lawyers repeatedly warned lawmakers that failing to require unanimous 
jury recommendations would further endanger the state's death penalty, a 
caution borne out by the Florida Supreme Court's decisions in a pair of cases, 
Hurst's and Perry's, last month.

In a strong signal that courts may not be able to move forward with capital 
trials until the Legislature changes the statute, the Florida Supreme Court on 
Friday stopped a Clearwater judge from proceeding with a death penalty case.

Perry's lawyers on Thursday accused Bondi of attempting an "end-run" around 
limitations on requests for rehearings by raising new issues in her request for 
clarification. For example, lawyers seeking a rehearing are barred from making 
new arguments.

"Respondent (Bondi's office) simply believes that this court was wrong in 
holding that the lack of a unanimity requirement for the jury's final vote 
rendered the statute unconstitutional," the defense lawyers wrote. "The motion 
for rehearing is not a vehicle for counsel or the party to continue its 
attempts at advocacy."

Arguing that the courts cannot rewrite statutes, Perry's lawyers relied on a 
decade-old case, known as State v. Steele. In the 2005 case, the state argued 
against allowing trial courts to adopt individual procedures in death penalty 
cases. The majority of justices agreed, writing that "any changes should be 
made systematically" to ensure consistency in the death penalty sentencing 
process, Perry's lawyers noted.

Perry lawyers also asked that, if the court is going to allow death penalty 
cases to move forward without a rewrite of the statute, that the changes be 
made by the Supreme Court and "not by trial judges."

(source: ocala.com)


ALABAMA----stay of execution

Tommy Arthur avoids execution 7th time: Supreme Court issues stay in Alabama 
murder-for-hire


Alabama death row inmate Tommy Arthur, who one victim advocate already referred 
to as "Houdini" for escaping execution 6 times, on Thursday had his execution 
postponed for the 7th time in 15 years.

The execution was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court officially at 10:55 p.m., a 
prison spokesman said. "There will be no execution tonight," said Alabama 
prison spokesman Bob Horton.

The Alabama Attorney General's Office had notified the prison system of the 
stay, Horton said.

The stay will remain in place until the court decides whether it will grant 
agree to review Arthur's appeal, according to the SCOTUS order. If they don't, 
then the stay automatically is removed and Alabama would be free to set another 
execution date. Two justices, Thomas and Alito, stated they would not have 
granted the stay.

Four of the justices were in favor and the Chief Justice stated he didn't favor 
a stay or review but agreed out of courtesy.

Attorney General Luther Strange criticized the decision to halt the execution.

"With all due respect to the Supreme Court, tonight's order undermines the rule 
of law. While I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that 'this case does not merit 
the Court's review,' in my view, there is no 'courtesy' in voting to deny 
justice to the victims of a notorious and cold-blooded killer," Strange said.

SCOTUS had twice delayed the execution Thursday night.

An order shortly before 9:30 p.m. Thursday signed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice 
Clarence Thomas had been a temporary order staying the execution, Horton said. 
At that time prison officials were still waiting to see if the court ruled 
again and they could go forward with the execution before midnight.

If the court had ruled before midnight and denied the stay then it would have 
possible the execution could go forward, Horton said.

"We're in a holding pattern ... We're going to continue to wait for the Supreme 
Court," Horton said at that time.

Earlier Thursday evening, Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner Jeff 
Dunn agreed to a 2-hour delay of the scheduled 6 p.m. execution so the Supreme 
Court could review the split 11th Circuit decision, said Horton.

In that 2-1 decision, 11th Circuit decision Circuit Judge Charles Wilson said 
the execution should have been stayed in order for Arthur's appeals on his 
lethal injection challenge.

"Due to the scarcity of and secrecy surrounding lethal injection drugs, it is 
all but impossible for a prisoner to set forth a viable lethal-injection-based 
alternative," Wilson wrote in his dissent in Wednesday's opinion. "The 
Majority's decision therefore checkmates countless Alabama and Florida 
prisoners, nullifying their constitutional right to a humane execution."

Wilson also stated that the majority in the ruling - Hull and Circuit Judge 
Stanley Marcus - determines that Arthur's suggestion of a firing squad was not 
feasible and readily implemented because Alabama law does not authorize the 
firing squad.

"Arthur should be permitted to amend his complaint to include the firing squad 
as an execution alternative to Alabama's lethal injection protocol. The firing 
squad is a potentially viable alternative, and Arthur may be entitled to relief 
under Baze and Glossip (U.S. Supreme Court ruling) based on that method of 
execution," Wilson wrote.

Arthur remained defiant Thursday as he waited to see if the U.S. Supreme Court 
would stay his execution at the Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore.

Arthur's attorneys Wednesday night filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court 
seeking a stay after the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block 
the execution.

Arthur on Thursday told AL.com in a telephone interview he was hopeful this 
execution would be stayed.

"We've still got wiggle room," Arthur said this afternoon. "We're not done 
yet."

Asked if he accepted the reality he might not avoid today's execution, Arthur 
replied: "All I can do is sit here and hate it."

Arthur said he had no visitors Thursday although his lawyers had just arrived 
at the prison when he spoke to AL.com. Arthur said he planned to make a final 
statement if he was executed.

Arthur was convicted at 3 trials and sentenced to death each time for the 1982 
murder-for-hire shooting death of Troy Wicker, of Muscle Shoals.

At the time of the Wicker murder, Arthur was serving at a Decatur work release 
center for a conviction in the 1977 murder of his sister-in-law in Marion 
County.

Arthur was hired by Wicker's wife, Judy, with whom he was having a romantic 
relationship. Judy Wicker testified at one trial that she paid Arthur $10,000 
of the insurance money. Wicker was killed with 1 shot through the right eye as 
he slept.

Arthur maintains his innocence.

On Wednesday, both the Alabama Supreme Court and the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of 
Appeals denied requests by Arthur's attorneys to have the execution stayed. 
Each decision had 1 dissent.

Had Arthur been executed, it would have been the 2nd execution in Alabama this 
year.

When it denied Arthur's stay the U.S. 11th also affirmed U.S. District Court 
Judge Keith Watkins' ruling that dismissed Arthur's lawsuit challenging the 
lethal injection drug combination and the consciousness test procedure during 
the execution. Arthur had claimed that the correctional officers conducting the 
execution did not - or did not do it properly - perform the "pinch test" on the 
condemned inmate's left arm to make sure he was sedated before the 2nd 2 drugs 
were administered.

Watkins this week also tossed out similar claims filed by a group of other 
death row inmates.

Arthur's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a stay centers on the 
constitutionality of Alabama's death penalty sentencing scheme.

The petition states that SCOTUS should grant the stay and decide whether 
Alabama's death sentencing scheme is unconstitutional in light of the SCOTUS 
ruling in January in the case Hurst v. Florida. In that ruling the court found 
Florida's death sentencing law unconstitutional. Alabama's law is similar to 
Florida's law, Arthur's attorneys argue.

"This court's decision in Hurst invalidates Alabama's death sentencing scheme," 
according to Arthur's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. "The Alabama Supreme 
Court refused to recognize the validity of Hurst, both as it applies generally 
to Alabama and specifically to Mr. Arthur. This court should stay Mr. Arthur's 
scheduled execution and resolve the important constitutional issues raised by 
Mr. Arthur's petition for certiorari (review)."

Alabama has executed 209 inmates since the state switched from hanging to 
electrocution in 1927. Many offered final words, some contrite, some defiant to 
the end. Some chose the traditional last meal, while others snacked from 
vending machines.

District attorneys and Attorney General Strange have said Alabama's law is not 
the same as Florida's former law. They have said the U.S. Supreme Court held in 
the Florida case that a jury, not the judge, must find the aggravating factor 
in order to make someone eligible for the death penalty. Alabama's system, 
however, already required the jury to do just that in either the guilt or 
sentencing phase, they said.

Once a jury has unanimously made the factual determination that a defendant 
meets the criteria to be eligible for the death penalty, the judge may make the 
legal determination of whether to impose it or not, the attorney general has 
stated.

The U.S. Supreme Court in the spring sent three death sentence cases back to 
the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to review in light of its decision in 
Hurst v. Florida. While the state appeals court hasn't ruled on those 3 cases, 
it and the Alabama Supreme Court have both ruled the state's capital murder 
sentencing scheme constitutional in other cases since that time.

Vernon Madison, one of Alabama's longest-serving death row inmates, had his 
execution stayed by the 11th Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court the day of the 
execution in May.

Madison was convicted in the April 1985 slaying of Mobile police Cpl. Julius 
Schulte. Madison has claimed that he is mentally incompetent to be executed.

Alabama also has set another execution for Dec. 8 for another death row inmate, 
Ronald Bert Smith, who was convicted in Madison County in the November 1994 
slaying of Circle C convenience store clerk Casey Wilson during a robbery.

(source: al.com)






NEBRASKA:

Death penalty: is the ballot language clear for voters?


Next week Nebraskans will go to the pools and decide the future of capital 
punishment for the state.

For weeks KMTV has been telling you the language on the ballot might be a bit 
confusing.

The ballot item is Referendum 426 and the vote is retain or repeal Bill 268, or 
in simpler terms: should Nebraska have the death penalty?

So, voters vote retain to eliminate the death penalty, repeal to keep it.

Reporter Miranda Christian asked voters if they understood the language on the 
ballot.

"Retaining is to eliminate the death penalty, I feel like it is really funky 
wording," said one UNO student.

"It is kind of tricky, retain you think let's keep it, well no we are repealing 
the death sentence," said Errol Hald.

Out of the 12 people she spoke with, 8 of them voted retain, 3 voted repeal, 
and 1 undecided. Fortunately everyone said they were able to read the ballot 
and make an informed decision.

"I think it is pretty straight forward; you definitely should at least read it 
and make sure you know where you stand on it," said one voter.

(source: KMTV news)

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

Why did the Unicameral vote to end the death penalty?


When 30 senators voted to end Nebraska's death penalty, we did so after 
extensive research, analysis and reflection.

What drove many of us was not theoretical or moral, but practical 
considerations. After years of study and dozens of hours of debate we concluded 
that there is no way to have a workable death penalty and Nebraska was better 
off with life imprisonment.

Life imprisonment is better than Nebraska's unworkable death penalty. Life in 
prison removes the risk of executing an innocent person. To date over 156 
innocent people have been released from death rows across the country. Here in 
Nebraska we know we aren't immune to mistakes because of heartbreaking cases 
like the wrongfully convicted Beatrice 6. In Douglas County, the top crime 
scene investigator planted blood evidence in a murder case. We can release an 
innocent person from prison if an error comes to light, we could never release 
an innocent person from the grave.

Life imprisonment is better than Nebraska's death penalty because the long 
process the U.S. Supreme Court has mandated - to ward off executing the 
innocent - takes an awful toll on the families of victims. Our last execution 
was nearly 20 years ago. Carey Dean Moore has been sitting on Nebraska's death 
row for 36 years. The process takes far too long, and while a case snakes its 
way through the required proceedings, the victims' families are caught in the 
middle. It would be kinder to victims' families to promise to lock up their 
offender and throw away the key.

Life imprisonment is better than Nebraska's death penalty because there is no 
solution in sight to our lethal injection quagmire. For nearly 20 years, our 
state has been unable to carry out an execution. This is not from want of 
trying - we had pro-death penalty Governors, Attorney Generals, and majorities 
in the Unicameral this entire time. Yet no solution was found. And, let's 
remember the $54,000 wasted when Governor Ricketts attempted to import illegal 
drugs.

The financial cost of life imprisonment is far, far less than the death 
penalty. Creighton University economist Ernie Goss' study confirmed the 
enormous costs of trials, years and years of appeals, additional incarceration 
costs -- the list goes on and on. The $14.6 million dollar annual cost to 
Nebraska taxpayers would be better spent giving better pay and training to 
prison guards and law enforcement professionals. The legislature and many other 
government entities have long relied on Dr. Goss' expertise and analysis, but 
we already knew the death penalty was more expensive when we voted to end the 
death penalty, because it's what every study on the costs of the death penalty 
have shown.

We did not walk away from our death penalty lightly. We decided it was time to 
move forward, to accept life imprisonment as the superior alternative to the 
death penalty because for nearly 2 decades we've been unable to fix all these 
problems and implement a working death penalty. We see no possible way to have 
a system that was safe, fair, and effective. We hope you will do your own 
research into the issue, and ask yourself if the death penalty is worth the 
expense, risk, and emotional energy so many must pour into it to keep the 
system afloat. We believe life imprisonment is a harsh, sensible punishment for 
the worst of the worst crimes. We hope you will vote to retain our decision 
when you vote on Referendum Measure 426.

(source: Galen Hadley, of Kearney, is Speaker of the Nebraska Legislature. He 
was elected to the Legislature in 2008 and is serving his last term. He served 
previously as mayor of Kearney, Neb.----York News-Times)

. ****************

Convicted killer Jenkins takes death penalty challenge to court


Convicted killer Nikko Jenkins was back in court Thursday where his attorneys 
are challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Jenkins and his public defender also contend that the legislature's move to 
abolish capital punishment is another reason why Jenkins shouldn't be put to 
death.

Jenkins also claims his No Contest plea isn't valid anymore due to what he says 
is, "new evidence" he uncovered. He's accusing OPD of misconduct and falsifying 
evidence.

Jenkins is facing the possibility of execution for his conviction in 4 murders. 
In court on Thursday he said, "I never committed those crimes."

He is scheduled to be sentenced November 14.

(source: WOWT news)

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

Faith leaders speak out against death penalty ahead of referendum; 'Our job is 
to protect life, not destroy it'


Episcopal, Jewish and other faith leaders stood shoulder to shoulder Thursday 
at an Omaha church as they spoke out against the death penalty.

"We share a vision of a world without the death penalty," said J. Scott Barker, 
bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Nebraska.

He spoke at a news conference that he said was intended to show the range of 
faith groups that oppose the death penalty.

Speakers at the event included a Soto Zen Buddhist priest, Unitarian 
Universalist and United Methodist ministers, and a Catholic priest. More than 
60 lay people and clergy members from a variety of faith groups stood behind 
him during the event at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral.

The event was organized by the faith leaders and Retain a Just Nebraska, an 
organization working to preserve the Legislature's 2015 repeal of capital 
punishment. On Tuesday, voters will decide on a referendum on the repeal 
legislation.

Speakers urged voters to retain the Legislature's repeal of the death penalty.

"This is not a time to be silent or apathetic," said Rabbi Steven Abraham of 
Beth El Synagogue. "Our job is to protect life, not destroy it."

Death penalty proponents, who obtained the signatures needed for Tuesday's 
referendum, say capital punishment in Nebraska should be reserved for a small 
number of killers. They say it helps protect prison officers from violence by 
inmates who would have nothing to lose if the death penalty were eliminated.

The Rev. Kyoki Roberts, a Soto Zen Buddhist priest, said protecting life is an 
important theme of Buddhism. "If we want a society where all life is revered, 
we must revere all life," she said.

The Rev. Dennis Hamm, professor emeritus of theology at Creighton University, 
said the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty fits the church's 
"consistent ethic of life." Life in prison without parole is reasonable 
alternative to the death penalty, he said.

(source: Omaha Wolrd-Herald)






CALIFORNIA:

Could Prop. 66 increase risk of executing an innocent inmate?


The long public debate about the death penalty is still controversial, and 
nowhere is the debate more prominent today than in California, where voters 
will decide whether to repeal it with Proposition 62 or try to streamline it 
with Proposition 66.

Proposition 66 is unlikely to achieve its stated goals of making the death 
penalty cheaper and more efficient, and will instead decrease the quality of 
legal representation. What's more, instead of bringing swift justice, the 
measure could increase the risk of executing an innocent person.

While the American Bar Association takes no position on whether the death 
penalty should be abolished, our members - who include prosecutors, defense 
lawyers and judges - have long been committed to ensuring that capital 
punishment is fair, unbiased and accurate. For nearly 20 years, the ABA has 
called upon states to suspend executions until procedures are in place that 
ensure due process and minimize the risk that an innocent person will be 
executed. In addition, the ABA publishes the widely cited guidelines for 
qualifications and expectations of death penalty lawyers across the country.

Our expertise gives us a unique perspective on some of the likely pitfalls and 
unintended consequences of Proposition 66.

First, it would require attorneys with no death penalty experience to represent 
prisoners in their first appeal if qualified lawyers are not available. Imagine 
being required to visit a dermatologist after you have been diagnosed with lung 
cancer because no oncologist is available. Expertise and experience are 
critical to avoiding deadly mistakes.

In fact, ineffective counsel is 1 of the primary reasons innocent people wind 
up on death row. Of the 156 death row inmates who have been exonerated since 
1989, nearly 1 in 5 were found to have had ineffective lawyers, according to 
the National Registry of Exonerations at the University of Michigan and the 
Death Penalty Information Center.

2nd, Proposition 66 would impose strict deadlines for attorneys investigating 
cases and courts reviewing them. Such deadlines violate the ABA???s guidelines 
for a fair death penalty system.

Capital cases are highly complex, and attorneys typically need to review 
thousands of pages of trial records, witness statements, police and medical 
documents and other evidence to adequately prepare an appeal. The ABA has found 
that having enough time to review existing evidence and look for previously 
undiscovered information is critical to ensuring that legitimate legal claims 
are reviewed by the courts and to increasing the chances that the wrongly 
convicted are discovered. Though the average exoneree spent 11 years on death 
row before proving their innocence, Proposition 66 would cut the total time for 
appeals to just 5 years.

3rd, Proposition 66 was designed to speed up the appeals process and save 
California money. But supporters fail to take into account that if unqualified 
attorneys make mistakes or new evidence is uncovered after the shortened 
deadlines, state and federal judges could be forced to send cases back to lower 
courts for additional review or to correct constitutional errors. This could 
end up taking even longer and further burden California's courts.

The ABA is sympathetic to the frustrations of the families, victims and 
defendants who have suffered from the massive delays and inefficiencies in 
California's death penalty system. But people deserve changes that will address 
the problems effectively, not diminish the fairness and accuracy of our justice 
system. We should not cut corners in the administration of the death penalty. 
Unfortunately, that is what Proposition 66 would do.

(source: Opinion; Linda A. Klein is president of the American Bar 
Association----Sacramento Bee)