[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.C., ALA., TENN., OKLA., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 5




TEXAS----execution

Execution of Man Who Killed Neighbors First in Months


6 months after the Texas death chamber held its last execution, Barney Ronald 
Fuller Jr. was put to death by lethal injection Wednesday for the 2003 shooting 
deaths of his neighbors in rural East Texas.

Fuller's execution broke the longest gap between executions in Texas since 
2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of 
lethal injection. It also marks the 1st time Houston County has put someone to 
death since the penalty was reinstated in the United States in 1976.

Laid out in the Texas death chamber with an IV in his arm, Fuller declined to 
give a last statement. At 6:23 p.m., a lethal dose of pentobarbital started 
running through his veins, according to the Texas Department of Criminal 
Justice. He was pronounced dead at 7:01 p.m.

Fuller, 53, was sentenced to death for killing Annette and Nathan Copeland, his 
neighbors on the outskirts of Lovelady, a small town with around 600 residents 
at the time about 100 miles north of Houston. In the early morning of May 14, 
2003, he fired into their home with an assault rifle before breaking in and 
killing them both with a pistol, according to court documents.

"We got a call in the middle of the night that our family had been murdered," 
said Ona Presto, Annette's older sister who became guardian of the Copelands' 2 
children.

The tension between the neighbors began several years earlier. In 2001, Fuller 
was charged with making terroristic threats against the Copelands after he 
allegedly shot and damaged their electric transformer, then threatened them 
when they called the sheriff's office, according to testimony from the 
sentencing trial. The Copelands called deputies to their home several other 
times claiming Fuller was firing weapons, but no action was ever taken.

On May 13, 2003, more than 2 years after charges were filed, Fuller received a 
letter from the Houston County courthouse about his upcoming trial, sending him 
into a rage, according to testimony from Fuller's wife, Linda. He drank through 
the day and night and eventually sent Linda and their children from the house.

At around 1:30 a.m., he walked the 200 yards to the Copeland's home and fired 
60 rounds into the house with an assault rifle, according to court documents. 
He then broke down the back door, and first went into the bedroom of the 
Copeland's 10-year-old daughter, but left when he couldn't turn on her light. 
He went into the master bedroom and fatally shot both Nathan, 43, and Annette, 
39, with a pistol before heading to their son's room. Cody, 14, was shot twice 
in the shoulder, but survived.

During the initial gunfire, Annette managed to crawl into the bathroom to call 
911. During the call, the operator heard a man say, "Party's over, bitch" 
before hearing pops, then silence, according to court testimony.

"It's just a heinous crime," said Randy Hargrove, an investigator for the 
Houston County District Attorney's Office and former sheriff deputy who worked 
the crime scene in 2003. "The man doesn't need to be on this earth."

Fuller was arrested at his home several hours later, and pleaded guilty to the 
murders in court. After a sentencing trial, the jury handed down the death 
penalty.

Hargrove said he couldn't remember another case in Houston County where the 
death penalty was pursued. Fuller's was the 1st execution from the county on 
record, and no other current death row inmates were sentenced by the county. 
Hargrove said he believes the death penalty was right for Fuller but hopes 
there will be no future cases.

"It's really sad for both families," Hargrove said, adding that he feels for 
Fuller's mother as well as the Copelands. "But you reap what you sow. If you 
plant corn, you don't harvest peas ... That's just the way it is."

Presto has always believed the death penalty was the right punishment for her 
sister's killer, she said.

"I do believe that God made this determination, and that he is getting justice 
done for what he did to 2 innocent people," she said.

Fuller's direct appeal was denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and 
U.S. Supreme Court, and the one other appeal he filed was also denied. Among 
the appellate claims was his incompetence to stand trial or enter a guilty plea 
because he acted irrationally and removed himself from the courtroom for most 
of the jury selection process and trial.

Fuller waived all further review of his case in May, according to his lawyer, 
Jason Cassel. The execution on Wednesday evening was the 7th of the year. 2 
other executions are scheduled for 2016.

Presto, along with her sister and the Copelands' 2 children, planned to witness 
the execution in Huntsville, though she said beforehand she didn't know what to 
expect.

"I don't know if this is our answer or not," Presto said of the execution. 
"We're hoping to see a closure once this has all happened."

Fuller becomes the 7th condemned inmate to be put to death this year in Texas 
and the 538th overall since the state resumed capital punishment on December 7, 
1982.

Fuller becomes the 16th condemned inmate to be put to death this year in the 
USA and the 1438th overall since the nation resumed executions on Janauary 17, 
1977.

(sources: Texas Tribune & Rick Halperin)

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

Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----20

Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----538

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

21---------October 19---------------Terry Edwards---------539

22---------November 2---------------Ramiro Gonzales-------540

23---------December 7---------------John Battaglia--------541

24---------January 11---------------Christoper Wilkins----542

25---------February 7---------------Tilon Carter----------543

26---------April 12-----------------Paul Storey-----------544

(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)

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

Supreme Court Hears 'Indefensible' Death Penalty Case Where Race Linked To 
Violence


The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in the case of Duane Buck, a 
convicted Texas murderer sentenced to die after a psychologist testified that 
he was more likely to commit violent crimes in the future because he is black.

Buck shot and killed his ex-girlfriend in front of her three children while she 
begged for her life. He killed the man he thought she was sleeping with and he 
shot his own stepsister, Phyllis Taylor, who survived the horrific night.

Taylor was at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, supporting Buck's attempt to win 
a new sentencing hearing. "I pray that it be converted to life," she said, 
"because I know who he is, and on that particular day, he was under the 
influence of drugs."

To sentence a defendant to death under Texas law, a jury must unanimously agree 
that the defendant poses a future danger. In this case, Buck's own lawyer hired 
psychologist Walter Quijano, who testified that Buck was generally not violent, 
but that he was more likely to commit violent acts in the future because he is 
black.

When a similar case involving the same psychologist went to the Supreme Court 
in 2000, Texas conceded error. It also found six more cases in which Quijano 
linked race to violence, and it pledged to allow all seven defendants to bring 
appeals for new sentencing hearings. The state delivered on that promise, 
except in Buck's case.

Inside the Supreme Court chamber Wednesday, there seemed little doubt that 
would change. The question was how.

Would the justices just say that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to 
deny Buck a sentencing appeal, a decision that would only affect Buck? Or would 
they rule that the Fifth Circuit is an outlier in death penalty appeals and 
that its whole approach is wrong?

Representing Buck, Christina Swarns of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education 
Fund, noted that the jury deliberated for 2 days on Buck's sentence and sent 
out 4 notes. One of the notes asked about the possibility of life without 
parole - a question the trial judge never answered. Another requested the 
report that the defense psychologist had filed, which directly correlated race 
to a defendant's likelihood of future violence.

Justice Samuel Alito called the introduction of race as a predictor of violence 
"indefensible," but he was also the only justice who voiced skepticism about 
granting what's called a certificate of appealability for Buck. The Supreme 
Court has ruled in the past that these certificates should be granted in any 
case where reasonable jurists could find the legal issue debatable.

In the past, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rebuked the 5th Circuit for its 
refusal to grant these certificates in capital cases. Buck's lawyers compiled 
statistics showing that in the 3 federal courts of appeal that cover the 
southern states, the 5th Circuit refused to grant certificates of appeal in 60 
% of cases, versus a 6 % refusal rate in the neighboring 11th Circuit, and no 
refusals in the 4th.

When Texas Solicitor General Bill Keller rose to argue for the state, the 
justices took issue with almost every facet of his argument.

Over and over they noted that Texas had initially promised to allow a 
sentencing appeal to go forward in all 7 of the cases where psychologist 
Quijano had linked race to violence. Why, they wanted to know, did the state 
change its mind in Buck's case?

Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the facts in the other cases were 
"similarly heinous." Driving the point home, Justice Sotomayor noted that in 
one of the other cases, a man poured gasoline on his victim, lit it, and 
watched her die.

The state's lawyer replied that Buck's case differed from the other cases 
because the defense lawyer, not the prosecutor, elicited the racial testimony.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the significance of that distinction. If 
Buck's own counsel introduced the testimony, she asked, doesn't that show how 
"abysmal" his lawyer was?

Justice Elena Kagan added that "it seems wildly more prejudicial when the 
defense attorney introduces" testimony unfavorable to the defendant. Jurors 
discount similar evidence introduced by a prosecutor, she explained, because 
they realize the prosecution "has an interest" in getting the sentence it 
wants. This dynamic, she said, is directly relevant to Buck's claim that he was 
denied effective legal representation, a claim that no court has ever heard in 
his case.

Turning to the question of whether the 5th Circuit is using the wrong standard 
to certify appeals, Justice Kagan noted that the 5th Circuit denies 
certification 10 times more often than the adjoining 11th Circuit. It does 
suggest, she said, that 1 of these 2 circuits is doing something wrong.

Whether the court will go that far, however, was not clear.

(source: npr.org)






NORTH CAROLINA:

Prosecutors will seek death penalty for NC man accused of killing pregnant 
girlfriend


Prosecutors will now seek the death penalty against man accused of killing his 
pregnant girlfriend and shooting her young son.

Buncombe County made the announcement this week.

Nathaniel Dixon is facing several charges, including 1st degree murder, in the 
killing of Candace Pickens.

Dixon was arrested back in May after Pickens was found dead, shot in the face 
in an Asheville Elementary School playground.

Her son was shot found shot in the head, but survived.

(source: WNCN news)






ALABAMA:

Alabama Supreme Court upholds judicial override in capital cases


The Alabama Supreme Court has upheld the state's capital sentencing scheme in 
which judges can impose the death penalty even if jurors recommend a prison 
sentence.

The state supreme court ruled last Friday that the sentencing scheme does not 
violate the Sixth Amendment, report the Montgomery Advertiser, the Washington 
Post and BuzzFeed News.

The court said judicial override does not violate the right to a trial by jury 
because jurors still determine whether aggravating factors make a defendant 
eligible for the death penalty.

The defendant, Jerry Bohannon, had contended that the Sixth Amendment requires 
jurors to determine not only the existence of any aggravating circumstances, 
but also whether aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating factors.

Bonhannon cited Hurst v. Florida, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck 
down Florida's advisory death penalty scheme. That decision said Florida law 
improperly allowed judges to determine aggravating circumstances meriting the 
death penalty. Florida also allowed judges to impose the death penalty despite 
contrary jury recommendations, but those provisions weren't struck down.

Florida's revised law nonetheless eliminated judicial override. Alabama is the 
only state that still allows judicial override, according to the Montgomery 
Advertiser.

(source: abajournal.com)






TENNESSEE:

Is Lethal Injection 'Cruel And Unusual'? Tennessee's Supreme Court Is About To 
Decide


Lawyers for 33 death row inmates will argue Thursday before the Tennessee 
Supreme Court that the state's execution methods are "cruel and unusual."

It's a case that could help determine whether lethal injection remains legal in 
the United States.

The suit, Stephen West, et al. v. Derrick Schofield, et al., is one of several 
across the country that challenge lethal injection. It differs from many others 
in that it centers on the use of a particular sedative called pentobarbital.

20 states have either used the drug or have plans to. But it's never been 
determined to be constitutional, says the Death Penalty Information Center's 
Robert Dunham.

He says it's likely the federal courts will be asked to take up the question 
regardless of how the Tennessee Supreme Court rules.

"If it turns out in favor of the state, it's very likely that the death row 
prisoners will file what's called a petition for certiorari asking the United 
States Supreme Court to review the decision," says Dunham. "And if the 
prisoners win, and they win on federal law grounds, it's likely that the state 
prosecutors will ask the United States Supreme Court to review the decision."

The case also raises interesting legal questions about whether states can break 
their own laws or federal statutes in order to perform an execution, Dunham 
says.

The plaintiffs in the West case argue Tennessee's contract with its supplier 
prohibits it from using pentobarbital in a way that hasn't been approved by 
federal regulators. Lawyers for the state of Tennessee say that's a matter 
between the government and the supplier - not one that concerns prisoners on 
death row.

Lethal injection remains the main method of execution nationwide, though it 
faces an uncertain future. Pharmaceutical companies have stopped supplying the 
drugs needed, leading Tennessee and many other states to turn to compounding 
pharmacies. States have fought to keep the identities of these suppliers 
confidential, to prevent them from being pressured into not selling the drugs.

Courts have also questioned whether the current methods are as painless as 
states have claimed. Other states have used a sedative called midazolam, 
instead of pentobarbital, but in executions involving that drug, witnesses have 
reported seeing prisoners snoring, gasping for breath or waking in the middle 
of the procedure.

Those are among the reasons why Tennessee hasn't put anyone to death for nearly 
7 years.

Gov. Bill Haslam has not shown any inclination to speed executions, but if the 
courts do strike down lethal injection, Tennessee lawmakers have approved a 
fallback - the electric chair.

But that method also faces constitutional questions that would likely have to 
be resolved before the state of Tennessee could use it in executions.

(source: nashvillepublicradio.org)






OKLAHOMA:

Death Penalty State Question Draws Bipartisan Opposition


Oklahoma's execution practices were under the national spotlight when the 2015 
legislative session began. A few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to 
hear a case challenging the state???s three-drug lethal injection cocktail, 
Oklahoma state Sen. Anthony Sykes, R-Moore, introduced Senate Joint Resolution 
31.

'A necessary amendment'

Sykes did not respond to KGOU's requests for an interview. But in March 2015, 
Sykes told lawmakers his measure was designed to enshrine the death penalty 
into the state constitution.

"I feel this is a necessary amendment to our Constitution to number one, 
establish that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment, to number 
two, to make it clear that the legislature has the authority to alter those 
death penalty statutes, and to also ensure that, if a method of execution is 
declared unconstitutional, then the sentence can still be carried out by 
another method," Sykes said during the legislative session.

House author Mike Christian, R-Oklahoma City, also failed to return interview 
requests, but on the House floor, the lawmaker said the issue deserved a 
popular vote.

"Something as important and serious as capital punishment, (Sykes and I) think 
the people of Oklahoma should be involved, instead of just the legislature. 
It's probably the most serious issue we could deal with as the legislature," 
Christian said.

Both the state House and Senate approved the resolution, and voters will see 
its language as State Question 776 in November. It's 1 of 3 criminal justice 
questions on the ballot.

State Question 776 is not a referendum on the death penalty itself. Regardless 
of the outcome, executions could still occur in the state.

A 'swift' solution

Robert Dunham is the executive director for the Death Penalty Information 
Center. Dunham calls the measure an emotional reaction to the Supreme Court 
lethal injection case.

"Proponents of the death penalty felt that it was under siege and this was a 
swift but not well thought out reaction to the possibility that Oklahoma could 
be without a death penalty if its method of carrying it out was declared 
unconstitutional," Dunham says.

State Question 776 says the death penalty does not constitute cruel and unusual 
punishment or violate any other part of the state constitution. Dunham says the 
referendum would strip those condemned to death of Constitutional rights, 
including their protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

"That strikes me and many other observers as violating the federal 
Constitution's right to equal protection," Dunham says. "And states are free to 
provide rights to defendants but states are not free to discriminate between 
classes of individuals and say that some have some rights and others have other 
rights."

"The death penalty is obviously kind of litigious program as is and this is 
going to give more options for I'm sure appeals and lawsuits," Marc Hyden from 
Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty says.

Potentially pricey proposal

Hyden argues the measure inevitably lends itself to litigation. And he says 
those lawsuits will directly affect Oklahoma taxpayers.

"They're the ones getting stuck with this tab. So they're going to have to pay 
an enormous amount of money and they will have nothing to show for it."

Anthony Sykes also co-authored a 2010 House Joint Resolution banning Sharia 
Law. Voters approved the measure, and a federal court eventually struck it 
down. The challenges cost the state more than $300,000. Robert Boczkiewicz 
reports for The Oklahoman:

Muneer Awad sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our 
State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.

"This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of 
defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society, and we are 
pleased that the appeals court recognized that fact," Awad said.

Hyden says the state could feel a sense of deja vu.

Both conservatives and liberals caution against the ballot measure. Former 
state Sen. Connie Johnson chairs the "Say No to State Question 776" campaign. 
The Oklahoma City democrat fears the language circumvents the courts and 
prevents checks and balances.

"It precludes judges from ruling differently precludes the legislature from 
introducing legislation to repeal it," Johnson says.

She calls 776 a waste of time that's premature. Since the measure was adopted 
last year, the state has started developing new execution protocols and 
multiple groups are reviewing the capital punishment practices. Johnson wants 
to know exactly what experts say before the death penalty becomes part of the 
constitution.

"This is the wrong time. We need to wait, if we do it at all. And we're going 
in the direction that is opposite from the rest of the country."

(source: KGOU news)






CALIFORNIA:

Families of Murdered Victims Spar Over California Death Penalty Propositions


Dionne Wilson and Marc Klaas share a connection no one wants to share. They 
both lost loved ones to unspeakable violence and the perpetrators now sit 
waiting out their days on California's death row at San Quentin Prison.

But that's where Klaas' and Wilson's views of what should happen next to the 
condemned diverge dramatically.

The 2 perspectives mirror competing Death Penalty measures on California's 
November ballot - one which would repeal it and the other which aims to speed 
up executions.

After campaigning for a death sentence for her husband's killer, Wilson now 
believes Irving Ramirez, the man who gunned down her husband, San Leandro 
Police Officer Dan Niemi, should live out the rest of his days in prison.

Klaas wants Richard Allen Davis, the man who kidnapped, raped and killed his 
12-year-old daughter Polly Klaas in 1993 to be executed as soon as possible.

Prop. 62 is the latest attempt by death penalty foes to end the practice in 
California, which hasn???t executed anyone since 2006. Prop. 66 is a 
counter-measure, tailored toward moving death penalty appeals to trial courts 
and hiring more attorneys to speed up those appeals in an effort to move along 
the execution of some 743 prisoners now on death row.

"We're talking about baby killers, cop killers, serial killers, spree killers - 
and sexually sadistic psychopaths," said Klaas, sitting in his Sausalito home 
surrounded by pictures of his late daughter, Polly. "To think that they deserve 
anything less than the sentence that's been handed down is really a disservice 
to the system itself."

When Wilson's husband was killed in 2005, she attended nearly every day of the 
trial for then-25-year-old Ramirez who was convicted of the murder. Wilson 
pushed for the Alameda County District Attorney's office to pursue the death 
penalty, which it succeeded in doing.

"I wanted the worst possible punishment," Wilson said. "I wanted him to suffer. 
I wanted to pull the trigger."

Wilson expected a sense of healing to accompany the sentence. But as the months 
and years rolled by, a sense of closure still eluded her. She began to visit 
prisons telling her story to inmates as a way of deterring them from a 
continued life of crime. But she emerged as the one most changed - after 
hearing countless stories of rough lives shaped by abusive childhoods.

"The more prisoners I talked to," Wilson said, "the deeper my understanding 
grew about how unresolved trauma sometimes turns outward into violence toward 
others."

Wilson's feelings toward the death penalty changed. She now believes the 
sentences of condemned inmates should be changed to life without possibility of 
parole, and that any financial savings should be put toward crime prevention 
programs for at-risk youth. She now is actively campaigning across California 
for Prop. 62.

"I want to prevent the creation of new victims," Wilson said. "That's what my 
justice looks like. And we can't do that when we prop up a system like this 
that is so broken."

Supporters and opponents of the death penalty routinely clash over hot-button 
issues such as whether the death penalty actually serves as a deterrent to 
crime, whether innocent people face execution and whether people of color are 
statistically more likely to receive a capital sentence.

Klaas believes the state's extensive appeals system is the safeguard keeping 
the wrongfully convicted from the execution chamber. And he supports the notion 
that the potential for execution turns some from more serious crimes.

"The deterrent effect of the death penalty does exist," Klaas said. "It's very 
real. And when we execute people in one year, you're going to find less murders 
in the year after."

Wilson disagrees, saying there is little evidence the death penalty deters 
crime - and adding that more than 150 people on death row across the U.S. have 
been exonerated of their crimes.

"If we speed it up," Wilson said, in reference to Prop 66, "we're actually 
putting potentially innocent people in danger faster."

California's execution chamber has been silent since 2006 following a myriad of 
legal challenges over the state's manner of lethal injections. Even after 
developing a court-ordered single lethal drug method, appeals have kept the 
state from resuming executions.

If there is a point where Klaas and Wilson agree, it's that the state's death 
penalty is in serious disarray - mired in legal issues with scant tangible 
results of its effectiveness as a tool of criminal justice.

But there - their paths toward healing and a sense of justice split down 
opposite roads, winding to places that mercifully, it's impossible for most 
people to fathom.

(source: nbcbayarea.com)






USA:

Richard Wilbern, man accused of Xerox killing, could face death penalty


The Rochester man accused of a 2003 homicide at a credit union at the Xerox 
Corp. campus in Webster is facing the federal death penalty - for now.

Richard Leon Wilbern appeared in federal court Wednesday, and U.S. Magistrate 
Judge Jonathan Feldman appointed additional counsel for Wilbern, a standard 
step with cases that could result in execution.

However, Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Gregory said in court that federal 
prosecutors have asked for an "expedited" decision from the Department of 
Justice as to whether to seek the death penalty for Wilbern. That is a likely 
sign that the area prosecutors have recommended against the death penalty.

Feldman said as much in court Wednesday, noting a "significant possibility" 
that the case will not end up as one with an execution as a possible outcome.

Wilbern is accused of robbing the Xerox Federal Credit Union in August 2003 and 
fatally shooting Raymond Batzel during the robbery.

A former Xerox employee who'd unsuccessfully sued the company claiming racial 
bias in the workplace, Wilbern was arrested last week on the federal charges.

Wilbern had family in court Wednesday, but they declined to comment after the 
court session.

Rowena Bennett, the mother of Batzel, said after court that she did not have 
difficulty being in court the 1st time with the man accused of fatally shooting 
her son.

"We've had a long time to get ready for this," she said.

Bennett said she would support the death penalty for Wilbern, if convicted, but 
she understands why attorneys may not want to push for the crimes to be handled 
as a capital case. The process for federal capital cases can be extremely 
lengthy, greatly extending the time for prosecution.

The process allows defense attorneys to piece together the life of the accused, 
looking for reasons why the individual should be spared execution if convicted. 
This "mitigation" process, as it is called, can last months and require travel 
and additional costs.

The defense team then presents its case to the federal authorities in the 
region, who then make a recommendation to Department of Justice officials in 
Washington, D.C. The Attorney General decides whether the prosecution will be 
handled as a capital case.

However, federal prosecutors early in the process can ask for a fast-tracked 
decision from the Attorney General. Such a request is a likely sign that they 
are recommending against a capital case.

Gregory said a decision from the Attorney General could come in 30 to 45 days.

Feldman Wednesday asked for attorneys to return to court on Nov. 7 for an 
update. He encouraged defense attorneys to be conservative with the costs of 
the work done on Wilbern's behalf between now and then.

Representing Wilbern are Assistant Federal Public Defender Anne Burger and 
local attorney William Easton. Both have experience with cases that were 
eligible for the death penalty.

Easton said after court that Wilbern's alleged crimes would be atypical for a 
federal death penalty, which is rarely used.

"It doesn't fit the template for other death penalty cases around the country," 
he said.

Easton and Burger said they will represent Wilbern vigorously, while 
recognizing Feldman's request that the possible defense costs be tempered some 
over the next month.

"They've had this case for 13 years to do their investigation,and we need the 
time and space to do our own," Easton said.

(source: Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat & Chronicle)