[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----N.MEX., NEV., CALIF., WASH., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 7



NEW MEXICO:

Most survey respondents back governor's call for reinstating death penalty


Most respondents to last week's Observer survey support Gov. Susana Martinez's 
call for reinstating the death penalty for those convicted of killing children 
or law enforcement officers.

The Observer noted that the governor intends to push for the measure change in 
the 2017 Legislature and asked readers, "Do you support the governor's 
position?"

According to the survey:

--113 checked the reply, "I fully support the governor."

--38 checked, "No. Reinstating the death penalty would be a step backward for 
the state of New Mexico and should never be accepted."

--14 replied, "I did not support the death penalty, but recent events involving 
the deaths of police officers and children have changed my mind."

--1 replied, "No opinion."

(source: rrobserver.com)






NEVADA:

Death penalty trial for a man accused in rape, murder of 15-year-old postponed


The death penalty trial for a man accused in the rape and murder of a 
15-year-old Arbor View High School freshman was postponed Tuesday after his 
lawyers said they wanted a hearing on his mental capacity.

A psychiatrist hired by Deputy Public Defender Christy Craig found that 
24-year-old Javier Righetti has an IQ that ranges between 65 and 75, and he has 
the "inability to remove himself from a bad idea."

Prosecutors said they are not opposed to the hearing, but asked District Judge 
Michelle Leavitt for time to conduct their own tests on Righetti.

In March, the judge tossed out Righetti's guilty to 1st-degree murder in the 
September 2011 death of Alyssa Otremba. Prosecutors said Righetti's admission 
did not meet their requirements.

He also pleaded guilty to 9 other counts, including 1st-degree kidnapping and 
sexual assault with a child.

Righetti's plea did not include a theory of liability that included "willful, 
deliberate and premeditated" murder, which prosecutors said must be included in 
the agreement.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Giancarlo Pesci said at the time that 
prosecutors cut no deal with Righetti, and that he was supposed to plead guilty 
to every charge alleged.

Defense attorneys appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which has yet to make a 
ruling.

Righetti told Las Vegas police that after raping Alyssa in September 2011, he 
tortured her by using a knife to stab her more than 80 times in the face and 
other body parts, according to authorities. He carved the initials "LV" on the 
freshman???s body because he felt it was "gangster" and returned later to burn 
the body, authorities said.

The slaying occurred on the Friday that ended Alyssa's 1st week at Arbor View 
High School. She had stayed home from school that day after not feeling well in 
the morning. But she wanted to pick up a textbook from a classmate so she could 
do her homework for the weekend.

A report from psychiatrist George Woods stated that Righetti met criteria for 
"mild intellectual disability" and has trouble understanding direction.

"The term 'mildly impaired' should not be taken lightly," Woods wrote. "In 
neuropsychological parlance, mildly impaired speaks of significant brain 
injury, with 90 % or more of the general population able to perform tasks 
better than the impaired individual."

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing inmates with "mental 
retardation" violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

At Pesci's request, the judge allowed an expert hired by the prosecution to 
examine and interview Righetti without defense attorneys present.

(source: Las Vegas Review-Journal)






CALIFORNIA:

Possible motive revealed in double homicide


A Tehama County man charged with murder in the shooting deaths of his ex-wife 
and her father last year was hustled out of Superior Court Tuesday after 
disrupting his proceedings with an angry outburst over the safety of his 
daughters.

John Wayne Noonkester, scheduled to begin standing trial March 8 and who still 
possibly faces the death penalty if convicted, was removed from court after 
interrupting the judge, demanding his right to speak and claiming his 2 
children were in the care of a "pedophile-loving" member of his ex-wife's 
family.

Taken from court and shouting over his shoulder"they're still not safe," 
Noonkester could have returned to court to make his statements if he simmered 
down, Judge C. Todd Bottke said. But his defense attorney, Joe Gazzigli, said 
that would not be necessary.

As possible settlement negotiations continue, Noonkester, 33, was ordered in 
January to stand trial on 2 counts of 1st-degree murder and other charges in 
connection with a July 3, 2015, shooting rampage that left his ex-wife, 
Kimberlee Thomas, 29, and her father, Keith Thomas, 53, dead outside the Little 
Country Store in Lake California after an argument.

Noonkester's shooting rampage may have been partially sparked by his belief 
that his ex-wife was dating a child molester and that his young children were 
at risk, Gazzigli and District Attorney Gregg Cohen confirmed after Tuesday's 
hearing.

That man, a then-Weaverville resident, was convicted in the early 2000s of 
statutory rape for having sex with underage teenage girls but was not required 
to register as a sex offender, Gazzigli said.

Noonkester is "pretty much convinced his ex-wife was dating a pedophile," 
Gazzigli said.

Noonkester, distraught that his daughters might be in jeopardy, sought a 
restraining order before the shooting occurred against the man, Gazzigli said. 
When the restraining order was denied, Noonkester grew outraged and desperate, 
he said.

Gazzigli said the shooting occurred after Noonkester's ex-wife and father 
showed up at Lake California for a child exchange after a visit with him. But, 
he said, Noonkester's girlfriend had earlier dropped off the 2 children with 
Noonkester's mother at her home.

Sheriff's deputies have said the shooting erupted outside the store after 
Kimberlee Thomas called 911 from the store to report that her ex-husband had 
punched her father. Investigators have said Noonkester spat into Keith Thomas' 
face and shoved him before shooting him multiple times, including once to the 
head.

Noonkester fired at least 10 rounds, shooting Kimberlee Thomas twice, including 
once while she was lying on the ground. He also shot and wounded a bystander.

Noonkester made spontaneous statements to law enforcement after his arrest 
expressing remorse and disbelief about the shootings, sheriff's officials have 
said.

"I'm not proud of what I did," Noonkester reportedly said. "I can't believe I 
did it. I'm a piece of s---."

Cohen said after court that Noonkester continues to possibly face the death 
penalty, but a decision on whether to seek capital punishment won't be reached 
until after the November election. That's because California voters will be 
asked to decide an election measure that, if approved, would repeal the death 
penalty.

"We're just kind of waiting," Cohen said.

Noonkester remains in Tehama County Jail without bail and is due to return to 
Superior Court Jan. 9 for a status conference.

(source: Redding Record Searchlight)

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

Trial Set for Hemet Man Accused of Killing Wife, Child, Raping Stabbing 
Ex-Girlfriend ---- Johnny Lopez, 36, could face the death penalty if convicted.


Trial proceedings are slated to get underway today in the case of a convicted 
felon accused of killing his wife and 5-year-old daughter, as well as raping 
and stabbing his ex-girlfriend, in Hemet.

Johnny Lopez, 36, could face the death penalty if convicted in the November 
2013 slayings of 36-year-old Joanna Angel Barrientos Lopez and his daughter, 
Mia.

Lopez is charged with 2 counts of murder, along with 1 count each of attempted 
murder, forcible rape, burglary and being a felon in possession of a firearm -- 
with a special circumstance allegation of taking multiple lives in the same 
crime.

Riverside County Superior Court Judge John Monterosso is expected to hear 
pretrial motions today and outline a trial schedule. Jury selection may take 
several weeks or longer because it's a capital murder case.

Lopez is being held without bail at the Southwest Detention Center in Murrieta. 
He was arrested on Nov. 9, 2013, shortly after the attacks at 2 separate 
locations in the unincorporated east end of Hemet.

According to court documents, the defendant confessed to sheriff's detectives 
that he had carried out the killings to get rid of his "baggage" -- an apparent 
reference to the victims.

Investigators allege that on the night of Nov. 9, Lopez fatally shot his 
daughter, whom he'd sired in a prior relationship, then turned the gun on his 
wife, who walked into the room after hearing the gunfire.

Both victims were shot twice in the head with a 9mm pistol, according to 
investigators. They were later discovered in the living room of Lopez's 
single-story house at 26174 Girard Street.

After the shootings, the defendant drove to his ex-girlfriend's home at 41060 
Sunset Lane, less than a mile away, and allegedly forced his way inside via a 
window. Carrying an ax and knife that he'd allegedly stolen from a nearby 
property, he subdued the 30-year-old victim, whose identity was not released, 
and sexually assaulted her, prosecutors allege.

"According to his confession, he used the knife to slit her throat," Deputy 
District Attorney Burke Strunsky told City News Service in 2014. When Lopez 
walked out of the house with blood on his hands, a neighbor called 911, and a 
sheriff's deputy arrived moments later.

"The deputy sees Lopez standing in front of a house across the street and 
approaches him, and the defendant takes off," Strunsky said.

The lawman deployed pepper spray to stop Lopez, who put up a fight, culminating 
in the deputy striking him with his baton, at which point the convicted felon 
surrendered, according to investigators.

The ex-girlfriend underwent surgery and ultimately recovered.

Lopez has prior felony convictions for illegal possession of controlled 
substances and recklessly discharging a firearm.

(source: patch.com)

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

Let the punishment fit the crime


On Aug. 19 The Signal published an editorial entitled "Our View: Yes on Prop 
62" in which the Editorial Board supported that ballot proposition, which would 
abolish the death penalty in this state.

I might be more inclined to support this idea if a "life sentence" actually 
meant the bad guy was going to die in prison. It doesn't.

Far too many times they're paroled out, or released because of "health 
concerns," or get their case reopened because some lawyer found some 
technicality to exploit, leading to a new trial long after witnesses have died 
or disappeared or forgotten details of the crime and evidence has deteriorated.

Their victims don't get to benefit from any of this kind of "compassion" and 
"justice." They get to just stay dead.

The death penalty is only meted out to the worst of the worst.

The guy was a waste of skin and doesn't deserve anyone's sympathy.

Further, the fact that no one's been actually executed since 2006 simply means 
that the process has become too protracted. Simplify and speed up the appeals 
process and limit convicts' number of bites of the apple.

As it stands now, clever attorneys simply file appeal after appeal in a 
generally successful effort to run out the clock on these guys.

To quote The Signal editorial, "According to Amnesty International USA, 10 
wrongfully convicted individuals were released from death rows across the 
country in 2003 alone."

That could have several different meanings. Procedural errors in the 
prosecution come immediately to mind, for example, which is in no way the same 
thing as innocence.

In fact, at best all that statistic does is suggest that the appellate process 
is successful in preventing miscarriages of justice. If there were even 1 
actual instance of a convict being wrongfully executed, I'm sure we'd have 
heard about it.

Further, and more importantly, there's a cost to many of our social policies. 
Thousands of truly innocent people die every year in traffic accidents. But we 
don't ban cars, nor do we have a maximum speed limit of 15 mph. We simply 
accept those deaths as the cost of that policy.

I know that if my daughter were murdered, I wouldn't think justice had been 
served until her killer was put to death - because that's when the punishment 
truly fits the crime.

Even at that, I'd be settling, because those few who get the death penalty have 
to have committed crimes that were especially heinous, and the state's 
execution process is merciful by comparison to their crimes.

And that's the bottom line. The criminal justice system is part of our social 
contract, put there to prevent our society from becoming a place in which 
people are all running around meting out their own personal justice.

But society's "justice" must be perceived as being actually just, and letting 
merciless killers live out their natural lives while their victims are 
permanently dead is no justice at all.

Brian Baker is a Saugus resident.

(source: Letter to the editor, signalscv.com)






WASHINGTON:

Deadline on Mukilteo death penalty decision extended to December


Today a judge granted a 90 day extension to the defense attorneys in the 
Mukilteo shooting case.

Defense attorneys in the Mukilteo shooting case need to make an argument why 
Allen Ivanov should not face the death penalty. Tuesday, a judge granted them 
more time to make their case.

Ivanov's lawyers now have until December 20 to present any mitigating factors 
as to why Snohomish county prosecutor Mark Roe should not pursue the death 
penalty.

As 19-year-old Ivanov walked down the hallway into court, his mother was 
waiting for him sitting on the bench. She told him she loved him and 
immediately he became emotional.

Anna Ivanov told us off camera she came to court so that she could see her son 
in person. She asked that we pass on a message to the victims' families. She 
said "please tell them I feel for them. That I bleed with them."

Within a couple of minutes in the courtroom, Ivanov's mood changed quickly. He 
was smiling and laughing with his attorneys, but it's his mindset before the 
shootings that will be under scrutiny.

The latest search warrant documents reveal more of what Ivanov said to police 
during his first interrogation.

A detective wrote, "At first, Ivanov claimed that the shooting was an accident 
and that once he pulled the trigger momentum overtook him."

Documents depict Ivanov driven by anger and jealousy over his ex-girlfriend 
Anna Bui, who was killed along with Jake Long and Jordan Ebner.

When the detective challenged him on who he wanted to shoot, Ivanov said, "I 
think boys, I wasn't thinking about killing Anna, it was just those guys. I did 
not want to kill Anna. It was just in that moment I saw her. I wasn't thinking, 
so I pulled the trigger."

Being able to prove Ivanov's intent will factor into whether prosecutors pursue 
the death penalty against him.

(source: KING news)






USA:

3 federal courtrooms dedicated to Dylan Roof trial in Charleston


The federal courthouse in Charleston will dedicate three courtrooms to Dylann 
Roof's death penalty trial in November, a judge said Tuesday.

While some seats in the main courtroom will be reserved for victims of the 
Emanuel AME Church shooting, members of the public will have a daily chance to 
sit in on the proceedings or watch the trial through closed-circuit television, 
U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel said in an order.

Roof is charged with 33 federal counts in the June 2015 attack that killed 9 
black worshippers. His trial is expected to start Nov. 7 with jury selection, 
which could last 3 weeks, Gergel has said. The jury first will consider Roof's 
guilt, then his punishment - if he's convicted of certain charges - in a 
separate penalty phase, the trial's lengthiest component.

Juror qualification, the trial's 1st formal phase, will start Sept. 26, when 
prospective jurors will show up in District Court at 85 Broad St. Those who 
don't have a valid excuse for not participating will fill out a questionnaire.

The potential jurors are expected to fill Courtroom 6, but people from the 
public can watch a video and audio feed from an overflow area, Courtroom 4. 
Seating there is first-come, first-serve.

For the main portion of the trial in early November, when jury selection 
starts, the courthouse will open an hour and a half before the day's 
proceedings. Anyone hoping to get in must have a valid government photo 
identification. No electronics, including cellphones, are allowed.

Again, Courtroom 6 will house the live trial. Half of its 80 seats will be set 
aside for victims and their loved ones. Still more will be reserved for Roof's 
family and the news media.

The rest are available to the public. People who get a seat will be issued a 
courtroom admission pass that's good for the day.

Overflow seating in Courtroom 4 will be first-come, first-serve. The overflow 
crowd will see the trial on TV screens. A video camera in the live courtroom 
will capture a view of the witnesses, the attorneys and the judge. They will 
not show jurors.

Only journalists can apply for credentials for seating in the 3rd courtroom, 
where cellphones and computers are allowed for live coverage of the trial. But 
no filming or audio recording of the proceeding is permitted.

With the trial nearing, attorneys in the case also continued Tuesday to weigh 
in on various unresolved issues.

In a motion, prosecutors argued that Roof should not have a chance during his 
sentencing to speak to the jury without being sworn in to testify. Such a 
statement is called "allocution," and it is often used as a plea for mercy or 
as a chance to apologize.

But prosecutors cannot question the defendants about their statements. Such 
allocution in death penalty cases is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution 
or any other law, the prosecutors contended.

Prosecutors also said in a separate motion that jurors should not get a "mercy 
instruction," or an option to save Roof's life despite factual findings that 
justify death as the proper punishment.

"Mandating a death sentence based on the outcome of the jury's weighing of 
aggravating and mitigating factors is permissible," they argued.

(source: The Post and Courier)

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

Federal prosecutors request court prohibit 'mercy instruction' in Roof trial


Prosecutors in the federal trial against accused Charleston church shooter 
Dylann Roof asked the court to prevent the defendant from introducing a "mercy 
instruction or related argument" at trial.

If Roof is found guilty of murder in connection with the June 2015 shooting 
deaths of 9 parishioners of Mother Emanuel AME church, Roof's defense team may 
request the judge instruct jurors they are "never required" to sentence Roof to 
death.

"The United States objects to such an argument or instruction on the grounds 
that it is not consistent with the statutory scheme of the [Federal Death 
Penalty Act] as properly interpreted by the Fourth Circuit," the motion, filed 
by federal prosecutor Beth Drake, states.

? Prosecutors argue the law already gives jurors complete discretion in 
determining whether aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating factors, 
and, thereby, whether the death penalty is warranted.

Roof's defense team had not yet responded to the motion.

A decision would likely be made at a future hearing in the case.

Roof faces 33 federal hate crime and weapons charges.

Roof faces 9 murder counts and 3 attempted murder counts under the Matthew 
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which prohibits using a 
dangerous weapon to cause bodily injury or attempting to do so based on race or 
color.

He is also charged with 9 murders and 3 attempted murders under a 2nd federal 
hate crime statute that prohibits the use or threat of force to obstruct any 
person's free exercise of their religious beliefs.

The remaining 9 counts are charges of the use of a firearm to commit murder 
during and in relation to a crime of violence, the federal indictment states.

Roof entered a plea of not guilty to the federal charges last July.

Roof's federal trial is set to begin on Nov. 7, 2016.

The shooting claimed the life of Mother Emanuel AME's pastor, State Sen. and 
the Rev. Clementa Pinckney. In addition to Pinckney, the other victims of the 
shooting were Tywanza Sanders, the Revs. Sharonda Singleton, DePayne Middleton 
Doctor, and Daniel Simmons Sr.; and Cynthia Hurd, Myra Thompson, Ethel Lance, 
and Susie Jackson.

(source: WCSC news)





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

What will U.S. Supreme Court face in the upcoming term?


While it may seem that the Supreme Court has been on vacation since it recessed 
at the end of June, a great deal of work goes on when the justices leave 
Washington.

As noted when we began this series, appellants from lower court decisions who 
want the Supreme Court to consider the correctness of the ruling do so by 
filing a "petition for a writ of certiorari." In the petition, it is alleged 
that there were errors of law made that need to be corrected. Of the 
7,000-8,000 petitions filed each year, 99 % are denied and the lower court 
decision stands. For the October 2015 term that just ended, 69 cases were 
decided with written opinions that ranged from a few words to over 100 pages. 
In the spring and throughout the summer, the justices considered petitions, 
with a great deal of preliminary work done by their law clerks. At least 4 
justices must agree to grant a petition for a case to be heard.

As the 8 (remember, Justice Antonin Scalia's seat is still vacant due to Senate 
inaction) justices prepare to resume their seats on the bench, there are many 
cases that have had briefs submitted and are waiting for oral argument. Those 
arguments begin Oct. 4 and so far, around 30 cases have been granted certiorari 
and will be heard over the next few months with about 20 scheduled for October 
and November.

As is typical in most years, these cases range from narrowly focused issues of 
patent and bankruptcy law to matters of broad public interest dealing with 
civil rights and the application of the death penalty. It is likely that 30 or 
40 more cases will have petitions granted, and given the nation's political 
climate, it seems likely that some election-related cases will find their way 
to the court's docket for expedited handling.

2 death penalty cases come from Texas and seek to resolve questions about the 
fairness of the processes that led to that result. In "Buck v. Davis," the 
central issue is whether a defendant should be permitted to claim ineffective 
assistance of counsel when his lawyer called an expert witness psychologist who 
had testified in other cases that being black (as Davis is) makes it more 
likely that a defendant would be dangerous in the future. Future danger is a 
major factor to be considered by Texas juries when deciding to impose the death 
penalty. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that it was not a 
sufficient basis for an appeal. "Moore v. Texas" revisits the question as to 
when an individual is so intellectually disabled as to not be subject to the 
death penalty since to impose it would violate the Eighth Amendment's 
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

(source: Ronald Goldfarb is a professor emeritus at Middlesex County 
College----mycentraljersey.com)