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

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 28



NEBRASKA:

Anthony Garcia trial: Mottas lay groundwork to ask taxpayers to pay for some of 
defense


Quadruple-murder defendant Anthony Garcia is believed to have paid a 6-figure 
sum for his defense team - the attorneys who call themselves Team Motta of 
Chicago.

As his trial got underway Monday, his defense attorneys said he's out of money 
- and they're laying the groundwork for taxpayers to pay for at least part of 
the rest of his defense.

Defense attorneys filed a motion Monday asking Judge Gary Randall to declare 
Garcia indigent. That is a prerequisite before the judge can determine whether 
taxpayers should help pay legal experts or Garcia's attorneys.

Asking taxpayers to foot the bill is a thorny legal issue.

On the one hand, Garcia is entitled to a vigorous defense.

On the other, Garcia already has paid his attorneys considerable sums. And 
judges previously have told attorneys in similar positions: It's your contract 
with your client; plan your defense budget accordingly.

In other cases where the money has run out, legal observers say, judges have 
advised defendants that Douglas County has a Public Defender's Office and the 
state has a public advocacy commission that can represent them. Of course, it's 
too late to appoint the Public Defender's Office for this trial.

Douglas County Public Defender Tom Riley, who is not associated with this case, 
said defendants sometimes are given latitude to get tax money to hire experts 
if "the well has run dry."

But taxpayers paying for private attorneys? It's rare.

"If they're seeking attorneys' fees and the defendant has paid out a lot 
already, my experience is the judges won't do that," Riley said.

Garcia's attorneys, Robert Motta Jr. and Jeremy Jorgenson, declined to specify 
whether they're asking for more money for experts or for their own fees, or 
both.

The issue got testy Monday as prosecutors were left waiting for defense 
attorneys for a few minutes after the defense had called a hearing on short 
notice. After everyone gathered, Judge Randall declined to take up the matter, 
saying he would have time to sort it out later.

That led to an exchange between the attorneys who have been far more 
acrimonious than harmonious in the 3-year-old case.

On his way out of the courtroom, Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine blurted: "A 
joke."

Motta Jr. piped up: "I hope the judge heard that."

Prosecutors and the defense then began the exhaustive and sometimes-exhausting 
process of trying to pick jurors for the trial, which is expected to last 4 to 
6 weeks.

Garcia is charged in the March 13, 2008, slayings of 11-year-old Thomas Hunter 
and 57-year-old Shirlee Sherman and the May 12, 2013, killings of Dr. Roger and 
Mary Brumback, both 65.

Here's a sobering fact: Of the 129 prospective jurors, 40 initially said they 
had heard nothing about the case.

That means 31 percent of prospective jurors had heard nothing about the 
mysterious stabbing deaths of Thomas and Sherman, the slayings of the Brumbacks 
5 years later, the formation of a task force to investigate the slayings and 
the subsequent arrest of a former doctor.

"I always want to ask, 'What rock have you been living under?'" 1 court 
official grumbled Monday.

The facts, arguments and issues of the Garcia case will come to light over the 
next 4 to 6 weeks - a timespan that would make it the longest criminal trial in 
Douglas County history.

But first comes a weeklong slog of sorting out who can serve on the jury.

In all, the judges and attorneys will conduct 1-on-1 interviews of 108 of the 
129 potential jurors. They got through 32 of them Monday. After individual 
interviews, the attorneys will conduct a general questioning of the entire jury 
pool before whittling the pool down to 12 jurors and 4 alternates.

"We appreciate the fact that you will be incredibly inconvenienced," Randall 
said. "Jury service is certainly the most necessary and important of your civic 
duties. Our entire judicial system would be crippled without the assistance of 
jurors."

Randall, prosecutors and defense attorneys are exploring 3 critical issues in 
their 1-on-1 interviews with potential jurors:

-- Length of the trial: Would anything prevent each potential juror from 
sitting through 4 to 6 weeks of trial?

-- Death penalty: What are prospective jurors' views on the death penalty? In 
the event of a conviction, would they be able to sit through a death-penalty 
hearing and vote on whether aggravating circumstances existed to merit the 
death penalty?

-- Publicity: What have jurors read or heard about the case? More important, 
can they set those matters aside and decide the case based only on the evidence 
presented in court?

Judge Randall put the fear of the law into potential jurors Monday.

"Certainly you can find out all sorts of information about a pending case, 
especially this one," Randall said.

However, the judge admonished jurors to read nothing about the case and to tell 
no one what specific case they were on; just that they were on jury duty.

(source: Omaha World-Herald)






NEW MEXICO:

Liberal activists to denounce Martinez's death penalty plan


Liberal advocates and some Democratic lawmakers say they will strongly oppose a 
push by New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez to reinstate the death penalty.

The coalition of death penalty foes is scheduled Tuesday to denounce the 
governor's plan to bring back capital punishment in New Mexico after it was 
abolished 7 years ago. They are meeting at the Albuquerque Center for Peace and 
Justice to discuss how they will oppose the governor's plan.

Martinez vowed last week to add the issue to a legislative agenda for a pending 
special session aimed solely at fixing the state's budget shortfall.

The 2nd-term Republican governor says she wants the death penalty as an option 
for convicted killers of police, children and corrections officers.

New Mexico repealed the death penalty in 2009 before Martinez took office.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Arguments against reinstating the death penalty


Ive argued against capital punishment my whole adult life. 2 religious leaders 
in New Mexico have shared some of my same arguments on the Las Cruces Sun-News' 
editorial page, and I have to offer some additional thoughts, which I hope you 
will take time to consider.

I won't go into the DNA-proving-innocence argument, which I believe is 
compelling also, but my biggest objection has long been that we as a society 
lower ourselves to the level of killers when we perpetuate legal killing.

The message of the death penalty is that we condone judging someone to be 
expendable and then disposing of them. How is that so different from what a 
murderer does? How does that help anyone believe killing is not the answer?

My next objection is that capital punishment is itself not a deterrent to 
crime. If someone is going to commit a crime and pauses long enough to consider 
the consequences, what is a far greater deterrent is if it is likely a 
perpetrator is going to be caught. Heaping on the penalties or threatening the 
"ultimate penalty" is not much of a threat if criminals can reasonably expect 
not to get caught.

My 3rd argument goes to the injunction in our United States Constitution 
against "cruel and unusual" punishment. When the methods used sometimes result 
in people suffering for prolonged periods of time, that is cruel. When the 
penalty is increasingly rarely used, that makes it unusual.

Instead of heading back down the path of our brutal past, let us instead focus 
on how we indeed make our lives longer and safer. Let us ensure that those who 
threaten our bodies or our lives are quickly identified and speedily put on a 
path that is safer for all of us.

Let us show that we respect life and we want to see violent crime effectively 
reduced more than we want revenge.

(source: Commentary, Gregory Z. Smith represents District 2 on the Las Cruces 
City Council and is the mayor pro tem----nmpolitics.com)






IDAHO:

Motions to bar death penalty in police killing case denied


The death penalty is still an option for a man accused of killing a Coeur 
d'Alene police officer.

The Coeur d'Alene Press reports that Kootenai County District Court Judge 
Lansing Haynes on Monday denied 2 motions from the defense asking that he not 
allow the death penalty to be among the potential punishments for 26-year-old 
Jonathan Renfro.

Renfro is accused of the 2015 shooting death of Coeur d'Alene Police Sgt. Greg 
Moore.

In a series of hearings that began last week, Haynes has heard arguments from 
Renfro's defense team as to why their client should not face execution. 
Arguments have ranged from international law to specifics about the encounter 
between Renfro and Moore.

Haynes said he will rule on the defense's most recent argument on Oct. 12.

(source: Associated Press)






CALIFORNIA:

California Bishops urge voters to reject the death penalty----Bishops in 
California and New Mexico have urged voters to resist attempts to reinstate the 
death penalty


The California Catholic bishops are urging voters to support a November ballot 
initiative that would outlaw the death penalty.

Proposition 62 would replace the maximum punishment for murder with life in 
prison without the possibility of parole.

"It is time for us to end the death penalty - not only in California but 
throughout the United States and throughout the world," said Los Angeles 
Archbishop Jose H Gomez said in a commentary in Angelus, the online news outlet 
of the Los Angeles Archdiocese.

In New Mexico, the Catholic bishops of that state renounced a call by 
Republican Governor Susana Martinez for the Legislature to reinstate the death 
penalty.

They urged state lawmakers to reject the legislation. The death penalty was 
abolished in the state more than 7 years ago.

In his remarks, Archbishop Gomez noted that the Catholic Church has 
consistently taught for centuries "that legitimate governments have the right 
to impose the death penalty on those guilty of the most serious crimes," he 
said. But in recent years, he continued, "there has been a growing consensus 
that the use of the death penalty can no longer be accepted."

"This consensus is reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the 
teachings of bishops' conferences around the world and in the teachings of Pope 
John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis," Archbishop Gomez said.

"On his final visit to our country in 1999, St John Paul called the death 
penalty 'cruel and unnecessary.' And it is true," he added.

The Los Angeles Archdiocese has established a website about the ballot 
initiative on the death penalty and church teaching, 
www.killingisntjustice.org.

By opposing the death penalty, Archbishop Gomez said, people are "witnessing to 
the sanctity of life," but also are not forgetting "the victims of crime and 
their loved ones."

"We entrust them to the Father of mercies and we pray that he grant them 
healing and peace," he said.

"Killing the criminal does not bring justice to the victims," he added.

Archbishop Gomez also said that US society has "a strange appetite for 
violence. ... We allow children to play violent video games and listen to music 
that demeans human dignity. For 'entertainment,' we watch movies and shows in 
which fictional criminals take other people's lives and commit unspeakable 
acts."

California's bishops also have urged voters to say no on Proposition 66, which 
would amend state law in an attempt to speed up the judicial review of death 
penalty cases. "Any rush to streamline that process will inevitably result in 
the execution of more innocent people," the bishops have said.

They have urged voters to support Proposition 57, which would increase parole 
and good behaviour opportunities for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes and 
allow judges to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court.

In the Archdiocese of San Francisco, the Office of Public Policy and Social 
Concerns is in overdrive promoting the Catholic Church's call for the death 
penalty repeal.

By mid-September, more than a dozen parishes had formed and trained voter 
outreach and registration teams.

"Many of our people don't know, if you ask them, what these propositions are 
about," said Julio Escobar, coordinator for the archdiocese's restorative 
justice programme.

He and colleagues Lorena Melgarejo and Carolina Parrales met with the 
archdiocesan Council of Priests in early September to seek support from pastors 
for educational outreach visits to parishes and schools which would include 
after-Mass voter registration.

"The Jubilee Year of Mercy presents a key opportunity for us to respectfully 
engage and educate parishioners and help them vote according to their values," 
Escobar told Catholic San Francisco, the archdiocesan newspaper.

Results of a survey of Californians released September 16 showed that more than 
half of voters oppose the ballot measure to abolish the death penalty.

The San Francisco Archdiocese planned to continue voter registration until the 
deadline of October 24 and parish educational outreach until the Sunday before 
election day.

"As California citizens, we have an opportunity to make our voices heard on 
behalf of the inviolability of human life and for rehabilitation over 
retribution," San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J Cordileone said in a 
September 20 column in the archdiocesan newspaper.

He recalled being part of a delegation of California bishops who three years 
ago paid a pastoral visit to San Quentin State Prison.

"We had the opportunity to meet with a number of the inmates on death row, 
hearing their stories, learning of the misfortunes in their lives, and becoming 
sensitised to their deep spiritual yearnings and innate desire for God," he 
said. "The experience put a human face on a tragic human condition that we very 
comfortably can - and usually do - completely ignore."

"This experience also highlights the challenge we as a society face in 
determining how we can foster peace in this increasingly violent and 
complicated world. The answer is certainly not by inflicting more violence" 
through capital punishment, he added.

In New Mexico, the Catholic bishops said Martinez's efforts to see the death 
penalty reinstated were irresponsible. "(We) applauded the state Legislature 
for the progress that was made when we ended the morally untenable practice of 
the death penalty on March 18, 2009," they said in a September 19 statement.

"This repeal of the death penalty was a milestone, moving New Mexico from a 
culture of violence to a culture of peace, justice and love."

"There is one seamless teaching on God's gift of life that must be protected 
from conception in the womb to natural death," they said. "It is always tragic 
and sad when a member of the community is murdered. These senseless acts must 
be prevented by calling for systemic change in society beginning with our 
youngest children. Crime can be prevented, and this is done by an investment in 
social capital."

In 2009, in lieu of the death penalty, the state of New Mexico "created life in 
prison without the possibility of parole," the bishops noted. "This renders a 
perpetrator harmless to society."

(source: Catholic Herald)




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

Critics doubt California has enough lawyers for death penalty speed-up


With cases taking 2 decades or more to wind their way through the appeals 
process, both supporters and critics of California's death penalty agree the 
system is broken. But opponents of Proposition 66, the November initiative 
aimed at speeding up executions, argue that proposed changes to shorten the 
timeline for appointing lawyers and filing petitions are convoluted and 
unfeasible.

During a meeting with The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board on Tuesday, they were 
particularly critical of a provision expanding the pool of lawyers eligible to 
take on death penalty appeals. Currently, sentences are appealed directly to 
the California Supreme Court, which assigns lawyers to defendants from 
state-funded agencies like the Office of the State Public Defender or, if none 
are available, private attorneys who meet certain qualifications.

Given the enormous backlog of cases, even that can take years. So in order to 
make lawyers available to defendants upon their sentencing to death, 
Proposition 66 would allow the courts to also appoint attorneys who are 
qualified for the most serious non-death penalty appeals. Those lawyers would 
have to accept the appointment in order to remain eligible to receive other 
non-death penalty cases in the future.

There are approximately 400 death row inmates currently awaiting counsel for 
their appeal or some other legal challenge to their sentence. Natasha Minsker, 
director of the American Civil Liberties Union of California's Center for 
Advocacy and Policy, said there are simply not enough private attorneys willing 
to take on the cases for the low compensation provided, especially given the 
time crunch Proposition 66 would impose on preparation.

"They would just have to do this full time, which is not practical for most 
people" she said.

Death penalty opponents have presented a fix to move inmates through the system 
more quickly: an increase in funding for public defense agencies so they can 
hire more attorneys. Lawmakers have repeatedly rebuffed the proposal, they 
said.

"It is the simple - expensive, yes - but it is the simple and direct way to get 
the California Supreme Court to have the number of lawyers they need to deal 
with death penalty cases," said Michael J. Hersek, director of the Habeas 
Corpus Resource Center, which represents death row inmates in nonprocedural 
challenges.

Hersek said the center only has 34 attorneys on staff, and unsuccessfully 
sought a budget increase for 10 more last year. He questioned why the 
proponents of Proposition 66, which include many prosecutors, wouldn't add a 
provision guaranteeing more money for counsel.

"I suspect they won't do it because when you give people lawyers in a timely 
manner, they get to the substance of the issues at hand," he said. "On the 
substance of the cases, they often lose."

(source: Sacramento Bee)

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

Man Sentenced to Death for Double Execution for Financial Gain


A man was formally sentenced by Orange County Superior Court Judge John Conley 
on Sept. 23 to receive the death penalty for using a firearm to murder his 
neighbor for financial gain and murdering the victim's friend in an effort to 
derail the investigation by framing the 1st victim.

Daniel Patrick Wozniak, 32, of Costa Mesa was found guilty by a jury on Dec. 
16, 2015, of 2 felony counts of special circumstances murder with sentencing 
enhancements for committing multiple murders and murder for financial gain. The 
sentencing enhancement for the personal discharge of a firearm causing death 
was also found true. The jury recommended the death penalty on Jan. 11, 2016.

This case was investigated by the Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD) and was 
prosecuted by Senior Deputy District Attorney Matt Murphy of the Homicide Unit.

Circumstances of the Crime

Prior to May 21, 2010, Wozniak plotted the murder of his neighbor, 26-year-old 
Samuel Herr, who lived in the same apartment complex, with the intention of 
stealing the victim's substantial savings. On the afternoon of May 21, 2010, 
Wozniak lured Herr from their Costa Mesa apartment complex and drove him to the 
theater facility at the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base. Wozniak was 
familiar with the theater because he had previously acted in plays at that 
location.

Once inside the theater, Wozniak murdered Herr by shooting him twice in the 
head with the intention of stealing the victim's savings. He then left Herr's 
body in the theater and stole the victim's ATM card, wallet, and cell phone.

Later that evening, Wozniak used Herr's cell phone to text message Herr's 
friend, 23-year-old Juri "Julie" Kibuishi. Wozniak was acquainted with Kibuishi 
and was her "friend" on Facebook. Wozniak pretended to be Herr in the text 
messages and arranged for Kibuishi to come to Herr's Costa Mesa apartment. 
Shortly after midnight on May 22, 2010, Kibuishi arrived at Herr's apartment. 
Wozniak met her at the door of Herr's apartment and lured her inside into the 
bedroom, where he murdered her by shooting her twice in the head. Wozniak then 
partially removed Kibuishi's clothing to stage the crime scene to appear as 
though the victim had been sexually assaulted.

On the afternoon of May 22, 2010, Wozniak returned to the theater, cutting off 
Herr's clothes and dismembering the victim's body by removing his head, left 
arm, and the lower portion of his right arm. He left the victim's torso and 
legs in the theater and took the dismembered body parts to discard them in El 
Dorado Park Nature Center in Long Beach, a large nature reserve with trails and 
2 lakes.

At approximately 9:20 p.m. on May 22, 2010, officers from CMPD discovered 
Kibuishi's body upon responding to a call regarding a possible murder from 
Herr's father, who had gone to the Costa Mesa apartment to check on his son. 
Herr's whereabouts at that time were unknown and he initially became the 
primary suspect in Kibuishi's murder.

Following the 2 murders, Wozniak gave Herr's ATM card to a 17-year-old 
acquaintance and instructed the minor to withdraw money from the victim's 
account at various ATMs in Long Beach. Costa Mesa detectives investigating the 
case learned of the ATM withdrawals and arrested the minor after observing him 
using the victim's bank card. In all, $2,000 was taken from Herr's bank 
account.

Based on information learned through the ongoing investigation and the arrest 
of the juvenile, Wozniak was arrested for the murders of Herr and Kibuishi on 
May 26, 2010, at Tsunami restaurant in Huntington Beach. Wozniak was at dinner 
celebrating his bachelor party in anticipation of his upcoming wedding, planned 
to take place in Long Beach that Friday, May 28, 2010.

CMPD detectives discovered Herr's body on May 27, 2010, at the base. A search 
for Herr's dismembered body parts at El Dorado Park Nature Center was conducted 
by CMPD with assistance from the Long Beach Police Department (LBPD), FBI, 
search and rescue personnel from Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura counties, and 
investigators from the Los Angeles Coroner's Office (LACO). The victim's head 
and parts of his left arm, which were decomposed and scavenged by animals, were 
found over the next 2 days.

On May 27, 2010, Wozniak was transported from the jail to Western Medical 
Center to be treated for self-inflicted head injuries and was released back to 
the jail on May 29, 2010. The Orange County District Attorney's Office (OCDA) 
charged the defendant on May 28, 2010.

Herr and Kibuishi were both students at Orange Coast College and Herr was a 
military veteran.

At the sentencing on Sept. 23, 4 members of the victims' families delivered 
emotional victim impact statements pursuant to Marsy's Law. The statements in 
their entirety are available at www.orangecountyda.org by selecting "Reports" 
under the "Reports" pull-down menu.

For their assistance in the investigation, CMPD and OCDA thanked the FBI, LBPD, 
Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, Los Angeles County Sheriff's 
Department, LACO, Orange County Coroner's Office, and Ventura County Sheriff's 
Department.

Defense Argument

According to City News Service, Conley last Friday denied a defense motion for 
a new trial and refused to dismiss the death penalty as a potential sentence 
based on claims of government misconduct in the case. Conley also criticized 
Wozniak's attorney, Scott Sanders, for filing a 132-page motion during his 
arguments that morning.

Noting that he had denied Sanders' motion for a delay in sentencing 2 days 
earlier, the judge asked, "Isn't this just an attempt through the back door to 
get the continuance you wanted?"

Sanders explained that his filing was a response to prosecutors' criticisms of 
the defense attorney and that he was told to file it if he wanted. Conley ruled 
that the filing be "stricken," but it will be part of the record for an appeal.

Sanders again argued that the Orange County Sheriff's Department engaged in 
misconduct in the handling of jailhouse informants, particularly Fernando 
Perez, who heard Wozniak make incriminating statements.

But Perez was never a witness in the trial, since Wozniak had already confessed 
to Costa Mesa police and Perez's information was redundant, Murphy argued 
previously.

Sanders also argued that Murphy has made "inconsistent" arguments in the 
separate cases against Wozniak and his fiancee at the time, Rachel Buffett, who 
was charged as an accessory after the fact and is awaiting trial. The defense 
attorney quoted a police lieutenant as saying that Buffett should have been 
charged with murder.

Conley said that while there was evidence that Buffett may have known about the 
murders. there wasn't enough evidence to show she did anything to help Wozniak 
kill the victims.

Mother's Statement

Following is the victim impact statement from Kibuishi's mother, June:

"First of all, I would like to thank you, Your Honor, for everything you have 
done for us and the Herr family. We believe you handled this case in a very 
fair manner and we truly appreciate you keeping the victims' families as a 
priority to bring this case to closure.

"Also, we are truly thankful for Mr. Matt Murphy and all of the members of the 
DA office for your efforts and support throughout this painful experience. "I 
need to ask Your Honor for permission to address the next message to Mr. 
Wozniak for the 1st and last time.

"On May 22, 2010, you took my beautiful, caring, loving daughter's precious 
life to cover up your heinous and planned crime for the pathetic reason of 
wanting money for your wedding and honeymoon. You took advantage of my 
daughter's kindness and care for her friend. You knew she would help her friend 
Sam and you took her precious life just to be used as a decoy. You took her 
precious life to cover up the crime you just committed. You took her precious 
life and then you disgraced her by pulling off her pants!!!

"To you, my daughter was just a decoy ... nothing else. You had absolutely no 
other reason to take her away from us.

"She was 23 years old, full of dreams and motivation to pursue her career in 
the fashion industry. She was the sunshine of our family with so much energy 
and so much love. She always brightened up our life with her goofiness and lots 
of music. She introduced me to so many great music that she made a CD for me 
that I still listen to in my car while I drive coming home from work, crying 
out her name, just by myself.

"She would always be there for not only her friends but for her brothers and 
sister and of course for her dad and mom ... all her loving family. I still 
remember the day our entire family rushed to the hospital to meet my 1st 
grandson, Julie's oldest brother's 1st baby, Julie's 1st nephew. I will never 
forget her expression on her face when she held her nephew for the 1st time. 
She was overwhelmed with joy becoming Auntie Julie ... That was 6 months before 
you took her away from us.

"Her grandfather passed away in 2012. Unfortunately, he was not able to see 
this day to come. Until he joined his 1st granddaughter in heaven, he kept 
saying over and over that JULIE SHOULD NOT GO BEFORE ME. He never stopped 
saying that until he took his last breath. "Julie's grandmother, who is 88 
years old now, still cries looking at her photo. She cries when she hears 
Julie's name, telling me how much she truly wished to see her first 
granddaughter, Julie, in her wedding dress, becoming a bride ... which was of 
course my dream too.

"I know from the bottom of my heart that she would be a beautiful bride. And 
definitely she would be the most loving mother.

"BUT ALL OF THAT WAS TOTALLY DESTROYED because you just wanted to use her 
precious LIFE to cover up your crime.

"Our family came from Japan more than 30 years ago. We worked hard, raising 
children, hoping they would grow up with an open mind, accepting variety of 
cultures and races in this beautiful country, and I wanted them to learn that 
no matter what race you are, what language you speak, the most important thing 
in this world is to become a GOOD HUMAN BEING with a GOOD HEART.

"And I am very proud to say that all of them grew up to be the most loving, 
caring, and responsible adults with common courtesy and common sense that has 
been lost these days. Being a mother, I want all of my children to always be 
happy no matter what they do for their life or where they live in this world.

"On that day of May 22, 2010, my heart was ripped apart. I felt an 
indescribable amount of pain hit my body when I found out what happened to my 
baby. WHY???? WHAT DID SHE DO TO YOU???? HOW COULD YOU DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO 
MY BABY??

"Still to this day, those questions have not been answered. But all I know is 
that my daughter was the most caring friend who did what she knew that she 
should do to help Sam, which I am very proud of...

"6 years and 4 months, I sat behind you every time I came to court. Seeing you 
coming out, smiling for the cameras and audience, enjoying being the center of 
attention. Did I ever see any remorse? NO, not even once. Your behavior these 
last 6 years and four months convinced me that you're not worthy of being 
called a human being. You show no remorse and you show no guilt for taking my 
beautiful, loving daughter Julie away from us.

"Our family has gone through so much these past 6 years. Not only did we endure 
this emotional, painful roller coaster, we suffered many physical illnesses 
most likely caused by the surge in stress in all of our lives. We battled 2 
cases of cancer and my father suffered a heart attack ... and left us to join 
his loving 1st granddaughter.

"We've had to sacrifice so many work days to attend these frustrating hearings. 
In the end, the only thing holding us together is the love from our family and 
all our loving friends.

"Your Honor, being a mother, I truly believe that if there was any heavier 
sentence than the death penalty in this world, HE would be the one to deserve 
it for what he had done to my daughter Julie and Sam.

"There is no word to describe our pain and anger and frustration we have been 
going through. That will never heal or go away until I reunite with my daughter 
someday.

"No matter what, my Valentine baby daughter Julie will never ever come back to 
us. The only thing our family can do is to try to move forward one step at a 
time. In order to do that, we have waited for this day to come for more than 6 
years so that we can at least close this most horrible chapter of our lives, 
and I am sure my daughter and my dad up in heaven are always watching over us 
... both of them waiting for this day to come."

(source: rafu.com)

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

End the Death Penalty


To the Editor:

Semon Frank Thompson's essay, "What I Learned From Executing 2 Men" (Sunday 
Review, Sept. 18), revealed a further reason to put an end to the ultimate 
punishment. The death penalty is a broken system carried out by human beings 
that no amount of reform can repair.

Study after study demonstrates that it is imposed in a racially discriminatory 
manner and that it does not have any additional deterrent value than the 
punishment of life without the possibility of parole. The death penalty has 
been imposed erroneously in at least 150 cases.

Mr. Thompson's essay compels us to consider the collateral harm suffered by 
those who must carry out executions. Indeed, we are all harmed by state-ordered 
killings when no reliable study has demonstrated that there is any benefit to 
society.

This November, California voters have an opportunity to put an end to a failed 
and irrational system by supporting Prop 62. California would then join 20 
other states and the District of Columbia in moving us to be, in Mr. Thompson's 
words, "a healthier society."

RACHEL VAN CLEAVE

Dean, Golden Gate University

School of Law

San Francisco

(source: Letter to the Editor, New York Times)






WASHINGTON:

Serial killer Robert Yates still fighting sentencing error


One of Spokane's most notorious murderers is again headed to the state Supreme 
Court, but it's unlikely he'll ever be a free man.

Robert Yates is asking the high court to grant him a new sentencing hearing for 
2 murders he committed in 1975. The consecutive 20-year sentences were 
calculated incorrectly, he claims, because the 2 murders occurred before the 
state revised its sentencing guidelines in 1981.

That's the same argument he made in 2014 - and the court said in a 7-2 opinion 
he is technically correct. But, the court said, that doesn't mean he can have 
those cases thrown out.

Under his 2000 plea agreement, Yates pleaded guilty to 13 counts of aggravated 
murder and 1 count of attempted murder in Spokane County Superior Court. He's 
also on death row from 2 convictions in Pierce County.

"Yates agreed to a sentence of 408 years in prison, and he should have been 
sentenced to a minimum of 408 years with a potential extension to a life 
sentence," Justice Susan Owens wrote for the majority in 2014. "Given the 
reality of the human lifespan, there is no difference between those 2 
sentences."

Yates previously asked to withdraw 2 guilty pleas, a request the Supreme Court 
denied. Now he's asking to be resentenced under the new guidelines.

An appeals court forwarded the case on Tuesday, but Spokane County deputy 
prosecutor Brian O'Brien said he expects the Supreme Court to dismiss it. The 
same argument, O'Brien said, should result in the same action: none at all.

"These death penalty lawyers will file anything, anywhere for their clients," 
O'Brien said. "Really, they just keep filing stuff, and it doesn't matter how 
important it is."

Yates' attorney, Jeff Ellis, is the director of the Oregon Capital Resource 
Counsel, a Portland-based firm that represents death row inmates.

"It is our position that correcting an unlawful sentence to make it lawful is 
important, even if there is no practical difference," Ellis said in an email. 
"... I fully acknowledge the total sentence will still far exceed my client's 
lifespan."

(source: Spokesman-Review)






USA:

Suspect in Xerox robbery could possibly face death penalty


Richard Wilbern, the suspect in a 2003 robbery at the Xerox Federal Credit 
Union in Webster could possibly be put to death. A murder related to a bank 
robbery qualifies Wilbern for the federal death penalty. The US Attorney and 
FBI investigators will be speaking about the investigation at a news conference 
Wednesday morning.

Wilbern was arrested on Tuesday and was arraigned on homicide and robbery 
charges. Wilbern shot one man and killed 52 year-old Xerox employee Raymond 
Batzel. Joseph Doud, who was 28-years-old at the time survived.

One possible motive is because he was fired from Xerox. He sued the company for 
discrimination in 2000 claiming he was harassed because he's black. However, 
the case was dismissed.

Raymond Batzel's sister Diana Powers and his 89-year-old mother will be at the 
news conference. His mother has told News10NBC she was afraid she would "never 
live to see this day."

(source: WHEC news)

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

Rep. Tom Reed: Death Penalty For Drug Dealers


In Elmira (N.Y.), a local congressman wants the death penalty to apply to drug 
dealers.

Southern Tier Republican Tom Reed is proposing a bill that would give federal 
prosecutors more penalties to push for when drug dealers' users die of an 
overdose, including life in prison and capital punishment.

Reed says he made the proposal after several roundtable discussions with people 
in his district. He's running for re-election against Democrat John Plumb.

(source: WGRZ news)

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

Roof federal death penalty jury screening goes quickly in Charleston


Getting an initial pool of 700 qualified potential jurors to sit on the Dylann 
Roof death penalty trial is going faster than expected and likely will be 
finished Wednesday.

"Hopefully, we will wrap up this phase tomorrow," U.S. Judge Richard Gergel 
said just before court let out Tuesday afternoon.

Of the 700 potential jurors who pass initial screening in this, the 1st 
in-court phase of jury selection, 12 will eventually be selected as jurors, 
along with six alternates.

A 2nd, far more intensive phase of jury selection will begin Nov. 7. At that 
time, Gergel will question prospective jurors using material from both 
prosecution and defense lawyers.

Between now and Nov. 7, the 700 potential jurors will fill out detailed 
questionnaires seeking their opinions on various matters, including whether 
they are open to imposing the death penalty. Any juror who is opposed to the 
death penalty in all cases will automatically be disqualified.

Jurors excluded at this phase of jury screening are those who cannot serve for 
reasons such as health, child care duties or essential work duties. The trial, 
including the death penalty phase if needed, might last 3 or 4 weeks or more. 
It likely will not begin until late November or December.

Roof, 22, a self-proclaimed white supremacist from Columbia, is charged with 
federal hate crimes in connection with the June 2015 killings of 9 
African-Americans at the "Mother" Emanuel AME church in downtown Charleston. 
Federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Evidence in the case indicates that Roof, who was arrested the day after the 
Emanuel shootings, was hoping to ignite a race war.

The courtroom has only 80 seats, and Judge Richard Gergel has allowed a sketch 
artist and one pool reporter, from The Post and Courier of Charleston, in the 
courtroom to provide in-court coverage.

The pool reporter wrote Tuesday that Roof was dressed in striped jail garb, and 
at times poured water into cups for himself and his attorneys. On occasion, the 
defendant appeared to analyze a list of prospective jurors.

1 of the pool members, a middle-age black man, clutched a leather-bound Bible 
as he listened to Gergel warn the group not to do independent research on the 
case and not to tell their spouses about the experience.

Only 1 person, a white woman from Johns Island, told the judge she could not 
participate because she runs a business and cares for her wheelchair-bound 
husband.

The phase of juror selection that begins Nov. 7 will be much different. Each 
individual potential juror will be questioned at length to weed out those with 
biases toward Roof's guilt or innocence, and to keep only those who are open to 
imposing the death penalty. It can easily take more more than an hour to 
examine each potential juror.

In the 2015 death penalty trial of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 
the intensive juror questioning phase to produce a death-qualified jury took 
about 8 weeks.

(source: myrtlebeachonline.com)

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

Sampson jurors could hear his whole life story


In the upcoming death-penalty trial of Gary Lee Sampson, jurors will hear that 
he carjacked 2 people in Massachusetts more than a decade ago, that he tied 
them up, and that he brutally stabbed them to death. They will hear that he 
strangled a 3rd man in New Hampshire before pulling a knife on another in 
Vermont.

But the jury will also hear about Sampson's troubled life - that he suffers 
from mental illness, that he was diagnosed at age 7 with dyslexia, that his 
parents grew up poor, and that his father frequently disapproved of him.

Such bits of information are known as mitigating factors, and Sampson's defense 
team hopes to present an unprecedented 238 such points to the jury charged with 
deciding whether Sampson will be sentenced to life in prison, or death. 
Mitigating factors are meant to explain a defendant's actions and guide a jury 
away from a death sentence.

Jury selection continues this week.

As US District Judge Leo T. Sorokin explained to potential jurors earlier this 
month, a mitigating factor can be "anything that suggests that life 
imprisonment without the possibility of release is more of an appropriate 
sentence than death."

Sorokin will ultimately decide how many mitigating factors can be presented to 
the jury on the verdict slip. But in the meantime, the number of factors being 
proposed by Sampson's defense are leading to questions in the case about what 
exactly constitutes a mitigating factor, and whether jurors should be asked to 
consider so many of them.

"It's an everything but the kitchen sink strategy, hoping one juror will seize 
on one factor and find it to be mitigating," said George Vien, a lawyer who 
prosecuted Sampson in his 1st death-penalty trial 13 years ago.

Prosecutors argued that some of the factors "have nothing to do with Gary Lee 
Sampson's background, record, character, or the circumstances of Sampson's 
offenses, and thus are not relevant to the individualized sentencing decision 
the jury must make regarding Sampson," according to previously sealed court 
records.

Sampson was sentenced to death in 2004, but a judge later threw out the 
sentence after finding that 1 of the jurors lied during jury selection. 
Prosecutors are again seeking the death penalty in the new trial about to get 
underway. The trial could last 10 weeks, and jurors will hear not only 
testimony about Sampson's crimes, but also from the families of his victims, 
and about violent incidents he's been involved in prison.

The defense is expected to argue that Sampson suffers from mental illness, and 
that his condition was exacerbated by drug and alcohol abuse and years spent in 
solitary confinement in prison.

Among the mitigating factors the defense hopes to present: That Sampson 
suffered head injuries as a child that contributed to brain damage; that he did 
not know the alphabet by age 7; that his father, a war veteran and an 
alcoholic, was frequently ashamed of Sampson and physically disciplined him; 
that he was beaten up by peers but did not fight back; that his mother married 
at age 18 and was subservient to his father; that he suffered anxiety and 
abused drugs as a teenager; that his time spent in isolation in prison before 
the killings worsened his mental health; that he is divorced and never had a 
relationship with his children; that he wants love and wanted to be loved; that 
in the days before the carjackings, he was abusing alcohol and crack cocaine; 
that he suffers from illnesses including cirrhosis of the liver; that making 
art helps him cope with prison life.

George Kendall, a New York-based lawyer who has worked on hundreds of death 
penalty cases, including for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the 
lengthy list of factors appears to be "communications strategy," a way for the 
defense to connect with the jury and respond to the list of reasons prosecutors 
cite in requesting the death penalty.

"What you hope to do is package the case in a way that the jury accepts it," he 
said, adding that the defense team likely determined that the longer list, the 
better the package.

Vien, the former prosecutor, cautioned against listing common life occurrences 
that jurors would not consider to be serious mitigating factors.

"The problem is some of these factors are arguments that aren't going to have 
much substance to them, and the lawyers who put those arguments forward risk 
losing credibility among those jurors," he said. "I feel it's always better to 
go with fewer, more solid arguments, than several arguments which won't have 
much merit."

The proposed 238 mitigating factors would be the most ever presented to a jury, 
according to data compiled by the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel, which 
tracks federal capital punishment cases. The majority of cases list anywhere 
from 20 to 40 factors. In Sampson's original trial in 2003, jurors reviewed 17 
factors. Jurors who sentenced Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death 
last year considered 21.

The federal case with the most mitigating factors presented to a jury, 160, was 
that of John McCluskey, who was convicted in 2013 in New Mexico of the 
carjacking and murder of an Oklahoma couple.

He was sentenced to life in prison after the jury failed to reach a unanimous 
decision on a sentence.

One of McCluskey's lead lawyers, Michael Burt, also represents Sampson in his 
new sentencing trial. Last year, federal prosecutors asked Sorokin to force the 
defense team to reduce the number of proposed mitigating factors, and called 
the lengthy list a "strategic attempt to confuse the jury by impermissibly 
skewing the weighing process in Sampson's favor."

Sampson's lawyers lashed out, saying the Supreme Court has referred to 
mitigation as "potentially infinite" and as having "virtually no limits."

While rejecting some of the government's claims, Sorokin asked the defense to 
trim the list - the number was reduced earlier this month to 238, from 308 - 
and the judge suggested that the definition of mitigation will be reexamined as 
the trial progresses, and before a final verdict slip is presented to jurors.

"The court does not consider this definition to be boundless as Sampson urges," 
the judge said. "Rather, the information presented to the jury may be properly 
and constitutionally limited by notions of relevance in the context of this 
case."

(source: Bosston Globe)