[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----FLA., MISS., OKLA., NEB., UTAH, ARIZ., NEV., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Dec. 1



FLORIDA:

Forgiveness vs Justice: Parents of murdered woman seek end to executions----The 
parents of a young woman who was killed chose to forgive his killer, and they 
want to stop executions in Florida.

Even before the Seminole Heights case, the debate over the death penalty has 
been an ongoing one in Florida for quite some time.

The last day of November marks the annual International Day of Cities for Life 
protests to put an end the death penalty.

Pushing in that fight for Florida are parents Andy and Kate Grosmaire. Their 
daughter, Ann, was shot and killed by her boyfriend Conor McBride after an 
argument.

It happened March 28, 2010. Ann was 19. She and McBride were dating for 3 
years.

Charged with 1st-degree murder, McBride could have received the death penalty, 
but Grosmaire's parents plead with the state attorney to lessen his charge.

"Instead of turning to anger and bitterness, we forgave him for that," said mom 
Kate. "We worked with the state attorney to send him to prison for life."

Their appeal got him 20 years in prison instead, with 10 years probation.

"We worked through a process called restorative justice," she said. "We were 
able to sit down in a room and share with him what our daughter's loss meant to 
us and he was able to tell us the details of what happened that night."

By choosing to forgive their daughter's killer, they've joined the national 
movement to end the death penalty. The Cities for Life event for the Tampa Bay 
Area was held at St. Cecelia Church in Clearwater on Thursday.

While it's a moral issue for some supporters, for others its more about cost 
and racial inequality. Research claiming the cost of millions to taxpayers was 
provided by the group Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

The Grosmaires say the better alternative is life without parole. The death 
penalty won't bring their daughter back or give her justice. Turning their pain 
into purpose, they hope their story will help others.

"To this day I still miss my daughter," father Andy said." Holidays are 
particularly very hard for us because one of our children is always missing at 
the table. It's a grieving process.

"It's not that we forget our loved ones but through forgiveness we are no 
longer tied to the person who has caused us so much harm."

In June. Florida State Attorney Aramis Ayala made headlines for refusing to 
seek the death penalty in capital murder cases. In a news conference, she said 
the death penalty led to "chaos, uncertainty and turmoil" and "traps many 
victims, families in a decades-long cycle of uncertainty."

Gov. Rick Scott ended up reassigning her cases, a move upheld by Florida's 
Supreme Court.

(source: WTSP-TV news)

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

Guilty verdict in 2010 Wilton Manors double murder----Peter Avsenew, 33, faces 
the death penalty if convicted of the 2010 murders of Kevin Powell and Stephen 
Adams, a Wilton Manors couple who took him in after he posted an ad on 
Craigslist.



A 33-year-old South Florida man faces a possible death sentence after a jury 
found him guilty Thursday murdering Stephen Adams and Kevin Powell, a Wilton 
Manors couple who took him in after he posted a suggestive Craigslist ad that 
appeared to offer his services as a male escort.

The 12-member jury was ordered by Broward Circuit Judge Ilona Holmes to return 
Jan. 10 so prosecutors can provide additional evidence to argue that Peter 
Avsenew deserves to be executed for the murders.

Defense lawyers will prepare to argue that Avsenew deserves mercy in the form 
of a mandatory life sentence.

The jury took about 14 hours over 3 days to reach its decision, occasionally 
sending questions to the judge that seemed to indicate they were considering 
whether the murder was premeditated, committed during the course of a robbery, 
or unplanned. The distinction would have been crucial - a finding of 2nd-degree 
murder, unplanned and not committed in the course of a felony, would have taken 
the death penalty off the table.

Prosecutor Shari Tate argued that Avsenew got into a confrontation with the 
victims in their Wilton Manors home on Dec. 23, 2010, stayed in the home long 
enough to clean up and remove some traces of his presence there, steal their 
credit cards, make phone calls and steal their car.

Avsenew also was casual about leaving town - he went shopping for camping 
equipment and didn't leave Broward for his mother's home in Polk County until 
Christmas Day.

The account stood in contrast to defense lawyer Gabe Ermine's portrayal of 
Avsenew as being in a panicked "fight or flight" frame of mind after he 
happened to find the murdered bodies of the victims. He said Avsenew was 
worried because he had been working for the couple as a male prostitute and 
didn't want to get in legal trouble - in late 2010 he was on probation in a 
grand theft case from Monroe County.

Prosecutors said there was no evidence that Avsenew actually worked as a 
prostitute for the couple.

Before he was accused of killing Adams and Powell, Avsenew was no stranger to 
law enforcement. He had previously been convicted of vehicle theft, robbery, 
grand theft and engaging in fraud through bounced checks. He also had pleaded 
no contest to marijuana possession, loitering, possession of drug 
paraphernalia, criminal mischief and resisting an officer without violence.

His criminal history was a strain on his relationship with his mother, whose 
recorded, sworn testimony was played for the jury. She told attorneys that 
Avsenew came to visit her on Christmas and immediately drew her suspicion 
because although he was driving the victims' Saturn, she knew he was not 
licensed to drive. 2 days later, she said, he wanted to ditch the car and 
admitted it was stolen, not borrowed.

Avsenew's mother turned him in after she discovered police wanted him for 
questioning in connection with the Wilton Manors murders.

(source: Sun-Sentinel)

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

State Attorney: Man accused in Seminole Heights killings could face death



The man accused in a string of Seminole Heights killings will be held without 
bail until at least Tuesday, a judge said Thursday morning.

Howell Emanuel Donaldson III made his 1st court appearance just after 9 a.m. to 
face murder charges, the beginning of what likely will be a legal odyssey that 
could last between 1 and 3 years.

State Attorney Andrew Warren said the case could end in the death penalty.

The State Attorney's Office still needs to bring formal charges before a grand 
jury to indict Donaldson on capital charges. On Dec. 5 at 10 a.m., Judge 
Margaret Taylor will determine if Donaldson should continue to be held without 
bail in the time leading up to, and during, his trial.

He faces 4 counts of 1st-degree murder in the deaths of Benjamin Mitchell, 22; 
Monica Hoffa, 32; Anthony Naiboa, 20; and Ronald Felton, 60.

Donaldson was arrested on Tuesday after police responded to the McDonald's 
where he works at 2101 E 13th Ave. in Ybor City.

On Thursday morning Donaldson appeared in court wearing a quilted suit, 
typically used by the county jail to prevent inmates from harming themselves. 
He made no statements to the judge.

The family of Monica Hoffa, the 2nd victim, gathered in the court room to look 
on. Hoffa's father, Kenny Hoffa, drove to Tampa from his home in South Carolina 
as soon as he got word of the arrest.

"I'm praying for his family," he said after court. "I know they're experiencing 
everything we're experiencing. ... Unfortunately, they're going to suffer the 
loss of a son, like we lost a daughter. It's a tragedy all the way around."

Warren spoke with reporters following the hearing and said he was committed to 
prosecuting Donaldson to the fullest extent of the law - which may mean the 
death penalty.

"The death penalty should be reserved for the worst of the worst," Warren said, 
"and, generally speaking, serial killing would qualify."

Warren said he would seek the death penalty for Donaldson if his case meets all 
legal requirements and is consistent with what the victims' families want.

Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn was unequivocal in his declaration Wednesday that he 
thinks Donaldson should be executed if he's found guilty.

(soruce: Tampa Bay Times)








MISSISSIPPI:

Teen Could Face Death Penalty in Slaying of 6-Year-Old Boy



A Mississippi teen could face the death penalty in the slaying of a 6-year-old 
boy who authorities say was inside a car stolen from a supermarket parking lot.

District Attorney Michael Guest says grand jurors returned indictments 
Wednesday against Byron McBride and a second teen accused of aiding him. A 3rd 
teen faces youth charges that prosecutors want upgraded to adult charges.

Authorities say McBride stole the car in May and fatally shot Kingston Frazier, 
who was sleeping inside. They say McBride was dropped off by Dwan Wakefield and 
D'Allen Washington, both then 17. McBride was indicted for capital murder and 
possessing stolen property. Washington, already facing other adult charges, was 
indicted for accessory after the fact to murder, kidnapping and motor vehicle 
theft. Wakefield could be upgraded to identical charges.

(source: Associated Press)








OKLAHOMA:

Death Penalty Sought For Tulsa Murders



Prosecutors say they will seek the death penalty for a man charged in the 
killings of 2 people at a north Tulsa park.

Jacky Mayfield is scheduled to go to trial in January 2019 for the shooting 
deaths of Markey Goff and Meshawna Jones, whose bodies were found inside an SUV 
parked at Chamberlain Park in June 2016. The Tulsa County District Attorney's 
Office filed paperwork Tuesday indicating that prosecutors will seek the death 
penalty.

Mayfield has pleaded not guilty to the 1st-degree murder charges. According to 
the Tulsa World , Mayfield's defense attorneys say their client may not be 
eligible for the death penalty if convicted because his IQ is too low. A 
hearing is set for Dec. 15 for attorneys to discuss the mental deficiency 
claim.

(source: bartlesvilleradio.com)








NEBRASKA:

Panel to decide if Tecumseh inmate who killed cellmate qualifies for death 
penalty



Jan. 23-24 has been set for a court proceeding to determine whether an inmate 
who killed his cellmate at the Tecumseh State Prison qualifies for the death 
penalty.

Patrick Schroeder, who is already serving life in prison for a 2006 slaying, 
pleaded guilty in July to strangling his 22-year-old cellmate with a towel 
April 15.

Schroeder, 40, testified in July that the cellmate, Terry Berry, was obnoxious 
and too talkative and had pushed him to his "threshold."

Johnson County District Judge Vicky Johnson scheduled 2 days, Jan. 23 and 24, 
to hear arguments on whether "aggravating circumstances" exist to warrant the 
death sentence for Schroeder.

In death penalty cases, aggravating circumstances, such as the heinous nature 
of a murder, must be proved and must outweigh so-called mitigating factors, 
such as a young age or lack of criminal past, to warrant the death penalty.

Prosecutors have said that Schroeder's previous murder conviction and a 
substantial history of serious assaultive or terrorizing criminal activity are 
2 aggravating factors they intend to prove.

Defense attorneys for Schroeder will also get to present evidence on mitigating 
factors that would make a life sentence more appropriate.

Lancaster County District Judge Robert Otte and Buffalo County District Judge 
John Marsh have been appointed to serve on a panel with Johnson to decide 
Schroeder's sentence.

(source: Omaha World-Herald)

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

Death penalty in Nebraska needs to be put to an end



Nebraska rarely gets to spend time in the national spotlight. That began to 
change when "Nebraska Nice" started to truly live up to its tourism brand and 
questioned the practice of putting inmates to death.

Nebraska made history when it became the 1st conservative state in nearly 40 
years to abolish the death penalty in 2015. Despite Gov. Ricketts' attempt to 
veto the bill, bipartisan support allowed the ban to remain.

Conflict within the constituency motivated lawmakers to put the issue on the 
2016 ballot for a referendum vote. After a campaign marked by the governor's 
support for the penalty and rigorous debate, Nebraskans voted to return the 
death penalty, bringing the state to its current predicament.

Now, Nebraska is working to complete its 1st execution in nearly 20 years. It 
is high time for Nebraska to abandon the death penalty, once and for all.

The death penalty is economically unfeasible as a means of punishment, 
particularly for the state of Nebraska. While many argue they support the death 
penalty because they do not want their tax dollars supporting inmates, the 
punishment is actually more expensive than life imprisonment. A single 
death-penalty case costs $3.07 million. Life in prison costs $2.01 million.

Nebraska is particularly well-aware of this problem considering the monumental 
amount of money the state has wasted on lethal injection drugs in its 
desperation to resume the practice. In 2015, Nebraska Department of Corrections 
spent $54,400 of state funds in an attempt to bring lethal injection drugs back 
into the state, only to have the money stolen by the dealer.

Now the state is trying again, and the prisons will not reveal where they are 
purchasing the drugs. Nebraska spends $14.6 million a year on the death 
penalty. Considering the budget shortfalls the state is facing and potential 
tax increases, citizens could suffer as a result. Nebraska needs to consider 
whether the death penalty is really worth the cost. The lack of transparency on 
where the drugs are coming from shows a blatant disregard for the safety of the 
practice or the taxpayers' well-being.

The costs of the death penalty go far beyond state budgets. Perhaps the 
greatest is the loss of innocent life. 4 % of prisoners on death row are 
wrongfully convicted, meaning hundreds of innocent people have been killed by 
the death penalty. Just one innocent death should be reason enough to end the 
practice.

Aside from the potential innocence of the person on death row, a strong case 
can be made that the death penalty is unconstitutional. The death penalty 
easily falls under the clause of "cruel and unusual punishment," in which the 
Founding Fathers explicitly intended to protect people.

While the punishment has been allowed by the Supreme Court in the past, society 
has undergone a shift toward having a gentler nature, making the death penalty 
cruel by modern standards. Though it is often argued that morality is found in 
the closure given to the victims' families, a closer look shows they do not 
even receive this benefit. The death penalty thus contradicts the very values 
our nation stands for.

The methods of the death penalty in Nebraska could be particularly inhumane 
once it begins again. Finding the proper lethal injection drugs has been 
incredibly difficult for Nebraska, so a completely new combination of drugs 
will be used, which has never been used before. The thought brings a sense of 
deja vu.

In 2014, Arizona attempted to use its own concoction of lethal injection drugs, 
which failed to work properly. He was tortured for nearly 2 hours, wheezing 
several hundred times, before he finally died. Ricketts is taking a significant 
risk in his endeavors to retain the death penalty, which may end in disaster.

There's also the issue of racial discrimination, which is prevalent throughout 
the criminal justice system and applies to the death penalty as well. Black 
defendants are nearly three times as likely to be put on death row than those 
who are white. Furthermore, those whose victims were white are four times as 
likely to be put to death than those who murdered African-Americans. This 
blatant discrimination is an extension of outdated policies from well before 
the civil rights era.

The death penalty is long overdue in meeting its own death. It is time for us 
to grow as a society and simply stop engaging in this practice once and for 
all.

Madison Morrissette is a junior political science major----The (Univ. Neb.) 
Daily Nebraskan)








UTAH:

Abolishing the death penalty is not a 'defense' of society's worst criminals



A Nov. 16 op-ed addressed an October panel discussion centered around the 
various issues with the death penalty ("Addressing false assumptions about the 
death penalty"). The author claims the panel "defended the indefensible" - 
rapists and murderers. The panel's purpose was not to "defend" anybody, but to 
address a broken system and discuss better alternatives. What is indefensible 
is the perpetuation of a failed policy that doesn't keep the public safer, 
risks executing innocent people and costs taxpayers millions of dollars in the 
process.

The author claims that the death penalty acts as a deterrent and saves lives - 
that more executions means a lower overall murder rate. The problem with that 
argument, though, is that it's false on its face. He cites that in 1960 there 
were 56 executions and 9,140 murders. 4 years later there were 15 executions 
and 9,250 murders. Therefore, because there were 41 fewer executions in 1964 
versus 1960, and an increase of 110 murders, the death penalty must be an 
effective deterrent. What he fails to factor in is the population increase in 
the United States from 1960 to 1964. This means the homicide rate was lower in 
the year with fewer executions - 5.1 murders per 100,000 in 1960 and 4.9 in 
1964.

When comparing death penalty states against non-death penalty states, the lack 
of deterrent effect is apparent. In the last decade, death penalty states have 
seen an average increase in their homicide rates of 2.25 %, from 5.31 per 
100,000 people in 2007 to 5.43 in 2016. Non-death penalty states have actually 
seen their homicide rates decrease by 7.9 %, from 5.28 in 2007 to 4.86 in 2016.

Additionally, of the 10 states with the lowest murder rates in 2016, 8 of them 
were states with no death penalty. Finally, since the argument is that more 
executions means an overall lower murder rate, when you take the top 10 states 
with the highest execution numbers since the death penalty was reinstated, they 
have an average homicide rate of 5.78 over the last decade, roughly 17 % higher 
than the national average of 4.94 during the same time.

Dozens of studies far more exhaustive than an op-ed allows have shown there is 
no deterrent benefit to the death penalty. The most comprehensive analysis was 
conducted by the renowned National Research Council, which examined over three 
decades of studies and concluded there is no deterrent effect by having the 
death penalty. The conclusion of these scientists and academics is shared by 
experts on the front lines of keeping our communities safe. In 2 separate 
national surveys of police chiefs, the death penalty was ranked the least 
effective tool to prevent violent crime.

Beyond not being an effective deterrent to crime, the death penalty is flawed 
in other profound ways. Since 1976, at least 160 people have been released from 
death rows due to evidence of their innocence (an average of one person every 3 
months) - some within hours of their scheduled executions. Additionally, the 
costs are outrageous. According to Utah's Legislative Fiscal Analysis Office, 
the death penalty costs us $1.6 million more than life without parole per 
inmate. Unavoidable mandates from the U.S. Supreme Court mean capital cases 
take decades from trial to conclusion (which in most cases is a legal reversal 
of some sort, not an execution). This lengthy process is also a nightmare for 
the victims' families who are promised a punishment and then forced to wait 
through year after year, appeal after appeal, while the condemned becomes a 
celebrity.

Those of us who spoke on the panel last month did so with a desire to expose 
the ugly truth that our death penalty system isn't serving our state. We are 
eager to cultivate a robust and honest dialogue about a punishment that has 
cost our state millions of dollars, provides false promises to victims, risks 
executing innocent people and - as experts continually attest - doesn't make us 
any safer.

(source: Op-Ed; Kevin Greene is the state director of Utah Conservatives 
Concerned about the Death Penalty----Deseret News)








ARIZONA:

Cost of court-provided defense continues to increase



The cost of defending a felony criminal case has increased more than $73 per 
case since the year before.

In the 2016-17 fiscal year, the public defender's office handled 1,750 felony 
cases and 952 misdemeanor cases. The legal defender's office handled 509 felony 
cases and 199 misdemeanor cases, Indigent Defense Services Director Blake 
Schritter said.

The indigent defense services contracted out 488 felony cases and 118 
misdemeanor cases to private attorneys.

There was a total of 5,793 cases that were taken by defense attorneys including 
felonies, misdemeanors, appeals, delinquencies, dependencies, mental health and 
probation violations.

In the 2016-17 fiscal year, the county spent more than $2.73 million on 2,749 
felony cases at an average of $993 to defend a felony case. In the 2016-17 
fiscal year, the county spent more than $2.38 million on 2,588 felony cases, or 
$920 per felony case.

In the 2015-16 fiscal year, the public defender's office handled 1,556 felony 
cases and 897 misdemeanor cases. The legal defender's office handled 585 felony 
cases and 208 misdemeanor cases. The indigent defense services contracted out 
447 felony cases and 107 misdemeanor cases to attorneys.

The total expenses for contracted legal services in the 2016-17 fiscal year 
amounted to more than $1.93 million, which included juvenile dependency, death 
penalty appeals, conflict attorney costs, juvenile delinquency and appeals.

Of the $1.938,140, the cost for attorneys in the death penalty cases of Justin 
Rector and Darrell Ketchner and death penalty appeals including Brad Nelson and 
Frank Anderson cost $548,872.

Mental health costs added $337,825 and court costs, including defense experts 
and investigations, amounted to another $440,347, Schritter said.

The indigent defense services division has seen an increase in the costs of 
Mohave County's 2 death penalty cases and the "considerable" increase in the 
number of juvenile dependency filings in the past few years, Schritter said.

(source: Mohave Valley Daily News)








NEVADA:

Doctor: Lack Of Drugs Led To New Execution Plan



A scarcity of lethal injection drugs nationwide drove plans to use a 
never-before-tried 3-drug combination for Nevada's 1st execution in more than 
11 years, the state's former top doctor told The Associated Press.

In his 1st interview since resigning a month ago, Dr. John DiMuro defended the 
protocol he developed as Nevada's chief medical officer, saying he initially 
wanted to use a heart-stopping medication similar to what other states have 
used.

"We couldn't get the drugs. We had to work around being unable to obtain other 
drugs," DiMuro said this week. "There's nothing in that protocol that we 
developed and that we were going to implement that would be inhumane."

The anesthesiologist created a method using the sedative diazepam, the potent 
opioid fentanyl and the muscle paralytic cisatracurium ahead of the planned 
execution of convicted murderer Scott Raymond Dozier, though not specifically 
for his case.

None of the drugs has been used for lethal injection in the 31 states with 
capital punishment, according to the nonprofit Death Penalty Information 
Center. Many states have struggled for years to find drugs that pass 
constitutional hurdles after pharmaceutical companies and distributors banned 
their use in executions.

A judge in Las Vegas stopped Dozier's execution pending state Supreme Court 
review, citing concerns the paralytic could "mask" muscle movements or prevent 
witnesses from seeing indications of pain and suffering.

The inmate has said repeatedly he wants his execution carried out and doesn't 
care if he feels pain.

DiMuro said he stands behind the protocol he created, while acknowledging that 
the combination is "novel."

He said the drugs are commonly used in hospitals and surgical settings and that 
the combination would be recognized by doctors as a modified anesthesia 
technique for heart surgery.

A lethal injection expert, Jonathan Groner, a Columbus, Ohio, surgeon, said 
combining diazepam and fentanyl could result in complications such as vomiting, 
while the paralytic could prevent body movements and disguise any suffering the 
inmate might experience.

Jen Moreno, an attorney at the Berkeley Law Death Penalty Clinic, said 
Wednesday that Nevada "should not be permitted to push ahead with risky, 
dangerous, and potentially unconstitutional procedures just because an 
execution is scheduled."

DiMuro, who has returned to private practice, said quitting his state job after 
15 months had nothing to do with the development of the lethal injection 
protocol or the execution. He said he takes no position on the death penalty.

He talked with AP by conference call Monday from Reno, along with his brother 
and attorney, Christopher DiMuro, in New Jersey. John DiMuro referred further 
questions about the reason for quitting his state job to another lawyer, who 
didn't immediately respond to telephone and email messages.

DiMuro said he worked with Gov. Brian Sandoval, the governor's top aide, 
Michael Willden, and Nevada prisons chief James Dzurenda to develop the 
execution protocol.

Sandoval's office released a statement Wednesday saying his office was informed 
of the process and received several updates from DiMuro and Dzurenda "in 
accordance with state law."

"Any implication or statement that the governor developed the protocol is 
inaccurate," it said.

The plan calls for the sedative diazepam, commonly known as Valium, to relax 
the inmate; followed by the powerful opioid painkiller fentanyl, which has been 
blamed for overdose deaths nationwide; and finally the paralytic cisatracurium.

DiMuro said the first 2 drugs might be deadly, but the paralytic would ensure 
the inmate would stop breathing. The doctor estimated that death could occur 5 
to 15 minutes after loss of consciousness.

DiMuro said he might have added a 4th drug such as potassium chloride to stop 
the heart, or propofol, the powerful anesthetic blamed for the death of Michael 
Jackson, but they are not available for lethal injections.

Nevada obtained the drugs for Dozier's execution in May from its regular 
pharmaceutical distributor, Cardinal Health. It is not clear if the company 
knew their intended use. The state is refusing pharmaceutical company Pfizer's 
demand to return the diazepam and fentanyl it manufactured.

Dozier, 47, was convicted of separate murders in 2002 in Phoenix and Las Vegas. 
He would become the 1st person put to death in Nevada since 2006.

DiMuro said he didn't know why state prosecutors didn't bring him to court 
after his resignation to rebut testimony from a Harvard University 
anesthesiology professor who challenged the 3-drug protocol.

The Nevada attorney general's office declined to comment on the case.

A judge called a hearing 11 days before the scheduled execution to hear from 
Dr. David Waisel, an expert witness for federal public defenders, who Dozier 
allowed to challenge the untried execution protocol.

Waisel testified that if diazepam and fentanyl weren't properly administered or 
didn't reach Dozier before the 3rd drug, he could be left "paralyzed and awake, 
which would be a horrifying experience."

Public defender David Anthony argued that Dozier might be left "alive and 
suffocating" with ineffective anesthesia and that administrators would be 
powerless to stop the process.

DiMuro told AP that would be impossible to assess and there would be no way to 
know if movement after the drugs are administered indicates awareness or pain.

But "there is no intent to 'mask' anything," he said.

This story has been clarified to show that the 3-drug protocol was not 
developed specifically for convicted murderer Scott Raymond Dozier.

(source: Associated Press)








USA:

Federal death row inmate wants to be re-sentenced by a judge who is not drunk



If you thought the drunken debauchery of former U.S. District Judge Walter S. 
Smith, Jr. of Waco, Texas was old news, think again. A motion filed this 
morning by a federal death-row inmate asks the court to set aside his sentence 
on the grounds that the alcoholic judge was too impaired to pass judgment.

In the motion filed by attorneys Robert C. Owen of Northwestern Law School and 
Asst. Public Defender John R. Carpenter of Tacoma Washington on behalf of 
Brandon Bernard, they cite records from a judicial misconduct complaint that I 
filed against Smith in 2014, including the deposition testimony of a former 
deputy clerk who says she was sexually assaulted by Smith in the federal 
courthouse in 1998 while he was drunk (I have uploaded the motion's evidentiary 
exhibits below). Bernard was sentenced to death for his role in the 1999 
murders of Todd and Stacie Bagley, a married couple who served as youth 
ministers for a church in Iowa.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a pro bono co-counsel for one of 
Bernard's co-defendants in the murder cases. Although I normally do not 
practice criminal law, and I certainly do not dispute the horror of the Bagley 
murders, I happen to think that defendants have a right to be sentenced by a 
judge who is not drunk. Is that really such a radical idea?

One witness told me she saw Smith drinking alcohol during a lunch break while 
he was presiding over the Branch Davidian trials, which would have been around 
the same time that Bernard was sentenced (and around the same time that Smith 
grabbed and groped the female clerk in Waco). Smith handed out some notoriously 
harsh sentences to the Branch Davidians, and I believe it's fair to ask whether 
he was drunk when he sentenced them. Frankly, I hope other defendants start 
challenging their sentences, because it may force the rest of the judiciary to 
confront its complicity in Smith's misconduct.

Other judges knew about Smith's chicanery, but they did little or nothing to 
stop it. Smith's victim testified, for example, that she informed her 
supervisors about the sexual assault, and they informed the chief judge of the 
Western District of Texas at that time, Harry Hudspeth (who has always reminded 
me of Emperor Palpatine).

According to the deposition transcript, Hudspeth dismissively asked the victim 
what she wanted him to do about it. Ultimately, he did nothing. (I filed a 
misconduct complaint against Hudspeth, and he quietly retired before the Fifth 
Circuit Judicial Council released its investigative report). A courthouse 
source also told me the former Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit, Edith Jones, 
traveled to Waco in 2008 to interview courthouse personnel about Smith's 
drunkenness, and she gave him the option of entering rehab or facing suspension 
from the bench. After a few weeks in rehab, Smith returned to the bench to 
resume his reign of terror.

After the Fifth Circuit confirmed my allegations regarding the 1998 incident, 
the appellate judges suspended Smith for 1 year and ordered him to participate 
in counseling. I argued the sentence was a slap on the wrist, particularly 
since Smith pulled some dirty stunts during the investigation. The Fifth 
Circuit did not investigate incidents involving other alleged victims, even 
though I gave its investigators the names and telephone numbers of witnesses 
and alleged victims.

The Judicial Conference of the United States ruled in my favor and ordered the 
Fifth Circuit to investigate the other alleged incidents, but Smith retired 
before the investigative report was released. And I doubt that his case was an 
outlier. Just remember how hard the Fifth Circuit tried to cover up the 
drunkenness and sexual misconduct of former Judge Samuel Kent of Galveston.

Back in Waco, Judge Lee Yeakel must now decide whether Brandon Bernard gets a 
new sentence, and frankly I hope he permits discovery into the extent of 
Smith's drunkenness and dereliction. It's a relevant question, and it may gave 
us some idea of how many other defendants were affected (and perhaps how many 
other judges knew about it).

(source: Ty Clevenger; lawflog.com)

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

Death penalty offers justice and closure



The ongoing debate on the morality of the death penalty has less reason in its 
arguments and much more of misguided sentiment.

It's too expensive. What about the cost of a life sentence without parole?

It isn't a deterrent. Statistical studies can't prove or disprove so.

And won't we inevitably execute an innocent person? The emergence of DNA 
testing and other new technologies make such tragic mistakes much less of a 
possibility. In addition, post-trial safeguards could be put in place to review 
a jury's death penalty decision.

Capital punishment doesn't diminish life in the way abortion clearly does. It 
recognizes the value of a human life by exacting a penalty that corresponds to 
the ultimate injustice of murder. It is not an act of state-sponsored revenge, 
but rather offers a modicum of justice and closure to the many victims of this 
the most heinous of felonies.

Obviously this ultimate penalty should not be applied recklessly, capriciously 
or without regard for mitigating circumstances. Not all killing is murder. But 
the barbaric crimes of Adam Lanza and the 2 Cheshire butchers surely would have 
qualified them for execution, as would acts terrorism, such as the genocide of 
Christians in the Middle East.

Such crimes deserve humanely-administered capital punishment.

Peter Wilson

Groton

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

55 % Favor Death Penalty for Convicted Murderers



55 % of Americans favor the death penalty for convicted murderers. Gallup 
reports that's the lowest level of support since 1972.[1] 41 % of Americans 
oppose the death penalty.

Support for capital punishment peaked during the 1990s at 80 %.

Gallup has been asking the same question since 1936 and only once found more 
opposition than support. In 1966, 47 % opposed the death penalty and only 42 % 
supported it.

Ballotpedia covers state policies and ballot measures related to the death 
penalty.

Footnotes:

1. Gallup, "U.S. Death Penalty Support Lowest Since 1972," October 26, 2017

(source: newsmax.com)

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

No solace in executing mentally ill killers



As a family member who has suffered the death of a loved one to homicide, I 
support legislation in the Virginia General Assembly that would exclude people 
with severe mental illness from the death penalty.

I am the daughter of the late Corporal Eric Sutphin, who was killed by William 
Morva during a manhunt in 2006. My dad was and is my hero. He was so 
courageous, humble and light-hearted. The community loved him, and I loved 
being a police officer's daughter. I have every reason to hate Mr. Morva and 
want revenge. Yet, when clemency was denied to Morva and he was executed this 
July, I felt great sorrow. It provided no solace for my loss.

Under this proposed legislation, offenders with severe mental illness at the 
time of the crime could be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to life in 
prison without parole if found guilty - but could not be executed. For this 
narrow exemption to apply, defendants must have documented evidence of a mental 
illness that is so severe it prevented them from fully understanding reality 
and the consequences of their actions - making them undeserving of the ultimate 
punishment.

It is already unconstitutional to execute those with intellectual disability 
because of their similar impairments and inabilities to fully understand the 
implications of their actions and the complex legal processes they face. 
Excluding people with severe mental disorders or disabilities from the death 
penalty would simply treat these individuals the same way that we treat people 
with intellectual disabilities.

Seeking the death penalty in these cases is inefficient, ineffective and 
traumatic for many families. Such capital prosecutions:

-- Distract the public and the judicial system from the more important issues 
of what victims' families and their communities need to heal and become safer. 
Criminal justice funding for expensive capital murder trials could be better 
spent on much-needed and currently underfunded victim support programs that 
help victims' families with funeral costs, counseling and other services.

-- Delay justice and the healing process for many family members who lost 
loved ones. Capital cases take many years to reach completion, forcing our 
families to deal with mandatory court appeals and the legal system much longer 
than with a non-capital trial or plea bargain.

-- Cause damage to the families of the offender. Many family members of 
defendants with mental illness were unable to access or afford medical care for 
their loved one who was suffering from mental illness prior to and when their 
crime was committed. There is a lack of preventative community treatment 
options for those with severe mental illness and limits on their treatment 
while incarcerated.

It would be far better to focus our limited resources on crime victims' 
families support and preventive mental health treatment, rather than seeking 
death for those with severe mental illness. This proposal would not allow 
people who commit capital crimes to go free, but would ensure that the 
punishment appropriately matches the offender and would allow families to feel 
more confident that justice was served.

(source: Rachel Sutphin is a Senior in the Honors College at Virginia Tech with 
a dual major in Religion and Culture and Human Development and a minor in 
Judaic Studies----heraldcourier.com)