[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OKLA., NEB., UTAH, CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Dec. 16



OKLAHOMA----new death sentence

Oklahoma man sentenced to death for beheading his co-worker



An Oklahoma judge on Friday sentenced a man to death for beheading a co-worker 
in 2014 at a food processing plant.

Cleveland County District Judge Lori Walkley accepted a jury's recommendation 
of the death penalty over life in prison without parole for Alton Nolen, 33. 
Jurors earlier this year convicted him of decapitating 54-year-old Colleen 
Hufford when he attacked her and others at the Vaughan Foods plant.

During the trial, prosecutors played recordings of Nolen confessing to the 
stabbings while he was hospitalized following the attack. In the recordings, 
Nolen says he doesn't "regret it at all" and that "oppressors don't need to be 
here."

Investigators said Nolen had just been suspended from his job at the Vaughan 
Foods plant when he walked inside the company's administrative office and 
attacked his co-workers.

His attorneys argued that he is mentally ill and that he believed he was doing 
the right thing because of his delusional misinterpretations of the Quran.

But prosecutors said Nolen knew right from wrong before he attacked Hufford.

Nolen had repeatedly tried to plead guilty and asked to be executed, but 
Walkley declined to accept his plea. One of Nolen's attorneys had questioned 
whether his client was mentally competent to enter a guilty plea.

(source: KOCO news)

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

Judge dismisses motion to suppress evidence in death penalty case



District Judge Dennis Morris denied the request of defense attorney Jason May 
to suppress recorded statements taken from his client, Craig Stanford, during 
Ardmore police interrogations in May 2016.

In ruling, Morris found the recordings - 4 in total - were made knowingly and 
voluntarily and without coercement and that law enforcement officials had 
informed the defendant of his constitutional right to remain silent in each 
instance. The ruling also states that Stanford on 2 occasions elected to waive 
his rights for the interrogations, finding that on one occasion, Stanford did 
not waive those rights but that the circumstances and the waiver of the rights 
the day prior "sufficiently informed and advised" Stanford of his rights.

Court documents also note that Stanford declined to answer a number of specific 
questions and on the fourth and final video interrogation in question - at the 
32:26 mark - Stanford requested a lawyer, ending the interrogation.

The court also ruled that all out-of-court statements made by the defendant 
would be admissible as evidence.

"There really weren't any surprises when the judge issued his written decision 
yesterday regarding his rulings on the pre-trial motions in the Stanford case," 
District Attorney Craig Ladd said. "In my opinion, the Court made the 
appropriate ruling on each of them."

Stanford stands accused in the May 17, 2016 double-slaying of Aaron Lavers and 
Anthony Rogers. The charges carry a Bill of Particular, which allows the 
prosecution to seek the death penalty. Stanford is expected to face a jury 
trial in February.

(source: The Daily Ardmoreite)








NEBRASKA:

Nebraska news outlets ask to join lawsuit over release of information on death 
penalty drugs



A coalition of newspapers and broadcasters in Nebraska has joined a legal 
battle over the state prison director's refusal to release public records 
related to lethal injection drugs.

The Lincoln Journal Star, the Omaha World-Herald and Media of Nebraska asked a 
Lancaster County District Court judge to direct the Department of Correctional 
Services to release the information.

The legal complaint comes after the Journal Star, World-Herald and the ACLU of 
Nebraska each filed separate public records requests with the Corrections 
Department, which denied them.

Asked once again during a Friday news conference why the state won't identify 
the source of the drugs, Gov. Pete Ricketts said "we don't have to disclose 
those things" under state law.

Ricketts suggested that Nebraska's prison system already is "probably the most 
scrutinized" corrections department in the country.

The ACLU sued the state Dec. 1, asking a judge to find that Corrections had 
violated the state's open records laws and to force its director, Scott Frakes, 
to release the records.

On Friday, Media of Nebraska, which is backed by the Nebraska Press Association 
and Nebraska Broadcasters Association, filed a complaint to intervene in the 
ACLU case.

While the ACLU actively opposes the death penalty, Media of Nebraska, a 
nonprofit that advocates on behalf of the state's print and broadcast 
journalism outlets, takes no position on the death penalty itself.

Its membership includes news organizations with editorial positions on both 
sides of the execution debate.

"However, all of the state's news organizations support public access to 
government records as required by the Nebraska Public Records Act," the 
Nebraska Press Association said in a press release Friday.

The Journal Star's editorial board has taken a stance opposing the death 
penalty, but that decision was made independently of newsroom staff who report 
on the issue. The World-Herald's editorial board has expressed support for the 
death penalty.

Allen Beermann, a former Nebraska Secretary of State and now executive director 
of Media of Nebraska, said the people of the state spoke "loud and clear at the 
ballot box" when they voted to reinstate the death penalty after lawmakers 
repealed it.

"Our only interest is to make sure any execution is done through an open, 
above-board and legal process," Beermann said.

In a 5-page complaint, Lincoln attorney Shawn Renner, who represents the 
journalists, said the prison's denial letters to the Journal Star and 
World-Herald failed to comply with the Nebraska Public Records Act because it 
didn't correlate specific records withheld to the reasons for the denials.

In a letter to the Journal Star, prisons spokeswoman Dawn-Renee Smith said they 
had records of communication between a Corrections team member and a supplier 
of the drugs; DEA forms; photos of packaging; invoices and purchase orders. 
But, she wrote, the records "will not be provided to you."

Smith said Frakes was denying access to the records based on a state statute 
related to the identity of the execution team being confidential and exempt 
from disclosure; and another statute that says records may be withheld from the 
public if they represent the work product of an attorney.

In Friday's filing, Renner said if Frakes considers a drug supplier or 
compounding pharmacy to be a member of the execution team, the practice would 
be inconsistent with Nebraska law and the execution protocol itself.

And, he said, none of the records are protected by attorney-client privilege.

Renner asked the court to order Frakes either to immediately release the 
records or tell the court why they aren't.

Last month, Frakes served notice on Jose Sandoval of the lethal injection drugs 
that would be administered to cause his death if an execution takes place. 
Sixty days following the notification, Attorney General Doug Peterson can ask 
the Nebraska Supreme Court to issue Sandoval's execution warrant.

The drugs purchased are diazepam, fentanyl citrate, cisatracurium besylate and 
potassium chloride. But the Corrections Department has not made public its 
supplier of those drugs or whether they came from a known drug manufacturer or 
compounding pharmacy. The department did say they were purchased in the United 
States.

In recent years, the department has revealed its lethal injection drug 
supplier.

"The ultimate penalty deserves the ultimate scrutiny," said Journal Star Editor 
Dave Bundy.

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

Nebraska asks court to dismiss lawsuit over Ricketts' support of death penalty 
referendum



Death row inmates' efforts to override the will of the people with novel legal 
theories lack a basis in law, the Nebraska Attorney General's Office argued in 
a brief Friday seeking dismissal of a lawsuit brought on behalf of the 
condemned inmates.

The ACLU of Nebraska filed the lawsuit Dec. 4, challenging the referendum that 
followed the Legislature's 2015 repeal of the death penalty. A day later, 
Assistant Nebraska Attorney General Ryan Post asked to have it dismissed.

A hearing on the motion is set for Jan. 5.

In its lawsuit, the ACLU alleges the pro-death penalty ballot initiative 
violated the Nebraska Constitution's separation of powers and should be 
invalidated. It said Gov. Pete Ricketts was the driving force behind the 2016 
referendum, exploiting government staff, resources and his own elected position 
to raise money for the ballot initiative and to persuade voters to support it.

In Friday's brief in support of the state's motion for dismissal, Post said 
"the creativity of their theories does not change the result."

"Since no set of facts could rehabilitate the plaintiffs' flawed 
interpretations of Nebraska law, this court should dismiss the plaintiffs' 
action," he wrote.

Post told Lancaster County District Judge John Colborn that he should dismiss 
the complaint because the inmates have another remedy: They can file motions 
for postconviction relief in their criminal cases.

7 of the 8 plaintiffs already have pending proceedings in state court or open 
appeals to the Nebraska Supreme Court, he said.

Their constitutional challenges, "if not meritless (which they are), would 
cause the death sentences against them to be voidable," so should be taken up 
in those cases, Post argued.

He said the initiative process gives the people the right to act as 
legislators. That's particularly important in Nebraska, Post said, given the 
state's unicameral legislative system "where, in the immediate term following 
the override of a gubernatorial veto, the people themselves may serve as a 
collective check on legislative excess. The Plaintiffs' novel claims squarely 
contradict these vital principles."

He called absurd the ACLU's argument urging the court to declare that the 
sentences of Nebraska's pre-existing death-row population were effectively 
commuted by the Legislature's decision.

And, Post argued, there is nothing to the separation-of-powers argument. 
Setting aside the "repugnance to the First Amendment" of impairing a private 
citizen's ability to express their views on a referendum, there's no basis for 
the argument in the state's constitution, he wrote.

"Merely advocating in favor of a referendum does not exercise legislative 
power," Post said.

If it did, every state employee would be prohibited from participating in or 
advocating in support of any referendum, he said.

In 2015, Ricketts vetoed a bill passed by state lawmakers repealing Nebraska's 
death penalty. But the Legislature voted to override his veto.

Soon after, Nebraskans for the Death Penalty was formed and raised just more 
than $913,000, 1/3 of it contributed by Ricketts and his father, Joe Ricketts.

The petition gathered 167,000 signatures, enough to stop the repeal from being 
in effect until a vote in November 2016. Voters ultimately chose 61 % to 39 % 
to keep the death penalty on the books.

(source for both: Lincoln Journal Star)








UTAH:

Bill stirs debate over costs of death penalty



The subject of the death penalty has been a source of controversy for years, 
but one lawmaker is hitting it from a different angle with a proposed bill for 
the upcoming legislative session.

Rep. Stephen Handy, R-Layton, wants the state to take a closer look at the 
costs connected with the death penalty and associated appeals versus the cost 
to house an inmate for life without parole.

"I was reading about what another state (Nebraska) was doing about costs and I 
wanted to look into Utah," said Handy. "When I started to ask around, I heard 
crickets - nobody knew because nobody had asked before. I decided to pitch a 
study item in 2012 for resources to have an analyst research it and he worked 
over several weeks with the assumptions of longevity being 75 years and how 
long the appeals process takes being about 25 years."

The appeals are taxpayer supported because the death row inmates don't hire an 
attorney Handy said, they use a public defender. "The study showed it cost 
(approximately) $1.6 million more of taxpayer money for appeals over the cost 
of a life sentence," he said. "I was trying to be fiscally conservative and add 
to the discussion but nothing happened. Then someone suggested I wasn't asking 
the right questions."

Last year Handy ran a similar bill HB187 but it did not pass. "This (new) bill 
has mostly the same language but has specific things asking for the legislative 
auditor to look at it," he said. "The auditor's office is excited to take on 
this study. It could take up to 9 months."

Handy is quick to point out that his bill is not intended to abolish the death 
penalty, simply to consider the costs. "Personally I've been all over the place 
with the death penalty," he said. "I???d say I'm more against it but it's 
something I've struggled with all my life. It happens so infrequently here in 
Utah. I don't think the populace in Utah is ready to get rid of it but this 
lets people think about it."

Currently there are 9 inmates on death row in Utah according to the Utah 
Department of Corrections.

"If you talk to law enforcement they say the cost is not relevant, more of an 
eye for an eye," said Handy. "It's a very emotional topic. I could be convinced 
one way or another (on the death penalty) depending on the crime in front of me 
but this bill has nothing to do with the pros or cons."

Bountiful Police Chief Tom Ross, who is also president of the Utah Chiefs of 
Police Association, said he is supportive of gathering data.

"I haven't seen the language of the bill but I wouldn't be opposed to looking 
at costs," he said. "It's a positive thing to do research on the pros and cons 
of any issue. It helps to make the best decisions on determining costs and 
getting the facts. If it went to abolishing the death penalty that would be a 
different discussion. I've worked with Rep. Handy before and even if we don't 
always agree, I appreciate that he is good to work with."

Even if the bill passes there is no guarantee it will happen, said Handy. "The 
legislative audit committee decides where to put those resources and what the 
pressing needs are," he said. "They're doing a number of audits a year to give 
the legislature information. They???re the watchdogs for the public. The 
committee could still say 'not this year, maybe next year.'"

No matter the outcome, Handy believes it's an important topic. "I just want to 
have a robust study to look at the comparison on cost," he said. "We'll see 
where it goes, whether the public wants to pursue it. But it advances the 
discussion."

(source: The Davis Clipper)








CALIFORNIA:

Prosecutor to seek death penalty in cop killing



Prosecutors say they will seek the death penalty against a man accused of 
fatally shooting a San Diego police officer and wounding his partner last year.

Jesse Michael Gomez, 56, is charged with murder, attempted murder and a special 
circumstance allegation of murder of a police officer.

Judge Michael Smyth granted a prosecution request to change the defendant's 
bail status from $5 million to no bail.

A preliminary hearing is tentatively set for Feb. 5.

Gomez is accused of shooting DeGuzman and Irwin - 2 gang-unit officers - about 
11 p.m. on July 28, 2016, when they tried to detain him in the 3700 block of 
Acadia Grove Way. De Guzman, 43, was struck by 5 rounds while seated behind the 
wheel of his cruiser. His gang-unit partner, Officer Wade Irwin, 32, suffered a 
serious but non-life-threatening wound.

Gomez was critically injured by Irwin's return fire. He was taken into custody 
in a ravine off South 38th Street, a short distance from the scene of the 
shooting. He was hospitalized with a gunshot wound to his upper body.

*(source: fox5sandiego.com)








USA:

Even trickling to a halt, US death penalty executions are an embarrassment



The death penalty always has been a test of how far we are willing to allow the 
government to go in punishing crime. We should constantly examine the exercise 
of that power with a well-informed but skeptical eye.

The sporadic and embarrassing use of capital punishment in 2017 serves as 
further proof that states with the death penalty are falling woefully short in 
what may be its final exam.

I know well how the system works - or, more accurately, doesn't work. From 1998 
until 2001, when I was the attorney general for Virginia, the commonwealth 
executed 36 people. If you believe that the government always gets it right, 
never makes serious mistakes and is never tainted with corruption, then you can 
comfortably support the death penalty. I no longer have such faith in the 
government. I cannot and do not support the death penalty.

Capital punishment in the United States is slowly sputtering to a halt because 
ineptitude and deceit have thoroughly eroded the trust once afforded the 
government. A new report from the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) 
provides evidence of capital punishment's steep decline. Executions and new 
death sentences in 2017 remained near historic lows, trailing only the 2016 
totals as the lowest totals seen in the country in more than a quarter-century.

Perhaps the most telling indicator of this erosion in public confidence comes 
from the most recent Gallup Poll. Support for the death penalty dropped to 55 % 
in 2017, its lowest measure in 45 years. Even the political divide may be 
lessening. Although a majority of Democrats oppose the death penalty and 72 % 
of Republicans favor it, Republican support dropped 10 % points since last 
year.

A revealing example of why the American public increasingly distrusts states to 
properly exercise the awesome power over life and death occurred on Nov. 15, 
when Ohio attempted to execute Alva Campbell. With severe pulmonary disorder, 
Campbell, 69, uses a walker and a colostomy bag. Corrections officials poked 
and prodded him for more than 80 minutes in a failed attempt to find a vein 
suitable for the lethal drugs they wanted to inject. Campbell's physical 
disabilities contributed to turning this final act of the criminal justice 
system into an uncertain medical experiment in the taking of life.

The state failed its test by every measure. The execution was halted, and 
Campbell was returned to his cell, pending another attempt scheduled for June 
2019. More critically, the state did not meet its responsibility to act with 
respect and dignity in the treatment of human life.

Ohio is not alone in mishandling the death penalty. Criminal justice experts 
attribute the death penalty's gradual demise to many factors, especially the 
frightening realization that some innocent lives inevitably will be taken. 
DPIC's report recorded 4 more prisoners who were exonerated and freed from 
death row this year, bringing the total to 160 people since 1973, and 4 who 
were executed despite substantial questions as to their guilt. Both these 
exonerations and the executions are a clear reminder that the problem of 
innocence is not going away.

Only a few states regularly carry out executions; in 2016, 5 states executed 
inmates and this year, 8 states did. Just 4 states executed more than 2 inmates 
in 2017. Harris County, Texas - the nation's most prolific county for 
executions - had no executions for the 1st time since 1985.

Across the country, the 23 executions in 2017 were the second fewest in 26 
years, and the projected 39 new death sentences were the second fewest in the 
modern era of the death penalty. Many states even in the Deep South had no 
death sentences this year. In cities such as Jacksonville, Houston and 
Philadelphia, which had been major sources of death sentences, voters in recent 
elections ushered in new prosecutorial leadership that is much more reluctant 
to use capital punishment.

The negative effects from wrongful convictions, the experimental use of drugs 
in the taking of life, and the lack of coherent rationale for executing a 
random few from the thousands eligible for the death penalty are compounded by 
the specter of racial bias. In 2017, in Arkansas, for example, 4 of the 5 men 
whose executions were stayed are white, and 3 of the 4 who were executed were 
black. Nationally, even though black people are victims in about 1/2 of 
murders, the majority of executions in 2017 were in cases with white victims.

The broken system is beyond repair. Each year, even the hobbled application of 
the death penalty is an embarrassing burden for all involved. In the 
death-penalty lottery, only a fraction of murder cases result in death 
verdicts, and family members of murder victims in those cases can feel little 
solace from a sideshow centered on the defendant. We could blame many 
government officials for the debacle of the death penalty, but the 
ever-mounting evidence of its failures casts grave doubt on whether it should 
continue at all.

(source: Mark Earley, Virginia's attorney general from 1998-2001, is a member 
of The Constitution Project's Death Penalty Committee----The HIll)

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

Trump calls for death penalty for anyone who kills a police officer



President Donald Trump is calling for the death penalty for anyone convicted of 
killing a police officer.

Trump, while speaking at the FBI National Academy in Virginia on Friday, 
pledged to support law enforcement officers and condemned those who attack 
them.

During the presidential campaign, Trump pledged to sign an executive order as 
president that would demand capital punishment for cop killers.

He has yet to do so.

The president was warmly received by the crowd of local law enforcement 
officers who cheered his calls for a crackdown on gangs and an end to chain 
migration.

The president painted a dark picture of a nation under siege by crime, at one 
moment wondering aloud "What the hell is going on in Chicago?"

The crowd laughed.

In an April speech to law enforcement officials, Trump was dismissive of 
officers who sought to protect suspects' heads while putting them in police 
squad cars.

"You can take the hand off," the president said to cheers.

Critics, including some police chiefs across the country, pushed back on the 
comments, which they saw as encouraging police brutality.

(source: pbs.org)