[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, FLA., ALA., OHIO, MO., S.DAK., NEV.

[Rick Halperin]

Feb. 18




TEXAS:

Faith leaders support death-row inmate's religious discrimination claim


More than 500 faith leaders across the country have endorsed a statement 
calling for a new trial for a Texas death row inmate claiming religious 
discrimination in the selection of his jury.

National faith leaders including Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne of Red Letter 
Christians, author Brian McLaren and Baptist ethicist David Gushee issued a 
statement Feb. 16 supporting Christopher Anthony Young, a 33-year-old man from 
San Antonio, Texas, sentenced to death for killing a mini-mart and dry cleaners 
owner during an armed robbery in 2004.

Among other things, Young argues that one prospective juror interviewed at his 
2006 trial was dismissed because prosecutors believed her association with an 
outreach ministries program at her Baptist church might bias her against 
imposing the death penalty.

"It is absolutely unacceptable to strike a juror based on her affiliation with 
her church," said Pastor Joel Hunter at Northland, A Church Distributed in 
Longwood, Fla., and a lead signatory. "As evangelical Christians, we firmly 
believe that people of all faiths and backgrounds should be able to participate 
as jurors."

Prosecutors dismissed prospective juror Myrtlene Williams, 1 of 6 African 
Americans in the 60-member jury pool, because they believed her membership in 
Outreach Ministries at San Antonio's Calvary Baptist Church could cause her to 
be more sympathetic to the defendant, particularly in the punishment phase of 
trial.

During questioning Williams said that while some members of the group visited 
jails and prisons in an effort to rehabilitate persons who are incarcerated, 
she did not personally work with prisoners. Another reason given for her 
dismissal was she had a daughter with a past conviction of a larceny-type 
offense in another state.

The statement by faith leaders said her removal was wrong.

"Membership in a particular church or association with a particular ministry is 
not a fair basis for preventing someone from carrying out her civic duty as a 
juror," they said. "Indeed, eliminating a particular juror based solely on her 
religious affiliation offends the Free Exercise Clause of the United States 
Constitution."

Young, who is African American, also has argued that the state used Williams' 
religious affiliation and daughter's criminal history as a pretext to dismiss 5 
of the 6 impaneled jurists who were black.

The Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals denied Young's right to appeal his conviction 
in August. The U.S. Supreme Court will confer March 3 about whether to accept 
the case.

The faith leaders said they do not all agree on the morality of capital 
punishment and are not stating an opinion about whether or not Young deserves 
to die.

"We do believe, however, that the process by which he was sentenced to death 
was tainted by the decision of the government to strike a juror, not because of 
her personal beliefs, but solely because she was affiliated with a ministry 
that works to improve the lives of the poor, the elderly, and the 
incarcerated," they said. "Indeed, the government struck this juror even though 
she did not personally work with prisoners; she was removed, in short, because 
of her mere association with a church that pursued its mission of aiding the 
weak."

Gushee, director of the Center for Theology and Public Life and Distinguished 
University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University in Atlanta, 
currently serves as interim pastor at First Baptist Church in Decatur, Ga., a 
flagship congregation in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

2 years ago Gushee and other individual CBF members campaigned unsuccessfully 
for clemency for Kelly Gissendaner, the 1st woman executed in Georgia in 70 
years and a graduate of a prison theology program sponsored by a consortium 
including Mercer University???s McAfee School of Theology, 1 of the CBF's 
partner schools.

Other Baptists signing on in support of a new trial for Young include Fisher 
Humphreys, a retired professor at Samford University???s Beeson Divinity School 
and member at Baptist Church of the Covenant in Birmingham, Ala.; Mikael 
Broadway, associate professor of theology and ethics at Shaw University 
Divinity School and associate minister at Mount Level Missionary Baptist Church 
in Durham, N.C.; Roger Olson, Foy Valentine Professor of Christian Theology and 
Ethics at Baylor University's George W. Truett Theological Seminary in Waco, 
Texas; and Frederick Haynes III, senior pastor at Friendship-West Baptist 
Church Dallas.

(source: Baptist News)






FLORIDA----female death sentence overturned

After 2 death row stints, mother of murdered 'Baby Lollipops' no longer faces 
execution


Ana Maria Cardona, the Miami mother twice sentenced to execution for the 
torture and murder of her toddler son known as "Baby Lollipops," is no longer 
facing death row.

Prosecutors on Friday announced they will no longer seek the death penalty 
against Cardona for the horrific murder of Lazaro Figueroa in 1990.

The decision was made 1 year after the Florida Supreme Court, for the 2nd time, 
threw out Cardona's death sentence and conviction, granting her a new trial 
more than 2 decades after the boy's battered body was found discarded in the 
bushes of a Miami Beach home.

Cardona, 55, now faces life in prison if convicted of 1st-degree murder at a 
3rd trial.

"We are determined to go yet a 3rd time and seek justice for who we called Baby 
Lollipops," Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle said.

Her reprieve comes as Florida lawmakers in the coming weeks prepare to craft a 
new capital-punishment law to conform with a series of court rulings that left 
the state's death-penalty litigation in limbo.

In January 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Florida's capital sentencing 
system violated the Constitution because judges, not juries, meted out the 
ultimate punishment. For decades, Florida jurors had only had to give a 
majority recommendation on the death penalty.

The Legislature quickly passed a new law that required 10 of 12 jurors to agree 
on a death sentence. But the Florida Supreme Court soon overturned the law, 
saying it violated a defendant's right to a unanimous jury verdict.

Cardona's sentence was overturned in January 2016 for a different reason. 
Justices ruled that while there was plenty of evidence to convict Cardona, a 
prosecutor went overboard during her closing argument by repeatedly calling for 
"justice for Lazaro," arguments that "improperly inflamed the minds and 
passions of the jurors."

But the tumult over Florida's death penalty played into the state's decision to 
waive execution as punishment. Questions about whether a jury could unanimously 
agree on the death penalty were clear - in Cardona's 2010 trial, only 7 of 12 
jurors agreed on the death penalty. At her 1st trial, jurors recommended death 
by an 8-4 vote.

Said Fernandez Rundle: "Unfortunately, as cases get old and stale, we're 
nowhere near an expectation of an unanimous verdict."

Miami-Dade Assistant Public Defender Steven Yermish, 1 of Cardona's lawyer, 
said it was the right call.

"Through 2 trials, the state never got close to what would be required now - a 
unanimous vote," Yermish said. "I want to thank the state attorney for making 
what we believe is the correct decision, to not seek the death penalty."

The death of 3-year-old Lazaro was huge news in the early 1990s in South 
Florida. The boy, weighing just 18 pounds and badly beaten, was discovered dead 
in the bushes of a Miami Beach bayfront home in November 1990. Police 
detectives, at first unable to identify the boy, called him "Baby Lollipops" 
because of the design on the T-shirt he was wearing.

Soon, Miami Beach homicide detectives arrested Cardona, a cocaine addict who 
had lived in a Miami efficiency with her 2 other children and lover, Olivia 
Gonzalez Mendoza.

Gonzalez was the key witness at the 1992 trial, testifying that her lover bound 
and tortured the boy for months before using a baseball bat to fatally beat the 
boy. Cardona was sentenced to death, becoming the 1st woman in Florida to be 
sent to death row for the murder of her own child.

One decade later, the Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction because 
prosecutors failed to disclose some of Gonzalez's statements about the crime. 
Gonzalez, who pleaded guilty to 2nd-degree murder for her role in the case and 
served nearly 1/2 of a 40-year prison sentence, was freed in 2008.

Gonzalez was not called to testify at the 2010 retrial.

Instead, prosecutors relied on witnesses who described Cardona's erratic 
lifestyle and abusive behavior toward Lazaro, plus excruciating medical 
examiner testimony and photos that showed months of physical abuse - a mangled 
arm, skull fractures, a cheek burn.

Also key: Cardona's statement to police, in which she admitted to dumping the 
boy's body in Miami Beach after, she said, he fell and hit his head on a bed. 
Defense lawyers argued that Cardona was coerced into the confession - and 
shifted the blame to a mentally disabled teenage babysitter who confessed, then 
recanted, to the killing.

After the conviction, defense lawyers contended that Cardona's life should be 
spared because she was raised in Cuba by a mother who showed her no love, was 
sexually abused as a child and later found Christianity while behind bars.

(source: miamiherald.com)






ALABAMA:

Death penalty case delayed for south Huntsville man accused in double murder


Stephen Marc Stone will not be going to trial for capital murder on March 6 as 
currently scheduled, but a new date has not been set yet.

Stone is facing a possible death sentence after being charged with strangling 
his wife, Krista Stone, and their 7-year-old son Zachary. Both were killed in 
the family's home on Chicamauga Trail in February 2013.

Stone was in court Friday as Madison County Circuit Judge Donna Pate addressed 
a number of issues that need to be resolved before a trial can take place.

She ordered a new mental competency exam for Stone, heard arguments on whether 
the case should be tossed on the grounds that Alabama's death penalty is 
unconstitutional and heard an update on an investigation of new evidence the 
prosecution is reviewing.

Stone's attorneys Brian Clark and Larry Marsili notified the court in January 
that an expert had previously found Stone to be incompetent to stand trial, but 
that finding occurred shortly after his arrest. It is ultimately up to a judge 
or jury in Alabama to determine if a defendant is competent - able to 
understand the proceedings against him and assist with his defense.

The defense had asked Pate to order a new mental examination for Stone in order 
to determine if he is now competent to stand trial. The court granted that 
motion today, which means he will be examined and a report will be generated, 
but it will take an unknown period of time.

Pate also heard brief arguments on a defense motion that asks her to dismiss 
the capital murder indictment. The motion is based on a U.S. Supreme Court 
decision from 2016 which found Florida's system - which is similar to Alabama's 
- unconstitutional.

But the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in December Alabama's system is 
constitutional based on some differences from Florida's. Madison County 
District Attorney Rob Broussard pointed to that ruling in arguing that the 
current system is lawful.

Judge Pate didn't rule on the motion Friday, but said she would issue an order 
addressing it.

The expected delay for the trial could mean the argument is moot, because the 
Alabama Legislature is addressing the issue in the 2017 session. Alabama in the 
only state in the country that allows judges, not juries, to have the final say 
on whether a defendant gets life in prison or the death penalty.

There are 2 bills in the Legislature that would change the system and require 
the jury, not the judge to have the final say on sentencing in death penalty 
cases.

Broussard also said the DA's office is also working on a report for the defense 
concerning an examination of an iPad apparently used by Stone. The iPad was 
picked up at the scene of the killings, but was not examined until recently. 
Broussard said it contained pornography and other materials prosecutors expect 
to present as evidence at Stone's trial. He said it will take about a month to 
complete the review of the iPad and today gave the defense a preliminary report 
on what they've found.

The defense has notified the court that they will use an insanity defense for 
Stone - that he was so mentally impaired at the time of the killings that he 
didn't understand right from wrong - and prosecutors indicated today the 
materials on the iPad may be used to rebut the mental health defense.

The judge also agreed to a defense request to order Crestwood Medical Center to 
provide requested personnel records for Stone. Both Stone and his wife had 
worked at Crestwood.

(source: WHNT news)

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

A Civil Rights Lawyer Explains Why the Death Penalty Is So Popular in 
Alabama----Judges in Alabama frequently override jury's sentences of life 
without parole to impose capital punishment.


In Alabama, which has the highest death penalty rate per capita in the nation, 
legislators have taken a step to reduce the arbitrary application of capital 
punishment in the state.

On Wednesday, the Alabama House Judiciary Committee passed a bill that would 
stop judges from having the final say in sentencing for capital cases in the 
state, and instead require a unanimous jury to hand down a death sentence. 
Usually, a jury decides a defendant's fate in capital cases, but Alabama is the 
only state that still has "judicial override," in which a judge can overrule a 
jury's recommendation for a life or death sentence. A similar bill, which 
includes no language to require a unanimous jury, is concurrently making its 
way through the Alabama Senate.

Ironically enough, when judicial override originated in Florida in the 1970s, 
it was intended as a way to prevent juries from over-sentencing the death 
penalty. After the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty in 1972 for its 
arbitrary and discriminatory application, Florida came up with the judicial 
override scheme, in which juries recommend a sentence, but judges could 
override that decision with sufficient justification. The Supreme Court's 
concerns were assuaged, and capital punishment was reinstituted in 1976. 
Alabama adopted a similar judge override statute in 1981, and it's the only 
state that still uses the practice, after Delaware and Florida eliminated their 
override systems last year.

How do you explain judicial override to someone not familiar with the legal 
system?

Judge override is a practice where in death penalty cases a judge can override 
what the jury decided about what the appropriate penalty is in a case. In death 
penalty cases, jurors are called for jury service, they're questioned about 
their views on the death penalty, and people only make it on the jury if they 
say "I support the death penalty, I can impose the death penalty." Then in 
Alabama what happens is, there's a trial, there's evidence presented about both 
guilt and about what the appropriate sentence should be, and then the jurors 
deliberate and come back with a verdict. Sometimes it's a verdict for death, 
sometimes it's a verdict for life without parole. But the judge in Alabama can 
override that determination and impose the death penalty instead. What we've 
seen in Alabama is that judges almost never override a jury verdict for death 
and impose life, but they do routinely override jury verdicts for life and 
impose the death penalty. We think that's partly because our judges are 
elected, and so are under a lot of political pressure to appear tough on crime.

How does this compare to how the practice has been used in other states?

In some other states that have had the practice in the past, it has been 
intended more as a check on the jury to guard against passions being inflamed 
or a case where a judge who sees a lot of cases knows that this is not one of 
those really extreme cases that calls for the death penalty.

At this point Alabama is the only state that permits judge override. Florida 
and Delaware had it until recently, but both of those states even before they 
got rid of it were not using the practice the way that Alabama was. It was very 
restricted, it was very limited, it was much more likely that you would see 
judges overriding jury verdicts for death and imposing life. And judges could 
really only override a jury verdict under extreme circumstances, where no 
reasonable person could agree with the jury [decision]. It was very rarely used 
in either of those states. There was nobody on death row in Delaware as a 
result of judge override and there were only a handful of people in Florida, 
and no one had actually gotten a death sentence by override in Florida since 
1999. Now both of those states have decided that that practice does not comply 
with the United States constitution. We think the same is true in Alabama, but 
the Alabama courts have not yet recognized that.

In Alabama it has always been the case that most overrides are from life to 
death and that judges use that power as something they campaign on in political 
campaigns, and use that to appear tough on crime.

How many of Alabama's death row inmates were put there by judges?

Nearly 20 % of the people on Alabama's death row were sentenced through judge 
override - including the person in Alabama who was most recently executed, 
Ronald Smith.

Why is judge override such a controversial practice?

I think that it is questionable whether it's constitutional because under our 
constitution you do have a right to a jury trial, and the jury is really 
central to our system of criminal justice. We require for people to be found 
guilty of a crime, we require that that be done by a jury of their peers, and 
when you???re making the ultimate decision between whether someone should live 
or die, we think that also should be something that is decided by a jury.

One of the things that's happened is that it is a political tool, and that's 
because judges are elected. We see more judicial overrides in election years. 
We also see that the vast majority of judge overrides are in cases involving 
white victims. So there's this significant racial disparity in the way that 
it's exercised; 75 % of all death sentences imposed by judge override involve 
white victims, even though less than 35 % of homicide victims in Alabama are 
white. There are also problems geographically, that some judges in some 
counties are just much more likely to impose the death penalty by judge 
override than others. So that introduces another level of arbitrariness.

Support for the death penalty nationwide is falling, but is there still strong 
public support for capital punishment in Alabama?

I think that Alabama has, in some ways, bucked the national trend and has 
continued to have fairly high rates of death sentencing partly because of judge 
override. We do see that, although there's a fair amount of public support for 
the death penalty in Alabama, when even those jurors who support the death 
penalty - and, like I said before, those are the only people allowed to serve 
on juries in these cases - when those people hear the mitigating circumstances 
about someone's life, they are imposing the death penalty less often. For 
example, we had a case recently where an Iraq War veteran who had been through 
significant trauma was convicted of capital murder, but the jury voted - 
because of that significant mitigation - unanimously for life without parole. 
But the judge overrode that and imposed the death penalty. I think that when 
jurors are allowed to make those case-specific determinations that they are 
moving away from the death penalty, but judge override can prevent them from 
doing that.

Should the practice of judge override be done away with, or are there cases 
where it would be useful but with more safeguards or restrictions?

We think that it should be done away with. We certainly would support a system 
where there was a possibility to override from death to life, as that sort of 
safeguard against an overly emotional jury or something like that. But we think 
that the practice of allowing judges to override a life verdict from a jury and 
then impose a death penalty is unconstitutional and absolutely should be 
eliminated.

(source: Kate Wheeling, psmag.com)






OHIO:

Bill would make killing first responders death penalty crime


A bill in the Ohio House would add killing a first responder or military member 
to the list of slayings eligible for the death penalty.

The proposal from Rep. Dave Greenspan, a Republican from Westlake in suburban 
Cleveland, would address fatal attacks on firefighters and emergency medical 
service providers.

The legislation in the House Criminal Justice Committee would also include 
killings of current and former military members including reservists and 
national guard members.

Killing a police officer is already a crime eligible for the death penalty.

Greenspan tells Cleveland.com (http://bit.ly/2lNlL5n ) the goal is providing a 
strong deterrent. He says he was inspired to act by cases in recent years 
nationally and in Ohio of attacks on police, fire and military personnel.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Murderers with mental illnesses may be spared execution in Ohio


Ohio lawmakers are considering a bill that would prohibit executing offenders 
who suffer from a serious mental illness, under certain conditions.

A bill introduced this week by state Sens. John Eklund, R-Chardon, and Sandra 
Williams, D-Cleveland, would take death sentences off the table for those who 
show they suffered from a serious mental illness at the time of the crime. 
Likewise, inmates on Death Row would have a mechanism for being re-sentenced to 
life in prison if they can show they suffered from major depression, 
schizophrenia or another serious mental illness at the time they committed 
their crimes, according to Senate Bill 40.

Individuals with intellectual disabilities and juveniles are currently exempt 
from capital punishment.

"No less than juveniles or the mentally disabled, persons with serious mental 
illness lack the culpability normally associated with death penalty offenses 
even if they cannot meet the exacting standards of 'not guilty by reason of 
insanity' - a defense which if proved, prohibits any punishment on the 
offender," according to the Ohio Alliance for the Mental Illness Exemption, 
which is urging support of SB40.

In April 2014, the 22-member Ohio Supreme Court Death Penalty Task Force 
recommended the most sweeping overhaul to capital punishment the state has seen 
in 30 years. Among its 56 recommendations in a 76-page report: prohibit 
executions of mentally ill prisoners.

Ohio adopted its current death penalty statute in 1981. It has executed 53 men 
since executions resumed in 1999. Mental Health America estimates that 20 % of 
all death row inmates suffer from a severe mental illness.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction said 46 of the 138 inmates on 
Death Row are receiving mental health treatment and 22 of the 46 are designated 
as seriously mentally ill. Data on how many of them had the mental health issue 
at the time of their crimes was not available.

State Rep. Niraj Antani, R-Miami Twp., who supports ending capital punishment, 
said "I understand that repealing the death penalty is a controversial issue, 
but I hope we can come to a consensus that at the very least those people with 
serious mental illnesses should not be executed."

The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association has been an ardent supporter of 
maintaining the death penalty.

Megan Testa, a forensic psychiatrist and a member of the Ohio Psychiatric 
Physicians Association, said the association backs SB40 because it establishes 
procedures for considering reduced culpability for offenders suffering for 
severe mental illnesses when they commit crimes.

(source: Dayton Daily News)



MISSOURI:

Missourians deserve to know source of death penalty drugs


Missouri in recent years has delivered the death penalty via lethal injection 
more than any other state except Texas.

And yet, state officials argue they should be able to do so without providing 
specifics of the life-ending process. This is a blatant disregard for the 
public's right to know.

Prison officials probably are steeled by a recent decision handed down by the 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, which overturned a trial court's 
ruling last year that the state was violating the Sunshine Law. The latest 
decision revolved around whether the pharmacists who provide the drugs used for 
lethal injection are shielded by that law, which has long kept the identities 
of the execution team private.

The Kansas City Star, the St. Louis-Post-Dispatch and The Associated Press are 
part of the court case. The media companies argue that Missouri is violating 
the Sunshine Law by insisting that a 2007 shield law also covers the 
compounding pharmacies that are believed to be supplying the drugs.

The anonymity provided for members of the execution team should not extend far 
outside the prison walls to the supplier of lethal injection drugs. At the most 
basic level, buying the drugs is a business transaction between the state and 
an outside company. The public should know how, exactly, the state is carrying 
out executions.

Both opponents and supporters of the death penalty should back more 
transparency to ensure that errors are not made and corners are not cut. 
Understanding more about the drugs used for lethal injection could help shape 
public opinion about this important life-or-death issue.

In Missouri and other states, questions have surfaced about the potency and 
effectiveness of the drugs being administered. Efforts to identify and address 
problems will be greatly hindered, if not entirely derailed, under a veil of 
secrecy.

Missouri, like other death penalty states, started using compounding pharmacies 
to gain access to the needed drugs when international companies declined to 
sell their products for use in executions. The state fears, rightfully so, that 
the pharmacies will face pushback from death-penalty opponents if they're 
revealed as suppliers.

But that reasoning shouldn't supplant the public's right to know.

Kansas, for its part, has not conducted an execution in decades. And a bill 
seeking to abolish the state's death-penalty law received a hearing this month. 
The measure is not expected to advance.

American attitudes toward the death penalty are shifting. Citizens deserve 
information as they consider their views.

Despite the ruling by the Missouri appellate court, the state should move to 
make the execution process more transparent.

(source: Kansas City Star Editorial Board)






SOUTH DAKOTA:

On S.D. death row, mental illness rarely a factor


A proposal that would have barred South Dakota from executing people with 
severe mental illness failed in a legislative committee this week after 
prosecutors argued the protection was unnecessary and would lead to a de facto 
ban on the death penalty.

Severe mental illness is rarely found to be a factor in 1st-degree murder 
cases, though, according to an Argus Leader Media analysis. And in one of the 
few such cases in which mental illness was established, the state proceeded 
with a death sentence despite the defendant's mental illness.

"The reason I concluded it to essentially be a death penalty repeal is that it 
could create unnecessary delays in proceedings that already contain ... 
significant safeguards to ensure the mentally ill aren't put to death in South 
Dakota," Attorney General Marty Jackley said.

Jackley and Minnehaha County State's Attorney Aaron McGowan testified against 
the bill Monday in the House State Affairs Committee, which rejected it on an 
8-4 vote. The proposal had support from defense attorneys and mental health 
advocates.

An Argus Leader Media analysis found:

--In the last decade, 28 people have been charged in South Dakota with 
1st-degree murder, the only charge eligible for the death penalty.

--In 3 of those cases, a psychiatrist determined the defendant's mental illness 
was severe enough to warrant a guilty but mentally ill plea. --2 of those 
defendants received sentences of 65 or more years in prison. The third, James 
McVay, was sentenced to death.

McVay, who had a long history of mental illness and substance abuse, told 
investigators he was guided by demonic voices as he brutally killed 75-year-old 
Maybelle Schein in 2011. A Minnehaha County jury sentenced him to death, and 
McVay killed himself in prison before he could be executed.

After McVay's death, Minnehaha County Public Defender Traci Smith said the case 
should bring awareness to the epidemic of mental illness.

"In 21st century America, where we have the best forms of treatment for 
everything from cancer to heart disease - we still choose to believe that 
people can control whether to suffer from mental illness," Smith said at the 
time.

Warden Darin Young of the South Dakota State Penitentiary talks about the 
apparent suicide of James McVay.

The proposal that failed this week in Pierre would have eliminated capital 
punishment as an option when a defendant's diagnosed mental illness is severe 
enough that it prevents them from fully understanding reality and the 
consequences of their actions.

McGowan said a forensic psychiatrist hired by McVay's attorney diagnosed him 
with delusional disorder, hallucinogenic induced psychosis and polysubstance 
abuse and dependence. But a psychiatrist testified that his mental illness did 
not cause him to kill his victim and that he knew his action were wrong, 
McGowan said.

McVay had 8 prior felony convictions before committing murder, and he had not 
pleaded guilty but mentally ill in any of those cases, McGowan noted.

"McVay's voluntary, drug induced psychosis would not have qualified him for an 
exemption from the death penalty under the proposed legislation in House Bill 
1099," McGowan said. "But the state would have had to spend thousands in tax 
dollars to litigate the issue in front of a judge had ... House Bill 1099 been 
the law at that time."

(source: Argus Leader)






NEVADA:

Javier Righetti death penalty trial could start soon----Righetti confessed to 
killing Alyssa Otremba


The man who pleaded guilty to killing 15-year-old Alyssa Otremba in September 
2011 is going to trial.

The Nevada Supreme Court decided on Thursday to upheld a lower court's decision 
to reject the guilty plea made by Javier Righetti a year ago.

Righetti, who was 19 at the time of Alyssa's death, pleaded guilty a year ago 
to 10 counts, including murder with a deadly weapon, 1st-degree kidnapping and 
sexual assault of a child.

A judge tossed the plea out a month later because Righetti did not specifically 
admit that the murder was premeditated, willful and deliberate.

That admission would allow a jury to consider more factors when deciding on a 
sentence for Righetti. Righetti and his lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court to 
reinstate his guilty plea in an effort to avoid the death penalty.

Justice Pickering wrote in the unanimous decision that "While a criminal 
defendant has a statutory right to tender a guilty plea, he does not have a 
right to plead guilty a la carte in order to avoid the state???s charging 
decisions."

Otremba was killed during the 1st week of school at Arbor View High School. The 
freshman student had stayed home from school that day because she was not 
feeling well. Later in the day, she left her home to pick up a textbook from a 
classmate. She never came home.

Righetti confessed to raping Otremba and then stabbing her more than 80 times. 
He then attempted to burn her body in an effort to conceal her identity.

He is due back in court on Wednesday. The judge will hear arguments that time 
about Righetti's mental capacity and whether he should face the death penalty. 
If he is found fit, he could go to trial as early as next month.

(source: KTNV news)