[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, ALA., OHIO, CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

June 20




TEXAS:

Thousands in jury pool for Zoe Hastings murder trial


Work has started on finding a jury for the trial of a man accused of killing an 
18-year-old Dallas woman in 2015.

About 3,000 Dallas County residents will be called in and fill out 
questionnaires so prosecutors and lawyers can find 12 people in the death 
penalty case of Antonio Cochran. He's accused of stabbing Zoe Hastings to death 
and dumping her body in the minivan she was driving in a creek after kidnapping 
her from an East Dallas Walgreens in Oct. 2015.

The trial is set to start in late October, but to get there the jury selection 
process is starting 4 months out.

The goal of the 19 page, 200-plus question document is to help prosecutors and 
defense attorneys know who the jurors are. Nearly 1/4 of the questions are 
about potential jurors' views on capital punishment.

Jury consultant Kacy Miller analyzed the questionnaire.

"The state is looking for jurors who are willing to give the death penalty," 
Miller said. "The defense also needs jurors who are willing to give the death 
penalty -- but maybe just not as frequently."

Recent Dallas County juryies have said no to the death penalty for quadruple 
murderer defendant Erbie Bowser and another convicted killer, Juan Andrade. 
Both juries in those cases opted for life in prison without parole.

When there is a guilty verdict in a death penalty case jurors must then answer 
2 questions: Is the person a continuing threat to society? Is there no reason 
worth saving their life?

Heath Harris, former First Assistant Dallas County D.A. who is now in private 
practice, has tried death penalty cases from both the prosecution and defense 
table.

"Seems like there's an increase in whether people feel like the death penalty 
is a deterrent," Harris said.

But the death penalty and how it's administered has also itself, seemingly, 
been on trial of late.

Some courts are debating whether its practice is humane. Plus, several 
exonerations across the country - including death row inmates ??? are also 
impacting potential jurors and making it more difficult to get a unanimous 
death penalty verdict.

"It's absolutely more difficult today," said attorney Robert Udashen. "When I 
first started practicing law police and prosecutors always wore the white hats 
and juries trusted anything prosecutors and police officers said."

Udashen says the overall climate change towards police grand juries and 
prosecutors has caused jurors to think long and hard before voting yes to the 
ultimate punishment - death.

(source: Fox News)

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

HCSO: Mom charged with capital murder in daughter's death


A mother has been charged with capital murder in the stabbing death of her 
4-year-old daughter in west Harris County.

According to the Harris County Sheriff's Office, 34-year-old Laquita Lewis was 
charged with capital murder Monday morning. The single mother of 4 has been 
denied bail and faces life in prison or the death penalty if convicted.

Prosecutors said that Lewis allegedly stabbed her child, Fredricka Allen, 
multiple times in the chest and left her on the floor of the master bedroom.

Neighbor Burim Hoax is having a tough time dealing with the news.

"I couldn't believe that happened. Bad news. I didn't have any idea what 
happened last night and I still don???t believe," he said.

Hoax says 4-year-old Fredricka would greet him in the apartment complex parking 
lot almost every morning. "She would say to me, good morning."

Family members say they got some text messages from the Lewis. She basically 
told them she hurt Fredricka.

Those family members called 911 and urged deputies to come check on the girl at 
the Timberwalk Apartment Homes located in the 5600 block of Timber Creek Place.

Deputies found that little girl dead inside her home just before 9 p.m., but 
investigators think she was stabbed to death earlier in the day.

Investigators said the mother was in a car accident and rushed to a hospital 
around 6 p.m. It was there at the hospital that deputies say the mother started 
texting family, apologizing for what she had done.

Deputies also say, earlier in the day, the woman got into a fight with her 
boyfriend.

"We don't really know what the catalyst of that argument was," said Thomas 
Gilliland, spokesman for the Harris County Sheriff's Office. "Obviously it was 
some sort of, enough to escalate to where she killed the 4-year old.

Now, Lewis is in custody.

The scene was so bad that chaplains were out here to console family members of 
the little girl, as well as the deputies who discovered her body.

"There's not enough words to describe the horrible death of this child," said 
Gilliland.

According to the Harris County DA's office, Lewis was charged in November for 
making a terroristic threat during a Thanksgiving incident in which she 
brandished a knife at her 16-year-old son. Lewis, who at the time had no prior 
criminal record, was sentenced in February to 15 months of deferred 
adjudication in that case.

The DA's office says that as part of her probation requirements, she was 
required to take a Texas Risk Assessment System evaluation, which ranked her 
with a score of zero (the lowest score) for her risk for recidivism.

(source: KHOU news)






ALABAMA:

Death-Row Inmate Wins High Court Battle Over Experts


A divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that an Alabama death-row inmate was 
denied his constitutional right to an independent mental health expert to help 
the defense team in his murder trial.

James Edmund McWilliams Jr. challenges his death sentence for robbing, raping 
and killing convenience store clerk Patricia Reynolds in Tuscaloosa, Ala., in 
1984.

Months before he murdered Reynolds, McWilliams attended couple's therapy with 
his pregnant wife and underwent psychological testing, which found that he is 
"extremely disturbed" and "has much internal anxiety."

While three doctors nevertheless concluded he was competent to stand trial, his 
defense counsel portrayed McWilliams during the penalty phase of his trial as 
someone who grew up with significant psychological problems. McWilliams and his 
mother testified that he sustained head injuries as a child and had a history 
of blacking out and hallucinating.

An expert appointed by the trial judge reported his findings simultaneously to 
the court, the prosecution and the defense 2 days before McWilliams' sentencing 
hearing.

The expert diagnosed McWilliams with organic personality syndrome, but defense 
counsel did not have a chance to discuss the findings with the expert or learn 
what the diagnosis meant for the purposes of mitigation.

Last year, McWilliams petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of 
certiorari, arguing he was "precluded from meaningfully participating in the 
judicial sentencing hearing and did not receive a fair opportunity to rebut the 
state's psychiatric experts."

His case is nested inside the high court's 1984 decision in Ake v. Oklahoma, 
which held that poor criminal defendants using a defense of insanity are 
entitled to an expert to help support their claim.

McWilliams was charged by Alabama just a month after Ake was decided. His 
appeals over the years have been unsuccessful, with the 11th Circuit affirming 
the lower courts' denial of relief.

5 months after agreeing to take up the case, the Supreme Court reversed the 
11th Circuit and ruled 5-4 Monday that McWilliams did not receive the 
assistance he was entitled to under Ake.

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, said that Ake does not 
require just an examination, but also requires the state to provide the defense 
access to a competent psychiatrist who will also help in evaluation, 
preparation and presentation.

"We are willing to assume that Alabama met the examination portion of this 
requirement by providing for Dr. [John] Goff's examination of McWilliams. But 
what about the other 3 parts?" Breyer wrote. "The dissent emphasizes that Dr. 
Goff was never ordered to do any of these things by the trial court. But that 
is precisely the point. The relevant court order did not ask Dr. Goff or anyone 
else to provide the defense with help in evaluating, preparing, and presenting 
its case."

McWilliams' requests for additional assistance under Ake were rejected by the 
judge in his case, according to the ruling.

"Since Alabama's provision of mental health assistance fell so dramatically 
short of what Ake requires, we must conclude that the Alabama court decision 
affirming McWilliams's conviction and sentence was 'contrary to, or involved an 
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,'" Breyer said.

The Supreme Court said the 11th Circuit should determine on remand "whether 
access to the type of meaningful assistance in evaluating, preparing, and 
presenting the defense that Ake requires could have made a difference" in 
McWilliams' trial.

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonio Sotomayor and Elena Kagan 
joined Breyer in the majority.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissenting opinion, and was joined by Chief 
Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

Alito said Ake "did not clearly establish that a defendant is entitled to an 
expert who is a member of the defense team."

"In Ake, we held that a defendant must be provided 'access to a competent 
psychiatrist' in 2 circumstances: 1st, 'when [the] defendant demonstrates to 
the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a 
significant factor at trial,' and, 2nd, at the sentencing phase of a capital 
trial, 'when the State presents psychiatric evidence of the defendant's future 
dangerousness,'" Alito wrote.

"The question that we agreed to review concerns the type of expert that must be 
provided. Did Ake clearly establish that a defendant in the 2 situations just 
noted must be provided with the services of an expert who functions solely as a 
dedicated member of the defense team as opposed to a neutral expert who 
examines the defendant, reports his or her conclusions to the court and the 
parties, and is available to assist and testify for both sides? Did Ake speak 
with such clarity that it ruled out 'any possibility for fairminded 
disagreement'? The answer is 'no.' Ake provides no clear guidance one way or 
the other."

(source: courthousenews.com)






OHIO:

U.S. Supreme Court reinstates convicted Cleveland killer's death sentence


The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned a lower court's ruling that vacated 
a convicted Cleveland killer's 1986 death sentence.

Judges at the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati erred last year 
when they found a Cuyahoga County judge gave faulty jury instructions and 
ordered Percy Hutton re-sentenced, the Court found in a per curium decision 
released Monday morning.

The decision reinstates Hutton's death sentence, and allowed him to continue 
the appeals process on other grounds.

Hutton was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1986 in a case 
stemming from an argument over a missing sewing machine.

Hutton had hidden $750 inside the machine, which he then accused 2 men of 
stealing, according to court records.

Hutton lured the men into his car and drove them around at gunpoint, demanding 
the machine's return. Hutton was convicted of shooting 1 man twice and killing 
the other, whose body was found more than a week later.

The same jury found Hutton guilty of specifications that made him eligible for 
the death penalty, and recommended it during the penalty phase of the trial. 
The judge then imposed and sentenced Hutton to death.

After losing appeals through state courts, Hutton took his case to federal 
court on the grounds that the judge overseeing his trial gave the jurors 
improper instructions about what to consider during the penalty phase.

Judges at U.S. District Court declined to consider the argument because 
Hutton's lawyers did not object to the jury instructions during the trial, and 
he did not raise the issue on his initial appeals.

But Sixth Circuit judges took up the argument and held that the jury did not 
make the necessary findings of aggravating circumstances that would have made 
Hutton eligible for the death penalty, and their decision to recommend death 
was based on faulty instructions that violated Hutton's constitutional rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and reversed that decision, holding that, not 
only should the lower court not have entertained the argument in the first 
place, but the jury did find proper aggravating circumstances and that another 
jury that had been given proper instructions would have likely reached the same 
decision.

(source: cleveland.com)






CALIFORNIA:

Adelanto man sentenced to death for 2009 double murder


An Adelanto man with gang ties has been sentenced to death in connection to the 
2009 double murder of 28-year-old Ealy Davis, Jr. and 26-year-old Shameka 
Reliford perpetrated during a drug deal.

A jury found James Ellis, 28, guilty of 2 counts of 1st-degree murder and 
criminal street gang activity last October, according to a previous Daily Press 
report.

A statement released Monday by the San Bernardino County District Attorney said 
jurors found true multiple special circumstances - lying in wait, murder during 
a robbery, murder while an active participant in a criminal street gang and 
multiple murders - that "made Ellis eligible for the death penalty."

On Friday, based on the jury's recommendation and evidence presented during the 
penalty phase of the trial, Judge Eric M. Nakata sentenced Ellis to death, the 
statement shows.

Deputy District Attorney Britt Imes, who prosecuted the case, described seeking 
"the ultimate punishment" as "a tough decision for all," adding he was 
"pleased" the jury provided victims with "some sense of justice."

"(Ellis) has demonstrated a desire to continue a life of violent gang behavior 
up to and through the prosecution of this case," Imes said.

Attorney George Wright, who defended Ellis, described Imes' contention as "not 
at all" accurate.

"Mr. Ellis has been remorseful about the whole situation," Wright told the 
Daily Press. "At the sentencing hearing, he gave a statement in which he 
expressed an apology to the Reliford family. Not a day goes by where he doesn't 
think about that ... I had to keep him from crying at times during the trial."

Neither the DA's office or Wright disclosed the name of the gang with which 
Ellis was affiliated; however, Wright described it as a "neighborhood gang from 
Compton."

On Nov. 23, 2009, Ellis, Forrest Taylor, William Jacobs, Joseph Bowen and 
Sandra Smith were gathered at Smith's residence in Adelanto where a discussion 
was had on how to acquire drugs and money.

The DA's statement said Ellis plotted with the others to rob Davis, a drug 
dealer from Long Beach. During the planning, Ellis produced a handgun and 
showed it to the others. Smith then suggested they rob Davis, who she knew 
because he was dating Reliford, her half-sister.

Wright, however, said Ellis was "not privy to the conversation" that hatched 
the plan.

"Our position was Ellis was with a young lady at the house," Wright said. 
"Taylor and Smith planned to rob Davis, and then they brought Ellis in and, 
because of certain pressures, he went with them."

According to Imes, Smith provided Taylor with Davis' cellphone number. Several 
phone calls were made to lure Davis to a secluded area near Westside Park 
Elementary School. At the meeting place, Ellis approached Davis' car. Reliford 
was in the passenger seat. 2 other passengers were in the backseat.

After a short exchange, Ellis stepped back, pulled a handgun and fired 4 to 5 
rounds into the vehicle. Davis was killed immediately. Reliford was taken to 
Victor Valley Community Hospital where she later died.

Prior to Ellis' sentencing, Wright said he introduced 2 motions before Nakata 
and argued for life without the possibility of parole.

"There were 2 murders, but the intent was to only shoot one," he said. "The 
facts showed there was no actual intent to kill 2 people. 1 of the bullets went 
through (Davis) and struck (Reliford)."

Wright said Ellis' age at the time of the murders - he was 21 - played a role, 
as well.

"He was not an old person with a criminal personality that was solidified," 
Wright said. "He was born in a hotbed of gangs in Compton. Nobody has a choice 
where they're born. Gangs was the lifestyle there. I believe if you would have 
put him in a different environment this would have never occurred."

Both motions were denied. Wright said the case will be appealed to the state 
Supreme Court.

"We're hopeful that he'll be given a new trial," he said.

Ellis, Taylor, 30, of Los Angeles, and Jacobs, 30, of Adelanto, were all 
arrested in December 2009, according to a previous Daily Press report.

Taylor was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in 2013. Jacobs 
received 13 years, 8 months in 2016.

Smith, 37, of Adelanto, was sentenced to 18 years in 2012, and Bowen, 22, of 
Victorville, received probation in 2012 for being an accessory.

Some 749 inmates awaited execution on California's death row as of December 
2016, according to a Los Angeles Times report. 13 men have been put to death 
since the death penalty was restored here in 1978.

The state has not executed a prisoner since 76-year-old Clarence Ray Allen, who 
received a lethal injection in 2006, according to an Associated Press report.

(source: Daily Press)

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

Divided California Supreme Court upholds death sentence


In an unusual outcome, the California Supreme Court split Monday over whether 
to uphold the death sentence of a man convicted of killing a jewelry store 
owner during a 1996 robbery in Fresno

The court generally reaches unanimous decisions in death penalty cases.

With Associate Justices Mariano-Florentino Cuellar and Goodwin Liu dissenting, 
the court ruled that defendant Vaene Sivongxxay chose not to have a jury decide 
his case at the outset of his trial and had no right to be advised specifically 
that a judge would also decide the allegation that he committed murder during 
the course of a robbery.

That allegation made Sivongxxay eligible for the death penalty.

The trial court did not ask Sivongxxay separately whether he waived his right 
to a jury trial on the robbery and murder allegation. But the 5 justices in the 
majority said the error did not taint the trial since there was no evidence 
Sivongxxay would have chosen to have a jury decide the allegation.

The ruling upheld Sivongxxay's death sentence.

Kirk Jenkins, an appellate lawyer who studies the California Supreme Court, 
said it reached unanimous decisions on death penalty cases more than 75 % of 
the time in 2015 and an even higher % last year.

Still, Jenkins said there was evidence that the court was scrutinizing death 
penalty cases more closely in the past few years.

Cuellar and Liu said the trial court failed to explain to Sivongxxay that he 
was entitled to have a jury decide the allegation that he committed murder in 
the course of a robbery.

Cuellar and Liu also said the trial court failed to ask Sivongxxay separately 
whether he waived his right to a jury trial on the allegation.

Liu said the majority opinion "undermines an important safeguard of 
California's death penalty scheme."

Cuellar and Liu are relative newcomers to the court. Gov. Jerry Brown nominated 
Liu to the court in 2011. Cuellar joined in 2015.

(source: Associated Press)






USA:

Why plummeting public support for the death penalty doesn't mean it's going 
away


Support for the death penalty is at a 4-decade low among the American public, 
but that may be of little consequence in the struggle over the future of 
capital punishment. That's because the death penalty is the practice not of the 
nation, but rather of a handful of states.

The federal government is a minor player in criminal justice, housing just 1 in 
8 inmates. The federal government executed 2 prisoners on the same day in 1957, 
but implemented capital punishment only four times in the 60 years since. It's 
states that charge and sentence almost all the individuals who commit the 
crimes that lead to capital sentences (e.g., murder). And, more specifically, 
it's just 5 of those states that are the true force behind capital punishment, 
accounting for 90 % of the 122 executions carried out in the past 3 years.

[source: Bureau of Justice Statistics]

Texas stands out for its particularly outsized role, accounting for over 1/3 of 
capital punishment. Florida, Georgia and Missouri each account for about 1 in 7 
executions, and Oklahoma accounts for about 1 in 12. The other 45 states 
collectively account for only 10 % of prisoner executions, even though the law 
in 30 of those states allows capital punishment.

Rather than ask "why does the United States have capital punishment," it makes 
more sense to ask why these particular 5 states apply it so often. Obviously, 
all are politically conservative states within or bordering the South. But this 
is also true of Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina and 
Tennessee, none of which has put a prisoner to death in recent years (indeed, 
Louisiana came close to abolishing the death penalty in this year's legislative 
cycle.)

Stanford Law School Professor Robert Weisberg points to state-specific 
processes and incentives as drivers of the death penalty in a subset of 
conservative states. Most notably, he says, "Texas has elected judges. It is 
also located in the prosecutor-friendly 5th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. 
Although the Supreme Court occasionally slaps down the Texas Court of Criminal 
Appeals and its federal accomplice, the Fifth Circuit, for allowing egregiously 
unfair capital trials, on the whole those lower courts have been happy to give 
Texas prosecutors a generously wide berth."

Most states have abandoned the death penalty de jure or de facto. But in the 
absence of change in the handful of states that combine punitive views on crime 
with legal processes that facilitate capital punishment, the practice will 
remain a part of the criminal justice system.

(source: Opinion; Keith Humphreys is a Professor of Psychiatry at Stanford 
University and is an affiliated faculty member at Stanford Law School and the 
Stanford Neurosciences Institute----Washington Post)

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

US Supreme Court death penalty decision could be victory for due process


The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a defendant has a right to a mental 
health evaluation independent of the prosecution, which could have wide-ranging 
implications for the justice system.

"This is a very important decision," Robert Dunham, executive director of the 
Death Penalty Information Center, told CNA of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision 
in McWilliams v. Dunn.

"A mental health expert helps the defense investigate mental health defenses in 
the case," he explained June 19. "Although most states already routinely 
provide independent mental health experts for the defense, this decision makes 
clear that this type of expert has always been required by due process," he 
said.

The defendant in the case, James Edmond McWilliams, was convicted in 1985 in 
Alabama of robbing, raping, and murdering a store clerk. He was sentenced to 
death the following year.

A 3-member "lunacy commission" was organized by the state to evaluate his 
condition, and they concluded that McWilliams had not been significantly 
impaired by mental illness at the time of his crime. McWilliams was convicted 
of capital murder.

Before his sentencing hearing, his defense had requested a mental health expert 
to conduct neurological and neuropsychological tests, as he had previously 
suffered serious head trauma.

However, the mental health expert was provided by the state. The 
neuropsychologist Dr. John Goff concluded that McWilliams had exaggerated his 
condition but nevertheless showed signs of neuropsychological problems.

However, the results of McWilliams' evaluation were not given to his lawyers 
until two days before the sentencing hearing. They reportedly did not receive 
his mental health records until the day of the hearing.

At the hearing, his lawyers requested more time to review the report and the 
records, as well as a mental health expert to help interpret those records, but 
their request was denied by the judge, who promptly sentenced McWilliams to 
death.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the decision did not 
manifest the "substantial and injurious effect or influence" required for 
relief in the case, and denied McWilliams' request for relief.

On Monday, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling and sent it back to the 
circuit court. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion, wrote that 
Ake v. Oklahoma, a 1985 Supreme Court decision, "does not require just an 
examination" of a defendant's competency.

"Rather, it requires the State to provide the defense with 'access to a 
competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate [1] examination and 
assist in [2] evaluation, [3] preparation, and [4] presentation of the 
defense'," he continued.

Alabama failed to meet this standard in McWilliams' case, he said, as 
"petitioner in this case did not receive that assistance."

The availability of a mental health expert independent of the prosecution was 
critical to the case, Dunham argued.

"An independent mental health expert would have been able to explain that 
McWilliams had brain damage and other serious mental health impairments," 
Dunham said, "but without an independent mental health expert, the Alabama 
trial judge who imposed the sentence found no mitigating evidence at all."

"It's not unusual that the prosecution will present a mental health expert or a 
forensic expert who offers unscientific or even junk science testimony," he 
added. "We've had dozens of cases where prosecutors have presented junk science 
testimony about bite marks" or "microscopic hair comparison."

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence 
Thomas, John Roberts, and Neil Gorsuch. The question at hand, he argued, was 
whether the defense is entitled to a mental health expert that it can select.

"We granted review in this case to decide a straightforward legal question on 
which the lower courts are divided: whether our decision in Ake v. Oklahoma, 
470 U. S. 68 (1985), clearly established that an indigent defendant whose 
mental health will be a significant factor at trial is entitled to the 
assistance of a psychiatric expert who is a member of the defense team instead 
of a neutral expert who is available to assist both the prosecution and the 
defense," he wrote.

"The answer to that question is plain: Ake did not clearly establish that a 
defendant is entitled to an expert who is a member of the defense team," he 
stated.

Ultimately, the decision will have wide-ranging effects in the justice system, 
Dunham said, affecting more inmates than McWilliams.

2 inmates in Arkansas, Bruce Ward and Don Davis, recently received stays of 
execution based on the outcome of the McWilliams case. Their scheduled 
executions were 2 of 8 that were planned by the state in the span of 10 days in 
April, and because of Monday's decision they now have "an opportunity to get 
relief," Dunham said.

Monday's decision is also significant because the Supreme Court found precedent 
in the case. Thus, it was able to apply the 1985 Ake decision to McWilliams' 
case, which began shortly after that decision was issued.

Dozens of inmates have been executed, Dunham said, because "the courts have not 
applied the Constitution to their cases." Now, this precedent can apply to all 
cases dating back to 1985.

McWilliams' counsel of record Stephen Bright stated that the decision is 
ultimately "about fairness."

"The adversarial process cannot function properly if the prosecution can retain 
mental health experts, but the defense is not even allowed to consult with an 
expert," he stated. "James McWilliams could not have a fair trial without a 
mental health expert to assess his brain damage and other mental impairments 
and to help his counsel present that information to the sentencing court. He 
was denied such assistance."

(source: Catholic News Agency)