[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, FLA., OHIO, MICH., MO., ARIZ., USA, USA/EU

[Rick Halperin]

June 29




TEXAS:

Surviving bad lawyers just got tougher for death row inmates


For inmates on death row, having a bad lawyer just got deadlier.

In a ruling Monday against a Texas death row inmate who claimed his lawyer 
failed to argue his case adequately, the Supreme Court ruled that federal 
courts could not review prisoners' claims that their state appeals lawyers were 
ineffective, resolving an issue that had split courts across the country.

The decision makes it harder for death row inmates who had poor legal 
representation to make that part of their appeals, a particular issue for poor 
inmates who likely have court-appointed lawyers in the early stages of their 
cases.

"It does perpetuate a system of inequality," said Sean O'Brien, a law professor 
at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who has argued several 
capital punishment cases and served as the director of many of the school's 
criminal defense law clinics. "It gives the state a reward for giving prisoners 
incompetent lawyers in state post-conviction.... That's the net effect of 
this."

In 2008, Erick Davila was convicted of fatally shooting a 5-year-old girl and 
her grandmother. Davila argued that he had meant to shoot a rival gang member - 
the girl's father. The fact that he had not meant to kill more than 1 person 
should have made him ineligible for a capital murder verdict and the death 
penalty. But the judge gave the trial jury incorrect instructions about 
Davila's eligibility, and they sentenced him to death by lethal injection.

During Davila's appeal, his lawyer failed to argue that those bad instructions 
affected Davis' sentencing. Then, crucially, during Davila's post-conviction 
proceedings in state court, a new lawyer didn't bring up the appeal lawyer's 
failure to mention the instructions. With his case now up for a federal appeal, 
Davila's latest lawyer argued that because his appeals lawyer was incompetent, 
the federal court should review the impact of the inaccurate instructions to 
the jury.

Federal courts, however, typically won't rule on issues that could have been 
reviewed at the state level.

"The question is [not] really whether or not Davila had a fair trial," O'Brien 
said. "He did not. The question is whether the federal court can remedy that he 
had an unfair trial."

The answer to that question, the justices ruled in a 5-4 decision in Davila v. 
Davis, is no.

"Claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, however, do not pose 
the same risk that a trial error - of any kind - will escape review 
altogether," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. (Thanks to 
a 2011 Supreme Court case, federal courts can already review lawyers' mistakes 
at the trial level.) Thomas added that, if the court ruled in Davila's favor, 
"Not only would these burdens on the federal courts and our federal system be 
severe, but the benefit would - as a systemic matter - be small."

It's unclear just how many cases will be affected by Monday's ruling. During 
oral arguments, lawyers for Texas argued that a ruling in Davila's favor could 
unleash a "flood" of cases into federal courts. Texas Attorney General Ken 
Paxton echoed that assessment in a statement celebrating the ruling, saying, 
"Had the high court ruled otherwise, states and the federal court system would 
have been burdened with an avalanche of claims facing an infinitesimal chance 
of success."

"It's going to exacerbate the difference between prisoners who have access to 
good lawyers and those who don't."

Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who wrote 
about the case for the Supreme Court outlet SCOTUSBlog, says this case wasn't 
just about the fates of what both he and O'Brien believe will actually be only 
a small number of prisoners who find themselves in situations like Davila's. 
Instead, Vladeck says, the case demonstrates a "lack of doctrine that responds 
to and accounts for these inequalities" in the criminal justice system - 
particularly for people facing capital punishment.

"It's going to further exacerbate the difference between state prisoners who 
have access to good lawyers for their post-conviction proceedings, and those 
who don't," Vladeck said. "Because the good lawyers will be able to salvage the 
ineffectiveness of the appellate counsel."

That difference may be steep. A Harvard Law School study of the 16 counties 
that imposed the death penalty 5 or more times between 2010 and 2015 (3 were in 
Texas) found "appalling inadequacies" in the quality of legal defense.

"You've got to win the lottery and get 3 good lawyers in a row," O'Brien said 
of the trial, appellate, and post-conviction process. "Even if you do get 1 
good lawyer, the other 2 lawyers are going to undo the work of that lawyer.... 
They have a hard time consistently providing competent lawyers at the trial 
level, especially Texas."

As of late last year, Texas had executed more people than any other state - 
including 3 people who were sentenced to death after their lawyers slept 
through parts of their trials.

"It's going to be the occasional case that we'll see where this case makes a 
difference between life and death," O'Brien said of the Supreme Court ruling. 
"There will be some prisoners who will lose the capital punishment lottery 
because of this principle."

(source: vice.com)






FLORIDA:

Miami murder conviction to test Florida's new death-penalty law


12 jurors deliberated just half-an-hour Wednesday before convicting a man of 
murdering a security guard outside a popular North Miami-Dade restaurant.

? Now, they will become the 1st jury in Miami to be asked to agree unanimously 
on meting out the death penalty.

Wednesday's verdict came 3 months after Florida lawmakers, compelled by U.S. 
and Florida supreme court decisions, changed the law so that jurors must agree 
in unison when handing down execution as punishment for murder.

The same jury will reconvene later this summer to consider Silver's sentence. 
DNA on a bloody ski mask was the key evidence.

At closing arguments on Wednesday, prosecutors said Silver - dressed in black 
and wielding a 9mm pistol - targeted 62-year-old Solmeus Accimeus as he sat in 
his car at closing time outside Esther's Restaurant.

Intending to rob the guard, Silver walked up to the car and fired at the guard, 
penetrating the man's aorta, spraying blood all over the gunman, prosecutors 
said. Moments later, as he fled, Silver threw away the ski mask, which had 
Accimeus' blood on the outside, and Silver's DNA on the inside, prosecutors 
said.

Prosecutor Gail Levine told jurors that Silver, his mouth having been covered 
in blood, later blurted out to some friends:

"'Can you smell it? Can you smell the death on me?'" Levine said. "The words of 
this defendant after he murdered Solmeus Accimeus in cold blood ... those words 
alone tell the whole story."

Prosecutors Levine, Tammy Pitiriciu and Josh Hubner began presenting evidence 
on June 21.

Assistant Public Defender Steven Yermish suggested to jurors that the DNA 
evidence was flawed and didn't prove he wore the mask during the murder.

"The DNA is not as definitive as one would think," Yermish said.

This will be the 2nd time Silver has faced possible execution.

A different jury, in 2015, convicted Silver of murdering a jogger in Coral 
Gables, part of a crime spree that also included shooting up a pizzeria in 
Delray Beach. Jurors, however, decided against recommending the death penalty, 
and Silver was sentenced to life in prison.

For decades in Florida, prosecutors only needed at least a majority 7 votes for 
a death-penalty recommendation, with the judge ultimately meting out the 
punishment.

Then in January 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Florida's sentencing 
scheme was unconstitutional because defendants have a right to a trial by jury.

Florida lawmakers responded by rewriting the state law, replacing the judge's 
override and requiring a vote of at least 10 of 12 jurors to sentence someone 
to death.

But the Florida Supreme Court later ruled that the new law was unconstitutional 
because jury verdicts need to be unanimous.

In March, the Legislature passed a new law requiring jurors to unanimously 
agree on a death sentence.

(source: miamiherald.com)






OHIO:

Ashtabula County murder suspect now facing death penalty----John Bove faces 10 
charges, including aggravated murder and kidnapping


A man accused of killing a teenager in Ashtabula County and then hiding in 
Sharon, Pa. from law enforcement was indicted by an Ashtabula County grand 
jury.

John Bove now faces 10 charges, including aggravated murder, kidnapping and 
gross abuse of a corpse. He faces the possibility of the death penalty if he's 
convicted.

Bove is accused of killing Kara Zdanczewski, the 13-year-old daughter of his 
friend.

Investigators say Bove took Zdanczewski from her home with her parents' 
permission on May 10. Her body was found in Saybrook Township, Ashtabula County 
just days later.

Bove ran to Sharon but was caught after a car and foot chase with police. A 
woman who he was staying with tipped off law enforcement, claiming he told her 
"things went south" with the girl.

He faces fleeing and eluding charges as a result of that chase in Mercer 
County.

Due to the Ashtabula County indictment, prosecutors there will be able to apply 
for a Governor's Warrant to have Bove extradited from Mercer County to 
Ashtabula County to face the murder charges.

Since Bove has twice refused to waive extradition, issuance of a Governor's 
Warrant is necessary in order to extradite Bove to Ohio. The process to obtain 
a Governor's Warrant is expected to take approximately 30 days.

In addition to Bove, others were also indicted on Wednesday:

Debra Ann Bove: 2 counts of obstructing justice

Malachi Desmond Schultz: 1 count of tampering with evidence and 1 count of 
obstructing justice

Stanley Ray Wilfong III: 1 count of tampering with evidence and 1 count of 
obstructing justice

Schultz is accused of hiding the murder weapon while Wilfong is accused of 
getting rid of John Bove's bloody clothes.

Debra Bove, Schultz and Wilfong remain incarcerated in the Ashtabula County 
Jail.

(source: WKBN news)

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

Ohio can use 3-drug combination to resume executing those on death row, appeals 
court says


The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday said it would allow the 
state of Ohio to use a certain 3-drug mixture to carry out lethal injections, 
paving the way for the state to resume executing those on death row.

The full court's opinion, decided 8-6 mostly along the court's 
conservative-liberal split, reverses a preliminary injunction granted by 
federal magistrate Judge Michael Merz in Dayton in January, as well as a 
three-judge appellate panel's April decision to uphold the injunction while the 
case heads to trial.

Merz found there is a "substantial risk of serious harm" in using midazolam, a 
sedative that is one of the three drugs the state endeavors to use in 
executions.

Judge Raymond Kethledge, a George W. Bush appointee writing for the majority, 
wrote that "some risk of pain 'is inherent in any method of execution -- no 
matter how humane.'" He also wrote that people have differing views on whether 
the potential for pain is acceptable, but that the plaintiffs must show the 
drug combination is "'sure or very likely' to cause serious pain."

The anti-death-penalty advocates who brought the case said they would ask the 
Supreme Court to review the 6th Circuit's decision.

"Multiple executions have demonstrated that midazolam is not a suitable drug 
for lethal injection, and especially when used with the 2 excruciatingly 
painful drugs Ohio abandoned in 2009. Wednesday's 8 to 6 narrowly divided 
ruling doesn't change that fact," attorney Allen Bohnert said in a statement.

Ohio hasn't performed an execution since January 2014, when it took killer 
Dennis McGuire 25 minutes to die from a previously unused execution drug 
combination. The state chose a new mixture and scheduled executions, though 
they have repeatedly been pushed back because of the most recent legal 
challenge.

The state's new proposed blend includes midazolam, as well as potassium 
chloride, which stops the heart, and a paralytic agent.

McGuire was administered a combination that included midazolam. Witnesses said 
he appeared to gasp several times during his execution and made loud snorting 
or snoring sounds.

"Ohio should not take the risk of continued botched executions by going back to 
using these dangerous, unsuitable drugs. This is especially true because Ohio 
still has open avenues where it may be able to obtain reliable execution 
drugs," Bohnert's statement said.

The challenge to the new mixture was made by death row inmates Gary Otte, 
Ronald Phillips and Raymond Tibbetts. Phillips, who raped and killed a 
3-year-old girl in Akron in 1993, is the first inmate scheduled to die, with an 
execution date set for July 26.

A spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction said in 
an email that the department "remains committed to carrying out court-ordered 
executions in a lawful, humane and dignified manner."

Kethledge wrote that Merz applied the wrong standard in determining the level 
of harm a person being executed could be exposed to with the 3-drug 
combination.

He also wrote that the state proved viable alternatives to the combination -- 
namely sodium thiopental or pentobarbital -- were not readily accessible.

Judge Karen Nelson Moore, who authored a previous opinion striking down the 
state's proposed use of the combination, wrote the dissent for the 
mostly-liberal group of judges.

But it was Judge Jane Stranch, a Barack Obama appointee, who opposed the ruling 
in the most blatant language.

Writing separately, Stranch wrote that certain drug makers have refused to sell 
the alternative drugs to states to carry out executions, and that the 
majority's decision ignores the possibility that the refusal to sell "may well 
evidence a recognition of changing societal attitudes toward the death penalty 
and a conclusion -- whether based on principle, profit motivation, or both -- 
that the business in which drug companies engage, selling drugs that improve 
health and preserve life, is not consistent with selling drugs that are used to 
put people to death."

She wrote that questions about the death penalty are closely intertwined with 
issues regarding unfairness in the criminal justice system.

(source: cleveland.com)






MICHIGAN:

The Story Behind Michigan's Death Penalty Ban

Michigan is the only state that includes a prohibition on the death penalty in 
its constitution. Eugene Wanger was a young Republican delegate to the 
constitutional convention in the early 1960's, and he drafted the capital 
punishment clause approved by state voters in 1963.

WKAR's Scott Pohl talks with Eugene Wanger about his book "Fighting the Death 
Penalty."

The Historical Society of Greater Lansing and the Michigan Political History 
Society will host a program with Eugene Wanger tonight at 7 p.m. at the Library 
of Michigan.

"Most people, when they find out what the facts are, will be inclined to think 
that the death penalty is a bad idea." - Eugene Wanger

Wanger was motivated by Michigan's death penalty history. "Michigan earlier, 
115 years before that constitutional convention, was the 1st government in the 
English-speaking world to abolish capital punishment for murder and lesser 
crimes," he explains. "It seemed to me that since we were writing a 
constitution, it was a good idea to put it in the constitution."

The death penalty clause was approved with only three dissenting votes at the 
convention, held on the Michigan State University campus and at the Lansing 
Civic Center.

There have been attepts to remove the prohibition, but they've never gotten 
enough petition signatures to put it on the ballot.

(source: WKAR news)






MISSOURI:

Victim's mother testifies against death penalty for daughter's accused killer

The man charged with kidnapping and killing a 10 year old girl is in court 
fighting to get the death penalty off the table.

Hailey Owens' mother, Stacey Barfield, testified that she would support taking 
the death penalty off the table if it meant Craig Wood's case could end with a 
guilty plea and a life sentence without parole.

Craig Wood's attorneys are trying to make the case with an unusual person on 
their side--the victim, Hailey Owens, mother.

Everyone at the hearing just left the court house, but when Hailey Owens mom, 
Stacey Barfield, took the stand, the man accused of killing her daughter kept 
his head down.

She said in court that she did not want him to be put to death. She says it's 
because she doesn't want to go through all of the appeals and a trial. WHEN 
attorneys asked, she said she didn't know all the facts of the case, but she 
knew what sentence she thought wood should get.

She says she wanted him to serve life in prison.

Judge Tom Mountjoy has not decided on that.

Instead they've scheduled another hearing for next month about whether Craig 
Wood should face the death penalty.

Craig Wood is still scheduled to go on trial in October.

(source: KSPR news)






ARIZONA:

Jurors consider death penalty after Phoenix double-murder conviction


The penalty phase for a man convicted of murdering 2 people and then burying 
them in the backyard of his mother's house began Tuesday in Maricopa County 
Superior Court.

Alan Champagne was convicted in the murders of Philmon Tapaha and Brandi 
Hoffner. He was found guilty of 1st- and 2nd-degree murder, kidnapping and 2 
counts of abandonment or concealment of a dead body.

Elise Garcia, Champagne's girlfriend and co-defendant, was sentenced to 16 
years in prison in 2016 after pleading guilty in Hoffner's death.

The jury this week is hearing testimony to help it decide whether Champagne 
will face the death penalty or whether some mitigating factors can help him 
avoid a death sentence.

Defense attorney Maria Schaffer on Tuesday reminded jurors their decision will 
have a consequence.

"That decision you all make is binding - it's final," Schaffer said.

Schaffer appealed to the jury for compassion, asking them to view Champagne as 
a human being foremost. She argued this crime, while serious, was just one part 
of his overall life. Schaeffer said she intends to show jurors why he has made 
poor choices and how he went from a small boy to a man convicted of murder.

"Mitigation is not an excuse for what happened," Schaffer said, adding the 
man's past is not an "abuse excuse." She projected a photo of Champagne as a 
young "innocent" boy and asked that the jury not make their decision from a 
position of hate, rather one of compassion.

"It'd be understandable if you didn't like him," Schaffer said, while imploring 
the jury to use their personal values to make their decision.

Maricopa County prosecutor Ellen Dahl argued jurors would not be deciding 
whether Champagne should live or die, but rather there are enough factors to 
show leniency.

Dahl said that the law dictates how jurors should reach their verdict, not 
their "moral compass."

"The evidence must be proven to you," Dahl said. "Challenge it. Put it to the 
test."

Dahl said the defense will prove Champagne had a childhood and that he had a 
mother who loved him, but questioned how much weight that should carry.

Killings inside apartment, bodies moved

Court records show that in October 2011, police had received a tip about 
Champagne's possible involvement in a double homicide at an apartment complex 
near Osborn Road and 12th Street.

Police spoke with a maintenance man at the complex who said he smelled a strong 
odor coming from Champagne's former unit when he went to clean it, documents 
state.

The man told police that he had built a large box for Champagne after he told 
the man he needed it to transport items from his mother's home, which was 
entering foreclosure, according to the documents.

Court records state in July 2011, police stopped Champagne and his girlfriend, 
Elise Garcia, after realizing they were driving a car registered to someone 
else and found Tapaha's Social Security card and Hoffner's purse in the car. 
Authorities did not immediately connect the 2 to the double homicide.

The same month that stop occurred, Hoffner and Tapaha were reported missing, 
and investigators discovered that Tapaha was the brother of Phillena Tapaha, 
someone who had two children with Champagne.

According to records, Phillena told police that her brother had found out that 
Champagne was cheating on her and that it may have caused him distress.

The two were eventually arrested in March 2012 following a SWAT team stand-off 
at his mother's house when they refused to surrender on felony aggravated 
assault warrants, according to police. Champagne was accused of firing at SWAT 
officials, documents say.

Once in jail, a former cellmate told police that Garcia had detailed to her 
that she was in the apartment when Champagne killed 2 people, later identified 
as Hoffner and Tapaha, documents state.

According to records, Garcia said Champagne had ingested drugs and pointed a 
gun at the two people to frighten them. Champagne opened fire and shot Tapaha 
in the head. Garcia held Hoffner at gunpoint before Champagne returned and 
strangled Hoffner, documents say.

A huge break in the case came after a new owner started remodeling Champagne's 
mother's former home and a landscaper uncovered the bodies of Tapaha and 
Hoffner.

According to court records, Champagne spent 14 years in prison for murdering 
Ricky Marquez at a party where two rival gangs fought in central Phoenix back 
in 1991. He was released in June 2005.

'Cruel and cowardly'

Dahl argued that the defendant was not an "innocent boy" at the time of the 
murders, but a 40-year-old man.

"The defendant is not a victim of his upbringing or society," Dahl said.

She also cited Champagne's long criminal history, in which he was a committed 
gang member and had gone to prison before on a murder conviction.

Several relatives of Brandi Hoffner read statements to the jury Tuesday, 
showing photos of Hoffner during childhood and as an adult.

Hoffner's father, Balvino Hernandez, read a statement in Spanish about his 
daughter, which was translated in court for the jury. He said he separated from 
Hoffner's mother when she was little and he did not get to see her until she 
contacted him years after she became a mother herself.

"She was taken in a cruel and cowardly way," Hernandez said.

He said Hoffner was murdered just as they were beginning to reconcile.

"No one could ever cure that pain. Now all I have left is a broken heart," 
Hernandez said.

Hoffner's brother, Daniel Hoffner, also testified, saying his sister loved the 
outdoors and singing in choir despite not being able to carry a tune and showed 
the jury a tattoo he had done in his sister's honor.

"Her life lives on in her children," he said. "She will always be in my heart."

Christine Philips, Hoffner's sister, echoed the same sentiments the brother 
expressed, retelling fond childhood stories of Hoffner and her silly nature.

She also described how her family has struggled since her sister's death, 
describing emotional struggles of some family and the impact on her physical 
health.

"Time causes the heart to hurt worse," Philips said.

This penalty phase is expected to last through this week before the court takes 
a 3-week break and resumes on July 24.

(source: azcentral.com)






USA:

Attached is my new book chapter on death penalty developments. It can also be 
found at: 
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminaljustice/2017/SCJ2017_Death_Penalty.pdf 
[www.americanbar.org].

I hope that you and perhaps others will whom you may share it will find it 
interesting.

It is circulated with permission, and is derived from the forthcoming The State 
of Criminal Justice 2017, to be published by the American Bar Association 
Criminal Justice Section.??? For more information on the entire book, see: 
???www.ambar.org/cjsbooks ---- [www.ambar.org] ???(book ordering info to be 
posted shortly)

(source: Ronald Tabak)






USA/EUROPEAN UNION:

Opening Remarks Ambassador David O'Sullivan / EU's global advocacy to abolish 
capital punishment


Excellences, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a pleasure to be here and I'd like to start by thanking our hosts, 
Elizabeth Zitrin, President of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, 
and Bishop Roy Campbell, Pastoral Bishop of the Archdiocese of Washington.

In 1945, only 8 countries had abolished the death penalty. 33 years later, in 
1978, that number had merely doubled. Today, however, more than 150 countries 
have either legally abolished the death penalty, or established moratoriums by 
practice.

As you know, the European Union holds a strong and principled position against 
the death penalty. As a union founded on democracy, human rights and the rule 
of law, it is natural for us to oppose it. It is part of our common identity, 
so much so that it is a requirement for any State applying to join the EU.

If we look at the history of this movement, it is interesting to note that it 
was on the heels of major war and destruction that the anti-death penalty 
movement gathered momentum in the Europe. The fall of repressive or dictatorial 
regimes following the Second World War brought a frankness to conversations 
surrounding the death penalty. Europeans were still reeling from the extreme 
arbitrariness and abuses of power many had witnessed during the war, and it was 
no great leap to see that the death penalty carried within it the same 
potential for arbitrary violence.

But to abandon the death penalty, calls for strong leaders willing to take a 
stand and to represent a moral high ground.

In France, it was President Mitterrand who took on this mission, together with 
his Minister of Justice, Robert Badinter. Ahead of public opinion, they 
repealed the death penalty in 1981, and found support only after the fact, 
through deliberate and exemplary leadership.

On both sides of the Atlantic, those who have witnessed the death penalty are 
haunted by its lasting imprint.

Recently, I was reading that in September 2014, Mr. Badinter returned to La 
Sante prison in Paris. There, in 1972, he witnessed the execution by guillotine 
of one of the last inmates sentenced to death in France, a man for whom he, as 
a lawyer, had desperately tried to win a reprieve. Mr. Badinter, now 89, 
observed, "The shadow of the guillotine is everywhere".

That same month in 2014, Texas Monthly newspaper ran a long profile of Michelle 
Lyons, a former reporter with The Huntsville Item who spent more than a decade 
working as a public affairs officer for the Texas Department of Criminal 
Justice. By the time she departed from the Department, Ms. Lyons, now in her 
late 30s, had witnessed 278 executions. She told Texas Monthly, "I think about 
it all the time."

So abolishing the death penalty is a key objective for the European Union's 
human rights policy.

Today, the death penalty has not only been abolished in all 28 member countries 
of the European Union, but also in all 47 member countries of the Council of 
Europe, which includes countries like Russia and Turkey. And we hope it will 
continue to be abolished in Turkey.

This brings me to the United States, the democracy which has the largest number 
of capital punishment executions each year. I am hopeful that this won't remain 
the case for much longer. Although as many as 20 people were executed last 
year, which underlines the work yet to be done towards repealing the death 
penalty, this number represents a 25-year record low and we're hopeful that 
this downward trend will continue. Until the abolition of capital punishment, 
which would put the U.S. on the right side of history.

I am sometimes asked, "Why is the EU concerned with how the United States 
administers its justice system?" It is a good question.

And while fully recognising the truly horrific crimes at the heart of some 
cases, and mindful of the suffering of the victims and their families, the 
penalty itself is also a dehumanizing practice. We do not believe that victims 
of violent crimes are adequately compensated for their losses by the death of 
another person.

We are also convinced that it is an illusion to believe that the death penalty 
deters the most serious crimes. There is no difference in the number of serious 
crimes committed in a country that has abolished the death penalty as opposed 
to those in countries that still administer it. Abolitionist states are not 
softer on crimes than retentionist states. All crimes are best fought through a 
functioning judicial system, not through taking life.

Another inherent flaw of the death penalty is that it is deeply rooted in 
social injustice. Everywhere the death penalty is applied globally, statistics 
show that it discriminates against the poor, the minorities and the 
marginalised citizens of a society.

New Jersey State Senator Raymond Lesniak, who was behind New Jersey's repeal of 
the death penalty in 2007, underlined this very fact, when he said, "The death 
penalty is a random act of brutality. Its application throughout the United 
States is random, depending on where the murder occurred, the race and economic 
status of who committed the murder, the race and economic status of the person 
murdered and, of course, the quality of the legal defence."

Most importantly, the death penalty claims innocent lives. And with the number 
of proven wrongful convictions in the United States on the rise, this 
eventuality is of great concern. As Bryan Stevenson - great lawyer, social 
justice activist and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative - has constantly 
said, "Death penalty in America is defined by error ... For every 9 people who 
have been executed, we've actually identified 1 innocent person who's been 
exonerated and released from death row." There is no permissible margin of 
error when a human being's life hangs in the balance.

A few months ago, in support for the World and Europe Day Against the Death 
Penalty, the European Union Delegation organised the World Premiere of "THE 
GATHERING". This documentary tells the story of Witness to Innocence, which is 
the largest organisation of death row exonerees in the country.

Witness to Innocence is led by a remarkable person called Leno Rose-Avila who 
is present here tonight. Not only did I have the great honour to meet Leno 
then, but I also had the opportunity to speak with men and women who suffered 
at the hands of the state for crimes they did not commit. These people endured 
years of wrongful punishment and awaited for their execution on death row while 
knowing they were innocent. They ultimately escaped the ultimate injustice of 
dying for something they didn???t do, but how many others haven???t been 
acquitted early enough? How many lives have been taken by mistake?

There is much more to discuss about the death penalty, but let me briefly turn 
our attention to what the EU is doing to fight for the abolition of the death 
penalty worldwide, and more specifically, in the United States.

Through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the EU remains 
the main donor to NGOs fighting to repeal the death penalty worldwide. Since 
2007, this European Instrument has allocated more than 25 million Euros to 
projects around the world.

We intervene both on individual cases and at a general policy level when a 
country's policy on the death penalty is in flux. Every year, the European 
Union issues statements in excess of 30 individual cases on average, and 
carries out more than 30 other actions in favour of individuals at risk of 
execution. I have actually just written to the Governor of Virginia to ask him 
to exert clemency for Mr. Morva, a dual American and Hungarian national 
sentenced to death, who presents signs of mental illness.

The EU is also the 1st regional body in the world to have adopted rules 
prohibiting the trade in goods used for capital punishment, as well as the 
supply of technical assistance related to such goods, with a particular impact 
in the United States.

In the United States, in addition supporting the ban of lethal drugs, the EU 
has intervened in many judicial cases, including Amicus Curiae briefs 
considering our strong interest. Last April, through various diplomatic 
channels such as public statements and in close coordination with the NGO 
community, we strongly opposed the series of eight executions scheduled in the 
state of Arkansas.

A few years ago, Kenneth Roth wrote, "America today needs its Francois 
Mitterrand and Robert Badinter. There is no shortage of death penalty opponents 
in the United States. But we need political leaders who are willing to take the 
risk of standing up for what they believe."

Over the last few years, we have seen anti-death penalty sentiments grow. But 
the long road Europe has travelled to the abolition of the death penalty shows 
us that the opposition to death penalty is unlikely to be popular without a 
strong leader.

If we wait for public opinion alone to turn the tide, abolition may never come. 
What we need, in the United States and in those countries where the death 
penalty continues to be legal, is a vibrant civil society working in 
conjunction with political leaders, who together with public support will work 
to repeal the death penalty, thus ending this blight on our common humanity.

This is the reason why we are very thankful for the work of the World Coalition 
Against the Death Penalty, and this is also why the European Union will 
continue to fight relentlessly at your side in favour of the abolition of the 
death penalty.

And it is precisely because the U.S. is our greatest ally, that I am deeply 
concerned that they keep implementing the death penalty. We need to be true to 
who we are. We can't remain silent. So in friendship and respect, we pursue the 
objective of the final abolition of capital punishment in the U.S

Thank you very much.

(source: euintheus.org)