[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ARK., OKLA., COLO., WYO., ARIZ., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

May 9




ARKANSAS:

Arkansas executions a prime example of how death penalty targets the poor


This Easter season started in a deeply disturbing way: Arkansas scheduled 8 
executions in 10 days, starting on Easter Monday.

Ultimately, 4 of these condemned men had their executions stayed, while the 
other 5 were put to death between April 20 and April 27, including 2 on 1 day.

You might think these men were sentenced to death and slated for execution 
simply because of the gravity of their crimes. You'd be wrong.

There is something beyond the terrible crimes that determined their fates even 
more so: poverty. The death penalty preys on poor and vulnerable populations.

All 8 men grew up in poverty. Sometimes, the conditions were shocking.

Marcel Williams, at certain times, did not have shoes to wear and lived in 
houses where the utilities were regularly turned off.

Kenneth Williams shuffled among 6 foster homes that were often infested with 
rats and roaches. Both men also experienced periods of extreme hunger.

Even more sinister than these poor conditions is the poor counsel these men 
received. None of these 8 individuals was able to afford his own lawyer, and 
the results were catastrophic.

Ledell Lee's 1st post-conviction attorney showed up to court so intoxicated, 
the prosecution asked that he receive new counsel.

The trial attorneys for Jack Jones spent only $6,641.95 on his entire trial, 
significantly less than is required for a constitutionally effective defense.

Williams' death sentence was even overturned by a federal judge because of 
ineffective assistance by his lawyers. A federal appellate court later 
reinstated the death sentence because of a procedural error - not because it 
disagreed that he had had poor counsel.

Several of these 8 men's lawyers missed filing deadlines, never visited their 
clients, or continued representing them despite a likely conflict of interest. 
This poor lawyering was the difference between life and death.

But Arkansas is not unique.

Death rows across the country are filled with men and women who were too poor 
to afford an attorney. You'd be hard-pressed to find a rich person who received 
the death penalty.

The saying holds true, "Those without the capital get the punishment."

The death penalty must end because it disproportionately impacts people who are 
poor and vulnerable. These individuals are the same ones whom Jesus so loved - 
and whom we are asked to love also. This was vibrantly clear in Lee's choice of 
Holy Communion for his final meal.

We would do well to remember the words of Jesus when we consider who receives 
the death penalty: "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of 
these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

(source: Karen Clifton is executive director of the national organization 
Catholic Mobilizing Network, which is working to end the death penalty and 
promote restorative justice----Religion News)

********

Meet the Arkansas Judge Who Faces Impeachment for Protesting Against the Death 
Penalty


Guests

Wendell Griffen----judge of the 6th Circuit, for Pulaski County in Arkansas. He 
is also the pastor of New Millennium Church. Griffen was barred from 
considering death penalty cases after participating in a Good Friday prayer 
vigil. He now faces calls for his impeachment.

Mike Laux----civil rights attorney. He is one of the attorneys representing 
Judge Wendell Griffen.


We go now to Arkansas, where the state executed 4 men in April, marking the 1st 
executions in Arkansas since 2005. Arkansas had initially planned to execute 8 
men over 11 days during the month of April, but several of the executions were 
blocked by the courts. One of the judges who blocked the state's efforts is now 
facing calls to be impeached. On April 14, state Judge Wendell Griffen issued a 
temporary restraining order that effectively halted 6 of the executions over 
concerns the state used false pretenses to obtain a key drug slated to be used 
in the executions. Following his ruling, Judge Griffen took part in an 
anti-death penalty protest outside the Governor's Mansion organized by his 
church to mark Good Friday. In addition to being a judge, Griffen is an 
ordained Baptist minister. Calls for Wendell Griffen's impeachment began soon 
after photographs from the vigil appeared in the press showing him lying down 
on a cot with his hands bound together as though he were a condemned man on a 
gurney. In his 1st national television interview, Wendell Griffen speaks to 
Democracy Now!

JUAN GONZALEZ: We're going now to Arkansas, where the state executed 4 men in 
April, marking the 1st executions there since 2005. Arkansas had initially 
planned to execute 11 men during the month of April, but several of those 
executions were blocked by the courts. One of the judges who blocked the 
state's efforts is now facing calls to be impeached. On April 14th, state Judge 
Wendell Griffen issued a temporary restraining order halting 6 of the 
executions over concerns that the state used false pretenses to obtain a key 
drug slated to be used in the executions. Following his ruling, Judge Wendell 
Griffen took part in an anti-death penalty protest outside the Governor's 
Mansion organized by his church to mark Good Friday. In addition to being a 
judge, Griffen is an ordained Baptist minister.

AMY GOODMAN: Calls for Judge Wendell Griffen's impeachment began soon after 
photographs from the vigil appeared in the press showing him lying down on a 
cot with his hands bound together as though he were a condemned man on a 
gurney. The state's high court soon barred Judge Griffen from hearing cases 
involving executions, capital punishment and the state's lethal injection 
protocol. Then, last week, lawmakers set the stage to impeach Judge Griffen. If 
they succeed, Griffen would become the 1st judge ever impeached in the state of 
Arkansas. While Wendell Griffen's future as a judge is in question, he has 
opted not to stay silent. Today he joins us in his 1st national television 
interview.

Judge Wendell Griffen, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about your 
actions - your ruling in a death penalty case and then going outside to protest 
outside the Arkansas Governor's Mansion? Welcome to Democracy Now!

JUDGE WENDELL GRIFFEN: Thank you, Amy. Thank you, Juan.

First of all, let me correct the narrative. The case in which I ruled was not a 
death penalty case. The case involved a complaint by a distributor of a 
pharmaceutical product, a drug, that had - that drug obtained by the Arkansas 
Department of Corrections under false pretenses. The drug was obtained, and the 
distributor sought to get the drug back. The distributor filed a motion for a 
temporary restraining order on Good Friday, the afternoon of Good Friday, 
shortly before I was going to attend a prayer vigil that our congregation had 
scheduled in front of the Governor's Mansion. Based on the law that governs 
contracts and property - basically, property law - I found that the distributor 
had a case and that the distributor's chance of having its property returned 
was likely to be destroyed, unless I entered temporary restraining order. I 
entered the temporary restraining order, went to the prayer vigil, and the 
ruling was incorrectly reported as a ruling as blocking executions. Actually, 
the effect of the temporary restraining order was to simply hold the status 
quo, to simply say to everybody, "Listen, do not dispose of this drug until we 
can get all of the parties before me and we can sort this out, whether or not 
the Department of Corrections correctly has the right to hold this drug, or 
whether or not this drug in fact was wrongly obtained." The evidence before me 
showed it was wrongly obtained. And so I did what I was supposed to do.

Now, I also went to the - I also went to the prayer vigil. That's what I'm 
supposed to do. I'm a pastor. Good Friday is the religious holiday before 
Easter when followers of Jesus commemorate the death of Jesus. Our congregation 
had planned to have our Good Friday observance in front of the Governor's 
Mansion before this motion was submitted to me. And so, as a pastor, as a 
follower of Jesus, I went to the Good Friday prayer vigil. And as a follower of 
Jesus, in solidarity with the religion of Jesus, I lay on a cot to show my 
solidarity with Jesus, who was a condemned man, condemned by the Roman Empire 
to death. And so that's what happened.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Judge Griffen, were you surprised by the firestorm that followed 
your participation in that vigil, and the calls for your impeachment?

JUDGE WENDELL GRIFFEN: I was surprised that there was such a refusal to even 
ask about the facts. The case, as I mentioned earlier, was not a death penalty 
case. It was a case about the return of wrongfully obtained property. I was 
surprised that people did not understand that no matter what my views are on 
the death penalty, the law on the right to get your property back is the law on 
getting your property back. And no matter who the judge is, that law has to be 
followed. As a matter of fact, after the Arkansas Supreme Court removed me from 
the case, the judge who took that case after me heard the same case, heard the 
same facts and ruled the same way. So, the issue is not what one's view is or 
what people want one's view to be about capital punishment. The issue is 
whether or not a judge will follow the law regardless of how he or she feels 
about an issue. I did that. Now, what surprised me is that people who claim to 
believe in the integrity of judiciary and judicial independence now somehow 
believe that judicial independence is a threat, so that they believe that 
judges who follow the law should be impeached. That surprises me. And really, 
it disappoints me.

AMY GOODMAN: Judge Griffen, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge told KTHV 
it was inappropriate for you to participate in the Good Friday protest against 
the death penalty. She suggested it impacted your decision to grant a temporary 
restraining order on the use of the execution drug. This is what she said.

ATTORNEY GENERAL LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Those actions are inappropriate, and that's 
why we have asked the Supreme Court to vacate Judge Griffen's temporary 
restraining order, and that it is inappropriate for Judge Griffen to be on this 
case.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Judge Griffen, state Senator Trent Garner questioned whether 
your views on the death penalty threaten your ability to be fair and impartial 
as a judge. This is Garner speaking to Fox 16.

SEN. TRENT GARNER: Making a public statement, a protest, in front of the 
Governor's Mansion is unacceptable. It's a disgrace to the judiciary system.

AMY GOODMAN: So I wanted to get your response to both of these people, Judge 
Griffen, and also if you can describe the scene outside the Arkansas Governor's 
Mansion when you did lay down on that cot.

JUDGE WENDELL GRIFFEN: Let's talk about the scene. First of all, members of our 
congregation were present at the Governor's Mansion. There were also other 
persons present, other persons who were protesting the death penalty. They all 
had a right to be there. Our congregation had no right to chase off other 
people. And other people had no right to expect that our congregation would not 
be present. And, in fact, our congregation led the protesters in singing "This 
Little Light of Mine" and "Amazing Grace." Those are songs of our faith. And 
so, we did, as the followers of Jesus' congregation, what we had a right to do. 
And as a judge, I did what I had a right to do as a citizen, by practicing my 
faith. That's not disgraceful. That's American. That's democratic. We believe, 
because of the First Amendment, that every person has the right to live out his 
or her conscience. As a judge, I have an obligation to follow the law. That 
means that when a case comes before me, I have an obligation, as a judge, to 
apply the law that applies to that state, no matter what my personal views may 
be on an issue. It is not disgraceful for a judge to have views one way or the 
other way about capital punishment or anything else. It is not disgraceful for 
a judge who holds views to hold those views and decide cases involving those 
issues. What is inappropriate is for people to believe that when a judge 
decides a case according to the law, he or she should somehow be suspected as 
not being faithful to the law simply because he or she is faithful to their 
faith. "Faithful to faith" and "faithful to law" are not mutually exclusive 
terms. We can be faithful to our faith and faithful to the law, and the law can 
be followed even when we, as a people of faith, find questions about the law. 
And I think that's something that we have to understand.

Now, let me speak about Attorney General Rutledge. Attorney General Rutledge 
represented the Department of Corrections, the governor of Arkansas and the 
director of the Department of Corrections in the lawsuit in which the 
distributor was trying to get its drug back. If Attorney General Rutledge 
believed that I was not qualified to decide the case, she had an obligation, as 
a lawyer, to bring that issue up before me. She didn't do so. She did not tell 
me she was bringing the issue before the Supreme Court when she did that. The 
Supreme Court did not tell me that it was considering Attorney General 
Rutledge's motion to disqualify me when it did so. The Supreme Court did not 
give me an opportunity to tell the Supreme Court what the facts were, before it 
removed me from the case and disqualified me from hearing all death penalty 
cases in Arkansas or any case involving the death penalty. That's unfair, 
because no matter how thinly you pour it, every pancake's got at least 2 sides. 
And part of what a judge is supposed to do is hear all the sides. It's 
unethical for judges to refuse to hear the sides simply because 1 side doesn't 
want the other side heard. And it's unethical for a lawyer who's supposed to be 
representing the judges - the attorney general of Arkansas represents judges - 
to basically go behind a judge's back and try to have a judge removed, without 
even telling the judge that she's doing so and giving the judge opportunity - a 
chance to hire their own lawyer and set the record straight on what the facts 
are. So, I am not concerned about my conduct. I'm very concerned about the 
conduct of the attorney general and the conduct of our Supreme Court, because, 
ethically, our justice system depends upon people trusting that our officials 
will follow the law. And when the attorney general of Arkansas doesn't follow 
the law, when the Supreme Court doesn't follow the rules that say that every 
dispute must be heard by all sides, people are going to have questions. If they 
will not follow the procedures when it affects a judge, how can they expect the 
procedure to be followed when it affects people who are ordinary citizens? So 
I'm concerned about that. And I think we should all be concerned about that.

Now, as to Senator Garner, I think that we should all be concerned about the 
notion that a legislator believes that it's something somehow undemocratic for 
people to think about issues affecting public policy. What's undemocratic about 
practicing your faith? What's disgraceful about living according to your faith? 
And what's disgraceful about following the law even when you have to follow the 
law and have questions about an issue involving the law? By point of fact, I 
followed the law in another case involving the death penalty where I refused to 
allow an amended complaint to challenge the Arkansas death penalty case, 
because the Arkansas Supreme Court had said the death penalty inmates could no 
longer challenge the constitutionality of the death penalty. I followed the law 
in that case, even though I oppose the death penalty. So, when Trent Garner 
says to me, and to the world, "Judge Griffen is disgraceful," I don't 
understand how he defines "disgrace," because, quite frankly, by following the 
Supreme Court's ruling, I disprove his claim of disgrace. By following the 
Supreme Court's ruling, I disprove Attorney General Rutledge's notion that I 
can't follow the law. And by not allowing me to tell the Supreme Court that, 
the Supreme Court basically has prevented me from letting the record be made 
clear.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Judge Griffen, this is not the 1st time you've been involved, 
obviously, in controversy over your personal views. You've been - you're a 
native of Little Rock, Arkansas. You've openly voiced support for raising the 
minimum wage, for opposition to the war in Iraq and opposition to demonizing of 
immigrants and LGBT people. Have you - could you talk about the reactions 
you've gotten in the past to your personal views?

JUDGE WENDELL GRIFFEN: Thank you, Juan. I think, really, that is what we're 
really talking about here. The issue is not whether or not I followed the law 
on Good Friday. The issue really is - and I think Trent Garner has made this 
very clear. Senator Trent Garner has made it clear. He has a long-standing 
objection to the fact that Wendell Griffen, as a person, and Wendell Griffen, 
as a judge, holds views about public policy and life that he finds 
objectionable. I believe that people should earn a living wage, and I'm not 
afraid to say so. I believe that it is wrong for us to demonize immigrants, for 
us to pick on our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, for us to marginalize people 
because they are different. I supported marriage equality. I am glad that we 
have finally in Arkansas embraced the notion that all persons are entitled to 
live out their love openly and honestly without being demonized for it and 
having to be forced to live in the shadows. There are people who find my 
perspective on life and on faith abhorrent. They have a right to do that. But 
they don't have a right as public officials to punish me or to try to punish 
anybody else simply because they disagree with what I view life should be.

I think that we, as public officials, have a responsibility to honor the 
freedom in this society to disagree. That's a wonderful thing. And it is 
something very dishonorable - we have a word for it, "tyranny" - something very 
dishonorable when we use power to punish people with whom we disagree. And so, 
this issue involving impeachment is nothing that I need to think about, other 
than simply the latest effort to punish a judge, a black judge - I will say it, 
a black judge - with whom the white power structure in Arkansas disagrees. And 
I am a black judge and a black preacher. And just like the power structure 
disagreed with Martin King and found him objectionable, the power structure in 
Arkansas disagrees with Wendell Griffen and finds me objectionable. But I think 
that the important thing for me to remember is, if I am to be faithful to the 
law, I've got to follow the law, no matter whether the people agree with me or 
not, or whether people approve of me or not. If I'm going to be faithful to my 
faith, I've got to live true to my faith, even if people find my faith 
objectionable and even if they're willing to punish me for it. And I've got to 
be willing to say, "If you want to punish me for my faith, I'm going to live 
out my faith. You can decide whether to punish me."

AMY GOODMAN: Judge Griffen, we want to thank you so much for being with us. 
Judge Wendell Griffen, judge of the 6th Circuit for Pulaski County in Arkansas. 
This is Democracy Now! Stay with us.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace 
Report. I'm Amy Goodman in Chicago. Juan Gonzalez is in New York.

JUAN GONZALEZ: We're joined now by Mike Laux, civil rights attorney. He's one 
of the attorneys representing Judge Wendell Griffen, the Arkansas judge who is 
facing calls to be impeached for participating in an anti-death penalty 
protest. Can you talk about how unusual it is for a judge in Arkansas to face 
impeachment?

MIKE LAUX: Sure. Let me just say, first, thank you very much for having me. And 
I am just 1 of the attorneys that represents Judge Wendell Griffen. Also on our 
legal team is Mike Matthews of Foley & Lardner of Tampa, Florida, and Austin 
Porter of Little Rock, 2 great attorneys.

How rare is it? It's extremely rare. The latest version of the Arkansas 
Constitution was adopted in 1874. So, in almost 150 years, there has never been 
an effort to impeach a sitting judge the way that they're doing here with Judge 
Griffen.

And I think that, you know, you've really got to like kind of put this in 
context here. A lawyer smarter than myself recently said to me, "You know, 
normally when there is some type of a race against time involving an execution, 
that race against time is to save a life." Well, not here. This was a race 
against time to kill people before drugs expired. So I think it's important to 
always kind of see this entire kind of situation through that prism.

You know, going on after Judge Griffen is always kind of a challenge, because 
he's so eloquent, and he covers the bases so well. But let me just recap a bit 
here. Judge Griffen followed the law. On Good Friday, that TRO, or temporary 
restraining order, petition came before him. And it sought to maintain the 
status quo, so that these property issues could be settled. Again, McKesson 
claimed that the false pretenses were used to get the drug. This was the 
conservative thing to do. And the judge heard the petition. The elements were 
satisfied. The complaint was verified. Affidavits were attached. The movant 
alleged imminent risk of irreparable harm. When you check those boxes, you're 
supposed to grant the temporary restraining order. And that's what he did. The 
fact that it involved a paralytic in this kind of breakneck-paced execution 
schedule by the state of Arkansas is really immaterial to his decision.

So, you know, this is a witch hunt of the first order. Judge Griffen has been 
singled out because of his history of outspokenness, his history of advocacy on 
social issues. And this is just another attempt at trying to take him down, 
like so many attempts before.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, what happens now? The significance, if he is impeached, 
the 1st time a judge in Arkansas would be impeached, Mike Laux?

MIKE LAUX: Yeah, I mean, the possibilities are frightening and staggering. This 
is such an extraordinary measure that they're taking here, and it really speaks 
to the naked political motivation behind these maneuvers. You know, this 
happened on Good Friday. The TRO was entered on the 14th. Later that evening, 
literally hours after that, hours after the prayer vigil and the rally there at 
the Governor's Mansion, moments after that, you heard state senators and state 
representatives taking to the airwaves and making statements impugning Judge 
Griffen and threatening impeachment, a mere hour after this protest. And, you 
know, that really speaks, I think, to the zeal and the rabidness with which 
they are kind of approaching this matter. It's clear that they're trying to 
take Judge Griffen down. They saw an opportunity to do so, and they wasted no 
time in doing that. The problem is, is that this -

AMY GOODMAN: I want to - I want to thank you very much, Mike Laux, for joining 
us, one of the lawyers for Judge Wendell Griffen.

(source: democracynow.org)





OKLAHOMA:

Governor Fallin signs "Blue Lives Matter" law


It has been a hard year for law enforcement in Oklahoma.

"In the state of Oklahoma this year alone we've had 4 officers die in the line 
of duty, 2 of which have been murdered by suspects in the last 90 days. 2 of 
them have been murdered in less than two months," said Jerad Lindsey, chairman 
of the Tulsa Fraternal Order of Police.

Governor Mary Fallin has now signed into law the Blue Lives Matter in Oklahoma 
Act of 2017, which now ensures that it is a capital crime to kill a police 
officer. Not always the case before.

"That's a big part of the punishment is people have to understand what the 
outcomes are. Right now, it's a bit ambiguous in the law. Sometimes it is a 
capital offense to kill an officer in the line of duty, sometimes it's not," 
said Lindsey.

The bill now effectively turns it into a death sentence, offering either the 
option of the death penalty or life in prison without parole. The original 
author of the bill, panhandle representative Casey Murdock says the bill makes 
it difficult to just get life in prison.

"I don't know that it'll increase our number of executions. My hope is that it 
reduces or has a deterrent factor, and reduces the number of officers we have 
murdered in the line of duty," said Lindsey.

This law doesn't just cover the officers on the street, but also in prisons. 
Corrections officers are also protected by the Blue Lives Matter Law. The law 
goes into effect in November.

(source: KTUL news)

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

DA Shares Prosecution Concerns About Oklahoma's New Blue Lives Matter Law


The Blue Lives Matter bill signed by Gov. Mary Fallin last week, mandates that 
anyone convicted of killing a law enforcement officer be sentenced to life in 
prison, or receive the death penalty.

The bill will go into effect in November.

Payne and Logan County DA Laura Thomas is worried that the law will make 
prosecuting a suspected cop killer more difficult.

(source: 9news.com)






COLORADO:

Reasons to end the death penalty in Colorado


Re: "The death penalty is appropriate but impractical to carry out," May 6 
letter to the editor.

Letter-writer Ralph Shepherd's analysis of the high cost in time, labor and 
money to see a death sentence through to the end is spot-on correct. I 
completely agree. I would only add that there is also a "cost" for the victims' 
families. Waiting, waiting and waiting for finality and closure.

The Aurora theater shooting death penalty trial is the poster case for the 
enormous costs of pursing this route to conviction. And Nathan Dunlap is the 
poster person for the enormous costs following a death-penalty conviction. 
We're still waiting.

Colorado voters should demand an end to the death penalty in our state.

Stephen B. Pacetti, Lakewood

(source: Letter to the Editor, Denver Post)






WYOMING:

Judge Gives Prosecutors Time to Consider Death Penalty


A judge has given central Wyoming prosecutors a month to decide if they want to 
pursue the death penalty in a claw hammer killing in Riverton.

The Daily Ranger reports (bit.ly/2qK12pe) District Judge Norman Young gave 
Fremont County Attorney Pat LeBrun until June 3 to decide on the prosecution of 
27-year-old Florin Brandon Wyatt for the March 3 beating death of 56-year-old 
Keith Stephenson.

Court records say Wyatt had been living in Stephenson's basement and said that 
Stephenson had tried to kick him out of the house.

The public defender's office asked for the deadline because it would need to 
bring in an attorney certified to handle death penalty cases. Wyatt has pleaded 
not guilty to 1st-degree murder. His trial is set for Sept. 25.

The last execution in Wyoming was in 1992.

(source: Associated Press)






ARIZONA:

Death penalty possible for accused child killers


Ame Deal died alone and terrified stuffed into a plastic toy box.

She stole a popsicle and was just 10 years old.

Her death ended a harrowing cycle of abuse at the hands of people who were 
supposed to love her.

Later this week her cousin, Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen, and her husband, 
John Michael Allen, both 28, are going on trial for Ame's murder.

And looming on the table is the death penalty. The duo have pleaded not guilty.

In total, 6 people were arrested and charged in connection to the sad little 
girl's senseless death.

Already her grandmother, 2 aunts and her biological father, David Deal, have 
been hammered with long jolts in prison for their roles in her tragic life and 
death.

Her mother fled the abuse and torment from the hillbilly headcases years 
before.

Phoenix police Det. Trent Crump told the New Times he had never seen anything 
like the barbaric torture and abuse Ame suffered.

"Simply put, no. It makes you just sick to your stomach," Crump said.

The details are sickening.

Her sinister relatives forced her to eat dog feces, crush aluminum cans with 
her barefeet, eat hot sauce, kicked her in the face, beaten senseless with a 
wooden paddle and being dunked to the point of drowning in the swimming pool.

Investigators wrote about life for the girl: "The common theme is, Ame is bad, 
Ame lies, Ame steals, Ame is not allowed to play."

And then there was the box. It was 3 feet long by a foot wide and a foot deep.

When Ame's heartless guardians decided the little girl was out of line, in she 
went.

And that's where she was found lifeless in July 2011.

Once, her father put her in the box then tossed it into the pool.

There were also 10 other children in the home. Tami Sweeney adopted one of them 
and read his victim impact statement in court to David Deal.

"I hope you burn in hell for everything you did to us kids," the impact 
statement read.

David Deal - on his way to 14 years in prison - sat stone-faced. He did not 
flinch.

(source: The Toronto Sun)






CALIFORNIA:

Suspect Could Face Death Penalty In Hayward Officer's Death


A judge Monday ordered an Oakland man to stand trial on a murder charge with 
three special circumstances for the fatal shooting of Hayward police Sgt. Scott 
Lunger during an early morning traffic stop 2 years ago.

At the end of a preliminary hearing that spanned three days, Alameda County 
Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner said, "There's very powerful evidence to 
support each and every charge" against 22-year-old Mark Estrada.

Now that Estrada has been ordered to stand trial, the Alameda County District 
Attorney's Office is expected to decide soon whether to seek the death penalty 
against him.

Lunger was shot near Myrtle and Lion streets in Hayward at about 3:15 a.m. on 
July 22, 2015, and was pronounced dead at Eden Medical Center in Castro Valley 
a short time later.

The special circumstance allegations against Estrada are for murder of a peace 
officer during the course of his duties, committing a murder while lying in 
wait and committing a murder by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle.

Prosecutor John Brouhard played a recording in court Monday of a police 
dispatch of Lunger's last words, in which he said over the police radio that he 
was stopping a white Chevrolet Silverado truck driven by Estrada because it was 
"swerving all over the road and almost hit a few cars."

Hayward police Officer Justin Green testified that the truck driver fired at 
Lunger shortly after Lunger approached the truck.

Brouhard said the police dispatch recording is "chilling" because he believes 
it indicates that Estrada didn't immediately stop his truck after Lunger 
flashed his warning lights but instead slowly drove to the end of Lion Street 
and took the time to "prepare and arm himself with a gun" so he could shoot 
Lunger when he approached.

"(Estrada) waits and watches for Sgt. Lunger to move into place where the 
defendant can be more successful with his plan to shoot and kill,' Brouhard 
said. "There was a period of waiting and watching that put Sgt. Lunger at a 
disadvantage."

But Estrada's attorney Christopher Morales said lying-in-wait cases usually 
involve a suspect who has a grudge against a person or a group and there's no 
evidence that Estrada knew Lunger or had a grudge against police officers as a 
group.

Morales also said such cases normally involve a suspect who is waiting for a 
victim for "a substantial period of time."

However, Horner said "even a short period of waiting" is sufficient for the 
lying-in-wait clause to apply.

Referring to the period between the time that Lunger flashed his warning lights 
at Estrada and the time that Lunger was shot, Horner said, "In terms of real 
life and every day law enforcement experiences, 68 seconds seems like a 
lifetime."

Green testified that after the truck driver shot Lunger, Green fired multiple 
rounds into the truck but the suspect, later identified by police as Estrada, 
managed to drive away.

Hayward police investigators testified that the evidence indicates that Estrada 
abandoned his truck at 98th and Edes avenues in East Oakland and later walked 
into San Leandro Hospital to be treated for his gunshot wounds.

Authorities contacted Estrada at San Leandro Hospital but eventually moved him 
to Highland Hospital in Oakland to be treated for a gunshot wound to his left 
lower flank above his waist.

Estrada admitted to a doctor that he was shot while he was in the driver's seat 
of his vehicle near A Street in Hayward but wouldn't say who had shot him, 
police said.

When police searched the crime scene, they found a 9mm handgun, unexpended 
rounds and an associated magazine, according to testimony at Estrada's hearing.

Officers testified that during a search of Estrada's residence in the area of 
107th Avenue and Beverly Street in East Oakland, they found 9mm ammunition, 9mm 
casings and surveillance video that showed 3 people arriving at the house at 
4:48 a.m. on July 22, 2015, 1 of whom was limping.

They also said the suspect's vehicle had bullet holes on the driver's side 
consistent with the bullets that were fired by the officer who was with Lunger.

Estrada's hearing was attended by Lunger's family members, a large number of 
Hayward police officers and a large contingent of Estrada's family members and 
friends.

Horner ordered Estrada to return to court on May 19 to have a trial date set.

(source: CBS News)

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

Bernie Sanders Honored In Beverly Hills For Opposition to Death 
Penalty----Sanders received the award for being the 1st presidential candidate 
in nearly 30 years to declare his opposition to the death penalty.


Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was honored for his opposition to the death penalty 
in Beverly Hills on Sunday, 1 day after expressing optimism about creating "a 
government which works for all of us."

Sanders received the Abolition Award at the 26th annual Death Penalty Focus 
Awards Dinner at The Beverly Hilton for being the first presidential candidate 
in nearly 30 years to forcefully declare his opposition to the death penalty 
and playing a key role in getting the Democratic Party to adopt abolition of 
capital punishment as a plank in its platform, organizers said.

His wife Jane presented him with the award. The dinner was organized by Death 
Penalty Focus, which describes itself as one of the world's largest 
organizations solely dedicated to the abolition of the death penalty.

Sanders and his wife Jane received the Public Servants of the Year award from 
the nonprofit nonpartisan public interest group Consumer Watchdog on Saturday 
night at the Beverly Wilshire.

In his acceptance speech, Sanders said "unless we develop a movement in this 
country from coast to coast which is prepared to take on oligarchy, which is 
prepared to take on the Trump administration and the corporate greed that is 
destroying the middle class ... the outcome for this country will not be good.

But I do believe, having been all over this country, having talked to well over 
a million people... that we are coming together and that we are going to create 
a government which works for all of us and not just the 1 %."

(source: City News Service)






USA:

A more honest approach to executions


Capital punishment in America resembles a mild chronic disease that we've 
learned to live with. Most of the time it resides quietly in semi-remission, 
though occasionally it flares up enough for us to notice it, but not enough to 
make us take the cure.

A flare up at the end of April briefly caught our attention. Officials in 
Arkansas were planning to execute 8 men in 11 days, largely because the supply 
of midazolam, a sedative used as part of Arkansas' lethal injection protocol, 
was set to expire at the end of the month. Since the drug's manufacturers are 
reluctant to have their product associated with the death penalty, the state 
could not be certain of resupply.

Even though Americans - by a diminishing margin - still favor capital 
punishment, we prefer a careful, deliberate application of this most 
irrevocable of punishments. We're uncomfortable with the idea of squeezing 8 
executions in at the end of a month just to beat an expiration date.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer noted this arbitrary factor in his dissent 
to the 5-4 decision that allowed the executions to go forward: "In my view, 
that factor, when considered as a determining factor separating those who live 
from those who die, is close to random."

Further, Americans are uncomfortable with mass executions, as well. Ordinarily, 
single executions, spaced over time, are mostly unnoticed, but the idea of 8 
deaths in 11 days makes some a little queasy.

As it happened, only 4 of the 8 were actually put to death, but Arkansas made 
news when it executed 2 of the condemned within 3 hours on April 24, carrying 
out the 1st double execution since 2000.

Our reaction against killing more than 1 condemned man at a time is emotional 
rather than logical. But America's death rows currently house nearly 3,000 
inmates. Many states face the same problem obtaining lethal drugs that Arkansas 
faces. Some states have considered bringing back the firing squad, electric 
chair or hangman's noose.

There's nothing in the current logic of capital punishment in the United States 
that would prevent it, but most of us would be disgusted by the spectacle of a 
couple of thousand of the worst of these inmates being bussed to secluded 
shooting ranges and executed by firing squads on a single day.

Historically, mass executions are common. As recently as last year Saudi Arabia 
executed 47 during a single day by beheading and hanging. The U.S. hasn't held 
such an event since Dec. 26, 1862, when 38 Sioux "Indians and Half-breeds" were 
hanged on a specially built gallows in Mankato, Minnesota.

Even capital punishment's strongest proponents might have trouble stomaching a 
mass execution like this one. Our sensibilities have moved in a better 
direction.

Which helps explain an anomaly connected to the episode in Arkansas: the state 
began to run out of people to witness the executions.

Like many other death penalty states, Arkansas requires witnesses who have no 
connection to the case to be present at executions. The witness shortage for 
the 8 planned executions was serious enough that the director of the Department 
of Correction made a public appeal to members of the Little Rock Rotary Club.

We haven't always had this problem. The last public execution, the hanging of 
Rainey Bethea on Aug. 14, 1936, reportedly drew a crowd of 20,000 people.

After 1936, legislatures began to recoil at the unseemly spectacle of throngs - 
often picnicking and drinking heavily - showing up for public executions, and 
they took them out of the public view.

I wonder if this was a good idea. Lethal injection is the culmination of a 
trend that makes executions less grisly and thus more palatable. We've also 
made them more or less invisible, until something like the Arkansas episode 
crops up.

I wonder if we would tolerate executions quite so readily if we actually had to 
watch them. Perhaps we'd soon join the rest of the western world in abolishing 
this practice, which is thoroughly suited to outmoded cultural sensibilities 
that accepted slavery, torture, child labor and human sacrifice.

(source: Column; John M. Crisp, an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service, 
teaches in the English Department at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, 
Texas----Times record News)