[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ARK., KAN., S. DAK., CALIF., WASH., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 5




ARKANSAS:

Hearing to dismiss murder case urged for former Arkansas death row inmate



The attorney for former death row inmate Rickey Dale Newman has asked a judge 
for an Oct. 11 hearing to dismiss the 16-year-old murder case against her 
client.

Julie Brain of Philadelphia made the request Monday to Crawford County Circuit 
Judge Gary Cottrell after special prosecutor Ron Fields wrote Cottrell that he 
would be prepared to file statements and motions in Newman's case by the end of 
next week.

Brain's letter to Cottrell said she expected the Arkansas Supreme Court to 
issue a mandate Oct. 10 on its ruling Sept. 21 rejecting Fields' appeal of 
Cottrell's order that barred Fields from using at Newman's first-degree murder 
trial confessions he made after his arrest in 2001.

Cottrell ruled the confessions were inadmissible because the state Supreme 
Court ruled in 2014 that Newman was mentally incompetent at the time and could 
not knowingly waive his Miranda rights.

Also on Sept. 21 Cottrell wrote a letter to Fields instructing him to advise 
him within 10 days whether he planned to continue prosecuting the murder charge 
against Newman, given the state Supreme Court's ruling.

Fields responded Monday that he was preparing "written statements and motions" 
to file by Oct. 13 barring revisions to the opinion before the mandate is 
issued or other actions by the Arkansas attorney general's office, which 
handled the appeal.

Brain wrote to Cottrell that Fields' response ignored Cottrell's instructions 
and "is the latest in a long line of attempts by the state to delay the 
resolution of the case by any means necessary."

Newman, 60, was convicted of capital murder and condemned to death in a 1-day 
trial in June 2002 in the mutilation slaying of 46-year-old fellow transient 
Marie Cholette at a transient camp on the west end of Van Buren.

Brain told Cottrell in her letter Monday that the confessions were "the only 
meaningful evidence" against Newman. Brain had argued in earlier motions there 
was no other evidence linking Newman to Cholette's death.

The only evidence that put Newman and Cholette together was a surveillance 
video of the two at a Fort Smith liquor store on the last day Cholette was seen 
alive.

"It would be grossly unjust to require Mr. Newman to remain incarcerated for 
even one single day beyond the issuance of the mandate so that the state can 
file unspecified 'written statements and motions,'" she wrote.

In the state Supreme Court's 2014 opinion, the court threw out Newman's 
conviction and death sentence and ordered him back to circuit court in Crawford 
County to be restored to competence and retried.

Acting as his own attorney, Newman told jurors he killed Cholette and wanted 
the death penalty. He successfully waived his appeals and was scheduled to be 
executed July 26, 2005. Brain and another attorney persuaded Newman to seek a 
stay, which Newman agreed to four days before his execution date.

A federal judge granted the stay after evidence was presented questioning 
Newman's mental competence and he, through Brain, took up his appeals.

(source: arkansasonline.com)








KANSAS:

High Court upholds Gleason death penalty



The United States Supreme Court Monday rejected convicted killer Sidney 
Gleason's appeal of his death penalty sentence, Barton County Attorney Amy 
Mellor announced Tuesday afternoon.

Gleason, 38, was convicted in 2006 of capital murder in the 2004 deaths of 
Mikiala "Miki" Martinez and Darren Wornkey in Barton County. Mellor said was 
charged with capital murder for killing Martinez and Wornkey, the aggravating 
kidnapping of Martinez, attempted 1st-degree murder and aggravated robbery of a 
3rd person, and criminal possession of a firearm.

Gleason was convicted in Barton County District Court on all counts except the 
attempted 1st-degree murder charge, Mellor said. The jury also determined that 
a sentence of death should be imposed.

However, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court approved the convictions but reversed 
Gleason's death sentence, finding error in the jury instructions. The Kansas 
Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in February of 2016 
that court reversed the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court regarding the 
death sentence.

When the case was returned to the Kansas Supreme Court, the justices affirmed 
the death penalty and Gleason appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a brief, 1-line sentence, the United States Supreme Court denied Gleason's 
appeal of the death sentence. As is traditional, the 9 justices did not give a 
reason for their decision.

Mellor said Gleason's direct appeals are over but he will probably attempt to 
exhaust other avenues in the courts before an execution date is set.

According to the Kansas Department of Corrections, Gleason remains incarcerated 
at Eldorado Correctional Facility.

An accomplice in the killings, Damien Thompson, agreed to plead guilty to the 
1st-degree murder of Martinez and testify against Gleason in exchange for a 
life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25 years.

(source: Great Bend Tribune)








SOUTH DAKOTA:

My Voice: Executions of intellectually disabled continue



In the United States, it's believed those with intellectual abilities far below 
average aren't executed. In 2002, the Atkins v. Virginia decision, ruled it 
unconstitutional to carry out death sentences against the intellectually 
disabled. However, the practice continues, revealing a pattern characterizing 
many cases in the justice system.

How can an unconstitutional practice continue? Just as it happened in a pivotal 
case in 1986, by treating a psychologist's evaluation of the prisoner as though 
it were free from bias, totally objective, when that was simply not the case. 
In that instance, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, which heard the 
final appeal to reverse the death sentence of Jerome Bowden, the Board ignored 
the perfectly valid intelligence test showing Bowden at age 14 to had an I.Q. 
of only 59. They brought in a psychologist of their choice, Dr. Irwin Knopf, 
had him evaluate the I.Q. of Bowden, who was poor, African American, and a 
gentle soul with no history of violence.

The board heard Knopf's report in closed session, after which the board's chair 
and other members spoke freely to the press about what Knopf had said, which 
amounted to the claim that Bowden's I.Q. was not low enough to warrant removing 
his death sentence. Their comments revealed serious problems with Knopf's 
conclusion. Bowden's attorneys immediately asked for a copy of the evaluation 
results, the Board said they would put them in the mail, and the lawyers 
replied that Bowden would be dead by the time they received them. Indeed, 
Bowden was killed the next morning, even before his beloved sisters had been 
notified. They heard about it from strangers.

There are at least 2 major limitations of the Atkins decision. The Bowden case 
reflects that administering and scoring of I.Q. tests is far from objective. 
Rules about how many correct answers yield a particular I.Q. score are based on 
tests of thousands of people throughout, but those have not included inmates of 
maximum security prisons where they eat terrible food, rarely see the sun, and 
have every reason to believe they will die there. To assign an inmate a number 
representing their intelligence with formulae derived from people in vastly 
different circumstances makes neither scientific nor moral sense.

The scoring booklet specifies which answers warrant 2 points, which only one, 
and which zero; but giving an I.Q. test requires judgment calls about responses 
that fail to fall clearly into any point-category. And instruction booklets 
prescribe test administration using specific words in a standardized way, but 
variations in a psychologist's voice, facial expressions, or tension can 
enhance or impede the prisoner's performance.

A psychologist's feelings about the death penalty can introduce distortions, as 
can whether the psychologist is an advocate or opponent of the death penalty, 
is racist or not (people condemned to death come disproportionately from 
racialized groups), is biased against poor people (the condemned are likely to 
be poor), is skilled at test procedure and interpretation, and likes or 
dislikes the prisoner. Psychologists favoring the death penalty can conceivably 
be so warm, supportive, and patient when administering the test and generous in 
their scoring that prisoners' scores will be overestimates of their pre-prison 
functioning, when few on death row had people treat them that way. 
Psychologists opposed to the death penalty might make prisoners uncomfortable 
to ensure they score low, but those whose reports always read, "The prisoner's 
I.Q. is below 70" won't keep their jobs for long and could lose their licenses.

Another life-or-death limitation of the Atkins decision is that different 
states set different criteria for classifying people "intellectually disabled," 
so there is a significant lack of equal protection under the law. A condemned 
person with a 67 I.Q. score qualifies for execution in a state with a cutoff 
point of 65 but not in a state with a cutoff of 70. For other criteria that may 
be taken into account - such as areas of difficulty in "adaptive functioning" - 
the room for subjective conclusions is even greater. Furthermore, many factors 
can lead to an individual's scoring 73, whereas taking the same test one day 
later or while hungry, they might have scored 68.

Few, if any, judges enjoy making life-altering decisions - whether in capital 
cases or child custody disputes in which young people's emotional, physical, 
and sexual welfare can be jeopardized by the biases of psychiatrists, 
psychologists, and social workers who do the "psych evals." What is alarming is 
the increasing trend for judges, traditionally and rightly skeptical people, to 
transfer the weighty burdens of making decisions from their own shoulders onto 
to those of mental health researchers and practitioners, whom they mistakenly 
treat as objective individuals who use behavioral sciences and psychological 
assessment to arrive at the Truth.

(source: Paula J. Caplan, Ph.D., a clinical and research psychologist, expert 
on psychological assessment and methodology, author of 11 nonfiction books, 
winner of 3 top awards for nonfiction writing, and filmmaker, is an associate 
at the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research, Harvard 
University. She is a keynote speaker for this Saturday's conference, sponsored 
by South Dakotans for Alternatives to the Death Penlaty, about the death 
penalty and mental illness, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Room 120, Salisbury Science 
Building, University of Sioux Falls----Argus Leader)








CALIFORNIA:

Jury calls for death in slayings of 5 at Long Beach homeless encampment

A Los Angeles County jury has called for the death penalty for a gang member 
who was convicted last month of the 2008 murder of 5 people at a Long Beach 
homeless encampment.

The jury deliberated for about 2 hours before deciding late Monday that David 
Cruz Ponce, 37, should be sentenced to death, Deputy Dist. Atty. Cynthia Barnes 
said.

Ponce was scheduled to return to court on Nov. 27 for sentencing.

Ponce and co-defendant Max Eliseo Rafael, 31, were found guilty in September of 
5 counts of murder and 1 count of kidnapping. The jury also found true special 
circumstance allegations of multiple murders, murder during a kidnapping and 
murder by an active member of a criminal street gang.

The Long Beach Police and Los Angeles County Sheriff's departments pieced the 
case together in a 3-year investigation.

In November 2008, police say, the 2 gang members were looking for a man who 
apparently owed them money for drugs. They located him in the encampment near 
the intersection of the 405 and 710 freeways and opened fire, killing him.

The gunmen then turned to 2 men and 2 women at the encampment, authorities say, 
killing them because they saw the 1st slaying.

They "were executed ... to ensure there were no witnesses to the crimes," Long 
Beach Police Lt. Lloyd Cox said.

The victims were Vanessa Malaepule, 34; her boyfriend Lorenzo Perez Villacana, 
44; Katherine Verdun, 24; Hamid "Sammy" Shraifat, 41; and Frederick Neumeier, 
53.

The 2 defendants talked about the murders in jailhouse conversations that were 
recorded, the prosecutor said.

Ponce also was convicted of the kidnapping and murder of Tony Bledsoe on March 
23, 2009.

Rafael faces up to life in prison without the possibility of parole when he is 
scheduled to be sentenced Nov. 16.

(source: Los Angeles Times)








WASHINGTON:

Death penalty still debatable



The state of Washington proposed to eliminate the death penalty this past year. 
Politicians did not move forward on the issue, apparently not sensing a clear 
mandate from their constituents. In this case, it means that criminal 
proceedings continue as part of a deeply flawed system that does not insure 
justice.

The death penalty is a long and expensive process and can involve many factors 
and outright mistakes when determining guilt and decision to execute. Race of 
the victim or the accused, social economic status of the victim, news media 
surrounding the crime, poor police work, an inexperienced defense lawyer, 
aggressive prosecutors determined to get a guilty verdict, a case of mistaken 
identification by the witness, inadequate jury instruction and information, 
even the appearance of the defendant can be an influence.

These considerations make guilt uncertain and innocent people are wrongly 
executed. To avoid this injustice, many of us favor a system of life 
imprisonment and restorative justice program. The idea that killing someone 
will somehow satisfy a need for justice and retribution has to be examined. 
Let's encourage our politicians to abolish a dangerously imperfect way of 
dealing with capital crimes.

(source: Bob Delastrada; Letter to the Editor, The Olympain)








USA:

Suspect in kidnapping of U. of I. scholar from China facing potential death 
penalty



Former University of Illinois graduate student Brendt Christensen could be 
eligible for the death penalty if convicted on new charges filed Tuesday 
alleging he kidnapped and killed a visiting scholar from China in June.

Christensen, 28, of Champaign, was charged in a superseding indictment with 1 
count of kidnapping resulting in a death stemming from the disappearance of 
26-year-old Yingying Zhang, whose body has not been found.

The federal grand jury returned the 4-page indictment with the special finding 
that Christensen committed the offense "in an especially heinous, cruel or 
depraved manner, in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse to the 
victim," and that the crime occurred after "substantial planning and 
premeditation."

The indictment also charged Christensen with two new counts of making false 
statements to FBI agents.

Christensen could face the death penalty if convicted on the new kidnapping 
charge, although the decision whether to seek it will be made at a later date 
by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, according to a news release from the 
U.S. attorney's office in Urbana. If the death penalty is not sought, a 
conviction on the kidnapping count would call for mandatory life without 
parole.

Christensen, who is being held without bond, is tentatively set to go to trial 
Feb. 27 before U.S. District Court Judge Colin Bruce. Reached by telephone 
Tuesday, his lawyer, Robert Tucker, said he had not seen the superseding 
indictment and had no comment.

The new charges were the latest twist to a case that rattled the University of 
Illinois campus and sent shock waves throughout China.

Prosecutors allege Zhang, who began her research appointment in April was on 
her way to sign a lease at an apartment building the afternoon of June 9 and 
unsuccessfully tried to flag down a bus before walking to another stop. Shortly 
after, federal authorities allege that Christensen approached Zhang in his car 
and lured her inside.

Surveillance video from a nearby parking garage captured the exchange in which 
Zhang could be seen speaking to the driver for several moments before getting 
into the front passenger seat. One of Zhang's professors reported her missing 
by that evening, after several calls and texts went unanswered.

The investigation homed in on Christensen after police concluded his Saturn 
Astra was the car seen in the footage. He initially told the FBI he was home 
all day playing video games on the day Zhang disappeared. When he was 
questioned a 2nd time 3 days later, Christensen changed his story, telling 
agents he was driving on campus, came across an Asian woman looking distressed 
and offered her a ride because she said she was late to an appointment.

Christensen said the woman panicked after he made a wrong turn, and he let her 
out of his car a few blocks from where they met. Meanwhile, police also 
searched his car and determined that the area where Zhang would have been 
sitting had been cleaned in a way to conceal evidence, FBI agents alleged in 
court documents.

Police also searched his phone and found visits to a sadomasochism fetish 
website with discussion threads on kidnapping fantasies.

The FBI also conducted audio surveillance on Christensen for several days, 
including when he attended a campus walk and vigil in Zhang's honor on June 29. 
There, Christensen was caught on tape pointing out people in the crowd and 
describing his "ideal victim."

Other surveillance tapes recorded Christensen allegedly admitting to having 
kidnapped Zhang, and describing how she fought back as he held her against her 
will, prosecutors said.

Police and prosecutors have not revealed the source of the recordings.

(source: Chicago Tribune)

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

Denouncing United States Vote Against Death Penalty Ban at the United Nations



On Friday, September 29, the Human Rights Council voted in favor of a 
resolution which condemned the "imposition of the death penalty as a sanction 
for specific forms of conduct, such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and 
consensual same-sex relations."

The Independent reported that the resolution, proposed by Belgium, Benin, Costa 
Rica, France, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia and Switzerland, denounced the use of 
the death penalty against persons with "mental or intellectual disabilities, 
persons below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, and 
pregnant women," expressing "serious concern that the application of the death 
penalty for adultery is disproportionately imposed on women."

The United States cast its support behind 2 amendments proposed by Russia which 
both ultimately failed, but claimed that the death penalty was "not necessarily 
'a human rights violation' and that it is not a form of torture, but can lead 
to it 'in some cases.'"

Despite this opposition from the United States, 27 members of the 47 in the 
Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution, and it passed.

There are currently 6 countries where the death penalty is used for people in 
same-sex relationships: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Nigeria and Somalia. 
This number rises to 8 if the ISIS-occupied territories of Iraq and Syria are 
included.

A spokesperson for the State Department, Heather Nauert, told The Independent: 
"The headlines, reporting and press releases on this issue are misleading. As 
our representative to the Human Rights Council in Geneva said on Friday, the 
United States is disappointed to have to vote against this resolution. We had 
hoped for a balanced and inclusive resolution that would better reflect the 
positions of states that continue to apply the death penalty lawfully, as the 
United States does. The United States voted against this resolution because of 
broader concerns with the resolution's approach in condemning the death penalty 
in all circumstances and calling for its abolition. The United States 
unequivocally condemns the application of the death penalty for conduct such as 
homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery and apostasy. We do not consider such 
conduct appropriate for criminalisation and certainly not crimes for which the 
death penalty would be lawfully available as a matter of international law."

The 13 states to oppose the resolution were Botswana, Burundi, Egypt, Ethiopia, 
Bangladesh, China, India, Iraq, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the US, and the 
United Arab Emirates.

The Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office's analysis of this vote is 
that it is deplorable that the United States again voted against friends and 
allies who favor the strengthening of global human rights laws, and with some 
of the world's worst human rights violators. US actions in supporting Russian 
failed amendments to state that the death penalty is not necessarily a human 
rights violation or a form of torture, again, puts the United States on the 
wrong side of the divide which separates those nations working for human rights 
and those working against them.

The ban clearly protects "specific forms of conduct, such as apostasy, 
blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations." Even the State 
Department's statement that it is "disappointed to have to vote against this 
resolution," does not absolve the US for not working to protect these "specific 
forms of conduct." It is true that the U.S. vote in Geneva is consistent with 
past U.S. votes on the issue of abolishing the death penalty. Prior 
administrations have voted in similar ways against the growing United Nations 
consensus that the death penalty should be abolished. Despite U.S. Government 
views to the contrary, the UU-UNO feels that the September 29 resolution was 
not a global condemnation of the death penalty, but restricted to "imposition 
of the death penalty as a sanction for specific forms of conduct, such as 
apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations."

As the United States does not impose the death penalty for such forms of 
conduct as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, consensual same-sex relations, it 
should have been able to vote in favor of the resolution. The fact that the 
United States joined human rights violators to vote against this important 
resolution is, in our view, deplorable.

(source: Bruce Knotts is the Director of the Unitarian Universalist United 
Nations Office----uua.org)

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

Nikki Haley says U.S. did not vote for gay death penalty



After siding with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Botswana and Qatar, 
Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley is denying that the U.S. voted in favor of the 
death penalty for gay people.

The United Nations' Human Rights Council voted 27-13 last week to condemn 
capital punishment in a variety of cases including against those in same sex 
relationships, though the U.S. was not in a majority.

While 7 countries also abstained from the vote, Haley's delegation voted 
against the measure along with other death penalty countries such as China.

Beyond condemning the state killing of LGBTQ people, the resolution also stood 
against the execution of those who were children at the time of the crime and 
called for study about racial bias in the death penalty, a frequent criticism 
of capital punishment in the U.S.

The vote gained renewed attention Tuesday after the Human Rights Campaign said 
that the Trump administration had shown a "blatant disregard" for the lives of 
gay people around the world.

"Ambassador Haley has failed the LGBTQ community by not standing up against the 
barbaric use of the death penalty to punish individuals in same-sex 
relationships," the organization's Ty Cobb said.

Susan Rice, ambassador to the UN under Barack Obama, said "shame on US!" in 
reaction to the vote.

"I was proud to lead U.S. efforts at UN to protect LGBTQ people, back in the 
day when America stood for human rights for all," she said.

The resolution was hailed as an international effort to protect LGBTQ people 
from persecution. Above, a gay pride demonstrator in Mexico City.

Haley later took issue with her critics on Twitter, saying "Fact: There was NO 
vote by USUN that supported the death penalty for gay people. We have always 
fought for justice for the LGBT community."

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert had told reporters earlier in the 
day saying that the U.S. condemns executions for and the criminalization of 
homosexuality, and that suggestions to the contrary are "misleading."

(source: nydailynews.com)