[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.H., PENN., MD., FLA., ALA.

[Rick Halperin]

April 4



TEXAS----impending execution

Death row inmate files appeal alleging he was high at time of slaying



With weeks to go before his scheduled execution, defense lawyers for Erick 
Davila are arguing that he should be spared death because he was high at the 
time of the slaying and didn't intend to kill more than 1 person.

The Fort Worth man was convicted of killing a rival gang member's mother and a 
5-year-old girl at a children's birthday party in 2008. He was sentenced to 
death in 2009 and is slated for execution on April 25. But his lawyers have 
long argued that Annette and Queshawn Stevenson were not his intended victims, 
according to court filings.

Instead, lawyers say in a Tarrant County court filing, he was aiming for rival 
gang member Jerry Stevenson. When he opened fire on a children's birthday 
party, he missed his mark - in part due to bad vision, lawyers say - and killed 
a grandmother and young child instead.

He was sent to death row for killing more than 1 person - but his attorney, 
Seth Kretzer, says he only meant to kill the one. And killing just 1 person is 
not necessarily a death-eligible crime.

"The jury never learned that at the time of the shooting Davila was heavily 
intoxicated, likely to the degree that it would have rendered him temporarily 
insane," Kretzer wrote in a court filing.

In February, lawyers questioning Davila's codefendent learned that the 
convicted triggerman was on a cocktail of PCP, weed, and ecstasy the day of the 
crime.

"The fact that Davila was high on such powerful chemicals at the time of the 
shooting would have been the perfect compliment to Davila's defense that he did 
not intend to harm any women or children," Kretzer wrote.

But, he argued, due to bad jury instructions, the jury didn't realize that they 
needed to find Davila intended to kill two people to find him guilty of capital 
murder in the case presented. Defense lawyers at the time failed to raise the 
issue.

Now, in a petition filed last week requesting a stay, Kretzer raises claims 
from bad lawyering to withheld evidence to bad jury instruction and targets 
Texas's capital sentencing scheme as unconstitutional.

(source: correctionsone.com)

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

Warden talks about life in Texas prisons during Isidro Delacruz death penalty 
hearing



A warden talked about the dynamics of prison life for an inmate who's on death 
row compared to life imprisonment as a jury mulls the fate of a San Angelo man 
convicted of capital murder.

A Tom Green County Jury on Thursday found Delacruz, 27, guilty of capital 
murder in the slaying of 5-year-old Naiya Villegas. Villegas, who is the 
daughter of Delacruz's ex-girlfriend, died after her the throat was slit at a 
home in the 2700 block of Houston Street on Sept. 2, 2014.

A senior warden with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said managing an 
inmate who's on death row is staff intensive compared any other prison 
sentences.

The expert witness said male death row inmates are sent to the Polunsky Unit in 
Livingston where they spend roughly 22 of 24 hours in solitary confinement.

He said meals are brought to their cells for example, and 2 guards must escort 
the inmate to any activity including showers, medical checkups or recreation.

The Polunsky Unit also houses other offenders including inmates who are charged 
with nonviolent crimes.

The warden said death row inmates, however, are isolated from other prisoners, 
excluded from prison educational and employment programs and are sharply 
restricted in terms of visitation and recreation.

He said the day starts with breakfast about 3 a.m.

The TDCJ has 5 inmate classifications that determine freedom and privileges, 
the warden said. Level 5 contains aggressive offenders while Level 4 inmates 
are those who chronically violate prison rules. A person sentenced to a life 
term is automatically deemed a Level 3.

Allison Palmer, 51st District Attorney, is prosecuting the case, the 1st 
capital murder in which the death penalty is being sought to go to trial since 
1999.

Robert R. Cowie, of the Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases, is court 
appointed to represent Delacruz.

Trial resumes Wednesday.

(source: gpsanangelo.com)








NEW HAMPSHIRE:

House Committee Takes up Death Penalty Repeal Bill



A bill to repeal New Hampshire's death penalty law is before a House committee.

Previous efforts to repeal the death penalty in the state have failed, but the 
latest attempt passed the Senate for the first time earlier this month. It 
would change the penalty for capital murder to life in prison without parole.

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu said his administration supports the death 
penalty, and he will veto the bill if it reaches his desk.

The bill would not change the fate of New Hampshire's only death row inmate, 
Michael Addison, who was convicted of murdering Manchester Police Officer 
Michael Briggs in 2006.

The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee is holding a public 
hearing on the bill Wednesday.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Don't repeal the death penalty - add hate crimes



In August 1997 a state trooper approached a man named Carl about a possible 
motor vehicle violation in an IGA parking lot in Colebrook. Carl took a rifle 
out of his truck and killed the trooper. A 2nd trooper arrived and Carl killed 
him before he could even get out of his cruiser.

Carl then stole a cruiser and drove to Colebrook District Judge Vickie 
Bunnell's office. As the judge ran for an exit, she was shot to death in the 
back. Carl then killed the editor of the local paper.

Later that day in various firefights, Carl shot and wounded 4 more officers 
before he was killed by law enforcement.

Had Carl Drega only been wounded, he would have faced 3 counts of capital 
murder for 2 law enforcement murders and that of a judge. It is for the Carl 
Dregas of the world that we have the death penalty. I fully support our limited 
statute on the death penalty eligible crimes like murder for hire or killing a 
prison guard, cop or judge while in the line of duty.

Our constitution explicitly provides that someone may be deprived of life as 
long as it is pursuant to due process of law. 18 years ago the legislature 
repealed the death penalty. Then Governor, Jeanne Shaheen, vetoed the bill 
saying:

"The advent of DNA testing reduces the likelihood that innocent people will be 
convicted of crimes ... New Hampshire has an excellent public defender program 
and our criminal defense bar is among the best in the country....a jury of 12 
first must unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused 
committed every element of the charged offense. Then, in a separate sentencing 
phase, the jury must also unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that at 
least 2 "aggravating" factors exist, and that the aggravating factors outweigh 
any "mitigating" factors that may exist."

Her statement still captures the situation today.

Let's look at one part of our law. Why include prison guards in the group 
protected by our law? Because our prison guards do not carry weapons and they 
work in an extremely difficult and violent environment with nothing but the 
worst convicted felons in the state. The ratio is often 50 or 60 inmates alone 
per corrections officer.

If there is no down side for someone serving life for murder, then why not kill 
a prison guard if nothing changes for that inmate? Would you want to work in an 
environment where there is no viable deterrent to having your life taken?

The death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence. Why is it 
nearly 100% of those convicted murderers subject to the death penalty do 
everything they can to avoid execution? The Parkland shooter is a good recent 
example. He wants to plead guilty if he can avoid the death penalty.

After having a trial in which Michael Addison's lawyer conceded that Addison 
had shot Officer Briggs and a judge and jury found in favor of capital 
punishment, Senate Bill 593 would overturn that ongoing judicial process.

3 years ago when Connecticut repealed the death penalty, its high court pointed 
out that every state in which this has occurred has resulted in cancelling all 
pending capital punishment sentences. As the Connecticut Supreme Court said in 
State v. Santiago in 2015:

"no state or nation ever has executed someone after a prospective only repeal 
of the death penalty."

Why should the legislature act to interfere in the ongoing judicial process for 
Michael Addison?

Rather than do that why not do something to deter murders committed by those 
motivated by hate because that category of killers deserve capital punishment.

In recent years we have seen a rise in crimes motivated by hatred of a group's 
race, religion or sexual orientation. One of the worst was the 2015 wanton and 
intentional murder of nine black worshippers at a famous church in Charleston, 
South Carolina. Luckily, the federal government has capital punishment for such 
hate crimes and Dylann Roof will rightly pay the price for his evil acts.

A year later 49 people were killed in an attack on a gay nightclub. In August 
of 2017, in this state an 8 year old biracial boy was almost killed when some 
teenagers tried to lynch him in Claremont. Had they succeeded and if the 
perpetrators were of age, they should face society's ultimate price, the 
penalty of death.

Why should the Dylann Roofs of this world who said "I do not regret what I 
did," be spared?

It is time to add hate crime murders to our death penalty statute, not repeal 
it.

(source: Letter; Chuck Douglas is a former New Hampshire Supreme Court justice 
and is an attorney in Concord. As Legal Counsel to the Governor in 1974 he 
helped revise the death penalty law with then Attorney General Warren 
Rudman----fosters.com)








PENNSYLVANIA:

Defense: Spare mother death penalty in daughter's 1998 death



A judge is considering a defense request to lift the death penalty from a woman 
convicted in the starvation death of her 7-year-old daughter 2 decades ago and 
resentence her to life in prison without possibility of parole.

49-year-old Michelle Sue Tharp was convicted of the 1998 death of daughter 
Tausha Lee Lanham. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the conviction but 
ordered a new sentencing hearing, saying her public defender was ineffective.

The (Washington) Observer-Reporter reports that Tharp's attorneys argued Monday 
that relatives and medical professionals with direct knowledge of the case have 
died in the intervening years.

Washington County prosecutors argue that the testimony can still be presented 
to jurors. But defense attorneys want the judge not to empanel jurors but 
instead to sentence Tharp to life.

(source: Associated Press)








MARYLAND:

Carey Law Professor Wins SCOTUS Death Penalty Case



University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law professor Lee Kovarsky, 
JD, prevailed 9-0 in a significant United States Supreme Court victory that 
will give a Texas death row inmate another chance to access funds that might 
lead to reconsideration of his sentence.

On March 21, 2018, justices unanimously ruled in the Ayestas v. Davis PDF that 
a lower court was too restrictive in its reading of a federal law that provides 
assistance in capital cases that is "reasonably necessary."

A Texas 5th circuit court judge denied Carlos Manuel Ayestas funds for 
investigative services due to ineffective counsel on the grounds the defendant 
must show "substantial need."

Kovarsky, who has worked on dozens of death penalty cases, argued that a 
"substantial need" standard is more demanding and imposes a heavier burden on 
the defendant than the "reasonably necessary" standard prescribed in the 
federal statute. The court agreed 9-0.

While Kovarsky is encouraged by the justices' "unanimity behind the abstract 
idea that poor people facing the death penalty are entitled to an effective 
defense, just like everyone else," he says more needs to be done. "We just have 
to get better at delivering legal services to the people who can't afford 
them."

Carey Law Dean Donald Tobin, JD, congratulated Kovarsky, saying, "A 9-0 victory 
in a case involving the death penalty is an incredible accomplishment. This 
case is really about access to justice. It provides more opportunity for 
low-income individuals to obtain funds for investigation necessary for 
meaningful defense and fair representation."

(source: umaryland.edu)








FLORIDA:

A decade later, the case of a mass shooting at a birthday party finally goes to 
trial



When Sophia Alexis arrived for a 7-year-old's birthday party featuring a Spider 
Man theme in North Miami-Dade, she spotted a friend lying wounded on the ground 
outside a suburban home.

Barely audible, Shantara Maynard asked Alexis to check on her 2 children near 
the porch. "They were bleeding," Alexis testified Tuesday.

Alexis frantically ran to the backyard to search for another friend, Carla 
Queely. She found her inside the house next to her son, Chaquone, the birthday 
boy. "She was lying on the floor," she recalled. "Her arm was shaking. I said, 
'Carla, get up.'"

No response.

Alexis was the 1st witness to take the stand in the death-penalty trial of Sean 
Condell, 34, who is charged with murdering Queely and her son, execution-style, 
more than 11 years ago. Miami-Dade police say Condell told detectives that he 
shot them at close range so they could not identify him. He and 4 others 
targeted the North Miami-Dade house in a robbery ambush because they mistakenly 
believed there was a safe full of cash inside, police say.

Queely and her son, Chaquone, were not the only victims of the mass shooting at 
the boy's birthday party on Oct. 14, 2006, according to the state attorney's 
office. Sisters Shantara and Ann Maynard - along with Shantara's 2 children - 
were shot point-blank in the head but survived the horrific ambush that spurred 
a massive police manhut for the killers.

Condell's partner, Jose Estache, 37, who is accused of shooting the 2 sisters 
and 2 children, will be tried separately.

3 other defendants charged in the bloody robbery attempt - Rayon Samuels, Bjon 
Lee and Damian Lewis - pleaded guilty to 2nd-degree murder, received 20-year 
prison sentences and are expected to testify against Condell as well as 
Estache. Samuels was the driver who took Condell and Estache over to the home 
in the 20500 block of Northeast Ninth Place, prosecutor say.

Condell's 1st-degree murder case took more than a decade to reach trial before 
Circuit Judge Ellen Sue Venzer because of the difficult cooperation deals and 
voluminous witness depositions.

At Tuesday's trial, prosecutors said the 2 robbers broke into the North 
Miami-Dade home armed with three guns, flex cuffs and gloves, and demanded to 
know if a man named "Haitian Pete" was keeping a cash-filled safe in the 
residence. They thought Haitian Pete was the boyfriend of Ann Maynard, who 
owned the home.

Prosecutors portrayed Condell as a cold killer who confessed to shooting Queely 
and her son at close range as they cried, after Estache shot the Maynard 
sisters and the two other children as they tried to escape during the home 
invasion.

"The joy of that day ended when Sean Condell pointed his gun at the mother and 
her son," Assistant State Attorney David Gilbert told the Miami-Dade jury 
during opening statements. "Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.... All 6 shots 
hit. Not one shot missed."

Gilbert called the shootings a "moment of hell" that led to initial confusion 
over the identities of the 2 gunmen who ambushed the house. An off-duty police 
officer who lived in the neighborhood heard the gunshots, assisted the victims 
and helped Miami-Dade detectives with their investigation, he said.

The off-duty cop saw Estache flee the house and run across the street, Gilbert 
said.

Eventually, Condell confessed that he was the other shooter. "I was in the 
house and it was me," Gilbert said, paraphrasing Condell's statement to 
detectives. "You will hear the defendant in his own words tell you what 
happened."

Despite the confession, Condell's defense attorney, Richard Houlihan, told the 
jurors that the state's case is a "theory."

"There is 1 problem with their theory," said Houlihan, who is handling the 
defense with attorney Bruce Fleisher. "Sean was not in the house."

Houlihan said "Samuels was the killer," contradicting the prosecution's claim 
that he was the driver who brought Condell and Estache to home of the birthday 
party. He asserted that Estache was the "brains" behind the robbery, Samuels 
entered the home with him, and Condell stayed outside in the car.

Houlihan said Condell's confession was not truthful. "Lord knows why he said 
it, but it's not the truth," Houlihan said.

In an effort to plant possible doubt in jurors' minds, the defense attorney 
ended by saying: 'The issue is, who is the 2nd person in the house?"

(source: Miami Herald)

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

Death is not justice



Each new detail about the accused Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School gunman 
makes more apparent that Nikolas Cruz suffered from mental illness.

Less than a month after the Parkland, Florida, rampage killed 17 people, 
Michael Satz, the Broward County state attorney, announced plans to seek 
execution of the 19-year-old suspect.

The horror of that day is without dispute. So, too, is the need for serious 
legal consequences. The gunman--and Cruz's lawyers don't dispute his 
guilt--must never again be in a position to be able to harm others. But will 
killing him serve justice? Even proponents of the death penalty (which we 
decidedly are not) are hard-pressed to justify its use on those who suffer from 
mental illness.

It probably will take three years before the start of the trial, which would be 
just one step in an arduous legal process that would cost millions of dollars. 
In the event of a death-penalty sentence, there would be lengthy appeals, with 
Cruz at the center of attention. Would that benefit the victims and their 
families? How would that help the community? Wouldn't the time and money be 
better spent fixing the systems that failed Cruz and his victims?

Satz should revisit his decision and accept a guilty plea, which would be the 
last thing heard from Cruz. (source: Editorial, Washington Post)








ALABAMA:

Attorney General "commutes" death sentence without authority to do so



According to lawyers for convicted murderer and death row inmate Doyle Lee 
Hamm, he and the state of Alabama entered into a "confidential settlement 
agreement...preventing any further execution attempts" by the state on March 
26.

The offices of Attorney General Steve Marshall handled the arrangements for 
Hamm's settlement. However, there is no provision in state law for Marshall to 
commute or negotiate away a death penalty sentence. Contrary to his actions, 
the state's attorney general is required by statute to uphold the death penalty 
in Alabama.

Hamm was convicted and sentenced to death in the murder of Patrick Cunningham, 
a motel clerk in Cullman, Alabama, in the 1980s. After a botched execution that 
drew national attention, Marshall is now agreeing not to pursue another attempt 
at carrying out Hamm's death senrence. Marshall has agreed not to seek a new 
death warrant for Hamm's execution.

Under the state's 1901 Constitution, only the governor has the power of 
commutation. The Governor's Office confirmed to APR that Gov. Kay Ivey did not 
commute Hamm's sentence, leaving the question as to how Marshall did so in 
doubt. However, under the State Supreme Court's Cornerstone ruling, Ivey can 
take over if her attorney general fails to enforce the law.

The Alabama Political Reporter asked the Ivey Administration if the governor 
will exercise her responsibility under Cornerstone. Her office did not 
immediately respond to APR's request.

The attorney general has a constitutional responsibility to uphold and defend 
the state's death penalty - not to bargain it away in civil litigation.

The night before Hamm's failed execution, Marshall, a former Democrat turned 
Republican in 2012, took to social media to burnish his conservative bonafides 
by announcing his support of Hamm's death sentence, saying, "Tomorrow I will 
not request that Doyle Hamm's execution be stopped, but instead I will ask that 
justice be served."

After the gruesome details of the state's failed attempt to put Hamm to death 
were published along with photos and a medical examiner's report, Marshall 
appears to be backtracking on any further attempts to kill Hamm, due to the 
optics.

APR has published the horrifying consequences of the state's mishandled attempt 
to carry out Hamm's death sentence in February.

While no future efforts to execute Hamm may be a welcome to those who oppose 
the death penalty, it is worth noting Marshall has no legal standing to 
negotiate a settlement agreement, which, in effect, commutes Hamm's sentence 
from death to life in prison.

Hamm's lawyers, supporters and those who see state-sponsored execution as cruel 
and unusual punishment have cheered Marshall's decision to halt Hamm's death 
sentence permanently.

However, a legal challenge to Marshall's standing to enter into such an 
arrangement could reverse the hard-won victory.

Marshall and his staff have refused to comment.

(source: alreporter.com)