[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----MASS., ALA., KY., NEB., USA

[Rick Halperin]

April 30



MASSACHUSETTS:

Cop's killing exploited for political purposes



The soil over Sgt. Sean Gannon's grave has not yet settled, and the right-wing 
opinionators just can't restrain themselves from exploiting the opportunity to 
spout mindless law-and-order grievances.

In her April 19 column, Cynthia Stead harps on why we need a death penalty, 
never mind that states with no death penalty have for decades had a 20 % lower 
murder rate on average than states with one.

That same day letter writer Terry Layo got in step with Ms. Stead, joined the 
following day by letter writers William Doherty and Adam Lange complaining 
about a lax legal system that allows judges and prosecutors to accept plea 
bargains and lets people out early on parole. These folks, naturally, don't 
offer any insight on how to pay for all the extra jail cells, prison guards and 
prosecutor salaries, especially since the latest GOP tax giveaway to the 
super-rich.

On April 21 letter writer John Harris dismisses the need for stricter gun laws, 
complaining that we don't enforce existing laws, referencing the suspect's 
numerous firearms law violations. His ideological blindness just won't let him 
see how strict registration laws, making it more difficult for ex-cons like 
suspect Thomas Latanowich to get guns, might have prevented the tragic killing 
of Officer Gannon.

Rich Latimer

Falmouth

(source: Letter to the Editor, Cape Cod Times)








ALABAMA:

Overturning a Death Row Conviction----"In any death penalty case to the Supreme 
Court, there is a very strong presumption of deference to state court judgments 
that the death row inmate has to overcome." - Don Verrilli



Munger, Tolles & Olson attorney Don Verrilli won a U.S. Supreme Court victory, 
overturning the conviction of James McWilliams, an Alabama death row inmate.

McWilliams was convicted of capital murder in 1986 and subsequently sentenced 
to death. Verrilli served as co-counsel with the Southern Center for Human 
Rights. They argued that McWilliams had been sentenced to death without the 
expert mental health assistance required by the Supreme Court's 1985 decision 
in Ake v. Oklahoma.

"In any death penalty case to the Supreme Court, there is a very strong 
presumption of deference to state court judgments that the death row inmate has 
to overcome," Verrilli said. "While there was a clearly set right from Ake, 
what the scope of that right is and how it is applied was unclear, so we had 
the lack of clarity combined with deference to state court judgments."

The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case marked a turning point, Verrilli 
said. "The court takes only a tiny fraction of the cases presented to it," 
Verrilli explained. "If they weren't interested in your defendant, they would 
just not hear it."

In Ake, the Supreme Court held that "when a defendant has made a preliminary 
showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a 
significant factor at trial, the Constitution requires that a state provide 
access to a psychiatrist's assistance on this issue if the defendant cannot 
otherwise afford one."

In McWilliams, Verrilli said "the offer of expertise was a doctor who was an 
employee of the state, not an expert that's on your side."

On June 19, 2017, in a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled in favor of 
McWilliams. In the majority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the 
court held that Alabama's mental health assistance fell "dramatically short of 
what Ake requires."

Verrilli said McWilliams' case "has the potential to be quite significant as it 
reinforces and clarifies the scope of the right that capital defendants have to 
the experts they need to be able to make their case."

Stephen Bright, Harvey Karp Visiting Lecturer in Law at the Yale Law School, 
co-counseled the case. "Don and Michael DeSanctis of the D.C. office and Joshua 
Meltzer of the San Francisco office of the firm co-counseled the case with me 
and 2 other lawyers from the Southern Center for Human Rights," Bright said. 
"Their insights, analysis and experience were indispensable in writing the 
briefs, preparing for oral argument, and bringing about the favorable decision. 
The ability to call any of them and discuss aspects of the case was 
invaluable."

(source: The National Law Journal)








KENTUCKY:

Hearing Delayed Until Friday For Suspects In Death Of Daniel Ellis



The 2 men accused in the death of a Richmond police officer are scheduled to 
return to court.

Police say Officer Daniel Ellis was investigating a gas station robbery back in 
2015, when he was lured into the apartment of Gregory Ratliff, then shot by 
Raleigh Sizemore.

Both Ratliff and Sizemore are eligible for the death penalty.

Their hearing was originally scheduled for 9:30 Monday morning, but got moved 
to Friday.

(source: lex18.com)








NEBRASKA:

The Public Pulse: No conflict in Ricketts' efforts on death penalty



Marylyn Felion wrote that she was puzzled by Joe Ricketts and Gov. Pete 
Ricketts' views of being pro-life, death penalty supporters and Roman Catholics 
(April 19 Public Pulse).

She sees a conflict because she states that the Ignatian Pope Francis has 
declared the death penalty to be always morally wrong. What Marylyn does not 
understand is that this is Pope Francis' personal opinion and he is not 
speaking ex cathedra, and his personal opinion is not binding on members of the 
Roman Catholic Church.

Pope John Paul II commissioned Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) to 
call a Synod to compile the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was issued 
Oct. 11,1992. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will find the 
following:

"Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable 
to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has 
acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority 
to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of 
the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For 
analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed 
force aggressors against the community in their charge."

In 2015, Nebraska senators repealed Nebraska's death penalty with an override 
of the governor's veto. In 2016, 61 percent of Nebraska voters voted to 
reinstate the death penalty.

Marylyn might want to check Matthew 7:1-2. "Stop judging, that you may not be 
judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you 
measure will be measured out to you."

(source: omaha.com)








USA:

Death penalty decision due today for Fort Lauderdale airport shooting suspect



Federal prosecutors are expected to announce Monday if they will seek the death 
penalty for Esteban Santiago, the man accused of fatally shooting 5 people and 
wounding six at Fort Lauderdale's international airport.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom set an April 30 deadline for 
officials at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., to file their 
decision.

Santiago has pleaded not guilty to a 22-count indictment in the Jan. 6, 2017 
mass shooting at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. 10 of those 
charges carry a potential death sentence or life in federal prison.

Federal prosecutors rarely seek a death sentence and it is even rarer for 
jurors to endorse their requests.

Only 61 people are on federal death row, according to statistics compiled by 
the Death Penalty Information Center. Since Congress reinstated the death 
penalty in 1988, only 3 prisoners have been executed - in 2001 and 2003.

Santiago, now 28, is an Iraq War veteran with documented mental health 
problems. He grew up in Puerto Rico and most recently lived in Anchorage, 
Alaska.

He is locked up in the Federal Detention Center in downtown Miami and has been 
prescribed medication to treat his diagnosis of schizophrenia.

He was briefly hospitalized for psychiatric care in Alaska in November 2016, 
two months before the shooting. He had driven to the FBI office in Anchorage, 
asked for help and told agents he was hearing voices and thought the government 
was controlling his mind.

Legal experts say accused airport shooter has limited options: plea deal, 
insanity or death row

After Santiago surrendered at the airport, FBI agents said he confessed and 
told them he was "programmed" to act under government mind control. Later in 
the interview, he said he was inspired by the Islamic State extremist group but 
authorities said no terrorism links have been found.

His trial is tentatively scheduled for June in federal court in Miami but will 
likely be delayed for several months if the prosecution pursues the death 
penalty. The prosecution and defense are due in court on Tuesday for a hearing 
on scheduling and other matters.

In the federal system, the process of deciding whether to seek execution or 
life behind bars takes much longer than in Florida's state system. The final 
decision lies with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The process included an initial, secret recommendation by the U.S. Attorney for 
the Southern District of Florida, Benjamin Greenberg, made after he consulted 
with a local committee.

That recommendation was then reviewed by a panel of experts in the U.S. 
Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which also issued a secret 
recommendation.

Family members of the victims, as well as Santiago's defense team, were also 
permitted to provide their input during the process.

If the prosecution seeks the death penalty, a federal jury in South Florida 
would first have to decide if Santiago is guilty and then decide on the 
appropriate punishment.

In federal cases, the jury's decision is binding on the sentencing judge. A 
12-0 verdict in favor of death is required. If the prosecution does not seek 
the death penalty and the jury finds Santiago guilty of the most serious 
offenses, he would face life in federal prison.

(source: Sun Sentinel)