[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.C., OHIO, N.MEX., IDAHO, CALIF., WASH., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Jan. 8



TEXAS:

East Texas man speaks after 30 years on death row



For the past 3 decades, an East Texas man has been serving his sentence on 
death row.

David Lee Lewis, 52, was convicted of killing a Lufkin woman when he was 
burglarizing her home back in 1986. He is appealing his death row sentence on 
grounds of being intellectually disabled.

Lewis learned his fate, a sentence to death back in 1987 but what was unknown 
at that time was that he would be serving that sentence for the next 30 years.

"I've been living on this for 30 some years and it's a weight that I don't want 
anyone to carry," Lewis said.

For many years he said he wanted to forget it all happened.

"I've tried to put it away but it's something you can never forget. It's always 
with you," Lewis said.

Lewis said the weight he is referring to is the conviction of shooting and 
killing a 74-year-old Myrtle Ruby. It was in a home near Pollock, off of Old 
Wells Highway, where Lewis went inside with the idea to steal guns, but what 
took him by surprise was to find a woman standing in the dark hallway. He said 
he fired his gun where the bullet landed on her face.

"When I seen it was an old woman I was like oh man. Cuz I couldn't see her," 
Lewis said. "All I could see was a silhouette of somebody coming through as I 
was coming out and I just raised the gun and pulled the trigger and hit her in 
the eye. And she turned towards me and started to fall, screaming and that's 
when I struck her. I think the blow to the head is what killed her because she 
was still alive from the shot because she was screaming. And when I turned the 
light and seen who it was, I was like oh no."

Lewis said he lives with the regret every day in prison, often finding himself 
in in constant conflict with his own emotions whether if he forgives himself or 
not.

"It's hard to forgive yourself for something like that, especially when you see 
the pain in the daughter's face," Lewis said. "That's something you never can 
forget."

It was late Sunday evening in November of 1986 when Ruby was returning home 
from church. Evidence shows she was surprised to see Lewis in the hallway of 
her home while he was burglarizing the place. Records show Lewis then stole her 
car, drove to his uncle's home down the road and went on a hunting trip. He was 
arrested when he returned and confessed.

"I never thought about it really (un)til around 2004. I kept it hidden and 
didn't want to face what I had done until one day I had to accept it and I 
actually felt the pain that I caused the family and it's a pain I never want 
the feel again, taking somebody's loved one like that, it's horrible," Lewis 
said.

During his 1st trial he pleaded not guilty, but a jury ultimately convicted him 
sentencing with the death penalty. However, his capital murder conviction and 
death sentence were reversed in 1993 by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 
because part of his court records was lost. He was retried the same year, this 
time pleading guilty where a jury convicted and again sentenced him to death.

He appealed his death penalty conviction on grounds of intellectual disability. 
As he awaits to learn the final outcome from the courts, he said he'll continue 
to fight to overturn the death penalty and continue serving a life sentence.

He said his final message is he wants Ruby's family to know he's in deep 
remorse of his actions.

"I'm sorry I took that life. I didn't understand how precious that life was," 
Lewis said.

KTRE did reach out Myrtle Ruby's family for an interview. They declined our 
request, saying it would be too painful.

As of 2007, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit denied Lewis' claim 
that would prohibit an execution of an intellectual disabled criminal. The 
court said the filing was made outside the reasonable time period.

No decision on a date has been set yet on his execution.

(source: KTRE news)








NORTH CAROLINA:

Trial begins Monday for man facing death penalty in 2014 Fuquay-Varina double 
homicide



The trial for a man facing the death penalty in connection with a 2014 double 
homicide in Fuquay-Varina is scheduled to begin Monday morning.

Donovan Richardson was 1 of 3 men charged in connection with shooting and 
killing Arthur Lee Brown, 78, and David Eugene McKoy, 66, on July 19, 2014. 
Authorities said robbery appeared to be a motive in the shooting.

Jury selection in the trial lasted through the month of December and opening 
arguments in the case will begin Monday morning. The trial is expected to last 
several weeks.

The last person to face the death penalty in Wake County was Nathan Holden, who 
was convicted of the 2014 murder of his ex-wife's parents and sentenced to life 
in prison without parole in March 2017.

A Wake County jury has not sentenced anyone to death since 2007, and a decision 
to do so requires a unanimous decision by all 12 jurors.

Gregory Crawford, 22, pleaded guilty to charges of 1st-degree murder, robbery 
with a dangerous weapon and burglary in connection with the deaths of Brown and 
McKoy in May 2016.He was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Britt previously pleaded guilty in connection with the crime as well.

(source: WRAL news)

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

Fact check: Have Cooper and Stein worked to delay executions, like Berger says?



A North Carolina prosecutor announced recently that he'll seek the death 
penalty for inmates who killed 4 people during an attempted prison escape.

According to Republican state Sen. Phil Berger, the Senate leader, and Tim 
Moore, the state House speaker, the state's top Democrats are standing in the 
way of the state serving justice to the prison employees who died in the 
October attacks.

Capital punishment is on the law books in North Carolina and Berger says there 
are currently 143 inmates on death row. However, there hasn't been an execution 
since 2006.

Berger and Moore contend that's because Gov. Roy Cooper, the former attorney 
general, and Josh Stein, who was elected attorney general in 2016, have failed 
to take legal action to counter court cases that are blocking executions. They 
released a joint statement on Dec. 8.

Berger, specifically, was quoted as saying: "For over a decade, death penalty 
opponents like Roy Cooper and Josh Stein have imposed a de-facto moratorium on 
capital punishment in North Carolina, using every legal trick possible - 
including inaction - to delay death sentences handed down by juries and deny 
justice to victims."

He continued: "No matter what they say, Cooper's and Stein's indifference and 
failure to fight the moratorium endangers the lives of prison employees in 
close proximity to hardened murderers with nothing left to lose, who see no 
possibility they will face execution for killing again."

Do Cooper and Stein oppose the death penalty? Are they using the legal system 
to block executions, as Berger and Moore imply?

What's the holdup?

The last execution in North Carolina, in 2006, put to death Samuel Flippen, a 
36-year-old who was convicted in the beating death of his 2-year-old 
stepdaughter 12 years prior to his execution.

Since then, North Carolina has been one of several states that's in a holding 
pattern while the courts consider legal arguments against death penalty 
practices. Raleigh-based television station WRAL reported last year that that 
North Carolina is "caught in morass of various state and federal court 
rulings."

One legal challenge relates to the protocol for lethal injections and whether 
they're cruel and unusual. While that lawsuit makes its way through the courts, 
Wake County Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens in 2014 blocked the use of 
lethal injection in the state. Stephens later retired, and the case remains 
unresolved.

"That litigation is in the trial court and the injunction remains in place 
until the Court approves a new protocol and all appeals are exhausted," said 
Laura Brewer, a Stein spokeswoman.

The other legal challenges stem from the Racial Justice Act, a short-lived law 
that allowed inmates to use local and statewide statistics in claims that 
racial bias played a role in their cases. The act was adopted in 2009, largely 
along party lines, and was rewritten in 2012 and then repealed in 2013 after 
Republicans won majorities in the General Assembly.

Some of the cases are in active litigation, Brewer said. "Some have been fully 
briefed by the parties (including by the AG's office for the State) and are 
awaiting argument at the North Carolina Supreme Court," she wrote in an email. 
"The Supreme Court has not set an argument date."

What Cooper, Stein say

Cooper served as attorney general for 16 years, from 2001 to 2016. We contacted 
Cooper's office about his stance on the death penalty. Despite the fact that 
much of his party's base opposes the death penalty, Cooper spokeswoman Noelle 
Talley pointed to his record as proof he supports it.

"As Attorney General, Gov. Cooper did his duty to uphold capital punishment 
sentences handed down by juries in accordance with the law, and 27 executions 
were carried out in North Carolina during his time as AG before court orders 
prevented executions," Talley wrote in an email.

She provided a link to the online list of the executions provided on the N.C. 
Department of Public Safety website.

Stein was elected last year and he doesn't have much of a record with death 
penalty cases, so we looked through news reports to see what he said on the 
campaign trail last year. Stein told WRAL in August 2016 that he backs the 
death penalty.

"I support the death penalty because I believe that certain crimes are so 
heinous that it is the appropriate punishment," Stein said. But he emphasized 
that "the state needs to take care to avoid racial bias that has contributed to 
a de facto moratorium (on executions) in the state."

Stein took the same position during a debate in Asheboro last September, The 
News & Observer reported.

To conclude the 1st part of our fact check, Cooper has a record of enforcing 
the death penalty and Stein is on the record supporting it - despite the fact 
that it's unpopular with many Democrats. So at this point, it would seem like a 
stretch to describe them as death penalty opponents.

But what have they done?

Berger and Moore's statement suggests that Cooper and Stein have used their 
powers to further prolong the moratorium. Berger said Cooper and Stein used 
"every trick possible" to impose the moratorium.

Brewer, Stein's spokeswoman, said the attorney general's office has opposed 
claims by Racial Justice Act defendants.

"Stein and then-Attorney General Cooper have made numerous pleadings on the 
state's behalf in these cases opposing the claims" regarding both the Racial 
Justice Act and the lethal injection case.

"Neither Attorney General Stein nor then-Attorney General Cooper have filed 
pleadings supporting the claims," she said.

And a WRAL story from 2007 quotes attorneys for Cooper, then the attorney 
general, arguing against attempts to block executions until the state resolved 
a case related to the presence of physicians at executions.

Cooper and Stein didn't file the lawsuits delaying executions or take the side 
of those who did. Have they used other, more subtle legal strategies for 
keeping the cases stuck in court?

'Not the roadblock'

2 death penalty opponents said they're unaware of any action Cooper has taken 
at any point in his career to block executions.

Kristin Collins, associate director of public information at the Durham-based 
Center for Death Penalty Litigation, described Cooper as "very aggressive in 
capital prosecutions" when he was attorney general.

Collins added that Cooper "certainly opposed the stay when it was requested by 
the inmates" in the cases that have halted executions. And with the Racial 
Justice Act, "the attorney general is the only one actively involved in these 
lawsuits and they've done nothing besides fight for the case of the state, 
which argues that these death sentences should be carried out."

James Coleman, a Duke University professor and director of the Center for 
Criminal Justice and Professional Responsibility, said neither Cooper nor Stein 
is in a position now to affect the outcome of the legal challenges.

"We're not at a place where the governor or attorney general could do anything 
even if they wanted to resume executions," Coleman said. "They're not the 
roadblock."

Bob Orr, who served from 1995 to 2004 as a justice on the N.C. Supreme Court, 
said he's not familiar with Stein's position but said Cooper's staff fought to 
uphold the law.

"I was on the Supreme Court for 10 years. A number of executions took place. We 
handled a substantial number of death penalty appeals. It's the singular most 
difficult part of the job," Orr said.

"I never heard (Cooper) say that he's personally opposed to the death penalty 
and certainly members of his staff aggressively opposed appeals (of 
executions)," Orr said.

A 'back-door attempt'

PolitiFact asked Berger's office for proof that Cooper and Stein prolonged 
court reviews of the legal challenges.

They provided none. On the day we emailed to say we'd found no evidence of 
Cooper or Stein supporting challenges to the court cases, Berger and Moore 
released a new statement once again criticizing Cooper and Stein for their 
inaction.

Auth, Berger's spokesperson, also followed up with an email to PolitiFact. She 
said Cooper and Stein could use the attorney general's office to fight 
injunctions against state laws. She also argued that Stein, in 2009 as a state 
senator, contributed to the execution stoppage by voting for the Racial Justice 
Act.

Supporters of the act said it was needed because statistics showed the death 
penalty was used disproportionately against black defendants. A Michigan State 
University study of capital cases in North Carolina between 1990 and 2010 shows 
that qualified black jurors were more than twice as likely as whites to be 
removed from juries by prosecutors.

Many Republicans viewed the legislation as a "back-door attempt to get rid of 
the death penalty," as former state Sen. Thom Goolsby said at the time. Goolsby 
later led the repeal of the act.

Former state Rep. Paul "Skip' Stam of Apex, an attorney, echoed that sentiment.

"Any knowledgeable public lawyer would have realized that the RJA would be an 
indefinite moratorium on the death penalty for 1st degree murderers," Stam said 
in a recent email.

"By 2012, it was clear as the nose on your face that the RJA was an indefinite 
moratorium on the death penalty and irrational to boot (all the white murderers 
on death row claimed racial discrimination and filed petitions to stop their 
executions - so far successfully)," Stam continued. "And yet, Sen. Josh Stein 
voted against the 2012 legislation to effectively do away with these aspects of 
the RJA."

Our ruling

In the Dec. 8 joint statement with Moore, Berger said Cooper and Stein oppose 
the death penalty and have used "every legal trick possible - including 
inaction - to delay death sentences." Berger's office provided no evidence 
showing that Cooper and Stein have sided with death penalty opponents in court. 
Rather, Berger pointed to Stein's vote on 1 bill and, in a vague claim, said 
the duo should've pressured the courts to expedite their review of death 
penalty cases.

It's fair to criticize how Cooper and Stein spend their resources and tie Stein 
to the Racial Justice Act. But those arguments alone don't prove that they 
oppose the death penalty or have used legal "tricks" to delay executions. We 
rate this claim Mostly False.

(source: newsobserver.com)








OHIO:

Former death row Scot Kenny Richey has found redemption building shelters



KennyRichey, who was reprieved after 21 years on death row in the USA, claims 
he's found redemption - by building shelters for homeless veterans. Richey, 
born and raised in Edinburgh until he was 18, lived through 13 execution dates 
for the 1987 house fire death of 2-year-old Cynthia Collins. He was freed in a 
plea deal 10 years ago, and was homeless when the American charity Sanctuary 
Quarters threw him a lifeline.

Now the man who was asked to choose the method of his own execution says he has 
finally found peace and a reason to turn his life around, brick by brick. 
Richey, 53, said: "I believe I survived everything I've been through because 
helping people less fortunate than myself was what I'm meant to do.

"I've been to hell and back and done stupid things, but I was never a bad 
person.

"When you are treated like an animal, and forced to choose how you are going to 
die, humanity goes out the window. I was lost for a long time."

Richey spent months living hand-to-mouth and homeless in Columbus, Ohio, before 
being saved by former Marine Arnold Ramsey, 53, who told him bluntly he had a 
choice to make if he wanted to turn his life around. The Scot, who has suffered 
5 heart attacks and a stroke in recent years, said: "I was in a mess, but I 
knew I had to tell Arnold the truth about everything. "He didn't judge me. He 
simply said he believed in me and told me I needed to believe in myself."

Former pastor Arnold and wife Sonya, 57, started Sanctuary Quarters with their 
own savings last year, buying property to ease the homeless crisis affecting 
thousands of US veterans. They offered Richey a job in exchange for shelter.

Richey said: "It's given me a purpose to my life. I'm up at the crack of dawn, 
labouring and putting up walls, hammering nails and plastering. It's exhausting 
but, at last, I'm truly happy because I'm doing something good."

It's a labour of love, sweat and tears for Richey who has suffered years of ill 
health, spanning a short, ill-fated return to Scotland.

Richey, who became a US Marine at the age of 19, following in the footsteps of 
his American father, said: "I've spent decades with death whispering in my ear. 
That does something to a man.

"Imagine being asked to choose your own death - being fried alive in the 
electric chair or having poison pumped into your veins. They wanted me to die, 
even though they knew I was innocent."

Richey refused to sign the paperwork and was told he would be sent to the 
electric chair. Arrested weeks after being discharged from the Marines, Richey 
always protested his innocence of setting fire to an ex-girlfriend's flat which 
claimed the life of toddler Cynthia Collins.

He said: "I was 1 hour from execution. They even shaved my head to make it 
easier to electrocute me.

"Unless you've walked in my shoes, you can't understand how that affected me."

In 2005, forensic evidence was re-examined. Richey was cleared but was tried 
again. A plea deal in 2008 freed Richey, who admitted charges of involuntary 
manslaughter and child endangerment, to return to Scotland to be reunited with 
mum Eileen, now 72.

Returning to the US, in 2010 the father-of-1 was jailed for 2 years for 
threatening Judge Randall Basinger who presided over his original trial. A 
messy divorce, health problems and run-ins with the law saw him on the streets. 
By the time Arnold Ramsey found Richey, he was a mess.

Arnold, 53, said: "I knew Kenny was a good man because he told the truth about 
what had happened in his life. He was prepared to accept I wouldn't want to 
know a convicted felon.

"The truth made me believe in Kenny Richey.

"He's a hard worker and despite what has happened to him, he cares about 
others. He needed someone to believe in him."

Sanctuary Quarters plan to create 20 homes in Columbus.

Arnold said: "We live in a society today where veterans who were prepared to 
lay down their lives for their country are invisible when they return home."

Richey is determined to continue working with the charity, although his mother 
preys on his mind.

He said: "I used to think Scotland was where I needed to be.

"But it's almost like God took me through all those bad things to bring me to 
this time and place. I can't explain it any other way. I know I'm meant to be 
where I am now.

"I worry about mum who has dementia. She's well looked after, but she doesn't 
even remember me.

"If I could ask her, I know she'd want me to stay where I've found peace and my 
place in the world."

(source: edinburghnews.scotsman.com)








NEW MEXICO:

New Mexico Republicans to resume effort to bring back death penalty



Republicans will push to reinstate the death penalty when state lawmakers 
convene next week, setting up another clash over capital punishment nearly a 
decade after it was abolished in New Mexico.

State Rep. Monica Youngblood, a Republican from Albuquerque, said Sunday she 
will file legislation allowing the death penalty for murders involving 
children, police or correctional officers.

And Democratic legislators expect Gov. Susana Martinez will back the measure as 
well as several other sentencing bills, including a proposal to toughen the 
state's "3-strikes-and-you're-out" law - the likes of which have been 
controversial with criminal justice reform advocates around the country.

Entering the last regular session of the prosecutor-turned-governor's 2-term 
administration, the push for tough-on-crime legislation might come to define 
the 30-day meeting at the Roundhouse and at the very least set up a showdown 
over a visceral issue ahead of an election later this year.

The death penalty is likely to face strong opposition from Democrats who have 
raised concerns about the risk of executing the wrongly convicted. And they 
argue it is expensive. A fiscal analysis of a similar bill proposed in 2016 
found that reinstating executions could cost the state up to $7.2 million a 
year over a 3-year period.

The Catholic Church has been staunchly opposed to capital punishment as well, 
maintaining simply that it is immoral.

"It's a nonstarter, as far as I am concerned," Senate Majority Leader Peter 
Wirth, a Democrat from Santa Fe, told a crowd of about 100 people during a talk 
at Collected Works Bookstore on Sunday sponsored by the group Journey Santa Fe.

But Youngblood argued most New Mexicans support the death penalty and that 
allowing prosecutors to pursue it in certain cases is only appropriate in the 
face of murders that have shocked the state, such as the killing of Victoria 
Martens, a 10-year-old Albuquerque girl from Youngblood's district who was 
sexually assaulted and dismembered in 2016.

Anyone who would murder a child, Youngblood said, should "not be in a position 
to hurt anyone again."

She added: "We need to make sure that those who murder police officers face 
those most stiff penalties.

"Will every district attorney go after [the death penalty]? Absolutely not. It 
gives DAs the option to seek the death penalty in those specific cases."

New Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2009. Between 1979 and 2007, when the 
death penalty was an option to prosecutors, there were more than 200 death 
penalty cases filed. 15 men were sentenced to death. There was only 1 
execution.

2 convicted murderers in New Mexico sentenced before the death penalty was 
abolished are still appealing their cases.

Reinstating capital punishment would be an unusual step as other states abolish 
the practice. 19 states do not have the death penalty, and governors in 3 more 
states and the District of Columbia have placed a moratorium on capital 
punishment.

Martinez first said the death penalty should be an option for juries during her 
first State of the State address in January 2011.

Youngblood went on to sponsor bills in 2016 and 2017 that would reinstate the 
death penalty for certain murders.

House Republicans rammed through a bill similar to the one Youngblood will 
propose in the middle of the night during the 2016 special session. But the 
Democrat-controlled Senate did not take up the issue.

And last year, Democrats quashed the bill in committee.

But heading into an election year, with a jump in crime rates in New Mexico's 
largest city, the issue appears a likely flashpoint at the Legislature.

Wirth said Martinez wants her efforts to combat crime "to be her legacy."

Martinez already has said she wants lawmakers to vote on repealing and 
replacing a constitutional amendment on bail reform that she says is partially 
responsible for increased crime rates. That amendment, approved by 87 % of 
voters in 2016, gives judges the right to detain suspects without bond before 
trial if they are considered dangerous or likely to flee. But that amendment 
also ensures some suspects will not be detained if they are not considered a 
risk to the community and just because they cannot afford bail.

As a result, Martinez said in a Friday news conference, "It's nothing but a 
revolving door at the jail."

Wirth said the amendment is working because "you get the dangerous criminals 
into the [prison] system and get those who need treatment and help out." He 
said it costs the state $45,000 per year to incarcerate 1 inmate.

Wirth said he does not see the governor and state legislators grappling in a 
battle over the budget, given both the Governor's Office and the Legislative 
Finance Committee presented similar budget proposals - both supporting pay 
increases for state employees and teachers - last week.

Crime aside, Wirth said he did not see many such battles looming for this 
session, particularly since both sides want to act quickly on a number of 
priorities - including closing tax loopholes that benefit online businesses and 
enacting a new nurses' compact so the state does not have to contend with a 
serious nursing shortage almost overnight.

The governor's proposed $6.23 billion budget calls for a 1 % pay increase for 
state employees and 2 % for teachers. The Legislative Finance Committee's 
budget suggests a 1.5 % raise for all employees. For the most part, New Mexico 
has not raised salaries for its employees since 2014.

Sen. Peter Wirth and Rep. Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe, will hold a Legislative Town 
Hall event at 6 p.m. Monday, Jan. 8, at the First Presbyterian Church of Santa 
Fe at 208 Grant Avenue. It's free and open to the public.

(source: santafenewmexican.com)








IDAHO:

Weighing the cost: Blaine County attempts to deter use of death penalty, then 
backtracks on plan



Blaine County commissioners last week unofficially agreed to withdraw from a 
state fund that helps cover defense costs in death penalty cases. The move was 
an attempt to deter use of capital punishment, they said.

But just 2 days after the Jan. 2 meeting, each of the commissioners publicly 
announced that they had changed their minds. Pulling out of the Capital Crimes 
Defense Fund would have had the costly side effect of cutting off the county's 
access to the State Appellate Public Defender's Fund, which represents indigent 
defendants through all post-conviction appeals - something Commissioner Larry 
Schoen, who spearheaded the push, said he didn't realize at the time.

Going forward, Schoen said, he plans to recommend that the county stay in the 
fund, while seeking a legislative amendment that would separate participation 
in the fund from access to the State Appellate Public Defender's Office.

Though the incident likely won't lead to any significant changes in Blaine 
County, the discussion and subsequent backlash from the county prosecutor and 
others raises questions about just how and why prosecutors decide to pursue the 
death penalty.

Pulling out of the Capital Crimes Defense Fund would have put the high cost of 
defending those facing the death penalty entirely on Blaine County - a shift 
that commissioners said they hoped would discourage the prosecutor's office 
from pursuing the death penalty in the first place.

The death penalty, while legal in Idaho, is rare: the state has only put 3 
people to death since 1976.

In his 22 years as Blaine County prosecuting attorney, Jim Thomas has never 
sought the death penalty in a murder trial. But, he said, money has never 
played a role in that decision. And he says if the county were to pull out of 
the fund, it wouldn't have affected any future decisions.

Determining whether to pursue the death penalty is a "huge process" that 
involves considering the circumstances of a homicide, conversations with the 
family of the victim, consultations with law enforcement, and seeking advice 
from other experienced prosecutors, Thomas said.

"It's probably the most important, weighty decision that I would make," he told 
the Times-News. "And to think that we would make it on the basis of finances - 
I think that's probably what insulted me most, frankly."

To be eligible for the death penalty in Idaho, a case has to fit a certain set 
of criteria. First, the defendant must be found guilty of 1st-degree murder. 
But the case must also fit at least 1 factor under the legal statute governing 
whether the death penalty can be given.

Possible factors listed under the statute include "especially heinous, 
atrocious, or cruel" murders, a defendant who is seen as a continuing threat to 
society, and the murder of somebody working in the criminal justice system, 
such as a judicial officer or prosecuting attorney, for reasons related to 
their work.

By law, a prosecutor must be able to prove at least 1 of these factors beyond a 
reasonable doubt. But ideally, a prosecutor should be able to prove more than 
one of these factors, Twin Falls prosecuting attorney Grant Loebs said.

Just because a prosecutor can legally pursue the death penalty in a case 
doesn't mean they will, as the legal criteria is just the beginning of the 
decision-making process.

Factors such as the mental health of the defendant and whether drugs, alcohol, 
or the bad influence of other people played a role in the crime must be taken 
into account, Loebs said, along with conversations with the defendant's 
attorney and the wishes of the victim's loved ones.

In Twin Falls County, prosecutors have sought the death penalty 3 times since 
2006, according to Loebs. None of those cases resulted in a death sentence.

Twin Falls County commissioners have never discussed withdrawing from the 
Capital Crimes Defense Fund, Commissioner Don Hall said, and it appears 
unlikely that they'll do so anytime in the near future.

"It really is a good insurance policy we all put in, especially for the smaller 
counties that maybe don't have as much of a budget to handle something like 
that," Hall said.

But in the event that Twin Falls commissioners were to consider pulling out, 
Loebs said, their withdrawal wouldn't have an effect on the number of death 
penalty cases pursued by the county.

"It's too monumental a decision to allow things like dollars and cents to play 
into it," Loebs said.

(source: magicvalley.com)








CALIFORNIA:

Homeless man charged with killing ex-60s soul singer



A homeless man has been charged with killing former 1960s soul singer Betty 
Jane Willis during an attempted rape.

22-year-old Rosendo Xo Pec was charged Wednesday with murder with special 
circumstances and could face the death penalty.

It's unclear whether he has an attorney.

The 76-year-old Willis recorded the 1960s songs "Someday You'll Need My Love," 
''Act Naturally" and "Take My Heart."

She was living on the street when she was attacked shortly after 4 a.m. on New 
Year's Day.

Prosecutors say she was sleeping in a strip mall parking lot in Santa Ana when 
Pec began sexually assaulting her.

(source: Associated Press)








WASHINGTON:

State lawmakers to again consider eliminating capital punishment



A bill to be introduced this session would eliminate the death penalty in 
Washington state and require people convicted of 1st-degree murder to serve 
life sentences without the possibility of parole.

State Attorney General Bob Ferguson requested Senate Bill 6052 after other 
legislation failed to pass through a committee hearing last year.

"I'm reasonably optimistic that this could be the year," Ferguson said, 
mentioning the bill's bipartisan sponsorship. "The votes are there."

Despite other legislative priorities, Ferguson said this year might be 
different with a democratic majority in the senate.

"The fact is that taxpayers foot the multi-million dollar appeals process for 
the accused, and we spend $50,000 a year for incarceration," Sen. Maureen 
Walsh, R-Walla Walla, the bill's prime sponsor, wrote in an email. "A life 
sentence with no chance of early release saves money and issues the ultimate 
punishment by denying the convicted their freedom and liberties for life just 
as they did their victim."

Allowing an individual's right to appeal, Walsh also noted that there are cases 
in which a person can be exonerated if new evidence arises.

Still, the appeals process and litigation for these cases can cost the state 
millions of dollars, which, Walsh said, outweighs the cost of keeping someone 
in prison for life in many cases.

In a 2015 study from Seattle University's School of Law examining 147 
aggravated 1st-degree murder cases since 1997, authors estimated the average 
cost of capital punishment cases to be more than $3 million compared to cases 
that did not seek the capital punishment to be about $2 million.

The largest differential factors being trial level prosecution costs ,which are 
2.3 times more expensive in capital punishment cases than cases that do not 
seek the death penalty. Court and police costs are 3.9 times more costly, and 
appeals are 5.7 times more costly in the same cases.

Walsh said the economic argument is a compelling one but says stories of the 
lives affected by the death penalty are also worth discussing.

There are 8 incarcerated individuals on death row, according to Washington 
Department of Corrections. The last person to be executed in the state was Cal 
Coburn Brown in 2010.

In February 2014, Gov. Jay Inslee instituted a moratorium on executions in 
Washington state. The moratorium allows Inslee to grant reprieves so no 
prisoners are executed but does not pardon them. According to a press release 
last year, capital punishment is "unequally applied" and "sometimes dependent 
on the size of the county's budget."

(source: Auburn Reporter)








USA:

Supreme Court should abolish death penalty



Alva Campbell was supposed to die on Nov. 15.

That was the date chosen by the state of Ohio, which had convicted and 
condemned Campbell for murdering a teenager, Charles Dials, during a 1997 
carjacking in Columbus.

Inside the death chamber that morning, prison officials spent more than an hour 
searching Campbell's arms and legs for a vein into which they could inject the 
lethal drug cocktail. They comforted him as they prepared to kill him, 
providing the 69-year-old with a wedge pillow to help with breathing problems 
related to his years of heavy smoking.

After about 80 minutes, they gave up and returned Campbell to his cell, where 
he sits awaiting his next date with death, now set for June 5, 2019.

The pathetic scene was a fitting symbol of the state of capital punishment in 
America in 2017, a vile practice that descends further into macabre farce even 
as it declines in use. Campbell would have been the 24th person put to death 
last year. That's less than a quarter of the 98 executions carried out in 1999.

The number should be zero. As the nation enters 2018, the Supreme Court is 
considering whether to hear at least one case asking it to strike down the 
death penalty, once and for all, for violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on 
cruel and unusual punishments.

Whether the justices take that or another case, the facts they face will be the 
same: The death penalty is a savage, racially biased, arbitrary and pointless 
punishment that becomes rarer and more geographically isolated with every year. 
In 2017, the total number of people sitting on death rows across America fell 
for the 17th straight year.

In Harris County, Texas, the nation's undisputed leader in state-sanctioned 
killing, the year passed without a single execution or death sentence - the 1st 
time that's happened in more than 40 years.

Still, Texas was 1 of just 2 states - Arkansas is the other - responsible for 
almost 1/2 of 2017's executions. And nearly 1 in 3 of the nation's 39 new death 
sentences last year were handed down in 3 counties: Riverside in California, 
Clark in Nevada and Maricopa in Arizona.

It would be tempting to conclude from this litany, which is drawn from an 
annual report by the Death Penalty Information Center, that capital punishment 
is being reserved for the most horrific crime committed by the most 
incorrigible offenders. But it would be wrong.

The death penalty is not and has never been about the severity of any given 
crime. Mental illness, intellectual disability, brain damage, childhood abuse 
or neglect, abysmal lawyers, minimal judicial review, a white victim - these 
factors are far more closely associated with who ends up getting executed.

Of the 23 people put to death in 2017, all but 3 had at least 1 of these 
factors, according to the report. 8 were younger than 21 at the time of their 
crime.

More troubling still are the wrongful convictions. In 2017, 4 more people who 
had been sentenced to death were exonerated, for a total of 160 since 1973 - a 
time during which 1,465 people were executed.

Against this backdrop, it would take an enormous leap of faith to believe that 
no innocent person has ever been executed.

Perhaps this explains why Americans, whose support for capital punishment 
climbed as high as 80 % in 1994, have increasingly lost their appetite for 
state-sanctioned killing. Support is down to about 55 %, its lowest level in 45 
years.

The rest of the developed world agreed to reject this cruel and pointless 
practice long ago. How can it be ended here, for good?

Leaving it up to individual states is not the solution. It's true that 19 
states and the District of Columbia have already banned capital punishment, 4 
have suspended it and 8 others haven't executed anyone in more than a decade.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that the death penalty would eventually 
end with a whimper.

"The incidence of capital punishment has gone down, down, down so that now, I 
think, there are only three states that actually administer the death penalty," 
Ginsburg said at a law school event. "We may see an end to capital punishment 
by attrition as there are fewer and fewer executions."

That's a dispiriting take. The death penalty holdouts may be few and far 
between, but they are fiercely committed, and they won't stop killing people 
unless they're forced to.

Relying on the vague idea of attrition absolves the court of its responsibility 
to be the ultimate arbiter and guardian of the constitution - and specifically 
of the Eighth Amendment. The court has already relied on that provision to ban 
the execution of juvenile offenders, the intellectually disabled and those 
convicted of crimes against people other than murder.

There's no reason not to take the final step. The justices have all the 
information they need right now to bring America in line and end the death 
penalty for good.

(source: altoonamirror.com)

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

Call Lethal Injection the Vile Torture It Is



In a New Year's Eve display of liberal newspaper death penalty abolition 
harmony - buoyed by the release of the Death Penalty Information Center's 
(DPIC) annual report evidencing another year in the long-observable trend of 
capital punishment's disuse and disfavor in America - both the Washington Post 
and New York Times's editorial boards published opinion pieces arguing for an 
end to what the Times called a "cruel and pointless" practice; one that is 
"savage, racially biased, arbitrary," and which "the developed world agreed to 
reject.....long ago."

On her well-followed Twitter account, intrepid anti-death penalty activist 
Sister Helen Prejean opined that the Times "opened the New Year with a bang: a 
full-throated exhortation against the death penalty. The editorial hit all the 
right notes." While I hardly disagree with Sister Helen on anything concerning 
death penalty abolition - and, despite all the truthful and pointed invectives 
the Times's editorial board did skillfully use to highlight capital 
punishment's moral depravity - I still preferred when newspaper editors used 
the word 'torture' to describe to the American people what lethal injection 
really is.

For example, take the column titled "Lethal Cruelty" published by the New York 
Times's editorial board over a decade ago, in April 2006: Its final paragraph, 
a frustrating-beyond-belief marker of the meandering, snail pace of the 
abolition movement in the United States, concluded: "But even justices who 
think the Constitution permits capital punishment should find that lethal 
injections that torture prisoners in the process of killing them are 
unconstitutional." (Hello Justices? Hello!? Any Justices at home and awake at 
the high court? As Martin Luther King, Jr., once judiciously declared: "The 
time is always right to do what is right," which the Supreme Court can and 
should do immediately by "[w]iping the stain of capital punishment clean.")

It is precisely because of its stinging, far-reaching legal, historical, 
ethical, and moral implications - especially in the putative "land of the free 
and home of the brave" - that I respectfully submit it is increasingly more 
important for anti-death penalty writers to use the word 'torture,' as a 
censure, to describe the barbarity of lethal injection. Other than genocide and 
atrocity, perhaps no other single-word descriptor is capable of generating the 
same level of opprobrium, righteous indignation, and negative international 
press coverage as the word 'torture.' A not very humble example is a column I 
published in the Hill last year, at about this same time, called "Alabama's 
torture of Ronald Smith spotlights unequal justice under law." (Others include 
an opinion I published a few months later in Alabama's Montgomery Advertiser - 
not only about Mr. Smith's patently botched execution, but about all of 
Alabama's volatile executions by lethal injection - called "Is Alabama hiding 
that it tortured its citizens," "Alabama's Human Guinea Pigs: Burning People 
Alive on Death Row," and, most recently in the series, "Alabama's 'Baghdad Bob' 
of death row.")

Nevertheless, notwithstanding my hyper-technical, terminology-centric complaint 
about this year's version of the Times's perennial plea for death penalty 
abolition, it was a darned sight better than the Washington Post's overly rosy 
outlook. Despite leading with the appropriately morose title, "[a]nother year 
in death," the Post's piece irrationally extols the significance of DPIC's 
annual report, insipidly informing its readers there is "cause for celebration" 
because "[n]o matter the reason, it is heartening to see the country become 
steadily more humane."

Horse hockey. Each and every year since the death penalty's reinstatement over 
45 years ago, stern-faced state officials, particularly in the South, regularly 
trot out, for extra pay, withered, weakened, beaten-down - dying even - old men 
(and much more rarely, women) to torture them to death. This occurs many years, 
sometimes even decades, after their crimes of conviction. As I have written 
elsewhere decrying the "unacceptable racial bias [that] persists in capital 
punishment": "[s]ometime soon in the 31 states that have not abolished the 
death penalty, leaders at the highest levels of state government, men and women 
- mostly men and mostly white - will hold private, closed-door meetings, in 
which they will discuss the most secretive, most cost-effective, most 
media-friendly way to go about killing 1, or more of its citizens."

And there's nothing - not a damn thing - humane or celebratory about that.

(source: Stephen Cooper is a former D.C. public defender who worked as an 
assistant federal public defender in Alabama between 2012 and 2015. He has 
contributed to numerous magazines and newspapers in the United States and 
overseas----The Berkeley Daily Planet)