[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ARK., S.DAK., COLO., UTAH, CALIF., USA
Rick Halperin
rhalperi at smu.edu
Tue Jun 12 08:09:13 CDT 2018
- Previous message (by thread): [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., FLA., OHIO, IND.
- Next message (by thread): [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., N.C., OHIO, IND., KY., NEB., CALIF.
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
June 12
ARKANSAS:
Arkansas judge seeks to dismiss complaint over demonstration
An Arkansas judge charged with breaking judicial ethics rules for participating
in an anti-death penalty demonstration the same day he blocked the state from
using an execution drug says a disciplinary panel should dismiss its case
against him.
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen's attorneys renewed their May 2017
request for the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission to dismiss the
complaint against the judge.
He was photographed on a cot outside the governor's mansion last year wearing
an anti-death penalty button and surrounded by people holding signs opposing
executions. Earlier that day, Griffen blocked the state from using a lethal
injection drug over claims the company had been misled by the state.
A 3-member panel of the commission on Friday charged Griffen with violating
ethics rules over the demonstration.
(source: Associated Press)
SOUTH DAKOTA:
Was This Man Sentenced to Death Because He's Gay?----His defenders say yes.
South Dakota says no. The Supreme Court may soon weigh in.
Before South Dakota jurors decided the fate of Charles Rhines in 1993, they
sent a handwritten note to the judge. They had just found Rhines guilty of
fatally stabbing 22-year-old Donnivan Schaeffer, an employee of Dig 'Em Donuts
in Rapid City, during a robbery a year earlier. But now they had some
questions.
Case in Point
In "Case in Point," Andrew Cohen examines a single case or character that sheds
light on the criminal justice system. An audio version of Case in Point is
broadcast with The Takeaway, a public radio show from WNYC, Public Radio
International, The New York Times, and WGBH-Boston Public Radio.
If they didn't vote for the death penalty, what would his life in prison look
like? Would he be "allowed to mix with the general inmate population"? Would he
be able "to create a group of followers or admirers"? Would he have a cellmate?
The judge said he couldn't answer, and the jury sent Rhines to death row, where
he remains today. A few years ago, those seemingly innocuous questions became
crucial to the last-ditch efforts to save his life. Rhines's lawyers knew that
the jurors had been told that Rhines is gay. They went looking for jurors,
following a hunch that turned out to be correct.
"There was lots of discussion of homosexuality," one juror recalled, according
to affidavits later filed in court. "There were lots of folks who were like,
'Ew, I can't believe that.'" Another juror said they "knew that he was a
homosexual and thought that he shouldn't be able to spend his life with men in
prison." A 3rd recalled overhearing a fellow juror say that life in prison
would mean "sending him where he wants to go."
In essence, the defense argues, the jury sent Rhines to his death because some
jurors thought life in a male prison might be enjoyable for a gay man.
South Dakota jurors sent Charles Rhines, pictured, to death row for fatally
stabbing Donnivan Schaeffer. Rapid City Journal
The Supreme Court is now considering whether to hear Rhines's argument that his
death sentence should be thrown out because it was tainted by homophobia. In
the wake of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision - in which the court ruled for a
baker who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple - the Rhines
case could pave the way for new legal debates about how the justice system
treats LGBTQ+ people accused of crimes. Simply put: Can a sentence be
overturned if it was based on someone's sexual orientation?
Until recently, the answer would have been an easy no. A central tenet of
American law is that what happens in the jury room stays in the jury room.
(This is often called the "no-impeachment rule.") But last year, the court made
an exception to that rule in the case of Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez. He was
convicted of sexually assaulting 2 teenage girls, but a juror had allegedly
remarked that Mexican men "had a bravado that caused them to believe they could
do whatever they wanted with women." Sending the case back to lower courts,
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that judges should look at situations where a
jury may have relied on "racial stereotypes or animus" to find someone guilty.
The justices then ordered a lower court to revisit the case of Keith Tharpe.
Years after sentencing Tharpe to death, a juror admitted, "I have wondered if
black people even have souls."
These cases concern race, but Shawn Nolan, who oversees Rhines's defense team
at the Federal Community Defender Office in Philadelphia, called sexual
orientation "a natural next step."
Paul Swedlund, the assistant attorney general for South Dakota who is arguing
against Rhines, said he could not comment on pending litigation. But his brief
to the Supreme Court punches back hard, arguing that jurors had lots of reasons
to sentence Rhines to death beyond his sexual orientation. "Rhines locked
Donnivan's head between his knees and pounded a hunting knife into the base of
Donnivan's skull, partially severing his brain stem," the brief says.
"Unaffected by the screams and blood and death, Rhines left the store with his
loot to get something to eat...an order of french fries."
Then there was his "bloodcurdling confession, in which he cackles while
comparing young Donnivan's death spasms to a beheaded chicken running around a
barnyard."
The state's lawyers also argue that discrimination against sexual minorities
has not been as destructive - and thus in need of policing by the courts - as
racial discrimination. "No politician has ever proposed constructing a wall to
keep homosexuals out of the country," the state's brief says. "No civil war has
been fought over [sexual orientation]. No nationwide pogrom has been
perpetrated for the enslavement or eradication of homosexuals."
In other cases, prosecutors have been criticized for making inflammatory
comments about a defendant's sexual orientation, but researchers know little
about whether juries listen to them. A few studies have found that college
students, serving as mock jurors, tend to find people they know are homosexual
guilty more often in certain circumstances. "If there is a potential
homosexuality component to the case, this is something that is on the minds of
jurors," Bellarmine University criminologist Heather Pruss wrote in a
dissertation based on thousands of interviews conducted by the national Capital
Jury Project. But how jurors evaluate sexual orientation is difficult to
untangle. In cases out of Kentucky and California, for example, jurors spoke
disparagingly about gay victims - suggesting they were somehow culpable because
they were lured by the defendants - and the implication was that this made the
jurors less likely to vote for death.
Such cases are rare, and the legal battles over them are plagued by hazy facts.
Juries don't typically record their conversations, and interviews with former
jurors often happen years or even decades after the fact. Some judges also
restrict the ability of defenders to interview former jurors. Even when they
find them, each of the twelve can remember things a little differently.
South Dakota also says Rhines shouldn't have an audience before the Supreme
Court because the defense misrepresented what jurors really said in interviews.
The state sent its own investigator to find the jurors in May 2017. Many told
him they had no memory of the homophobic comment and felt harassed by the
defense. One did recall someone saying Rhines might "like life in the
penitentiary among other men," but said this line was a passing remark that was
given little weight.
The state lashed out at the defense lawyers as a "boutique, anti-death penalty
law firm" that stretched the truth to save their client. "We're not boutique!
We're public defenders!" Nolan responded, pointing out that the state has not
shown that any jurors actually recanted their comments on homosexuality.
But what really happened in the jury room? I reached out to 3 jurors - 1 quoted
by the defense, 1 quoted by the prosecution, and 1 quoted by both sides - and
the picture grew even muddier.
Former juror Frances Cersosimo said last week that she vividly remembers a
juror saying that Rhines might not mind life in prison because he was gay.
"There was a murmuring, everyone said 'Whaaat?" Cersosimo recalled.
Immediately, this man admitted "it was a stupid thing to say...I don't know why
I said that." The South Dakota state investigator characterized this as a
"joke," though Cersosimo insisted, "It was not a joke." (The juror she recalled
being the one who said this declined to comment.)
In another affidavit collected by the defense, juror Harry Keeney admits the
knowledge of Rhines's homosexuality affected his decision. His signature
appears shaky and the state says this is because he has dementia. His wife
Janet Keeney confirmed to The Marshall Project this is true. "I think he didn't
say that," she said of the comment in question. "I wouldn't depend upon it."
"We'd just come back from a vacation," she added. "We were tired...The average
person can't remember what happened 25 years ago."
The jurors I reached all said that they sentenced Rhines to death primarily
because of the nature of the murder. "The pictures of the kid, he way he
bragged about the kid begging for his life. Those things never leave your
head," said juror Delight McGriff, who has no memory of any comments about
homosexuality, though she admitted "this was a long time ago."
The Supreme Court will discuss whether to take the case on Thursday. Rhines's
lawyers, in asking them to say yes, cite the case of Duane Buck. At his trial,
an expert witness made remarks about his race. When the court overturned his
sentence, Chief Justice John Roberts memorably declared that the "law punishes
people for what they do, not who they are." The expert's comments boiled down
to a couple of sentences, but Roberts noted that "some toxins are deadly in
small doses." If the Supreme Court agrees to hear Rhines's case, they'll again
need to decide how to weigh just a few words, uttered decades ago and now
mostly forgotten.
(source: themarshallproject.org)
COLORADO:
Colorado Supreme Court rules prosecutorial misconduct docs can remain secret in
death row case----The state's highest court ruled against The Colorado
Independent in its attempt to unseal the records detailing wrongdoing by DA and
AG candidate George Brauchler's office.
The Colorado Supreme Court today denied a petition from The Colorado
Independent to unseal records about prosecutorial misconduct in the capital
case against Sir Mario Owens, a death row inmate who was convicted of murdering
a state lawmaker's son.
The unanimous ruling may make it easier for Colorado courts to decide to block
public access to court documents. That includes, evidently, records related to
cases in which the death penalty is at issue and cases in which prosecutors are
accused of wrongdoing, said Steve Zansberg, attorney for the Independent.
"These types of documents are the only way the press and public can gauge
whether prosecutors and judges - officials who have enormous power over
people's lives - are serving ethically and fairly. By allowing these records to
be shrouded in secrecy, this ruling will further erode confidence in Colorado's
criminal justice system and the public's trust the judicial branch of our state
government," said Independent Editor Susan Greene.
The Independent is considering appealing today's ruling to the U.S. Supreme
Court, which, as the state Supreme Court wrote, has never ruled on the matter
of whether access to "all criminal justice records is a constitutionally
guaranteed right belonging to the public at large."
The statewide nonprofit news site filed an emergency petition in January to the
state Supreme Court after District Court Judge Christopher Munch issued a
1,500-page order issued nine months ago in which Munch upheld Owens' conviction
and death sentence despite having found a pattern of misconduct by state
prosecutors whom the judge found withheld evidence that might have helped
Owens.
This suppression of evidence happened under the watch of Carol Chambers, the
former district attorney of the 18th Judicial District, and later under her
successor, District Attorney George Brauchler, the Republican currently running
for state attorney general.
Vikki Migoya, spokeswoman for Brauchler's office, said, "We feel the ruling
speaks for itself and have nothing to add."
Owens' legal team filed a motion seeking to disqualify Brauchler's office from
the case on grounds that the office had withheld evidence that could have
helped Owens's defense. That motion asked the court to appoint a special
prosecutor from another district, but it was denied and sealed along with the
denial and all documentation related it.
"While presumptive access to judicial proceedings is a right recognized under
both the state and federal constitutions," Justice Melissa Hart wrote on behalf
of the state Supreme Court, "neither the United States Supreme Court nor this
court has ever held that records filed with a court are treated the same way.
We decline to conclude here that such unfettered access to criminal justice
records is guaranteed by either the First Amendment or ... the Colorado
Constitution."
The ruling today has statewide impact and "means the public will never come to
understand why a motion to disqualify a prosecutor in a capital murder case was
denied. That's, I think, deeply disconcerting," said Steve Zansberg, attorney
for the Independent.
"I'm not saying (Owens's) motion should have been granted. but we'll never know
why it was denied."
Said Jeff Roberts, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information
Coalition, "Access to court records is important so that the public can
evaluate how the criminal justice system is working and hold officials
accountable. So it's disappointing that relevant facts about the prosecution of
a capital murder case will remain under seal."
Owens, 32, was convicted and sentenced to death in 2008 for the 2005 killings
of Vivian Wolfe and her fiancee, Javad Marshall-Fields - son of Rhonda Fields,
now a state senator from Aurora. Marshall-Fields was scheduled to testify
against a suspect in a different murder case for which Owens ultimately was
convicted.
Owens is 1 of 3 death-row inmates in Colorado. All 3 were prosecuted by the
office Brauchler now leads, and all 3 are African-American - a population that
comprises less than 5 % of Colorado's overall population. Vast racial and
socioeconomic disparities in who gets sentenced to death in the state have been
cited by civil libertarians and even Gov. John Hickenlooper, a 1-time death
penalty supporter, as reasons to reconsider capital punishment in the state.
Brauchler repeatedly has said his office is color-blind and ethical in seeking
death sentences. Since The Independent became a party in The People v. Sir
Mario Owens, the 18th Judicial District Court and the state Supreme Court have
blocked access not just to documents related prosecutorial misconduct
allegations, but also to Owens' entire 13-year case.
(source: coloradoindependent.com)
UTAH:
Prison settles lawsuit filed after inmate's death
A lawsuit filed in the death of a Utah man killed at the state prison has been
settled.
Jeffrey Vigil, 24, was beaten and stabbed to death after guards ignored
warnings that he would be in danger from members of a rival gang if he was
moved to another part of the prison, the lawsuit claimed.
Terms of the settlement reached Thursday were not immediately available, the
Standard-Examiner reported. The case filed by his widow originally sought $20
million in damages.
Prison authorities did not immediately respond to messages from The Associated
Press seeking comment on the case Monday.
Vigil was in prison for almost a year after violating his parole when he was
beaten to death in 2016. The suit also claimed the area was understaffed and
guards were slow to react to the attack. It says authorities canceled a 911
call at one point, contributing to a 45-minute delay before he reached the
hospital, the suit said.
The suit claimed prison officers were warned repeatedly that Vigil, a member of
the Ogden Trece gang, could be targeted by members of the rival Crips gang if
he was moved.
Vigil was originally in a maximum security area, but was transferred to a
lower-security cell, "possibly as a reward for good behavior," the suit said.
He was attacked hours after being transferred, the suit states. Authorities say
Ramon Luis Rivera, 31, stabbed him, choked him to unconsciousness and kicked
him in the head at least 70 times. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty if
he's convicted of aggravated murder.
An attorney for Rivera could not immediately be reached for comment. A 2nd man
is accused of preventing Vigil from escaping.
(source: Associated Press)
CALIFORNIA:
Jurors to weigh death penalty for eight-time serial killer who murdered women
in Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties
An 8-time serial killer was driven by anger and frustration combined with
childhood trauma and brain damage, his attorney on Monday told jurors who will
soon weigh whether the convicted killer should receive the death penalty.
As the penalty phase in the capital murder trial of Andrew Urdiales came to an
end, the 53-year-old killer's attorney argued that Urdiales feels remorse for
his actions and helped bring closure to the victim's families by confessing to
killing women in Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties.
Urdiales has been convicted of killing 1 woman in Orange County while stationed
as a U.S. Marine at Camp Pendleton; 4 women in Riverside and San Diego counties
while stationed at Twentynine Palms; and 3 women in Chicago while working as a
security guard after leaving the military.
Urdiales' attorney, Denise Gragg, during her closing arguments Monday noted
that had her client not brought up the California murders soon after being
arrested for the Chicago killings, law enforcement officials would not have
tied the slayings together.
"He didn't say he was crazy, he didn't say he was hallucinating, he didn't say
that God made him do it," Gragg said. "He was trying to figure out why he did
it, he didn't want to do it and he felt bad about doing it. Bad enough to go to
therapy for years, and bad enough that when he knew he was caught for the
Chicago murders to say 'call California'... that is worth something. That is
worth a lot."
The same Santa Ana jury last month found Urdiales guilty of the Orange County
murder of Robbin Brandley in 1986 in a Saddleback College parking lot in
Mission Viejo; and over the next 7 years the Riverside County killings of Julie
McGhee, Tammie Erwin and Denise Maney; and the San Diego slaying of Mary Ann
Wells. A Chicago jury previously convicted him of the killings of Laura Uylaki,
Cassandra Corum and Lynn Huberand.
During the most recent phase of the trial, jurors also heard dramatic testimony
from Jennifer Asbenson, who described in terrifying detail how she escaped from
Urdiales after being kidnapped and sexually assaulted in a remote Riverside
County desert.
Gragg contended that Urdiales was born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, a
result of his mother's drinking during her pregnancy. His condition was
worsened by a childhood marked by emotional, physical, sexual and psychological
abuse, as well as teen years in which he was targeted for regular harassment,
the defense attorney said.
Gragg told jurors that Urdiales was unable to connect with others, particularly
women, and had "free-floating anger" that led him to "lash out."
"There are people who commit these crimes because they just enjoy it," Gragg
said. "They enjoy hurting other people. That is not Mr. Urdiales."
Deputy District Attorney Matt Murphy during his closing arguments. dismissed
what he referred to as the "sad, abused, loner narrative."
"Kind of tough to make friends when you keep killing people you could be
friends with," Murphy told jurors.
Murphy described Urdiales as a a "misogynistic, sadistic monster" who killed
for his own pleasure. The prosecutor questioned whether Urdiales actually
suffered from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, arguing that he was capable of
controlling his impulse and desires.
Murphy also noted that Urdiales during one police interview told police he had
no remorse for killing Brandley, an aspiring broadcaster who was stabbed 41
times.
"What weight do we put on that?" Murphy asked the jury. "How many layers of
horror do we need before (death) is the appropriate penalty?"
Jurors are expected to begin deliberations on Tuesday morning as to whether
Urdiales should receive the death penalty or life without the possibility of
parole.
(source: Orange County Register)
USA:
Public support for the death penalty ticks up
Public support for the death penalty, which reached a 4-decade low in 2016, has
increased somewhat since then. Today, 54% of Americans favor the death penalty
for people convicted of murder, while 39% are opposed, according to a Pew
Research Center survey conducted in April and May.
2 years ago, 49% favored the death penalty for people convicted of murder, the
lowest level of support for capital punishment in surveys dating back to the
early 1970s.
While the share of Americans supporting the death penalty has risen since 2016,
it remains much lower than in the 1990s or throughout much of the 2000s. As
recently as 2007, about twice as many Americans favored (64%) as opposed (29%)
the death penalty for people convicted of murder.
Since the mid-1990s, support for the death penalty has fallen among Democrats
and independents but remained strong among Republicans.
About 3/4 of Republicans (77%) currently favor the death penalty, compared with
52% of independents and 35% of Democrats.
Since 1996, support for the death penalty has fallen 27 % points among
independents (from 79% to 52%) and 36 points among Democrats (71% to 35%). By
contrast, the share of Republicans favoring the death penalty declined 10
points during that span (from 87% to 77%).
The trends look somewhat different when considering a more recent time frame.
Since 2016, opinions among Republicans and Democrats have changed little, but
the share of independents favoring the death penalty has increased 8 % points
(from 44% to 52%).
Support for the death penalty has long been divided by gender and race. In the
new survey, about 6-in-10 men (61%) say they are in favor of the death penalty
and 34% are opposed. Women's views are more divided: 46% favor the death
penalty, while 45% oppose it.
A 59% majority of whites favor the death penalty for those convicted of murder,
compared with 47% of Hispanics and 36% of blacks.
Young people are somewhat less likely than older adults to favor capital
punishment. Those younger than 30 are divided - 47% favor and 46% oppose it -
but majorities in older age groups support the death penalty.
There are educational differences in views of the death penalty. Adults who
have a postgraduate degree are more likely to oppose the use of the death
penalty in cases of murder (56%) than those whose education ended with a
college degree (42%) and those who never received a postsecondary degree (36%
some college experience; 38% high school degree or less).
White evangelical Protestants continue to back the use of the death penalty by
a wide margin (73% favor, 19% oppose). White mainline Protestants also are
substantially more likely to support (61%) than oppose (30%) the death penalty.
But among Catholics and the religiously unaffiliated, opinion is more divided:
53% of Catholics favor capital punishment, while 42% oppose it. And while 45%
of those who are religiously unaffiliated oppose the death penalty, 48% support
it.
In 2015, a more detailed study of attitudes toward capital punishment found
that 63% of the public thought the death penalty was morally justified, but
majorities said there was some risk of an innocent person being put to death
(71%) and that the death penalty does not deter serious crime (61%).
(source: pewresearch.org)
- Previous message (by thread): [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., FLA., OHIO, IND.
- Next message (by thread): [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., N.C., OHIO, IND., KY., NEB., CALIF.
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the DeathPenalty
mailing list