[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, OHIO, IND., ARK., NEB., USA

[Rick Halperin]

March 22



TEXAS----new execution date

Christopher Young has been given an execution date for July 17; it should be 
considered serious.

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

Supreme Court gives Texas inmate chance to secure funds that could help him 
avoid death penalty



The Supreme Court on Wednesday said a Texas death-row inmate deserves another 
chance at securing funds for evidence that might lead to a reconsideration of 
his sentence.

The justices were unanimous in ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
5th Circuit was too restrictive in reading a federal law that allows indigent 
defendants to secure money for "investigative, expert or other services."

The federal Criminal Justice Act allows lawyers to receive such funds when it 
is "reasonably necessary" to assemble the kind of mitigating evidence that 
might persuade the jury to forego a sentence of death.

But a judge denied the funds to attorneys for Carlos Manuel Ayestas, who was 
convicted of the killing of 67-year-old Santiaga Paneque during an invasion of 
her Houston home in 1995.

In the 5th Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, the law has 
been interpreted to mean a defendant must show that there is a "substantial 
need" for such services.

Ayestas's attorneys said that created something of a Catch-22: The defendant 
would have to demonstrate that there is some relevant evidence he could 
discover without first having the funding to pursue that evidence.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the appeals court was wrong to impose the 
"substantial need" standard.

Ayestas "contends that this interpretation is more demanding than the standard 
- "reasonably necessary" - set out in the statute," Alito wrote. "And although 
the difference between the 2 formulations may not be great, petitioner has a 
point."

Courts deciding whether to grant the funds - Ayestas's attorneys asked for 
$20,000 - must consider the potential merit of the claims a petitioner wants to 
pursue, the likelihood that something beneficial might be obtained and whether 
the petitioner would be able to clear any procedural hurdles to presenting the 
mitigating evidence.

Ayestas wants to show that his previous attorneys provided ineffective counsel, 
because they did not present a fuller portrait of his life that might spare him 
from execution. They contend he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and was a 
regular user of cocaine and alcohol at the time of what Justice Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg at oral arguments called a "horrific" killing.

The case returns to lower courts so that they can judge Ayestas's request under 
the proper standard.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg, thought that step was unnecessary.

"On the record before this court, there should be little doubt that Ayestas has 
satisfied" the standard, Sotomayor wrote.

The case is Ayestas v. Davis.

The court also ruled for the defendant in a 2nd case decided Wednesday.

The justices ruled 7 to 2 that, for someone to be convicted of obstructing the 
work of the Internal Revenue Service, a person must be aware that he or she is 
under investigation or should have known that was a reasonable possibility.

(source: Washington Post)

****************** ----- impending execution

Death Watch: The Suitcase Killer----State's 4th execution set for March 27



Late on Monday afternoon, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied death row 
inmate Rosendo Rodriguez III's most recent appeal, and time is running out. 
Rodriguez was convicted of raping, beating, and killing Summer Baldwin at a 
Lubbock hotel in 2005, then trashing her body in a suitcase at the city dump. 
He confessed to the killing - as well as the murder of a 16-year-old girl whose 
body was also discovered in a suitcase 1 year before.

Following the CCA's ruling, Rodriguez's attorney Seth Kretzer filed a flurry of 
new appeals in state and federal courts, arguing that his client did not 
receive a fair trial. The argument hinges on an unrelated 2015 lawsuit filed 
against Sridhar Natarajan, the Lubbock medical examiner who reported to have 
performed Baldwin's autopsy - which accuses the M.E. of routinely "delegating" 
decisions to his senior forensic nurse who often decided "which bodies to 
autopsy" and which required only "visual inspection." As Rodriguez's March 27 
death date nears, his lawyer claims the prosecution team used a "discredited 
forensic scientist to deprive" Rodriguez of a fair trial, which ultimately 
violated his constitutional right to due process. The appeal goes on to say the 
state also violated Brady obligations by failing to disclose the aforementioned 
lawsuit and Natarajan's pricey out-of-court settlement. Rodriguez would be the 
fourth Texan executed this year; only Thomas Whitaker has been spared to date.

(source: Austin Chronicle)

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

Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----30

Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----548

Abbott#--------scheduled execution date-----name------------Tx. #

31----------Mar. 27----------------Rosendo Rodriguez III--549

32----------Apr. 25----------------Erick Davila-----------550

33----------May 16----------------Juan Castillo-----------551

34---------June 21-----------------Clifton Williams-------552

35---------June 27-----------------Danny Bible------------553

36---------July 17-----------------Christopher Young------554

(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)

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

Guilty verdict starts cop killer's death penalty battle



After 9 days of often riveting testimony, a jury here found Shaun Ruiz Puente, 
36, guilty of capital murder Wednesday for fatally shooting San Antonio Police 
Officer Robert Deckard during a high-speed chase on Dec. 8, 2013.

The verdict cleared the way for testimony on whether Puente should get the 
death penalty or life in prison without parole. His defense attorney, Anna 
Jimenez, had admitted when the trial opened that Puente fired the shot that hit 
Deckard, 31, in the forehead, causing his San Antonio Police Department Chevy 
Tahoe to crash into a tree off Interstate 37 in Atascosa County. He was taken 
off life support 13 days later.

Puente and his girlfriend, Jenevieve Ramos, then 28, were captured in Wilson 
County. Ramos also faces a capital murder charge and will be tried later.

The jury deliberated all afternoon. Puente showed no expression when the 
verdict was announced, nor did it draw a sound from friends and family of the 
slain officer or the defendant, who have sat on opposite sides of the 
courtroom. A couple of people on the defendant's side wiped away tears.

State District Judge Donna Rayes cautioned lawyers and witnesses to make no 
public comment until the trial was over. The punishment phase will begin 
Thursday.

(source: mysanantonio.com)

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

U.S. Supreme Court orders lower court to reconsider Texas death row inmate's 
appeal for funds to investigate his case----Carlos Ayestas, 48, said he wants 
to explore evidence of his mental illness, brain injuries or drug use that 
wasn't brought up during his trial for the murder of a 67-year-old woman.



The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Texas death row inmate Wednesday, 
ordering a federal appellate court to reconsider providing funding for him to 
investigate previously unexplored evidence that he believes could toss out his 
death sentence.

The high court ruled unanimously to send the case of Carlos Ayestas - a 
48-year-old Honduran national who was sentenced to death more than 20 years ago 
in the 1995 Houston murder and home burglary of a 67-year-old woman - back to 
the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had denied requests for federal 
funding to look into Ayestas' claims of mental illness and substance abuse.

Since his imprisonment, Ayestas has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and he 
had told an investigator before his trial that he had suffered from multiple 
head traumas and regularly drank alcohol and used cocaine, according to 
Ayestas' filing to the court. But evidence about mental illness, brain injuries 
or drug use weren't brought up during his 1997 punishment trial.

The defense at his original trial brought forth no witnesses, only providing 
documents from an English teacher in prison that said he was a good student, 
the brief said. Prosecutors, meanwhile, pushed for the death penalty, arguing 
Ayestas threatened to kill people who knew about the fatal beating and 
strangulation of the victim, Santiaga Paneque.

In his federal appeals years later, Ayestas' lawyers sought funds they said 
were "reasonably necessary" to investigate the claims of mental illness and 
substance abuse because, they argued, if the issues were raised at trial, the 
jury may have been persuaded to opt for the lesser sentence. But the appellate 
court denied the request, saying Ayestas didn't show a "substantial need" for 
the funding.

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the lower court "did not apply the 
correct legal standard" in that decision. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the 
court that "the Fifth Circuit's requirement that applicants show a 'substantial 
need' for the services is arguably a more demanding standard." Ayestas' case 
will now be sent back to the 5th Circuit for further proceedings.

The 5th Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi and leans 
heavily to right politically, requires that poor inmates facing the death 
penalty must show not only that there is a reasonable need for funding of these 
investigations, but a substantial one. It's a difference in words that the 
court picked at when it rejected Ayestas' request.

Ayestas' lawyers argued that the court's strictness means Ayestas has to prove 
his claims to the court before he can get the resources to investigate them. 
But the 5th Circuit said there was no obligation for his trial lawyers to look 
into those areas and that any potential findings wouldn't necessarily have 
affected his sentence because of the crime's brutality and Ayestas' threatening 
actions afterward.

(source: Texas Tribune)








OHIO:

Ohio Republicans Want The Death Penalty For Women Who Have Abortions----The 
Ohio bill, HB 565 seeks to criminally charge those who have or perform 
abortions with homicide with a sentence of life in prison or the death penalty.



Nowhere is the war on women more visible than in the actions of anti-choice 
politicians and activists who are wasting millions of dollars in their quest to 
overturn Roe v. Wade. The latest attack on women's rights comes from Ohio, 
where 20 House Republicans signed on to a measure that seeks to ban all 
abortions even in cases of rape or incest. The bill, HB 565, also seeks to 
criminally charge those who have or perform abortions with homicide with a 
sentence of life in prison or the death penalty.

Please re-read that. It is being suggested to kill a human being for having an 
abortion -- even in cases of rape or incest. The rapist wouldn't even be 
charged as severely (take for example the case of Ohio college student Nicolas 
Cristescu who received 5 years in prison for sexually assaulting an unconscious 
woman). How does any of this make sense?

For their extreme measures to restrict reproductive rights, Ohio has been sued 
4 times by the American Civil Liberties Union. Because of their stance, Ohio 
will spend several million dollars in attempt to uphold their suppressive 
bills. Millions of dollars. Those millions of dollars should go to proven 
measures to prevent abortion -- sexual education, free and easy access to birth 
control, including emergency contraception, and insurance coverage for family 
planning to name a few.

There appears to be some sanity amongst those who uphold the law as a federal 
judge blocked Mississippi from their attempt to create what was the most 
restrictive measure in the United States -- just days before Ohio's HB 565 came 
along. On Monday, Mississippi's Republican Governor Phil Bryant signed a 
measure to ban abortion after 15 weeks -- it became law immediately. It was on 
Tuesday that a judge temporarily blocked the oppressive ruling.

Women's rights are hanging in the balance and our battle has many fronts. One 
of the more contentious parts of the Health Care Bill has to do with abortion, 
which in turn is stalling efforts for Democrats and Republicans to agree and 
therefore becomes a detriment to our well beings, our care, our health. The 
Guttmacher Institute reports that 26 states restrict abortion coverage in any 
medical plan offered through insurance. This is just one statistic of many in 
the attempt to make abortion less accessible for all, but particularly for 
lower income women.

It's shameful that now, 45 years after Roe v. Wade, this is still an issue. 
America's abortion laws vary from state to state, but with the great divide 
that is only deepening due to the emergence of Trumpism many states are 
attempting stricter laws at a great price -- both financially and at the 
expense of women. Mississippi and Ohio are just 2 examples that happened this 
week. There are millions of dollars being spent to restrict a woman's right to 
choose daily -- there are people who want to criminalize women for unwanted 
pregnancies, lawmakers who suggest the death penalty for a woman who decides 
she cannot have a child for reasons that are no one's business but her own. 
Republicans continue to prove that they will not rest until every sliver of 
rights a woman has is taken away from her. These anti-choice extremists are 
terrorizing women.

Abortion must be legal and safe for all, not just for the women who have a 
pregnancy scare with republicans. Recall Rep. Tim Murphy, the staunch 
anti-choice congressman from Pennsylvania, who last year urged the woman he was 
having an affair with to have an abortion. Women, however, will not allow their 
America to turn into a dystopia where our autonomy is taken away, where our 
rights are an afterthought. We need to make sure we elect those who seek to 
improve and increase women's rights. It's terrifyingly clear there are too many 
in power who want to take our rights away. We will not go quietly back to the 
1950s.

(source: thedailybanter.com)

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

Reagan Tokes trial: Closing arguments conclude, jury begins deliberation for 
possible death sentence of Brian Golsby



The broken childhood of Brian Golsby will either spare his life or will cease 
to matter once the jury returns with its recommendation for a sentence for the 
convicted murderer.

In the closing arguments Tuesday, the prosecution said Golsby is capable of 
making his own decisions, such as raping, robbing and murdering Ohio State 
student Reagan Tokes, while the defense argued the jury cannot look at the 
mitigating factors of Golsby's childhood and justify a death sentence. Golsby 
had several traumatic experiences as a child that psychologist Bob Stinson 
called a "recipe for disaster" Monday.

Assistant prosecutor James Lowe and Prosecutor Ron O'Brien told the jury the 
only appropriate decision regarding Goldby's sentencing is death.

"At some point, that cracked foundation that Bob Stinson told you about is no 
longer responsible," Lowe said. "At some point, Brian is responsible for his 
own choices. If Brian Golsby was a recipe for disaster, it was the choices he 
made."

Lowe said Golsby's choices in foster care and in youth services show a pattern 
of wrong decisions that led to the night of Feb. 8, 2017.

In his statement, Lowe said as a youth Golsby continued to run away from foster 
homes and didn???t give those parents a chance; he raped the daughter of his 
dad's girlfriend; he decided not to go to outpatient treatment; after landing 
in a stable environment, he was unwilling to stay.

Golsby kept his head down during the prosecution's argument, refusing to make 
eye contact with anything but his hands.

Lowe said Golsby's unsworn statement and apology from last week in which he 
plead for mercy on his life was "dripping with irony." Lowe hammered the point 
that at his age, Golsby has to be held accountable for his actions.

In her 41-minute closing argument, defense attorney Diane Menashe said Golsby's 
character has changed since his arrest on Feb. 11, 2017. She said he has 
received no citations while in prison - though the prosecution detailed Monday 
that Golsby tried to break down a door to fight another inmate within the last 
year of his holding. Menashe also said his willingness to give an unsworn 
statement and apology is reason to spare his life.

"Mr. O'Brien doesn't think [the statement] was genuine. I went back in that 
holding tank afterward and I told Brian, 'I am so effing proud of you,' she 
said. "Because I was proud of him and I am proud of him."

In his rebuttal, O'Brien fired back, saying, after listening to the recording 
of Golsby's statement 3 times before Tuesday, that he believes Golsby was not 
remorseful for murdering the 21-year-old. He said he saw a man who was wiggling 
throughout the statement, faking his way through it.

"Do not let this man continue to wiggle," O'Brien said.

Menashe presented a display of 17 mitigating factors that she believes could 
diminish the appropriateness of a death sentence, as well as other factors that 
painted Golsby as a victim of a broken children services system - which was a 
continuation of the defense's testimony Monday.

The factors included Golsby's history of sexual and physical abuse, the absence 
of a father, an abusive mother and mental health issues, among others.

The jury will recommend either 1 of 3 life sentences or the death penalty on 4 
different counts of aggravated murder. If it cannot unanimously agree on the 
death penalty, the jury is required to recommend life in prison with the option 
of parole after 25 years, after 30 years, or with no option for parole at all.

"I am not offering [these factors] for what Brian Golsby did to Reagan Tokes," 
Menashe said. "There is no excuse for that. I'm offering this to get you to 
understand why he would make such an incredibly, horribly horrendous choice."

O'Brien implored the jury not to let the defense divert its attention away from 
the fact that Golsby was the one who committed the crime, not his past.

"That man is a disaster sitting there today," he said. "That disaster that sits 
there, the only appropriate punishment for the benefit of society ... we are 
entitled to a verdict of death."

Menashe said he had no mother, no father, no support system, which led to 
repeated criminal acts.

It led to no Reagan Tokes.

(source: The Lantern)








INDIANA:

Indiana justices to rule on lawyer in Fort Wayne death penalty case



The Indiana Supreme Court will consider an appeal that challenges a ruling to 
remove a defense attorney from a death penalty case.

Allen Superior Court Judge Fran Gull removed defense attorney Nikos Nakos from 
Marcus Dansby's death penalty case in January, citing his lack of training in 
such cases, The Journal Gazette reported.

Nakos contended that he's qualified and has said the rules for training apply 
only to public defenders.

Norman Lefstein, dean emeritus at Indiana University???s Robert H. McKinney 
School of Law, has said state rules for lawyers in death penalty cases apply 
only to appointed attorneys. However, he said a judge can decide whether to 
remove an attorney.

Public defenders assigned to Dansby's case after the removal filed paperwork in 
February seeking an appeal. The attorneys also questioned whether Gull violated 
Dansby's constitutional right to the attorney of his choice.

Gull certified the request Tuesday. It now goes to state Supreme Court justices 
for consideration. Other actions in the case are halted until a decision is 
reached by the high court.

Dansby is charged in the deaths of Consuela Arrington, 37; Traeven Harris, 18; 
and Dajahiona Arrington, 18. Prosecutors filed 4 murder charges because 
Arrington, Danby's former girlfriend, was 8 1/2 months pregnant.

Dansby was notified in January that prosecutors would seek the death penalty if 
he's convicted.

Nakos has said that Dansby maintains his innocence in the slayings and has 
refused to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of life without parole.

(source: Associated Press)








ARKANSAS:

Ark. death row inmate asks court to wait for 1 more plea



An Arkansas death row inmate out of appeals at the state level wants another 
chance before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Don Davis on Wednesday asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to recall a day-old 
order ending his most recent appeal.

Davis intends to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether Arkansas' 
justices erred when they said he wasn't entitled to independent mental health 
experts before and during his trial. The U.S. Supreme Court considered a 
similar case last year.

Davis was among 8 inmates scheduled to die last April before winning a stay. 
Arkansas ultimately executed 4 inmates.

Arkansas' attorney general said she would respond later.

Without court intervention, Arkansas would be free to set an execution date, 
though it currently doesn't have a full supply of execution drugs.

(source: Associated Press)








NEBRASKA:

Nebraska Sen. Chambers Seeks Death Penalty Drug Hearing



State Sen. Ernie Chambers has filed a complaint that could trigger a 
legislative hearing on Nebraska's lethal injection protocol.

Chambers submitted the complaint Wednesday to the Legislature's Executive 
Board.

Chambers contends the Department of Correctional Services has violated state 
and federal laws and that its lethal injection protocol is unconstitutional.

The complaint follows the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska's 
allegations that prison officials may have violated federal laws in obtaining 
execution drugs.

Prison officials say they were purchased legally. Gov. Pete Ricketts has 
accused the ACLU of fabricating charges.

Chambers is invoking a law that requires the Executive Board's chairman or a 
staff member to refer his complaint to a legislative committee. Chambers says 
the Judiciary Committee should investigate it.

Chambers sits on the committee. He opposes capital punishment.

(source: Associated Press)








USA:

Attorney General tells prosecutors to seek death penalty in drug cases



U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructed federal prosecutors on Wednesday 
to seek the death penalty in drug-related cases whenever it is legally 
permissible, saying the Justice Department must ramp up its efforts in the wake 
of the opioid epidemic.

Sessions' controversial mandate to prosecutors comes on the heels of a plan 
announced by President Donald Trump earlier this week, which called for 
executing opioid dealers and traffickers.

"In the face of all of this death, we cannot continue with business as usual," 
Sessions said in a statement.

(source: Reuters)

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

Prosecutors will seek death penalty against man accused of killing 2 Conway 
bank employees



Federal prosecutors announced they will seek the death penalty against the man 
accused of shooting and killing 2 employees during a Conway (S.C.) bank robbery 
last August.

A notice of intent to seek the death penalty against Brandon Council was filed 
Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Florence. He faces 2 counts of murder 
in connection with the Aug. 21, 2017 CresCom Bank robbery.

Council is accused of killing Donna Major, 59, of Conway, and Kathryn "Katie" 
Skeen, 36, of Green Sea.

In its notice of intent, prosecutors note the defendant, "displayed particular 
cruelty and callous disregard for human life by shooting both victims, who were 
unknown to him, multiple times at close range without warning and without 
provocation or resistance from the victims, in spite of the fact that such 
violence was not necessary to successfully complete the robbery of the CresCom 
bank."

(source: WMBF news)

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

Death penalty cost considerations



According to Ralph Dellapiana, the death penalty should be abolished because it 
costs millions of dollars to uphold and life without parole is cheaper. In 
return, that money could be spent on improving other issues. However, I think 
it's worth the price.

For example, in 2015, Dylann Roof opened fire on African-Americans in church. 
He showed no remorse during the entirety of his trial and felt justified in his 
actions. Appropriately, he was sentenced to death. Maybe the number of mass 
shootings would decrease if perpetrators were executed instead of pleading 
mentally ill.

My father is incarcerated, therefore, I know they eat good, watch movies, have 
visitors, etc. To give these criminals the luxury of having a life in prison 
amounts to granting them clemency for the inhumane acts of violence they have 
committed.

Alexa Harcourt

Fayetteville, Arkansas

(source: Letter to the Editor, Deseret News)