[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.H., GA., FLA., LA.

[Rick Halperin]

May 3



TEXAS----impending execution

Texas Gives Juan Castillo Execution Date of May 16, 2018



Juan Edward Castillo is scheduled to be executed at 6 pm CDT, on Wednesday, May 
16, 2018, at the Walls Unit of the Huntsville State Penitentiary in Huntsville, 
Texas. 37-year-old Juan is convicted of the murder of 19-year-old Tommy Garcia, 
Jr., on December 3, 2003, in San Antonio, Texas. Juan has spent the last 12 
years of his life on Texas' death row.

Juan had previously worked as a cook and a laborer. He was previously convicted 
of deadly conduct with a firearm. During the trial, witnesses also testified 
that Juan was a violent man, threatening and beating the mother of his child. 
Additionally, he had previously shot a man during a road rage incident, boasted 
about similar crimes, and bragged about committing home invasions and 
robberies.

In December 2003, Juan Castillo was dating Debra Espinosa. Late on December 2, 
and during the early morning hours of December 3, 2003, the couple was with 
Francisco Gonzales, a friend of Castillo, and Gonzales' girlfriend Teresa 
Quintero. The 4 of them created a plan to rob Tommy Garcia, Jr., with whom 
Espinosa had previously been intimate.

Espinosa was to take Tommy to secluded spot in a residential neighborhood in 
San Antonio, Texas. Castillo and Gonzales, in masks and armed with guns, would 
storm the car and rob Tommy. Espinosa would play along, as if she were a victim 
too. Quintero would serve as the get away driver from Castillo and Gonzales. 
During the ensuing robbery, Tommy was shot and killed by Castillo, according to 
the others.

Gonzales was arrested by the police as he fled from the scene, with Espinosa 
arrested a short time later. Both agreed to testify against Castillo in 
exchange for a reduced charge and a sentence of 40 years in prison. Gonzales 
and Espinosa testified that Castillo took the lead in planning the robbery. 
They also testified that he was the person who shot and killed Tommy.

Some of Gonzales's family members also testified that they heard Castillo 
confess to the crime and speak of how he hid the evidence. 2 of Tommy's friends 
testified that they were with him when he received a phone call to meet up with 
Espinosa. Shortly thereafter, they received a phone call from a hysterical 
Espinosa, who said that Tommy had been shot. Castillo had also been seen 
wearing a distinctive necklace that Tommy had been wearing the night he was 
killed.

Castillo was convicted. During the punishment phase of the trial, Castillo 
elected to represent himself, a move that was allowed after the court 
determined Castillo was making a knowing and voluntary decision. His 2 
appointed attorneys remained as stand-by counsel. Castillo was sentenced to 
death.

Juan Castillo was previously scheduled to be executed on Thursday, September 7, 
2017. His execution was delayed at the request of the Bexar County District 
Attorney's Office. They requested that Juan's execution be rescheduled due to 
the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey days before. In their request, the 
Bexar County District Attorney's Office noted that several members of Juan's 
legal defense lived and worked in the Houston area, which was hit particularly 
hard by the hurricane, with torrential rain and flooding. The request was 
granted and the execution rescheduled for December 14, 2017. The December 
execution was stayed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in order to all 
time to investigate false testimony. Ultimately, it was ruled that the 
testimony of the witness who recanted was not pivotal to the case.

Please pray for peace and healing for the family of Tommy Garcia. Please pray 
for strength for the family of Juan. Please pray that Juan is innocent, lacks 
the competency to be executed, or should not be executed for any other reason, 
that evidence will be presented prior to his execution. Please pray that Juan 
may come to find peace through a personal relationship with the Lord, if he has 
not already.

(source: theforgivenessfoundation.org)

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

Death penalty conviction overturned in Houston cop killer case



Former death row inmate Alfred Dewayne Brown was released in 2015 and his 2005 
conviction was overturned, but Harris County District Attorney, Kim Ogg 
announced that the case was back under review Wednesday.

Ogg has appointed attorney John Raley to review the case and said in a 
statement that "Prosecution is a search for the truth. John Raley has the 
experience and independence to review all the evidence. Raley has been retained 
to perform an independent review regarding Alfred Dewayne Brown's claim of 
"actual innocence" in the crime and will present findings and recommendations 
to the District Attorney's Office."

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals threw out Brown's conviction for killing 
veteran Houston police officer Charles R. Clark because the Harris County 
District Attorney's office apparently withheld crucial evidence including phone 
records that proved favorable to Brown's case.

It turns out the records surfaced in 2014 when a homicide investigator was 
cleaning out his garage.

Brown was granted a new trial by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals which 
ruled that the state failed to disclose phone records supportive of Brown's 
alibi.

Raley is a trial lawyer with the Houston-based commercial litigation firm of 
Raley & Bowick, LLP.

He is recognized nationally by prosecutors and defense lawyers for his work in 
actual innocence cases. His 7-year fight to free Michael Morton led to the Act 
bearing Morton's name requiring prosecutors to share their complete 
investigation with defense lawyers.

(source: cw39.com)








NEW HAMPSHIRE:

Majority has spoken on death penalty



On Friday, the N.H. House joined the N.H. Senate in support of Senate Bill 593 
to repeal the death penalty. Outside the State House, standing in the rain, a 
cross-section of New Hampshire citizens - young, old, in-between, a murder 
victim's mother - all expressed their support for this common-sense action. 
Please urge Gov. Chris Sununu to accept the overwhelming support for SB 593 and 
sign it - or at least let it become law without his signature. It's the right 
thing to so and now is the time to do it.

DICK LUDDERS

Henniker

(source: Letter to the Editor, Concord Monitor)








GEORGIA----stay of impending execution

Parole board stays execution set for Thursday



The Georgia parole board has issued a stay for a condemned inmate who was 
scheduled to be executed Thursday.

Robert Earl Butts Jr. was scheduled to die Thursday evening at the state prison 
in Jackson. The State Board of Pardons and Paroles on Wednesday evening issued 
a stay of up to 90 days to further consider the case.

Board spokesman Steve Hayes said the board decided to issue a stay because of 
"the considerable amount of additional information' it had received in the 
case. He said the board will issue a decision during the stay or at the end of 
the 90 days. The parole board is the only authority in Georgia with the power 
to commute a death sentence.

Butts and 41-year-old Marion Wilson Jr. were convicted and sentenced to death 
in the March 1996 slaying of Donovan Corey Parks in central Georgia. The 2 men 
asked Parks for a ride outside a Walmart store and then ordered him out of the 
car and fatally shot him a short distance away.

(source: The Daily Journal)








FLORIDA----new death sentence

Judge sentences Cherish Perrywinkle's killer to death----Donald Smith was 
convicted in February of murder, sexual battery & kidnapping



Circuit Judge Mallory Cooper followed a jury's recommendation and sentenced 
Donald Smith to death Wednesday in the 2013 rape and murder of 8-year-old 
Cherish Perrywinkle.

Cooper, who came out of retirement to see the high-profile case through, handed 
down the death penalty for Perrywinkle's murder and life sentences for the 
remaining counts.

"May God have mercy on your soul," the judge told Smith.

Earlier, Cooper denied motions from Smith's defense attorneys that sought a new 
trial and new penalty phase for their client, on the grounds that he did not 
receive a fair trial.

Rayne Perrywinkle, Cherish's mother, was visibly emotional in court. She waited 
almost 5 years to hear the sentencing of the man who murdered her daughter.

"It's overwhelming. It's like I never thought this day would come, and now it's 
here," Perrywinkle said. "I don't move forward, I just exist now. I want to 
fight for children. That's the only thought going through my head."

Perrywinkle said she wants stronger laws to keep predators in prison.

"I had no clue he was a predator. He was let out for 21 days before he did 
this," Perrywinkle said. "Everyday I'm reminded by what he's done. It's not 
fair."

Jurors recommended in February that Smith, 61, be put to death for his crimes 
after finding him guilty of 1st-degree murder, sexual battery and kidnapping 
charges in the little girl's slaying.

Nearly 5 years after the tortured body of 8-year-old Cherish Perrywinkle was 
found discarded in the woods behind a church on Jacksonville's Northside, her 
killer is set to learn his fate Wednesday.

Jurors in February convicted Smith, 61, of 1st-degree murder, sexual battery 
and kidnapping charges in the high-profile 2013 killing that shook the 
Jacksonville community to its core.

In court Wednesday, Cooper is also anticipated to rule on a pair of motions 
filed the day before by Smith's defense attorney seeking a new trial and a new 
penalty phase for his client.

Attorney Charles Fletcher argued prosecutors compromised Smith's right to a 
fair trial and sentencing hearing, citing remarks made by State Attorney 
Melissa Nelson in an interview with News4Jax.

During the March 29 interview, Nelson said the "case is among the worst of the 
worst," so it was important to "send a message that the highest levels of the 
office were behind the prosecution."

Fletcher said that statement, which he characterized as inviting jurors or the 
judge to send a message with its verdict or sentence, were not proper according 
to state law.

In court filings, Fletcher listed a dozen reasons why his client deserves a new 
trial. Among them were "inflammatory" statements made by Assistant State 
Attorney Mark Caliel during closing arguments.

"From the grave, she's crying out to you: 'Donald Smith raped me,'" Caliel told 
jurors while holding up DNA evidence, according to a copy of the motion for a 
new trial.

Fletcher also argued the venue that several pieces of evidence should have been 
left out, including a recorded jailhouse chat Smith had with another inmate 
indicating he was sexually attracted to children.

But trial observer Randy Reep, an attorney who is not affiliated with the case, 
disagreed with Fletcher's arguments and expressed doubt that they would hold up 
in court.

For one, Reep said it's unlikely Cooper would have been influenced by Nelson's 
interview with News4Jax. He did acknowledge that while Caliel's statement did 
not cross the line, it came close.

"I don't think they are out of line the way they navigated it, but it's awfully 
close," he said. " ... When you are asking a jury, by their emotions, to do 
things they wouldn't necessarily do on the facts."

(source: news4jax.com)








LOUISIANA:

Senate bill looks to change Louisiana law on non-unanimous jury verdicts



A bill moving through the Louisiana legislature could change the way juries in 
felony cases reach a verdict.

Senate bill 243, authored by Sen. J.P. Morrell (D-New Orleans), would require 
unanimous verdicts in felony cases. As the law stands now, only 10 of 12 jurors 
need to agree. Louisiana is 1 of only 2 states that don't require a unanimous 
decision, Oregon being the other. But, it's the only state that allows a 10 out 
of 12 vote in murder cases, with the exception of death penalty trials.

"I just made it a personal commitment that I would do everything I could to see 
that this law was repealed," said Ed Tarpley, a former district attorney in 
Grant Parish and a current criminal defense attorney in Central Louisiana.

After 35 years practicing law, Tarpley said it took a book called "Jim Crow's 
Last Stand" to open his eyes to the origins of the state's non-unanimous jury 
verdict law.

"This was something that was shameful and disgraceful that Louisiana had a law 
like this and that it affected the lives of thousands and thousands of people," 
he said.

Last week, Tarpley testified in favor of SB 243, that would require unanimous 
verdicts in felony cases. As the law stands now, you can be convicted of a 
felony, or acquitted for that matter, in Louisiana if 10 out of 12 jurors say 
so.

A house committee unanimously supported the bill last week. It was a shock 
given that the bill has been opposed by nearly all of the district attorneys in 
the state.

"When the vote was called for and the chairman asked if there was any 
opposition and there was no opposition, we were stunned," said Tarpley.

Tarpley's argument is that the current law has Jim Crow era origins. In the 
debate over the state's 1974 constitution, no argument about the law was made 
about race. Instead, the debate focused on judicial efficiency and it was 
ultimately adopted by the people.

One of the district attorney's who has been vocal against the bill is John 
DeRosier of Calcasieu Parish. Loren Lampert, the former chief of police of the 
Alexandria Police Department and a longtime prosecutor, is his administrative 
1st assistant district attorney. He also does specialty prosecution around the 
state.

"The problem that I have right now is that there is absolutely no empirical 
evidence to suggest that unanimity equates to reliability of verdicts," said 
Lampert. "I think we can get there. I think we can do independent, objective 
study of that and analysis of the data that exists."

Lampert emphasized to us that only 12 convictions since the current law was 
adopted in 1974 have been reversed for a lack of sufficient evidence. And, in 9 
of those 12 cases, it was a unanimous verdict.

"The origins of this, it's horrible. There is no way to soften that blow," he 
said. "I'm as empathetic as I can be and I really acknowledge that and I'm not 
trying to diminish that in any way whatsoever. If this is a way to fix that, 
and the public decides that is the case, I'm for that as well."

Lampert hopes the debate focuses on the substance of reliable verdicts.

"I think if the data were to come out and show that unanimity in any 
substantial way improves reliability, not only would I not oppose that bill 
personally and individually, I'm speaking for myself, I would support it 
because I have that much faith in our system. It's the best system on the 
planet," he said.

He also points out that non-unanimous jury verdicts often help avoid things 
like costly re-trials that come if there are hung juries.

"I do think as good stewards we need to understand the data and know what it's 
going to cost," he said. "It's going to be a significant increase in the cost 
of a trial and length of a trial and the length of deliberations. But, if it 
does equate to reliability, then we should be willing to spend that money 
gladly. We just don't know the answer to that question."

Meanwhile, Tarpley argues that it's a prosecutor's responsibility to get a 
conviction by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt: "How can you say a person has 
been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt when one or two people on the jury 
still have doubt?"

The next step for the bill is to clear the full house by a 2/3 margin. It would 
then head back to the senate. If it passes the full legislature, you'll be 
asked to vote on it as a constitutional amendment in the fall.

We reached out to our local district attorneys in Central Louisiana for their 
thoughts on the bill.

Avoyelles Parish District Attorney Charles Riddle told us he will support a 
unanimous jury verdict system, but would also like to give prosecutors the 
option to require a jury. In other words, if a defendant can waive a jury 
trial, the state should be able to require one.

Grant Parish District Attorney Jay Lemoine gave us this statement: "If 
unanimous jury verdicts are actually more reliable, we must insist that we have 
them. If Louisiana's role in reconstruction and the racism that occurred during 
that time is the only factor to consider in whether split verdicts can stand, 
then they must fall.

Currently, we only have anecdotal evidence and unscientific studies that are 
put forward supporting this change. Unanimous verdicts do not necessarily 
increase the reliability of verdicts, and allows one holdout to nullify the 
jury. I support the study of reliable and empirical evidence, and until that 
shows that unanimous jury verdicts are unreliable, I oppose the move to require 
unanimous jury verdicts on all felony cases."

Rapides Parish District Attorney Phillip Terrell gave us this statement: "On 
the one hand, the burden of proof the state must bear is beyond a reasonable 
doubt. It has clearly been held by the United States Supreme Court that the 
10-2 verdict is not unconstitutional. Many argue that a public safety issue 
would arise if the more erroneous burden of unanimous verdict were placed upon 
the prosecution.

On the other hand, the origins of the 9-3 or 10-2 verdict clearly arose in our 
state during Jim Crow and any reading of the 1878 Constitutional Convention 
minutes and comments makes clear the racial intentions of the framers.

It is suggested by some cooler heads that the matter be referred to the 
Louisiana Law Institute for research and recommendation. However, this office 
will certainly live with the wishes of the people if there is a vote to change 
the Louisiana Constitution."

Calls for comment to Vernon Parish District Attorney Asa Skinner's office were 
not returned.

(source: KALB news)