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

[Rick Halperin]

May 16



TEXAS----impending execution

4th execution date arrives for Texas man who says he's innocent



A Texas death row inmate is scheduled to be executed Wednesday - his 4th 
execution date in a year. Though advocates and his attorneys still insist on 
Juan Castillo's innocence, he's lost all his fights in court and is expected to 
be put to death for a 2003 San Antonio murder.

For the 4th time in a year, Juan Castillo has a date with death.

The 37-year-old is scheduled to be executed Wednesday evening for the 2003 
robbery and murder of Tommy Garcia Jr. in San Antonio. The execution has been 
postponed three times since last May, including a rescheduling because of 
Hurricane Harvey, but his case may finally be winding to a close.

Though Castillo's advocates and attorneys insist on his innocence in Garcia???s 
murder, there are no pending fights in court, with denials handed down in his 
final appeals on Monday. His last chance is for a 30-day stay of execution from 
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.

The Texas Defender Service, a capital defense group who recently picked up 
Castillo's case, sent a letter to Abbott Tuesday pleading for the delay to let 
its lawyers fully investigate claims they say discredit the prosecution's 
evidence against Castillo - including recanted statements and video of police 
interrogations that contradict testimony at trial.

"Even in just a few short weeks, our team has uncovered evidence that casts 
doubt upon much of the evidence against Juan," wrote Amanda Marzullo, the 
group's executive director, in the letter.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Castillo's final appeal with 
similar claims, though, and prosecutors at the Bexar County District Attorney's 
Office remain fully confident that Castillo was the triggerman in Garcia's 
murder. Assistant Criminal District Attorney Matt Howard said the death penalty 
is always a heavy decision to weigh, but that Castillo is deserving of the 
ultimate punishment.

"Understanding the evidence, this was one of those cases where I think the jury 
came to the right conclusion" of a death sentence, Howard said.

Prosecutors said Castillo and 3 others lured Garcia to a secluded area to rob 
him by promising him sex with 1 of his female accomplices. When Garcia tried to 
run, Castillo shot him, according to the accomplices. Castillo was convicted 
and sentenced to death in 2005.

A man who bunked near Castillo in the Bexar County jail, Gerardo Gutierrez, 
also testified that Castillo had confessed to him about the murder. The 
matching testimonies were enough to satisfy a jury, and Castillo was convicted 
of capital murder. The 3 others involved in the crime all received lesser 
charges and sentences - 1 woman is out on parole, and the other 2 got 40-year 
sentences and are eligible for parole within the next 6 years, according to 
criminal records.

Castillo's 1st execution date was set for last May, but it was rescheduled for 
September, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The September 
execution - set about a week after Hurricane Harvey devastated the Texas coast 
- was also delayed at the request of Bexar County District Attorney Nico 
LaHood, since some of Castillo's legal team lived in Houston.

It was moved to December, and that time, the courts took action after the 
jailhouse informant changed his story.

In 2013, Gutierrez signed an affidavit saying that he lied in his testimony 
against Castillo "to try to help myself." The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 
stopped Castillo's December execution because of the affidavit, telling the 
trial court to look into the issue of false testimony.

3 days later, the Bexar County court issued its decision: Gutierrez's new 
statement saying he lied wasn't credible since his original testimony so 
closely matched that from the others who testified against Castillo.

"Gutierrez's 2013 affidavit makes no explanation for how he, while incarcerated 
in the Bexar County Adult Detention Center, independently manufactured a 
version of events consistent with multiple other witnesses," wrote Judge Maria 
Teresa Herr in her quickly produced opinion.

The court of criminal appeals upheld the ruling earlier this year, and again 
Castillo was given an execution date of May 16, in line to be the 6th man put 
to death in Texas this year.

Castillo's attorneys have admonished the trial court for denouncing Gutierrez's 
affidavit without holding an evidentiary hearing or getting information from 
Castillo or Gutierrez, claiming the courts denied their client meaningful 
consideration on the issue. But the prosecution said the court already had 
"extensive background" about the affidavit before it officially reached the 
court, which accounted for the rapid decision to reject it, according to 
Howard.

Still, Castillo filed a new appeal with claims that the prosecution withheld 
evidence and presented false or misleading testimony. The court of criminal 
appeals rejected it on procedural grounds without reviewing the merits of his 
claims, leaving Castillo's attorneys to turn to their last shot, Abbott.

In the defense's letter to the governor Tuesday, Marzullo wrote that her 
organization has recently discovered new evidence that contradicts the original 
testimony given at Castillo's trial - specifically, a video of woman who 
previously claimed Castillo confessed to her telling police that he had never 
told her he was the triggerman and a new statement from a man who now says he 
inaccurately testified that Castillo confessed to him. Marzullo also mentioned 
a lack of physical evidence connecting Castillo to the murder and the 
unreliability of testimony from accomplices and jailhouse informants.

"I am sure that your office is inundated with defense counsel pleas for mercy," 
she wrote to the governor. "Yet, this is a request that I do not enter lightly. 
>From the moment of his arrest through clemency, Juan has had a litany of 
lawyers who did not fully examine serious questions regarding his guilt."

Abbott usually takes no part in death penalty cases, letting the court's 
rulings stand, but he did grant a rare commutation of sentence for Thomas 
Whitaker earlier this year, stopping his execution minutes before it was set to 
proceed and changing his sentence to life in prison. But that decision came 
after an even rarer unanimous decision by the state???s parole board to grant 
clemency and change Whitaker's sentence.

On Monday, that parole board unanimously voted to reject Castillo's clemency 
petition.

(source: Texas Tribune)

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

Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----32

Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----550

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

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

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

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

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

37---------Sept. 12---------------Ruben Gutierrez---------555

38---------Sept. 26---------------Troy Clark--------------556

39---------Sept. 27---------------Daniel Acker------------557

(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)








NEW HAMPSHIRE:

It's time to abolish the death penalty in New Hampshire



New Hampshire is currently ranked the 3rd-safest state in the nation. It's so 
safe, in fact, that the legislature is considering a proposal that would repeal 
the use of capital punishment, and instead sentence people convicted of the 
very worst crimes to life without parole.

Gov. Chris Sununu, however, has threatened to veto the repeal. He shouldn't.

Given that New Hampshire has reached this safety status without performing an 
execution in almost 80 years, lawmakers should strongly consider passing the 
repeal, and Gov. Sununu should reconsider his promise to veto. Doing so would 
likely increase public safety and minimize future costs to taxpayers.

In the 1976 case of Gregg v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that by 
specifying aggravating circumstances for which the death penalty could apply, 
state lawmakers could "minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious" 
executions. Since Gregg, several states - including New Hampshire - have 
expanded their lists of aggravating factors, such as committing murders for 
hire or committing multiple murders. Narrowing death-penalty-eligible crimes 
has allowed states to ensure that the most severe punishment applies only to 
the "worst of the worst."

After Gregg was decided, New Hampshire adopted a narrow death penalty statute 
that even today applies in a few, specific circumstances. Under this law, the 
death penalty can only be sought in cases involving the murder of police and 
court officers, judges, murders for hire, or murders connected to drug deals, 
rape, kidnapping and home invasions.

Since New Hampshire passed its post-Gregg death penalty statute, few offenders 
have faced trial under its provisions; currently, only one man awaits 
execution. Prior to his sentence, the state has not executed a single prisoner 
since 1939, when Howard Long became the last person to be executed - by hanging 
- in the Granite State. The state has since changed its primary method of 
execution to lethal injection, but has never adopted a protocol.

Nor did it build any type of death chamber. But now, there are tentative plans 
to build one - at an estimated cost of $1.7 million to the taxpayer. It is 
critical to note not only the enormous cost of the facility, but that there 
would be a distinct possibility of the number of capital offenses increasing if 
there were incentive to use a new and expensive facility to house and to 
execute prisoners.

Support for abolishing the death penalty in New Hampshire is coalescing among 
the citizenry. During the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee 
hearing held on April 4, nearly 2 dozen witnesses gave testimony, with those in 
favor of the bill outnumbering those opposed by a ratio of 7 to one. For nearly 
20 years, the New Hampshire Legislature has attempted to pass legislation to 
repeal the death penalty, with the 1st repeal bill passing the House and Senate 
in 2000. That effort was vetoed by then-Governor Jeanne Shaheen. It would be 
quite a shame if the same result occurred in 2018.

State-to-state comparisons suggest that states without the death penalty are 
safer than states that allow capital punishment. In 2016, the average murder 
rate in states where the death penalty is legal was 5.4 (per 100,000 people), 
while the average murder rate in states without the death penalty was 3.9. 
Maine and Vermont - the 1st- and 2nd-safest states in the country, respectively 
- both abolished the death penalty decades ago. With New Hampshire being the 
only remaining state in New England to allow capital punishment by law, 
eliminating the death penalty could likely bolster its public safety to match 
that of its neighbors.

Reluctance to implement the death penalty is healthy for our criminal justice 
system. State and local governments, with already minimal resources, spend 
millions of dollarsprosecuting death penalty cases and maintaining a heightened 
level of security ondeath rows. As Ray Samuels, the former Police Chief of 
Newark, California, said, "If the millions of dollars currently spent on 
thedeath penalty were spent on investigating unsolved homicides, modernizing 
crime labs and expanding effective violence prevention programs, our 
communities would be much safer."

In debating the abolition of the death penalty in New Hampshire, both lawmakers 
and Gov. Sununu should consider that eliminating capital punishment could 
increase public safety, and that money that would be used to build a death row 
facility and execution chamber could be better spent.

(source: Commentary; Jesse Kelley is a policy analyst and state affairs manager 
for criminal justice at the R Street Institute, a nonprofit group aimed at 
promoting limited government in Washington----Nashua Telegraph)

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

Important voices in death penalty debate



I hope the governor heard or read the recent messages addressed to him from the 
press conference at the Legislative Office Building in Concord. Richard 
O'Leary, 33-year veteran of the Manchester Police Department; Bill McGonagle, 
former assistant commissioner for the N.H. Department of Corrections; and Paul 
Lutz, former lieutenant with the Derry Police Department make it clear that the 
death penalty does not support law enforcement. They said the millions New 
Hampshire would have to spend on executing a death sentence will be better 
spent actually supporting law enforcement. I hope that Gov. Chris Sununu will 
reconsider his veto decision.

DAVID ERIKSON

Weare

(source: Letter to the Editor, Concord Monitor)








NEW JERSEY:

Passage Theatre presents play telling stories of minors sentenced to die in 
prison----"Life, Death, Life Again: Children Sentenced to Die in Prison" is a 
verbatim theater piece by Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg, that shares the stories of 
4 people sentenced to die in prison for violent crimes committed as children.



For as long as she can remember, playwright Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg has 
opposed the death penalty.

"Even when I was little, and my dad first told me about the death penalty, I 
couldn't believe our own government would execute anyone," she said. "It always 
seemed inherently wrong. I am not religious, but one thing I believe is that we 
all have an innate humanity that should be respected."

The United States is the only country in the world that sentences children to 
die in prison. Weill-Greenberg questions the justice of this in "Life, Death, 
Life Again: Children Sentenced to Die in Prison." The documentary play shares 
stories of people sentenced to die in prison for violent crimes committed as 
children, as well as the story of a victim's son who chose to forgive. It will 
be performed at Passage Theatre at Mill Hill Playhouse Thursday at 7 p.m. Free 
tickets can be reserved here.

"By hearing the voices of children impacted by this policy, as well as those 
who have reconciled with the young person who caused harm, we can begin to 
imagine a justice system rooted in restoration and possibility, not destruction 
and hopelessness," said New Jersey Assemblywoman Verlina Reynolds Jackson. She 
will participate in the post-play discussion, along with a pastor, police, 
assistant public defender, Weill-Greenberg and others.

Between 2014 to 2017, Weill-Greenberg interviewed people who committed violent 
crimes as children and were sentenced to die in prison, as well as the families 
of victims of violent crime who forgave the killers of their loved one. 4 of 
those stories are presented in "Life Death, Life Again," which is being 
produced by coLAB Arts, a New Brunswick-based nonprofit seeking to create more 
livable, sustainable environments through art.

The play tells the stories of:

Bill Pelke, the founder of Journey of Hope: From Violence to Healing, an 
organization made up of murder victim families who oppose the death penalty. In 
1985 Pelke's grandmother was murdered by 4 teenage girls. One, Paula Cooper, 15 
at the time, was sentenced to death. While Pelke first supported the sentence, 
he came to forgive her and worked to overturn her sentence. Cooper was released 
in 2013; 2 years later, she took her own life.

Sean Taylor who, at 17, shot at a house and killed 1 of its occupants. In 1990, 
he was sentenced to life in prison but was released in 2011. During his 
incarceration he left the gang he had joined at 14, and committed to 
transforming his life.

Joe (because he has an active legal case and is still incarcerated, his name 
and certain identifying details have been changed) who, in the 1990s at age 14, 
shot the homeowner of a house he had broken into. He was sentenced to life in 
prison, but is one of thousands affected by the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court 
decision Montgomery v. Louisiana, which held that a mandatory life sentence 
without parole should not apply to juveniles convicted of murder.

Underwritten with a grant from the New Jersey Council for the Humanities, "the 
play is for people to hear these stories and look past headlines of cruel acts 
of violence," said Weill-Greenberg. "It's important to share these stories, to 
show that these are real people."

Weill-Greenberg, director of communications for the New Jersey Institute for 
Social Justice, lectures on wrongful convictions at Rutgers. She has also 
worked as a case analyst for the Innocence Project, an organization that uses 
DNA testing to exonerate the wrongly convicted.

During this work, she attended a conference in which exonerees performed 
monologues about the inhumanity of their incarceration and found herself crying 
along with the others.

"I kept thinking, do we only care because they're innocent? Would this 
inhumanity be acceptable if they were guilty? We shouldn't condemn anyone to 
die in prison, particularly children," she said. "Giving them a 2nd chance at 
life doesn't necessarily mean you're undermining the value of the victim's 
life, which is why I also tell a story of forgiveness in the play."

'You do not respond to violence with violence'

Feeling powerless to stop something her heart considered wrong, and guilty for 
not doing more, Weill-Greenberg worked on the play nights, weekends and while 
her son slept. She had never written anything like this before. After many 
rewrites, she posted on Facebook, "Does anyone know how to get a play 
produced?"

Among the contacts offered was the one at coLAB.

Her son is now 5, and while she has attempted to broach the subject she feels 
passionate about with him, Weill-Greenberg finds he's more interested in 
superheroes than in people going to jail.

"I try to gently explain, 'Mommy doesn't believe people should be caged when 
they make mistakes.' He'll come to these thoughts on his own, and may not have 
my views. My husband and I can only share our views."

So what, then, would she describe to her son as an appropriate form of justice 
for juveniles who have committed lethal crimes?

"We can look to other countries with more humane systems, in which dignity and 
respect are part of the programming, and the goal is return to the community."

She points to Germany, where inmates are permitted to wear their own clothes, 
cook their own meals and have romantic visits, and the focus is on 
rehabilitating prisoners so they can return to society. Wardens are often 
professional psychologists and emphasize therapy over security.

At Norway's Halden Fengsel, often called the world's most humane 
maximum-security prison, there are no coils of razor wire, no lethal electric 
fences, no towers manned by snipers, and yet no prisoner has ever tried to 
escape. There is no death penalty and no life sentencing in Norway.

"Our system is based on banishment," said Weill-Greenberg. "One of the elements 
of restorative justice is some kind of reconciliation between the person who 
has caused the crime and the person who has suffered."

How does one find forgiveness for a brutal act that is clearly wrong and takes 
away the life of another?

"Bill talks about how it's totally a normal emotion to feel angry after a 
violent death," she said. "It's normal to feel you want vengeance. He didn't 
forgive right away, at first he supported the death penalty but eventually he 
forgave."

A self-described pacifist and atheist, Weill-Greenberg said she is called to 
this work. "No matter what the circumstances, you do not respond to violence 
with violence. Sanctioned violence is the most immoral kind of violence there 
is."

"Life, Death, Life Again" is being performed at Passage Theatre during its run 
(through Sunday) of "Caged," written and performed by the New Jersey Prison 
Cooperative and about a family's struggles to overcome poverty, and their 
experiences in and out of prison.

(source: whyy.org)








PENNSYLVANIA:

Prosecutors will seek death penalty against prisoner accused of killing 
cellmate



A former SCI-Somerset inmate already serving a life prison sentence for 1 
murder could now face the death penalty for killing a cellmate in January.

Prosecutors announced Monday they will seek capital punishment against 
25-year-old Dale Wakefield, saying he heinously tortured fellow inmate Joshua 
Steven Perry, tying him up with a piece of bed sheet and partially removing his 
ear - before tossing his body underneath a bunk bed inside their cell.

"He's already serving a life sentence. What other penalty could this defendant 
face, if not the death penalty?" Somerset County District Attorney Lisa 
Lazzari-Strasiser said.

"There isn't another (option)."

Wakefield arrived in court in an orange jumpsuit and prison shackles for his 
formal arraignment and told Somerset County President Judge D. Gregory Geary he 
still plans to represent himself, despite the fact he is entitled to 
court-appointed attorneys for both the trial and, potentially, the death 
penalty phase.

Geary reminded him that legal representation could be provided to him at no 
cost, but Wakefield indicated he had no intention of allowing anyone to 
represent him who was appointed by the court system.

Then, he asked Geary if the court could provide him with a copy of the Rules of 
Criminal Procedure lawbook, so he could prepare his case inside his jail cell.

"I'm only being allowed 2 hours a week to access the law library - that's not a 
meaningful amount of time to get my defense in order," said Wakefield, who is 
being lodged at SCI-Greene, a maximum security state prison.

Geary responded that, if necessary, court filing deadlines can be extended.

That was a matter for another day, the judge said, telling Wakefield he was 
only in court Monday to be arraigned on his charges, which include criminal 
homicide, aggravated assault and assault by a prisoner.

Wakefield was charged by state police after prison personnel found Perry 
deceased underneath a bed.

Perry suffered from a head injury and his ear was "almost completely removed," 
the district attorney said. His hands and feet were tied with remnants of a 
sheet.

Another piece of cloth was wrapped around his neck, which was severed, she 
said.

Prosecutors were entitled to seek the death penalty against him because he has 
already been convicted of killing another person. But Lazzari-Strasiser said 3 
other "aggravating factors" also apply:

-- The crime was committed by someone serving a life prison sentence;

-- The crime was committed by means of torture;

-- Wakefield allegedly committed the killing while in the perpetration of a 
felony.

Wakefield is serving a life sentence for the 2013 stabbing death of a 
71-year-old homeless man. Investigators said he used a pocket knife to stab 
Army veteran George Mohr more than 70 times in a Bucks County bus shelter.

If convicted of 1st-degree murder in Perry's death, Wakefield would face a 
separate court proceeding to determine if he should be placed on death row - 
the state's highest level of punishment.

Geary took time to remind Wakefield of the magnitude of those ramifications 
Monday in court.

The judge has appointed a standby attorney to appear at legal proceedings, in 
case Wakefield needs someone at an advisory level, but such assistance is 
limited.

"You certainly are entitled to represent yourself. The court is obligated to 
allow you to represent yourself," Geary said. "But what we are not obligated to 
do is cushion you from all of the negative impacts of your decision."

While the move is somewhat rare, defendants have represented themselves in 
capital murder cases before in Pennsylvania, Lazzari-Strasiser said.

She said it can lead to complications and trial schedule delays.

"But we certainly want to allow him to have his Constitutional right," she 
said.

Wakefield has begun filing pretrial motions in the case and has 2 weeks to file 
a request for "discovery" materials, such as police reports and written 
statements, that prosecutors may use in the case against him.

A trial date has not yet been set.

(source: alliednews.com)








FLORIDA:

A year after guilty verdict, sentencing for man facing death penalty remains 
unscheduled



More than a year after a jury recommended he be sentenced to death in the 
murder of an elderly woman, Juan Rosario's sentencing has yet to be scheduled.

He was convicted of 1st-degree murder in the 2013 death of Elena Ortega, 83, 
whose home prosecutors said he was robbing.

Last week Rosario fired one of his court-appointed attorneys, Roger Weeden. 
Another attorney, Marc Burnham, was appointed in his place and now has to learn 
as much as he can about the case before Rosario's yet-unscheduled sentencing 
hearing. In that hearing, Circuit Judge Leticia Marques will decide whether to 
abide by a jury's unanimous recommendation to sentence Rosario to death or 
whether other factors should override their proposed sentence and instead give 
him life in prison without parole.

"I have to go out and talk to the survivors of this family - again - and tell 
them - again - that we have to wait," Assistant State Attorney Ryan Williams 
said in court Tuesday.

He suggested Marques schedule the hearing for June 11, the 1st available full 
day he found on her calendar.

"I don't mean to posture but if it's set June 11, or anywhere near that, you 
can expect my motion to withdraw," Burnham said Tuesday morning. He noted that 
only 3 full business days have passed since he was assigned to the case last 
Wednesday. In that time he has not gotten all the evidence from the last 
attorney, nor has he seen a transcript of last year's trial, he said.

Marques did not schedule the sentencing at Tuesday's hearing, during which 
Rosario also asked to have the judge removed from his case, writing a motion to 
disqualify Marques on a notepad at the defense table. Marques said she'll 
review anything formally filed with the court.

(source: Orlando Sentinel)

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

Governor candidate Chris King opposes death penalty, supports legal pot



If elected governor, Chris King said Tuesday, he would fight to outlaw capital 
punishment and refuse to sign death warrants.

An underdog candidate in a crowded primary with 3 other Democrats, King of 
Winter Park released his plans to end the death penalty as part of a broader 
set of criminal justice reforms.

As governor, King said he will seek to repeal the death penalty legislatively 
and work with Cabinet members to commute death sentences to life in prison. 
Both options would likely face fierce resistance in a GOP-dominated Legislature 
and a Cabinet that has had one Democratic member in 20 years.

But King also said he would refuse to sign death warrants - essentially putting 
a moratorium on capital punishment in Florida as long as he held office.

Other criminal justice reform proposals proposed by King include legalizing 
marijuana, setting a goal of reducing incarceration rates by 50 % in 10 years 
by eliminating mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders, ending contracts 
with private prison companies and putting more money toward education and 
criminal justice programs.

"Florida needs fresh ideas and new leadership to reform its broken criminal 
justice system," King said. '"Turning the tide' means reforming a system that 
needlessly criminalizes tens of thousands of nonviolent men and women in 
Florida. I reject the conventional politics of just seeking incremental change 
- we've got to fight for bold, progressive ideas to make our justice system 
fair while keeping Floridians safe."

Despite support among Gov. Rick Scott and fellow Republican legislative 
leaders, the politics of the death penalty has undergone a significant shift in 
the past 2 years.

In January 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Florida's capital punishment 
laws, which allowed a judge to make the final sentence upon the recommendation 
of a jury, was unconstitutional. The decision sent the case back to the Florida 
Supreme Court, which found in October 2016 that a unanimous jury was required 
to issue a death sentence.

The murky statusput a de facto moratorium on capital punishment while the case 
made its way through the courts. Still, Scott has signed 27 death warrants, the 
most of any Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 
including 4 since the October 2016 ruling.

(source: Orlando Sentinel)








LOUISIANA:

Robert McCoy facing death penalty in 2nd trial



The Bossier Parish District Attorney is preparing for the retrial of a local 
man who is once again facing the death penalty. This comes after the U.S. 
Supreme Court grants a new trial for Robert McCoy.

McCoy will be back in Bossier Parish by the end of this week. He's currently on 
death row in Angola and will be transported to Bossier Max.

A jury found McCoy guilty of killing his estranged wife's mother, stepfather 
and son in 2008. He was sentenced to the death penalty.

McCoy claims his constitutional rights were violated because his former 
attorney pushed for a 2nd degree murder conviction, to spare McCoy's life.

The Bossier DA says he's confident he'll get another murder conviction during 
the 2nd trial and will seek the death penalty.

Schuyler Marvin says, "Yes this is definitely a death penalty case. This is the 
only time I've ever asked for the death penalty, since I've been elected. It is 
what the death penalty is made for."

According to Marvin, in the next couple of weeks there will be hearings to 
determine who will represent McCoy during his 2nd trial. He hopes to have the 
trial started by the end of this year.

Marvin went to Washington D.C. in January to argue the case before the Supreme 
Court. He says the court's decision wasn't unexpected.

(source: arklatexhomepage.com)

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

Can a Lawyer Declare His Client Guilty?----The Supreme Court considered whether 
lawyers can decide what is best for clients and ignore their wishes.

On a television lawyer show - take The Good Fight, the best of the genre 
currently available - a legal case is all about the lawyers. In a typical 
episode, for example, lawyer Lucca Quinn must prove her client's innocence, 
safeguard her job at her law firm, keep up with her pregnancy-related back 
exercises, win the respect of a tough federal judge, and protect as best she 
can her relationship with the former prosecutor - who happens to be the father 
of her unborn child. She usually succeeds brilliantly.

Oh, yeah, almost forgot - her client gets off. Sometimes.

Young lawyers learn early - in clinical training or in practice - that the 
actual practice of law isn't much like The Good Fight. The client, not the 
lawyer, is the center of a case: A lawyer offers advice, and decides on trial 
strategy, but in the end, the key decisions are the client's, not the lawyer's, 
to make. In a criminal case, those key decisions are whether to plead guilty, 
whether to seek a jury trial, whether to testify, and, if convicted, whether to 
appeal.

In our system, those decisions are too important to be left to a 3rd party. As 
a very fine criminal-defense lawyer I knew used to say to his clients, "When 
this case is done, it's going to be a file in my office - but it's going to be 
your life."

I don't know whether Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Justice Samuel Alito of the 
Supreme Court watch The Good Fight, but if so, I suspect each sees a different 
story. At least that's the conclusion I would draw from McCoy v. Louisiana, the 
bizarre death penalty case decided Monday by the Supreme Court. In ordinary 
English, here is the question it posed: If a defendant says he is not guilty, 
and refuses to plead guilty, can the lawyer nonetheless tell the jury, "My 
client is guilty"?

Ginsburg, joined by 5 other members of the Court, said no; Alito, joined by 
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said, in effect, Why not, if the 
client won't see reason?

In fairness, the lawyer, Larry English, is a very sympathetic figure. He 
conceded guilt because he was trying to save his client, Robert McCoy, from 
almost certain death. McCoy, by contrast, seems like a killer with serious 
mental problems.

But, as Ginsburg and the majority pointed out, a Louisiana "sanity commission" 
found McCoy competent to stand trial. The definition of "competence" in this 
context, given in a Supreme Court case called Godinez v. Moran, is "sufficient 
present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational 
understanding." English obviously suspected that determination was wrong, but 
because he was McCoy's lawyer, it was binding on him.

Here are the facts. In 2008, someone shot to death the mother, stepfather, and 
son of Yolanda McCoy, Robert McCoy's estranged wife. On the night of the 
murders, McCoy's mother-in-law was heard on a 911 call screaming, "She ain't 
here, Robert!" - followed by shots. Police saw someone who looked like McCoy 
driving away from the scene in McCoy's car. The suspect abandoned the car and 
got away, but in the car was a receipt for the ammunition used in the killings. 
Surveillance footage showed McCoy buying those bullets on the day of the 
murder. 2 people testified that he had admitted at least 1 of the killings to 
them.

Once McCoy was arrested and charged, however, he told a story familiar to 
anyone who has even dipped a toe into criminal practice: He wasn't there; he 
was out of town; it was a frame-up; it was a conspiracy; the police did it 
themselves just to get him.

In those circumstances, English understandably thought the only real question 
was whether his client would get the death penalty or life in prison. He tried 
to convince McCoy to admit guilt, then allow English to put on evidence of his 
mental illness, and hope for a merciful jury. It's hard to fault that 
professional judgment, but McCoy wouldn't have it. "I did not murder my 
family," he said. English tried to withdraw as counsel, but the trial judge 
refused. "You are the attorney," the judge said. "You have to make the trial 
decision of what you're going to proceed with."

When the trial began, English told the jury:

My client committed 3 murders ... the evidence that will be put on that screen, 
that will come from that stand will say that he did it. Mr. McCoy has seen that 
evidence, but yet he -- in all of his soul he does not believe he committed 
these crimes ... But in layman terms, Mr. McCoy is crazy, ladies and gentlemen.

McCoy later took the stand and told the jury his incredible story, while 
English argued that he was mentally ill and unable to form the "specific 
intent" needed for capital murder. The jury found him guilty; after hearing 
evidence about his mental state, it sentenced him to death.

The Supreme Court Monday set the conviction aside. Ginsburg analyzed the issue 
as involving a client's "autonomy to decide ... the objective of the defense." 
She explained:

Counsel may reasonably assess a concession of guilt as best suited to avoiding 
the death penalty, as English did in this case. But the client may not share 
that objective. He may wish to avoid, above all else, the opprobrium that comes 
with admitting he killed family members. Or he may hold life in prison not 
worth living and prefer to risk death for any hope, however small, of 
exoneration. ... When a client expressly asserts that the objective of "his 
defen[s]e" is to maintain innocence of the charged criminal acts, his lawyer 
must abide by that objective and may not override it by conceding guilt.

When McCoy insisted that he did not commit the murders, Ginsburg said, "a 
concession of guilt should have been off the table."

In his dissent, Alito told the story through the lens of English's dilemma.

Petitioner availed himself of his right to take the stand to tell his wild 
story. Under those circumstances, what was English supposed to do? ... The 
result of mounting [McCoy's] conspiracy defense almost certainly would have 
been disastrous. That approach stood no chance of winning acquittal and would 
have severely damaged English's credibility in the eyes of the jury, thus 
undermining his ability to argue effectively against the imposition of a death 
sentence ... So, again, what was English supposed to do?

The answer to that, though painful, is clear. English wasn't obligated to tell 
the jury to believe McCoy. He didn't have to argue himself that McCoy wasn't 
guilty; he could confine his own argument to the mental-state part of the case. 
(As Alito put it, he could have said, "I submit to you that my client did not 
have the intent required for conviction" of capital murder.) But he couldn't 
keep McCoy off the stand. And he couldn't say, "Don't believe him. He's 
guilty."

The case is agonizing, because McCoy probably shouldn't have been allowed to 
stand trial; once found competent, he insisted on marching to his doom. But the 
legal question, to me, doesn't seem hard. McCoy v. Louisiana is the story of 
McCoy, and the story of the victims he slaughtered. Even though it put Larry 
English through the wringer, it was not his story.

Alito is absolutely right that McCoy didn't know his own best interests. The 
logical result of his opinion, however, would be a system where lawyers decide 
what is best for clients and ignore their wishes - where, in effect, a defense 
lawyer acts as judge and jury.

Even Lucca Quinn doesn't do that.

(source: The Atlantic)