[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, VA., N.C., FLA., ALA., OHIO

[Rick Halperin]

October 2




TEXAS:

Federal judge raises questions of innocence in condemned Harris County 
cop-killer



The gunshots screeched over the static of the police radio, followed by the 
last breaths of sheriff's Deputy Barrett Hill. It was the dark, pre-dawn hours 
of Dec. 4, 2000, and someone had just committed a capital murder.

There were no eyewitnesses and no forensic evidence. But 2 years later, Rob 
Will was sentenced to die for the crime in front of a courtroom crowded with 
uniformed police officers.

Despite the circumstantial case that sent him to death row, Will has always 
maintained his innocence. His alibi? He says he was handcuffed at the time. 
Now, nearly 2 decades into the legal wrangling, a federal judge is again 
questioning whether Will may be telling the truth.

In a rare, strongly worded order, U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison in Houston 
last week advanced the condemned cop killer's appeal even while bemoaning his 
own inability to do more in a case that experts say highlights systemic issues 
with the death penalty appeals process.

"The Court very much wishes it could take up all of these issues," Ellison 
wrote. "Nevertheless, this Court lacks jurisdiction to explore the troubling 
concerns that plague Will's capital conviction."

The federal judge would like to consider Will's "troubling" innocence claims 
but he can't because of legal limitations, essentially technicalities. Instead, 
he can only send the case up to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on the 
possibility that they greenlight a new appeal - which could ultimately end up 
back in his court.

With allegations of withheld evidence, bad lawyering and vexing legal 
entanglements, the case embodies "everything that is structurally wrong" with 
key parts of the appeals process, according to Robert Dunham of the Death 
Penalty Information Center.

"The death penalty is supposed to be reserved for the worst of the worst 
cases," he said, "but nobody meant that that should be the worst of the worst 
judicial process."

***

On the morning of the murder, 2 Harris County sheriff's deputies responded to a 
call about 4 men breaking into cars. When they pulled up, Hill and his partner, 
Deputy Warren Kelly, shined their spotlight on 2 of the thieves standing in a 
cul-de-sac.

The pair took off in different directions, and Hill followed Will, while his 
partner chased after Michael Alan Rosario. Hill radioed back that he'd gotten 
"the tall one" and that he was "in custody," but Kelly lost sight of Rosario 
behind a tree. A few seconds later, he heard the gunshots over the radio.

Afterward, Will carjacked a woman and sped away, only to be caught in 
Washington County a few hours later.

It seemed, to prosecutors, impossible that anyone else could be the killer. 
Will changed his story to his lawyers repeatedly, and Rosario had simply been 
too far away, they said. But Will had no gunshot residue on him and a footprint 
at the crime scene didn't match his.

And, his defense lawyers would later point out, he had a gunshot wound on his 
hand that could have come from Rosario's effort to free his friend by shooting 
off the handcuffs. To the state, that gunshot wound seemed evidence of Will's 
guilt, an injury sustained while shooting at the deputy.

***

For more than a decade, the case has bounced back and forth between state and 
federal appeals courts, generating a complex paper trail Ellison described as a 
"procedural imbroglio." And, over time, new evidence emerged: jailhouse 
snitches alleging Rosario had confessed finally agreed to come forward; jail 
records about a suspected gang hit Rosario ordered on Will inexplicably 
appeared in the prosecution's files; and previously undisclosed evidence that 
could have called a witness into question surfaced.

"The Harris County DA's Office has a lot to answer for," Will's legal team, 
Washington, D.C.-based attorney Jay Ewart and Houston attorney Samy Khalil, 
said in a statement. "They are playing a game of hide - but Rob Will can never 
seek - exculpatory evidence. Prosecution by concealment is how innocent people 
end up on death row."

The district attorney's office disputed both the claims of withheld evidence 
and the possibility of Will's innocence.

"The Harris County District Attorney's Office is not hiding evidence in Will's 
case," said spokesman Dane Schiller. "That claim is a desperate effort to 
divert attention from the wealth of evidence supporting Will being sentenced to 
death for the capital murder of Harris County Sheriff's Deputy Barrett Hill."

Schiller went on to call it "more than ironic" that Will's attorneys would 
accuse prosecutors of hiding evidence "because the factual record reflects that 
Will repeatedly told inconsistent stories" to his trial team.

When some of the evidence in question landed in front of a state court in 2013, 
the Harris County judge deemed it not credible or relevant to the outcome, and 
instead signed off word-for-word on the version of events submitted by the 
Harris County District Attorney's Office.

Some of those same claims eventually ended up in an appeal now in front of the 
Fifth Circuit. It's separate from the appeal Ellison ruled on last week, but it 
raises some of the same concerns: In both cases the federal district judge 
didn't have the ability to side with Will. He could only forward the case to 
the Fifth Circuit.

"This Court has repeatedly expressed deep concern for the factually complex 
insinuations that Will may be innocent of the crime for which he faces a death 
sentence," Ellison wrote last week. "The Court is particularly sensitive to the 
absence of any direct evidence of Will's guilt, and the number of witnesses who 
aver that another man confessed to the underlying murder."

****

Will was in the same position in 2012, when Ellison expressed similar concerns 
over the case as he sent it up to the Fifth Circuit. A U.S. Supreme Court 
decision over appeals involving claims of ineffective lawyering sent the case 
through a new round of claims with the same result.

"Everything in the state procedure is inadequate and has been inadequate for 
the last three decades," said Patrick McCann, a local attorney and past 
president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, calling the extent 
to which federal judges are expected to defer to state court rulings "an 
absolute joke."

In regular criminal cases, Dunham explained, a judge can hear the facts and the 
law and make a decision. But, under a 1996 law known as the Antiterrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act, added limitations in appeals from prisoners mean 
that federal judges are forced to go along with previous state court findings, 
even if they don't necessarily agree with them.

In places like Harris County - where a year-long study recently found that 
judges adopt the state's findings more than 90 % of the time in a key part of 
the appeals process - Dunham likened the state court review to a ventriloquist 
act, with judges repeating prosecutors' assertions made in state court.

Usually, "the federal court is pretending not to see the ventriloquist's lips 
move," he said. "Here, Judge Ellison clearly sees the lips moving, but the 
federal law prevents him from doing anything about it."

Eric M. Freedman, a Hofstra University law professor, said the case highlights 
the need for changes in the law.

"The idea that it would be important to reconsider, rethink and recalibrate in 
order to serve the very appropriate underlying goals of the statue is well 
illustrated by this particular case," he said. "The purpose of the statute is 
to provide a federal level of supervision of basic rights, like the right not 
to be convicted and executed if you're an innocent person."

(source: Houston Chronicle)








VIRGINIA:

For Va. man who killed his wife and a police officer, a push for death and plea 
for mercy



They called his crime "vile. Outrageous. Wanton. Horrible."

A team of 4 Prince William County prosecutors had convinced a jury to convict 
Ronald Hamilton of capital murder in the shooting deaths of his wife and a 
rookie police officer on her 1st weekend shift. Now they wanted to persuade the 
jury that the 34-year-old father - who worked as an Army staff sergeant at the 
Pentagon - deserved the death penalty.

On Monday, Senior Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Brian P. Boyle was careful 
not to utter Hamilton's name as he characterized him as "depraved" and 
"dangerous," frequently referring to him as "the defendant" or "the man." 
"While each of these words is an accurate description of what you've heard over 
the last few weeks, here in the sentencing hearing, the words have a much 
greater meaning." The crime, he said, demands "a response that is more than the 
usual response."

In her opening remarks, one of Hamilton's attorneys pleaded for mercy on his 
behalf. Vivian Hernandez told jurors that Hamilton - whose father, a retired 
2nd-in-command of the Charleston, S.C., police department, sat in the courtroom 
- deserved life in prison without a chance for parole. Not the death penalty, 
she said.

"Mercy is not expected. It's given," Hernandez said. "It comes from the 
recognition of the frailty and sacredness of life." She said Hamilton's family 
members "know he will contribute to their lives from prison."

[He's a retired cop. Now, his son is accused of killing a police officer and 
his own wife.]

Ronald Hamilton after he was charged with killing his wife, Crystal Hamilton, 
and Prince William officer Ashley Guindon. (Prince William County Police)

More than 2 years have passed since Hamilton, who deployed to Iraq twice as a 
member of the 101st Airborne Division, used 11 minutes of his life to tear 
everything he had built apart.

On Feb. 27, 2016, Hamilton got into a fight with his wife, Crystal Hamilton, 
29, a recovery care coordinator for wounded Marines, at their Woodbridge home. 
The couple's marriage was crumbling, and by then, they were living in separate 
bedrooms and, at various points, were each having affairs.

But when Crystal said she was going out with her girlfriends that night to an 
adult entertainment club whether he liked it or not, Hamilton went into a rage. 
With their then-11-year-old son Tyriq in the house, Hamilton threw Crystal up 
against the wall of her bedroom. She called 911, pleading for police to come 
quickly. And then, he shot her multiple times.

When Prince William police arrived, Hamilton emerged from the front doorway, 
spraying bullets. He hit 3 officers, including Ashley Guindon, 29. She was a 
former Marine reservist from New Hampshire who had just been sworn in as a 
Prince William police officer. The day before the shooting, the department 
tweeted out a photo of her dressed in her blue uniform and dark tie, with her 
hands clasped in front of her. "Be safe!" the tweet said.

[Thousands turn out for funeral of slain Prince William officer]

Guindon got hit in the back and later died. 2 other officers, Jesse Hempen and 
David McKeown, were also shot but survived their wounds. Hempen suffered a 
massive gunshot in the leg threatening a vital artery, while McKeown - hit in 
the groin, chest, leg and arm - was hurt so badly he could hear the blood 
pouring of his body, according to prosecutors.

Soon, Hamilton surrendered and told police he was possibly suffering from 
post-traumatic stress disorder. He even asked a police officer to "shoot me 
now," according to testimony from an earlier hearing in the case. His trial 
began Sept. 11 and he was convicted 2 weeks later on 17 charges, including 
capital murder, making him eligible for juries to consider recommending life in 
prison without parole or the death penalty. If a jury recommends death, it's up 
to the judge to formally impose the sentence. Technically, the judge can 
overturn a death sentence and give a defendant life in prison.

If Hamilton is sentenced to death, he would become the fourth person on 
Virginia's death row.

Prince William County, whose commonwealth's attorney office has been helmed for 
decades by Paul Ebert, has long embraced the death penalty for capital murder. 
In a hearing 2 years ago, 1 of Hamilton's attorneys, Ed Ungvarsky, cited 
statistics showing that Prince William has led the state in executions since 
1976 and ranked among the top 2 % of counties nationwide in the modern era.

During Monday’s hearing, Hamilton was dressed in a dark suit as opposed to his 
military uniform, which he had worn during his criminal trial.

Boyle argued to the jury, which includes 7 whites and 5 people of color, that 
Hamilton deserved death because of 2 factors: the "vileness" of the murders and 
his future dangerousness.

"The defense said this was a terrible 11 minutes but this went far beyond 11 
minutes," Boyle said. "This was not the 1st time law enforcement had memorable 
interactions with the defendant."

One witness, a former Prince William police officer, testified Monday he had 
been dispatched to the Hamiltons' house in 2015 after a relative had called and 
said that Hamilton had been sending disturbing text messages. When the officer 
arrived, Hamilton repeatedly swore at him, ordering him to "get the f--- out of 
my house" and demanding to know "what the f----" he and another officer were 
doing there.

Hernandez, a defense attorney, acknowledged that Hamilton's crimes were 
"horrible" and said there was no excuse. She said he and Hamilton's father were 
estranged for much of their lives, but the younger Hamilton longed for a 
relationship with him.

After Monday's hearing, Hamilton's father, also named Ronald Hamilton, told The 
Washington Post: "I empathize with the feelings of the police officers and the 
entire community, and I hope the jury will show my son some mercy," he said, 
"because he is a good person who made a terrible mistake."

(source: Washington Post)








NORTH CAROLINA:

Duke Law professor among most cited criminal law faculty



Driven by his concern for underrepresented people, a Duke law professor has 
developed numerous widely-cited studies in criminal justice and is now ranked 
as one of the best-renowned scholar in his field.

Brandon Garrett, the inaugural L. Neil Williams professor of law, explained 
that he grew interest in civil rights law while doing poverty and 
eviction-prevention work in New York City - not long after he graduated from 
law school.

"I learned how important due process is when people face losing their home or 
their welfare benefits," Garrett wrote in an email. "And I saw how important it 
is to have a prepared advocate."

Garrett is the 4th most-cited professor in criminal law and procedure in the 
U.S, according to Brian Leiter’s Law School Reports. Ranging from being cited 
by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer for his research on the death penalty to 
books that have received national accolades, Garrett's work aims to incorporate 
empirical studies with legal scholarship.

"In general, I have been pleased and honored to have my work cited by courts," 
Garrett wrote. "I do think that in criminal justice matters, judges are 
increasingly aware that there is empirical evidence and research that can truly 
help to inform their decisions. It is an exciting time for criminal justice 
policy and research."

The youngest of all those ranked on his field, Garrett was cited 750 times from 
2013 to 2017. He fell just behind Christopher Slobogin - Milton R. Underwood 
chair in law at Vanderbilt University - with 770 citations and Rachel Barkow - 
Segal Family professor of regulatory law and policyat New York University - 
with 775 citations.

The most-cited professor was Orin Kerr - Frances R. and John J. Duggan 
distinguished professor of law at University of Southern California - cited 
1300 times.

In June 2018, Garrett's empirical studies on the death penalty were cited in 
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent to the denial of death row inmates' 
petitions for certiorari. Garrett wrote that Breyer tends to use 
"evidence-based" arguments on the arbitrary nature of death penalty sentences.

Breyer referred to Garrett's research to illustrate that, despite death 
penalties declining in recent years, they have become increasingly concentrated 
in fewer counties. Garrett wrote that he believed Breyer cited his data 
correctly and that it is "important for courts to make evidence-informed 
decisions."

"In the mid-1990s, more than 300 people were sentenced to death in roughly 200 
counties each year," Breyer wrote. "By comparison, these numbers have declined 
dramatically over the past 3 years. A recent study finds, for example, that in 
2015, all of those who were sentenced to death nationwide (51 people in total) 
were sentenced in 38 of this Nation's more than 3,000 counties; in 2016, all 
death sentences (31 in total) were imposed in just 28 counties nationwide 
(fewer than 1% of counties)."

Garrett documented the findings featured in the opinion in his book, End of its 
Rope: How Killing the Death Penalty Can Revive Criminal Justice, and in an 
article entitled "The State of the Death Penalty Decline."

He also has online data sets pertaining to his research from the book, 
including an interactive map displaying the geographic concentration of death 
penalty sentences since 1991.

But this was not the only time Garrett's work has crossed the mind of a Supreme 
Court justice.

"My research on wrongful convictions has been cited by the Supreme Court 
several times," Garrett wrote. "For example, [former] Justice Antonin Scalia 
cited to my research, with Peter Neufeld, describing the role that invalid 
forensic testimony played in DNA exoneration cases. Justice Scalia was 
highlighting how important it is to get scientific evidence right in the 
courtroom."

Garrett has also been cited by lower federal courts, state supreme courts and 
the supreme courts of Canada and Israel.

End of Its Rope is not Garrett's only book that has achieved national acclaim. 
Another one of his books - Convicting the Innocent - was deemed an Atlantic 
Best Book about Justice in 2012, received an honorable mention at the American 
Bar Association's 2012 Silver Gavel Awards and was a co-winner of the 
Constitution Project's 2011 Constitutional Commentary Award.

Garrett attended Columbia Law School as a Kent Scholar and served as an 
articles editor of the Columbia Law Review.

After graduating, he clerked for the Pierre N. Leval of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Second Circuit and later became an associate at Neufeld, Scheck 
& Brustin LLP in New York City. He wrote that his practice focused on the 
intersection of civil rights suits and the criminal justice system.

"I represented people who had been exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing, 
including people who had falsely confessed or been misidentified by 
eyewitnesses," Garrett wrote. "The lawsuits focused on securing compensation 
for the years those people spent in prison for crimes they did not commit. I 
also worked on police use of force cases, challenging unreasonable use of 
force, as well as a mixture of other matters."

>From 2005 to 2018, Garrett was the Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished 
professor of law and White Burkett Miller professor of law and public affairs 
at the University of Virginia School of Law. For several years, he has 
participated in research and education efforts as part of the Center for 
Statistics and Applications in Forensic Science.

At Duke Law School, Garrett is currently teaching a forensics litigation course 
and will co-teach a forensic science seminar in the spring. He also works with 
two post-doctoral students along with affiliates of the Duke School of Medicine 
on a series of projects studying criminal justice outcomes in North Carolina.

"Duke is a fantastic place to do this work because there is such a longstanding 
focus on bringing together researchers from different disciplines to 
collaborate," Garrett wrote.

(source: The Chronicle)








FLORIDA:

Colley's defense to make final pitch to save his life



Attorneys for James Colley Jr. will get one final chance to spare their 
client’s life when he faces a judge Tuesday in what is known as a Spencer 
hearing.

Jurors recommended Colley, 38, be put to death after convicting him in July of 
2 counts of 1st-degree murder in the shooting deaths of his estranged wife and 
her best friend.

Though the jury voted unanimously to suggest the death penalty, Colley's fate 
ultimately lies in the hands of Circuit Judge Howard Maltz, who presided over 
the trial.

Amanda Colley and friend Lindy Dobbins were shot dead in August 2015 when 
Colley’s estranged husband went on a shooting spree inside the family's upscale 
St. Johns County home.

The Spencer hearing, named after the 1993 case of Spencer vs. Florida, is held 
in death penalty cases so a defendant can present additional evidence in the 
hopes of getting a life sentence instead.

(source: WJXT news)








ALABAMA:

Mary Rice likely to face death penalty in Alabama



Now that Mary Rice has been convicted of helping Billy Boyette carry out a Gulf 
Coast murder spree, the case still pending against her in Alabama has gained 
strength.

An Escambia County jury on Friday night convicted Rice, 38, of accessory after 
the fact to murder for the Jan. 31, 2017, double homicide of Alicia Greer and 
Jacqueline Moore, and the Feb. 7, 2017, first-degree murder of Kayla Crocker.

Rice still faces a murder charge - and possibly the death penalty - in Alabama 
for the Feb. 3, 2017, murder of Lillian woman Peggy Broz at the height of the 
spree.

Broz was returning home from a shift at a Pensacola hospital the morning she 
was killed, and police believe Boyette and Rice followed her from Florida in 
order to steal her vehicle.

"She will be in prison the rest of her life, and the question is where will she 
serve her time? And will she get the death penalty?" State Attorney Bill Eddins 
said Monday. "Alabama had announced they would seek the death penalty, and if 
they do, the Florida conviction of murder and accessory will both be 
aggravating factors the jury could consider in its determination."

During the Florida trial, prosecutor Bridgette Jensen was able to admit into 
evidence few details about Broz’s murder since it happened in a different 
jurisdiction. She gave the jurors some details to help establish a timeline of 
the Florida murders, because the judge had found the facts in the Alabama case 
were “inextricably intertwined."

Now that 3 victims' families have seen justice, members of Broz's family are 
hoping for the same in Alabama.

"We hope she never sees the light of day outside a prison and the death penalty 
if and when she makes it to Alabama, an eye for an eye," Broz's sister, Gina 
Herrington, said in a message to the News Journal.

Rice's Alabama defense attorney, Spencer Davis, could not be reached for 
comment Monday. Her Florida attorney, Kenneth Brooks, is not involved in the 
Alabama case but said the overwhelming amount of evidence surrounding the 
murders makes it a complex case whether capital punishment is involved or not.

Brooks' defense throughout the week-long trial was that Rice was another of 
Boyette's victims, forced to participate in his spree. She was seen on 
surveillance footage by herself in numerous stores, buying items like alcohol, 
camping supplies and ammunition - something the prosecution used to show Rice 
acted willingly.

"It certainly was unfortunate that the jury ruled the way they did, but from 
the beginning, there was an awful lot of evidence and it took us attorneys 
months to comb through it all," Brooks said. "I think it was hard for a jury to 
put aside the gruesomeness of what had happened in Billy's presence and the 
state did a great job of putting the case on. We also had a defense (of duress) 
that doesn't always happen in these cases."

More about Mary Rice: Victim or accomplice?

The Escambia County jury had close to 200 exhibits to study during 
deliberation, hours of surveillance footage and the testimony of dozens of 
witnesses. Eddins said Jensen personally read through 11,000 text messages from 
Rice's phone to whittle down to only the most relevant items to be used as 
evidence.

Brooks said he commends the jury on paying close attention throughout the 
exhaustive trial, and called Boyette a "coward" for taking his own life to 
leave Rice standing alone facing charges.

"These cases are always difficult, whether you're the state or the defense, and 
especially when you're on the losing side, it's always difficult and it's just 
a terrible case to have to go through," he said.

The Baldwin County District Attorney's Office could not be reached for comment 
Monday to explain how, or if, the Florida conviction changes the state's death 
penalty stance on Rice's still-pending murder charge.

Eddins said he hasn't been in communication with Alabama's District Attorney's 
Office since Friday's verdict, but said he sees no reason their case couldn't 
proceed as Rice begins to serve her Florida sentence.

(source: Pensacola News Journal)

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

Why the Battle Over Dementia Patients on Death Row? Better Lawyers



Vernon Madison has suffered multiple strokes that have left him blind, with 
dead brain tissue and urinary incontinence, and unable to walk independently or 
remember the crime that put him on death row 3 decades ago. On Tuesday, the 
U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether the state of Alabama can legally kill 
Madison - who murdered a police officer in 1985 - despite the degenerative 
medical condition that has robbed him of the ability to understand the 
circumstances of his execution. The case tackles questions about evolving 
standards of decency and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and 
unusual punishment when the sentence is death. But it also spotlights an 
increasingly difficult proposition facing prisons and prosecutors: an inmate 
population that is rapidly aging and experiencing all of the physical and 
mental damage of that process, heightened by the intense rigor and stress of 
incarcerated life. Nowhere is that reality more dramatic than on death row, 
where the wait time has more than tripled - from an average of 6 years and 2 
months in 1984 to 19 years and 9 months for prisoners executed in 2018 so far, 
according to Department of Justice data compiled by the Death Penalty 
Information Center. Experts say a major reason why death row inmates are living 
longer is that they are getting better representation.

That qualitative difference stems from a mix of legal, technological and 
judicial advances made in the past few decades that are just bearing fruit now, 
says Robert Dunham, the executive director at the Death Penalty Information 
Center in Washington, D.C.

2 Judicial orders in the 1980s and 1990s barred a reassessment of a death 
sentence if fresh facts came up after a conviction, making it hard for 
defendants to seek retrials based on having been poorly represented. This 
tilted the balance against death row inmates. But in three key cases in the 
late 1990s and early 2000s, the Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania Supreme 
Courts clarified that courts don't have to prove the defendant would be 
acquitted to be able to submit habeas corpus twice. "More cases began to get 
reversed," Dunham says, and "most of those people never ended up on death row." 
Then, in Martinez v. Ryan in 2012, he adds, the Supreme Court ruled that 
defendants who had been given an ineffective lawyer twice were no longer barred 
from developing new claims in federal court under habeas corpus.

We may face ever more instances of state efforts to execute prisoners suffering 
the diseases and infirmities of old age.----Justice Stephen Breyer, 2017

Increased training and licensing guidelines published by organizations like the 
American Bar Association for public defenders in death penalty cases have also 
added to the level of support potential death row inmates receive. And the 
advent of genetic testing and the ability to consider DNA evidence in court has 
opened up new avenues for defense lawyers to give better representation than 
was possible earlier.

“If there is evidence in the case, it just takes longer - it's not CSI,” says 
Peter Collins, a Seattle University criminal justice professor, referring to 
the television show in which DNA results often are turned around in days, if 
not hours.

The Madison case is in many ways an example of the broader ways in which an 
aging prison population is impacting death row executions. In the last year, 
Ohio and Alabama have both delayed separate executions because they could not 
find suitable veins in sickly death row inmates for injecting the lethal drugs. 
"We may face ever more instances of state efforts to execute prisoners 
suffering the diseases and infirmities of old age," Justice Stephen Breyer 
wrote in December of 2017, as part of a concurring opinion addressing a 
previous appeal by Madison before the nation's highest court.

Close

Some argue that the longer death row stays have more to do with a lessening 
appetite for capital punishment than with better legal defense options. "The 
usual hypothesis is excessive litigation and people pursuing every avenue of 
appeals," says Austin Sarat, a law professor at Amherst College. But he notes 
that the Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act of 1996 made it harder to exploit 
loopholes and delay the process. States now sometimes decide not to expedite 
executions owing to their questionable popularity. "When we think of death 
cases now, we think of DNA and exonerations, disparities in racial justice, 
botched executions," Sarat says. "In that context, executing them may seem like 
less of an imperative."

Habeas corpus itself has been "gutted," adds Michael Radelet, a death penalty 
expert at the University of Colorado, and a prolonged wait in death penalty 
cases is hardly a reward for families and inmates. "It's like torture before 
the killing," he says. "The additional time is another added stressor that can, 
in and of itself, compound the mental illness."

But without better legal defenses in the form of past rulings, trained lawyers 
and tech assistance, the debate over the death sentence may never have reached 
where it is today - not just about whether the state can take a person's life, 
but also, specifically, whether it can kill inmates who don’t remember what 
crime they committed.

In McCleskey v. Zant (1987), the Supreme Court had essentially ruled that "you 
only get 1 shot," Dunham says, regardless of what future evidence might come 
up. However, federal lawyers who investigated multiple habeas corpus claims 
alleging they had been improperly convicted at the state level started finding 
a glut of facts that state lawyers should have used but didn't. Because of the 
McCleskey decision, Dunham says, they were "powerless" to address those 
problems: "What ultimately happened was that the Supreme Court over and over 
and over again saw these meritorious claims that they were unable to address." 
When defendants had legitimate complaints about their representation, it was 
often difficult to do a retrial, because Strickland v. Wainwright in 1984 had 
ruled that defendants must not just prove their lawyer acted unreasonably under 
professional norms, but also that it materially affected the outcome of the 
case.

The Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania Supreme Court verdicts and Martinez v. 
Ryan helped restore the balance. And even Sarat concedes that sound litigation, 
such as cases about states using untested or inappropriate chemicals for lethal 
injections, also help delay executions. States often make unconstitutional 
mistakes. "In states like Alabama that still don't care about the quality of 
representation in state court, you end up with people having their convictions 
and death sentences overturned sometimes 3, 4, 6 times in federal court," 
Dunham says.

For sure, because death row inmates can rarely, if ever, afford representation, 
the quality of their representation often depends on what their jurisdiction 
can afford. "There are places where bailiffs are acting as defense attorneys," 
Collins says. And while some morbidly argue that quick executions save on 
taxpayer costs, "it doesn't really pencil out that way," says Collins, who 
co-authored a study looking into the costs of capital punishment, which found 
that incarcerating prisoners for life is almost always less expensive than 
executing them.

One twist in the tale of Madison in Alabama: If Justice Antonin Scalia hadn't 
passed away in 2016, an appeals court stay of execution could well have been 
overturned, and Madison wouldn't be alive today. The Supreme Court remains 
shorthanded once more as sexual assault allegations have delayed the nomination 
of Brett Kavanaugh. And so after 3 decades, Madison could be spared a little 
bit longer. The ramifications could be felt not just by him, but the entirety 
of a population quickly resembling less a prison system than an elderly home.

(source: ozy.com)

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

Can Alabama execute Vernon Madison? U.S. Supreme Court will decide



If a person convicted of murder and sentenced to death suffers strokes that 
affect his ability to remember the crime, can the state still execute him?

Attorneys for the Alabama Attorney General’s Office and Alabama death row 
inmate Vernon Madison will argue that question before the U.S. Supreme Court on 
Tuesday.

Madison, 68, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1985 murder of Mobile 
police officer Julius Schulte. While incarcerated, Madison suffered two strokes 
- 1 in May 2015 and 1 in January 2016 - that both sides agree impaired him to 
some degree.

What they disagree about is whether the strokes made it impossible for Madison 
to understand the reason he faces the death penalty, or even whether that 
should halt his execution.

In a brief filed in July, the Alabama Attorney General's Office wrote that 
Madison's execution "will serve as an example to others that the intentional 
murder of a police officer will be punished," and questioned whether Madison 
cannot remember Schulte's murder or understand the reason for his execution, as 
his defense attorneys argue. The state says Madison made arguments that he 
didn't remember the murder as far back as 1990.

"Madison understands that he is being punished for a murder he committed and 
for which he has never accepted responsibility," the state wrote.

But the Alabama Attorney General's Office went on to argue that an inmate with 
amnesia "is no less subject to deterrence than an inmate who remembers the 
crime that put him in prison."

“A failure to recall committing a crime is distinct from a failure to 
understand why one is being punished for a crime," the brief said. "An inmate's 
personal recollection of the crime is irrelevant to whether the inmate shares 
the community's understanding of the crime, has a moral responsibility for 
committing the crime, or understands why he is being punished for the crime."

The Equal Justice Initiative, representing Madison, argues that the inmate's 
health problems put him "into the category of prisoners for whom an execution 
would serve no retributive or deterrent purpose." According to his attorneys, 
the strokes left Madison blind, with "vascular dementia, cognitive deficits, 
severe memory loss, and brain damage." He has difficulty moving and speaking.

"He frequently urinates on himself and complains that no one will let him out 
to use the bathroom when there is a toilet inches away from his bed," EJI wrote 
in a brief filed in August. "His memory is so impaired that he can no longer 
recite the alphabet or do a simple math problem. He is unable to remember that 
his mother and brother are deceased and cannot identify the prison warden or 
officers who have been guarding him for years."

As a result, his attorneys say, Madison "does not remember the crime for which 
he has been convicted and does not have a rational understanding of why the 
state of Alabama seeks to execute him."

In Panetti v. Quarterman, a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the high court 
ruled that defendants sentenced to death cannot be executed if they do not 
understand why. Madison's attorneys argue his dementia makes it impossible for 
him to understand his execution.

"For purposes of retribution, there is no moral or constitutional distinction 
between a person who cannot 'recogni[ze] ... the severity of the offence" as a 
result of delusions and a person who is unable to do so as a result of 
dementia, cognitive decline, and memory deficits," the attorneys wrote.

The state disputes the extent of Madison's impairment, arguing that he "has not 
experienced delusions, psychosis, or confusion about the meaning of crime, 
punishment or death," and also suggested to the court that Madison winning the 
case would lead to baseless claims of amnesia in death penalty cases.

"Madison's position would give talismanic importance to an inmate's mental 
disorder diagnosis, even though precise mental health diagnoses are shifting, 
debatable, and subjective," the state argues.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who will attend Tuesday's arguments, 
said in a phone interview Monday that the question was "whether he's competent 
to be executed" as state courts have held, "not whether he is a threat going 
forward."

"The state has an interest on a couple of fronts here that transcend his 
physical condition," he said. "What we have here is what amounts to the 
execution of a police officer," he said.

A message seeking comment was left with EJI Monday.

The inmate's attorneys argue improved medical technology and methods have made 
it easier to diagnose dementia. The state's ability to punish offenders, they 
argue, would not suffer if the court vacated Madison's sentence.

"Mr. Madison has not and will not go unpunished," they wrote. "He has now been 
held in solitary confinement on death row for 33 years facing the constant 
threat of execution. He exists in a small cell where dementia has left him 
disoriented, confused, blind, incontinent, and unable to walk."

On April 18, 1985, officer Julius Schulte responded to a report of a missing 
child at a home Madison shared with his then-girlfriend, Cheryl Green. 
According to a 1997 court ruling, Madison got into an argument with Green, then 
left the scene. He returned with a pistol and shot Schulte point-blank in the 
head. Madison also shot Green in the back as she shielded her 11-year-old 
daughter.

Schulte died 6 days later. Green survived her wounds.

Madison was convicted of capital murder on Sept. 12, 1985, but the conviction 
was set aside because prosecutors excluded blacks from the jury pool. He was 
convicted a 2nd time in 1990, but that was also overturned after prosecutors 
used expert testimony based on facts not in evidence.

A 3rd trial in 1994 led to Madison’s conviction, but the jury recommended 
sentencing Madison to life in prison after hearing evidence of mental illness. 
At his 1985 trial, a defense psychiatrist testified that Madison viewed himself 
"as a combat solider, and anyone in front of him is the enemy." But Mobile 
County Circuit Judge Ferrill McRae overrode the decision and imposed a death 
sentence.

The Alabama Supreme Court set Madison's execution date for May 2016, but that 
was held up after a federal court intervened.

At a subsequent competency hearing in the Mobile Circuit Court, 2 medical 
experts - Dr. Karl Kirkland and Dr. John Goff - said they believed Madison 
suffered damage from the strokes, but disagreed about their effects. Kirkland 
testified that Madison "appears to be able to have a rational understanding of 
the sentence," while Goff said Madison could not remember the crime or the 
victim.

The court accepted Kirkland's testimony. A 3-judge federal panel overturned the 
lower court's decision in March 2017, writing that Kirkland did not evaluate 
whether Madison understood that his crime was the reason for his execution. But 
that decision was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that 
the state court's ruling was not "'so lacking in justification' as to give rise 
to error 'beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.'"

Another execution date was set for January. But the U.S. Supreme Court stayed 
the execution to consider Madison's arguments.

(source: Montgomery Advertiser)








OHIO:

2 plead guilty in killing of Jimmie Holland Jr.



2 people have pleaded guilty to charges in connection with the 2016 killing of 
Jimmie Holland Jr. during a burglary, but neither will be sentenced until they 
testify for the state against Elliott Kirkland, who faces the death penalty.

Mark Sanchez and Latrice Thomas each pleaded guilty to charges before Judge 
James Miraldi.

Sanchez, 26, of Lorain, had been indicted for aggravated murder, murder, 
aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, felonious assault, burglary and 
obstructing justice in November 2016. If convicted, he had faced a maximum 
sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole plus 14 more years 
in prison.

The plea agreement reached with the state, though, would dismiss the aggravated 
murder and murder charges, and Sanchez would be sentenced to an aggregate 
sentence of 14 years if he cooperates with prosecutors, according to court 
documents.

To receive the deal, Sanchez agreed to "answering questions, providing sworn 
written statements, taking one or more government-funded polygraph examinations 
and answering questions under oath and under penalty of perjury, according to 
court documents. Sanchez also agreed to testify in any trials or other court 
proceedings.

Thomas, 37, of Lorain, agreed to a similar deal, though she was indicted on a 
much lesser charge of obstructing justice, which carried a maximum sentence of 
three years in prison upon conviction. Thomas pleaded guilty to the indictment 
with the promise the state would recommend a community control sentence rather 
than prison.

Like Sanchez, Thomas' deal hinges on her cooperating with the state by 
testifying in trials and other court proceedings.

The sentencing of both Sanchez and Thomas will not take place until 2019, 
though, for which there are a couple reasons, according to Lorain County 
Prosecutor Dennis Will.

"There's 2 reasons for the sentencing being delayed," Will said. "One, yes, 
because we want to ensure their cooperation. Two, there is a case that came 
down, probably about a year and a half ago, out of the Ohio Supreme Court that 
said when you cut a negotiated plea with someone, if there is some specific 
performance they’re supposed to perform to make that complete, once they get 
sentenced, the court no longer has jurisdiction over them."

If Sanchez and Thomas were sentenced now, they could then refuse to testify 
against Kirkland, and prosecutors and the judge would be unable to vacate the 
plea agreement, Will said.

Kirkland faces capital murder charges for the slaying of Holland.

Lorain police were called to Holland's Lexington Avenue apartment Aug. 29, 
2016, by Jasmine Schafer, who told officers she had gone to the apartment to 
braid Holland’s hair. She said when she arrived, she grabbed 2 cans of root 
beer out of the fridge before she found Holland's body.

She told police she tried to give Holland CPR before she fled the scene and 
called 911. Police have said the relationship between Holland and Schafer is 
unclear.

Police have said Schafer was initially cooperative, but said their 
investigation revealed she was lying about key parts of her story and was 
involved in stealing from Holland's ransacked apartment.

Police recovered several missing items, including electronics and 2 cans of A&W 
root beer, from the borrowed Jeep Liberty that Schafer and a 2nd woman, Thomas, 
were driving that night.

When officers confronted Schafer, she blamed Kirkland and Sanchez for the 
robbery. A witness reported seeing Kirkland, who told police he had been with 
his girlfriend the entire night, enter the apartment armed with a handgun.

Will has said because the robbery was planned, it elevated the killing to the 
level where prosecutors could seek the death penalty.

Schafer is facing aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary and obstructing 
charges. Her case is still pending in court.

A trial for Kirkland is scheduled to begin Jan. 7.

(source: The Chronicle Telegram)

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

Attorneys: Jurors crucial in homicide cases



The chances are pretty good if someone has a murder case bound over to court in 
Mahoning County, that person will be spending time in prison.

A review of court, police and Vindicator files shows that of 211 cases of 
people charged with a homicide by Youngstown police that were bound over to 
Mahoning County Common Pleas Court between 2001-2017, 169 of those defendants 
went to prison.

More specifically, 103 defendants were convicted of murder or aggravated murder 
and 66 others took plea bargains that resulted in prison time.

Overall, Youngstown had 451 homicides during that time period, and city police 
managed to solve or make an arrest in 262 cases.

Of those cases considered solved, several did not make it to court because a 
suspect was either dead or killed in the commission of the crime.

Then there’s the case of Robert Seman. Facing a death-penalty case for the 
murders of Corinne Gump, 10, and her grandparents, William and Judith Schmidt, 
during a March 30, 2015, arson at the Schmidt's Powers Way home, Seman, 49, 
committed suicide April 10, 2017, by leaping to his death inside the Mahoning 
County Courthouse.

8 of the other cases were ruled self-defense.

The numbers also show that of cases bound over by a grand jury, 9 defendants 
were acquitted, and 22 cases were dismissed.

12 cases that were bound over are still pending, the longest of which is from 
2009.

A sampling of comments from defense attorneys who try murder cases say that 
while each case is different, some things are the same. The prime one which 
they said is the reversal of the axiom that a defendant is innocent until 
proven guilty.

"Jurors don't view evidence and jury instructions the same way when there's a 
body," said Lynn Maro, who has represented several defendants charged with 
murder. "They'll flip the burden of proof."

That's why, for Maro, jury selection is the most important aspect of any murder 
case. She said she looks for jurors who may be willing to listen to a defense 
argument and set aside any bias.

"It does matter who is sitting in that box and what their perspective is," Maro 
said.

Another attorney, Lou DeFabio, said he pores over coroner's reports and police 
reports of murder scenes to make sure he knows what evidence prosecutors have. 
He then examines that evidence with witness statements to look for anything 
that does not match up to the physical evidence.

"One of my big things is if the physical evidence doesn't match up what the 
witnesses are saying, there's reasonable doubt," DeFabio said.

"It's harder to try a murder case with a jury because juries are more likely to 
want someone to pay," DeFabio said. "When someone's dead, the stakes are so 
high."

DeFabio also said the prosecution has an advantage in a murder case before it 
even starts because of the nature of the crime, so he says when he speaks to 
jurors during selection, he makes sure not to sugarcoat any of the details of 
the case.

He said it is a way to get them used to and familiar with what they will hear 
in court.

"If you talk about it enough, the jury will do their best to put that aside," 
DeFabio said.

Tom Zena, another defense lawyer who has tried several murder cases, said often 
in murder cases, prosecutors use witnesses who took part in the crime but 
received plea deals for either reduced prison time or no prison time at all.

Zena, a former Mahoning County prosecutor, said jurors need to know about that 
and jurors need to know why they are not being charged.

Zena said it is crucial for the defense to keep the case to the evidence and 
testimony in the courtroom.

"You cannot let the gravity of the offense replace evidence," Zena said. 
"That's a feature that's unique to death cases."

During jury selection, Zena said he pays close attention to the facial 
expressions of potential jurors and also does that during the trial itself to 
see what arguments may be working on his client's behalf.

On the prosecution side, assistant Prosecutor Nick Brevetta said he tries to 
talk to the detective who is in charge of a case before it is presented to a 
grand jury. He also examines all physical evidence to make sure everything 
lines up so when the case is indicted, there are no surprises a defense 
attorney may be able to exploit.

"We know how the defense will line up so we can put on our case," Brevetta 
said.

Dawn Cantalamessa, chief assistant prosecutor, earlier this summer had 3 murder 
cases in a row. She spent 6 weeks on jury selection and trial for the Lance 
Hundley capital murder case, then followed that up with 2 other cases.

Cantalamessa said physical evidence is important in her preparation.

"Murders don't happen in crowded rooms a lot of times," Cantalamessa said.

She also agreed jury selection is the most important aspect of a trial from her 
perspective.

"I think murder cases are won and lost in jury selection, but that's true in 
every case," she said.

Prosecutors also have to explain to jurors, however, why a particular witness 
in a case may have gotten a plea bargain or the process for collecting and 
examining evidence, Cantalamessa said.

Sometimes, prosecutors have no other witnesses than someone who may have been 
present at a crime scene and even participated but not to the point where they 
inflicted the person's death.

She said she makes sure she brings up plea bargains with witnesses to jurors to 
make sure why certain deals are made.

She also said a lot of jurors think evidence collection and use is like they 
see on crime shows on television, and that is not so. Cantalamessa said she has 
witnesses who collect evidence explain what they do and how they do it so any 
misconceptions can be cleared up.

(source: Youngstown Vindicator)

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

'An execution date should not be scheduled' for Bomani Shakur (Keith LaMar)



Free Bomani Shakur (Keith LaMar)!

"An execution date should not be scheduled because Mr. LaMar's death sentence 
is precisely the sort identified by the Joint Task Force to Review the 
Administration of Ohio's Death Penalty. Mr. LaMar's conviction rests on 
prisoner testimony which is not independently corroborated, there is no 
physical or video evidence linking him to the crimes and he has always 
maintained his innocence. Evidence supporting Mr. LaMar's innocence is slowly 
coming to light after dogged efforts to unearth such proof following years of 
suppression."

This is an excerpt from the response Keith LaMar's attorneys filed to 
prosecutor Mark Piepmeier's motion requesting an execution date. As lead 
prosecuting attorney on the Lucasville Uprising cases, Piepmeier is largely 
responsible for the egregious misconduct and deal-making that secured these 
convictions based on informant testimony and withheld evidence. He has a 
documented pattern of doing the same to other defendants.

The response starts by pointing out ways that Keith’s case fits within 
recommendations made by the joint task force on death penalty cases, 
specifically: relying on uncorroborated snitch testimony, disproportionately 
targeting Black people and relying on evidence improperly withheld at trial. It 
goes on to detail that withheld evidence, including statements by trial 
witnesses and others that could easily cast reasonable doubt if not fully 
exonerate Keith if he were afforded a new trial.

Reading this portion of the document, which describes violent events occurring 
in the first hours and days of the uprising, a few things may become clear. 
First, the state of Ohio has no idea what actually happened during the 
uprising. One of Piepmeier's accomplice prosecutors even admits this in an 
interview for D Jones' documentary film, "The Shadow of Lucasville."

Second, the rank injustice of the U.S. criminal legal system is unconscionable. 
This case has exhausted its appeals and is reaching an execution date, which 
means the highest courts have found such evidence inadequate to win a new 
trial, or impermissible for them to even hear. Such a system must be 
unconcerned with justice and motivated by inferior drives.

First, the state of Ohio has no idea what actually happened during the 
uprising. One of Piepmeier's accomplice prosecutors even admits this in an 
interview for D Jones' documentary film, "The Shadow of Lucasville."

This is why we call for amnesty, for recognizing that the state was ultimately 
responsible for the deaths that occurred at their "maximum security" prison in 
April of 1993. No more blood should be shed, lives taken or freedom denied in 
Ohio's futile effort to scapegoat prisoners for the ODRC's inability to keep 
peace, let alone rehabilitate or correct anyone in their prisons.

In October of 2015, Keith's previous council presented only some of these 
statements and arguments before the panel at his appeal, so this document is 
the 1st official entry of this evidence into the court record. At that time, 
the 3 judge panel found against Keith in a decision that seems both patently 
absurd, but sadly unsurprising to Keith and his supporters who witnessed the 
hearing.

2nd, the rank injustice of the U.S. criminal legal system is unconscionable.

Keith was not allowed to attend the hearing that advanced his case toward 
execution and has not yet been able to see and respond to this document or 
Piepmeier’s motion for his execution date. Since Sept. 17, when Piepmeier filed 
his motion, Keith has been spending time with close supporters and friends, 
continuing to focus on living his life despite restrictive supermax conditions 
of confinement and not allowing the threat hanging over his head to dominate 
his time. If the Supreme Court of Ohio ignores his lawyer's response and 
approves Peipmeier's request, Keith will likely be given a 2023 execution date.

We call for amnesty, for recognizing that the state was ultimately responsible 
for the deaths that occurred at their "maximum security" prison in April of 
1993. No more blood should be shed, lives taken or freedom denied.

He intends to fight and defend himself against this murder the state has 
premeditated against him, but at a time and means of his choosing, to whatever 
degree possible.

In the meantime, supporters can read the motion and response, Keith's book 
"Condemned" and other writings to deepen our understanding of his case and the 
dearth of justice in the state of Ohio. We can share the motion and response 
around, write about them and encourage journalists and others to help tell 
Keith's story.

(source: Lucasville Amnesty is a project of renowned attorneys Staughton and 
Alice Lynd----sfbayview.com)