[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, FLA., N.MEX., COLO., UTAH, ORE.

[Rick Halperin]

August 21



TEXAS----impending execution

Texas Inmate Larry Swearingen To Be Executed Wednesday For Rape, Murder Of 
College Student Melissa Trotter



A Texas death row inmate is set to be executed Wednesday for the abduction, 
rape and murder of a Houston area college student more than 20 years ago.

Larry Swearingen has continued to maintain his innocence and contends his 
conviction was based on junk science.

The 48-year-old is scheduled to receive a lethal injection in the evening for 
the December 1998 killing of Melissa Trotter. The 19-year-old was last seen 
leaving her community college in Conroe, and her body was found nearly a month 
later in a forest near Huntsville, about 70 miles north of Houston.

Prosecutors said they stand behind the “mountain of evidence” used to convict 
Swearingen in 2000. They described him as a sociopath with a criminal history 
of violence against women and said he tried to get a fellow death row inmate to 
take credit for his crime.

Swearingen’s longtime appellate attorney, James Rytting, said he would ask the 
U.S. Supreme Court to halt the execution, arguing that lower courts “have 
failed to take into account the considerable amount of evidence of innocence.” 
Swearingen, who is also represented by the Innocence Project, has previously 
received five stays of execution.

Appeals courts and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles declined to stop the 
execution. If it happens, Swearingen would be the 12th inmate put to death this 
year in the U.S. and the 4th in Texas.

Kelly Blackburn, the trial bureau chief for the Montgomery County District 
Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted Swearingen, said Swearingen’s efforts to 
discredit the evidence have been unsuccessful because “his experts’ opinions 
don’t hold water.”

“I have absolutely zero doubt that anybody but Larry Swearingen killed … 
Melissa Trotter,” Blackburn said.

During a 2011 interview, Swearingen told The Associated Press that he was tired 
of being “demonized” for a crime he didn’t commit.

“We’d all like to know who done it,” he said.

Blackburn said Swearingen killed Trotter because he was angry that she had 
stood him up for a date. At the time of Trotter’s killing, Swearingen was under 
indictment for kidnapping a former fiancée.

Swearingen has long tried to cast doubt on the evidence used to convict him, 
particularly claims by prosecution experts that Trotter’s body had been in the 
woods for 25 days. Rytting said at least 5 defense experts concluded that her 
body was there for no more than 14 days, and because Swearingen had already 
been arrested by then, he couldn’t have left her body there.

Rytting maintains that a piece of pantyhose used to strangle Trotter was not a 
match to a piece found in Swearingen’s trailer. He also disputes prosecution 
experts’ claims dismissing blood found in Trotter’s fingernail shavings, saying 
the blood, which was determined to not be Swearingen’s, supports the defense 
theory that someone else killed her.

In letters sent to Swearingen’s attorneys in July and August, the Texas 
Department of Public Safety said its technicians should not have been as 
definitive in their testimony about the blood found in the fingernails and the 
pantyhose match.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week turned down Swearingen’s 
challenge to the blood evidence and pantyhose match, citing the “mountain of 
evidence” that “seals Swearingen’s guilt for Trotter’s murder.”

Blackburn said Swearingen has tried to get people to lie in order to give him 
an alibi. After his arrest, Swearingen got another inmate to write a letter 
Swearingen composed in Spanish that professed to be from the real killer and 
had it sent to his attorney. In 2017, Swearingen and another death row inmate, 
Anthony Shore, concocted a plan to get Shore to take responsibility for 
Trotter’s killing. Shore was executed last year.

Rytting said Swearingen is guilty of doing “some very stupid things,” but 
prosecutors don’t have proof he killed Trotter.

“Hopefully we are one step closer to giving (Trotter’s family) that justice 
that they’ve so long waited for,” Blackburn said.

KHOU reports that Trotter’s parents are expected to witness Swearingen’s 
execution in Huntsville.

(source: CBS News)

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

Larry Swearingen is set for execution for a 1998 Texas slaying. His lawyer says 
bad science got him on death row.----Swearingen has maintained his innocence in 
the strangling death of 19-year-old Melissa Trotter. Texas prosecutors, 
however, have no doubt he is her killer.



A staunch claim of innocence and doubts over forensic science have long 
engulfed the Texas death penalty case of Larry Swearingen. On Wednesday, for 
the 6th time, he is set for execution.

The now 48-year-old man has lived on death row for nearly two decades, 
consistently expressing his innocence in the 1998 strangling death of Melissa 
Trotter, a 19-year-old community college student in Montgomery County he has 
said was his friend. Multiple state courts have taken execution dates off the 
calendar over the years to look into different issues surrounding Swearingen’s 
conviction, but prosecutors and Trotter’s family remain firmly convinced he is 
her killer.

Now, unless the U.S. Supreme Court or Texas Gov. Greg Abbott steps in, 
Swearingen will be put to death by lethal injection in Huntsville after 6 p.m.

Trotter had been missing for weeks before her body was found by hunters in the 
Sam Houston National Forest on Jan. 2, 1999, with a leg from a pair of 
pantyhose tied around her throat. Law enforcement had already pegged Swearingen 
as the main suspect in her disappearance, arresting him on unrelated traffic 
warrants 3 days after Trotter had last been seen with him on Dec. 8, 1998. 
Based on what judges have since called a mountain of circumstantial evidence, 
he was convicted and sentenced to death in 2000.

Swearingen and his legal team have relentlessly fought his conviction and death 
sentence, gathering numerous scientists who concluded that, based on the 
condition her body was in when it was found, Trotter was killed within two 
weeks of being found — more than a week after Swearingen was already behind 
bars. They also argue against the science used by state experts who matched a 
leg of pantyhose in his home to the piece used to strangle Trotter. And they 
have balked at the courts’ dismissal of blood flecks found under Trotter’s 
fingernails that did not match Trotter nor Swearingen.

“They are going to execute someone that the legitimate forensic science has 
proven innocent,” said James Rytting, Swearingen’s attorney, Tuesday. “And the 
execution is going through on the basis of other forensic science that is 
borderline quackery — in fact it is quackery.”

The Montgomery County district attorney’s office, however, has zero doubt that 
Swearingen is Trotter’s killer. Kelly Blackburn, the office’s trial bureau 
chief, recited a laundry list of circumstantial evidence prosecutors obtained 
to secure and uphold Swearingen’s conviction, including cell phone records that 
put him near the spot Trotter’s body was found, her hair in his truck, and some 
of her school papers being found near his parents’ home.

Blackburn also noted Swearingen’s actions after Trotter’s disappearance — 
saying he falsely reported a burglary when he and wife came back to their home 
in disarray. Trotter’s brand of cigarettes and a lighter were inside, even 
though neither Swearingen nor his wife smoked. And Swearingen also wrote an 
anonymous letter in Spanish with details of the crime scene to pull suspicion 
away from him. Swearingen later admitted to writing the letter, claiming the 
details came from an autopsy report he read. Blackburn said Tuesday some of the 
details were only known by police at the time.

“When you look at all the forensic evidence, and then all of the other 
circumstantial evidence...the only person who has ever been tied to this murder 
is Larry Swearingen,” he said.

The main conflicting points involving forensic science in Swearingen’s case are 
Trotter’s time of death, the matching of pantyhose and blood flecks found with 
her fingernail scrapings. The courts have long looked into the issues, sending 
Swearingen’s case back for reexamination several times and cancelling five 
previously-scheduled execution dates.

Swearingen brought forward multiple forensic experts who contested the state’s 
theory that Trotter was killed on the day she went missing after being seen 
with Swearingen, 25 days before her body was found — including the original 
medical examiner who said as much at trial. They instead said her body was 
decomposed to the point she would only have been dead for about two weeks. 
Blackburn said those expert statements don’t stand up to scrutiny, and that 
other factors, like the temperature and her body shape, needed to be taken into 
consideration. He said the temperature was below 30 degrees for 12 of the days 
she was missing.

Most recently, Swearingen has filed appeals relating to the pantyhose and blood 
flecks, bringing forward new letters the Texas Department of Public Safety 
crime lab director sent to his attorneys in the last month. Swearingen argued 
the letters contradict testimony from trial that led to jurors convicting him 
in Trotter’s murder.

Brady Mills with DPS wrote in a July letter that, if the DPS criminalist at 
trial were to testify today, she would still report that the two pieces of 
pantyhose found in Swearingen’s home and on Trotter’s neck were once connected, 
but she would exclude the statement she made in 2000 that they were a match “to 
the exclusion of all others” because the agency’s terminology has changed and 
that association is no longer made.

Rytting said the pantyhose matching is an example of “quackery,” and said the 
pieces did not match at first but were “pushed and pulled” until they did. 
Blackburn emphasized though that Mills’ letter didn’t contradict the original 
testimony, and said the 2 pieces of fabric were an easy match.

“No reasonable person would believe that they did not come from the same pair 
of pantyhose,” he said.

A second letter from Mills, however, stated a DPS witness should have given a 
“more appropriate answer” regarding blood flecks found on Trotter’s fingernails 
after they were submitted to the agency. The lab analyst at trial said the 
blood, which Blackburn said amounted to a the size of a pinpoint, possibly came 
from contamination in the lab — not the crime scene. She said this was because 
the brighter color and composition of the blood indicated it was from after her 
death.

Mills said the analyst didn’t have enough information of the collection and 
storage process to make that opinion, and that the blood could have come from 
contamination or the actual evidence.

Rytting says the blood points to another man as Trotter’s murderer, adding that 
witnesses came later came forward to say she had been afraid of someone else 
who was threatening to kill her.

The courts have all rejected the most recent appeals, with a federal appellate 
court on Friday nodding to an earlier ruling from the Texas Court of Criminal 
Appeals regarding the blood flecks.

“We are not persuaded that results showing the presence of another DNA donor in 
the fingernail scrapings would overcome the ‘mountain of evidence’ of the 
[Swearingen’s] guilt…” wrote the Texas court in 2014. “There are many ways 
someone else’s DNA could have ended up in the victim’s fingernails.”

Swearingen also filed a last-minute appeal in federal court arguing against 
Texas’ lethal injection methods, asking for testing of drugs whose expiration 
dates have been extended after retesting or an alternative execution method of 
a firing squad. That appeal was denied by the district court Tuesday.

Rytting said Tuesday he planned to file a last-minute appeal with the U.S. 
Supreme Court regarding the DPS letters. Abbott could also issue a 30-day 
temporary stay on his own, though he has never done so. 11 other men are 
scheduled for execution in Texas through December.

(source: The Texas Tribune)








FLORIDA----impending execution

Man who murdered 6 gay men in 1994 to be executed this week



A notorious US serial killer who targeted gay men in the 1990s is set to be 
executed in Florida on Thursday, August 22.

Gary Ray Bowles, 57, killed 6 gay men in 1994.

He was known as the “I-95” killer and evaded police for nine months by using 
stolen identification documents, before finally being caught.

Bowles was given the death penalty following a 1996 trial, but the sentence was 
reversed by the Florida Supreme Court. He was sentenced to death again in 1999.

Bowles has been on death row for 20 years. Between March and November 1994, 
Bowles killed 6 gay men – attacking them because of their sexuality.

Bowles confessed to all six murders after police caught him in 1994, saying 
that he was tired of running.

The 1st was a 59-year-old gay man, Walter Hinton, who Bowles had been living 
with in Florida, having met him at a bar. Bowles beat and choked the man until 
he bled to death, and then fled to Washington DC having stolen his victims 
credit cards and car.

He killed again, and in the following eight months continued to murder gay men 
and evade police using their stolen ID documents.

Bowles’ victims included John Hardy Roberts, 59, David Harman, 38, Milton 
Bradley, 72, Alverson Carter Jr, 47, and Albert Morris, 38. All of those he 
killed were gay men.

Police eventually caught him at an office for day labourers, at that time only 
suspecting him of the first murder. But Bowles confessed to the rest.

Bowles had a difficult childhood.

In interviews with police, Bowles described a violent upbringing that led to 
him leaving home at 14 and working as a sex worker to support himself.

He was first arrested in 1982, at the age of 20, for brutally attacking his 
then-girlfriend. He was sentenced to 6 years in prison and released after 
serving 3.

Bowles told police that after leaving prison, he moved to Daytona Beach, 
Florida, where he moved in with a girlfriend and resumed sex work. According to 
Bowles, his girlfriend became pregnant but had an abortion after she learned 
that he was a sex worker.

Bowles’ told police this meant he blamed gay men for the abortion, and this led 
him to his murderous rampage.

His moved in with his 1st victim, Hinton, after the breakup of his relationship 
following the abortion.

Unless there is a last-minute appeal in his case, he will be executed on 
Thursday.

(source: pinknews.co.uk)








NEW MEXICO:

Exonerated death row inmate has more to smile about



It was his smile that gave him away.

A notable gap where a front tooth belonged had been a recognizable feature 
since adolescence, and it was that missing tooth and a tattoo that had flagged 
Juan Melendez for law enforcement, who arrested him May 2, 1984, on charges of 
first-degree murder and armed robbery for the death of a Florida man eight 
months before.

Despite little more than the word of a vindictive informer, a lack of forensic 
evidence, Melendez’s corroborated alibi that placed him elsewhere and what was 
arguably a slipshod investigation, he was convicted and sentenced to die in the 
electric chair.

He spent the next 17 years, eight months and a day – 6,446 days – on death row 
in Florida until he was exonerated by the taped confession of the real killer.

Since he walked free in 2002, Melendez, 68, has traveled around the country as 
a human rights activist, sharing his story and speaking out against capital 
punishment – including in New Mexico, which repealed the death penalty in 2009.

15 years ago, he moved to Albuquerque.

“I call it my 2nd home,” the Puerto Rican native said. “Lots of people told me 
about Albuquerque, how beautiful it is. But I’ve seen a lot of places in my 
life that are beautiful. The thing I like about New Mexico is the people here. 
The people are beautiful.”

Melendez still counts each day, just like he did on death row. When we met this 
week, it was 17 years, 8 months and 1 day since he walked free from prison with 
$100, a pair of pants, a T-shirt and a mouth full of dental problems, including 
that missing tooth.

That was not so beautiful.

“Lady, I can tell you some stories,” he said. “The doctors and the dentist in 
that prison could not be hired in the free world. They don’t care about 
toothbrushes or your teeth or any part of you. They’re not thinking of 
detaining you; they’re thinking of killing you.”

About 12 years ago, Melendez said, he met a dentist at one of his speaking 
engagements who made a denture to fill in the gap in his front teeth. But time 
and the lack of dental hygiene had left even a false tooth in disrepair.

“My teeth were in bad, bad shape,” he said.

That’s when he learned that not every tooth fairy has wings, but some have some 
pretty big hearts.

Last Saturday, Melendez was one of 16 local beneficiaries of a national day of 
service put on by The Smile Generation, a referral service connecting patients 
with dentists.

Since Smile Generation Serve Day began in 2011, more than 15,000 people 
nationwide have received free dental care worth more than $25 million.

This year, Albuquerque dental offices Cottonwood Smiles Dentistry, owned by Dr. 
Marisol King, and Enchanted Hills Dentistry, owned by King’s husband, Dr. Bryan 
Graziano, provided more than $30,000 worth of dental work to their smiling 
patients.

“For our team, it’s all about providing access to care for patients in need,” 
King said. “Millions of Americans in underserved communities do not have access 
to dentistry. Smile Generation Serve Day gives us the opportunity to provide 
comprehensive oral health care to those who need it most.”

Patients served this year include Special Olympic athletes, single parents and 
others who bring their families in for dental work but can’t afford it for 
themselves.

Melendez came to the attention of King and her associate, Dr. Jasmine Shakya, 
through After Innocence, a national nonprofit that provides re-entry assistance 
to the wrongfully convicted.

“We selected Mr. Melendez because we had heard about his story and it was 
really impactful,” King said. “Dr. Jasmine felt that he had had such an unfair 
experience and had lost so much in his life, and we wanted to play a small part 
in helping restore his health and confidence.”

For more than four hours, Shakya and hygienist Sarah Apodaca cleaned, extracted 
and filled Melendez’s teeth. It was the first formal dental exam he had ever 
undergone.

“They took 3 teeth out of me, and that was enough teeth to take,” he said with 
a chuckle. “I’m not going to lie to you. I bet they did more than a $5,000 job 
in my mouth. I never could have afforded that.”

Melendez laughs easily, but he admits that he is still bitter over what 
happened to him. He has never received an apology. He suspects he never will.

“I’m angry. I’m very angry,” he said. “But I use my anger in a positive way, 
educating the people about what happened to me and hoping it will never happen 
to another person.”

He still counts off every day, but these are the good days, he says. The free 
days. The beautiful days.

So he smiles, and that’s not giving anything away but his joy.

More information----“Juan Melendez – 6446,” short video about the Melendez 
case: vimeo.com/144514466 (source: Albuquerque Journal)








COLORADO:

Free at last: Death row exonerees share their stories with Vail Valley 
audience----Deputy DA hosts panel discussion with exonerees from national 
organization, Witness to Innocence

Reasons for Exonerations •59%: Perjury or false accusations

•52%: Official misconduct by police or prosecutors

•30%: Mistaken identification by witnesses

•23%: False or misleading forensic evidence

•12%: False confessions

[source: National Registry of Exonerations For information go to 
www.witnesstoinnocence.org]

Kwame Ajamu was just 18 when he was locked in an Ohio prison, sentenced to die 
for a robbery and murder he did not commit.

28 years later he walked out of that of prison because, as the parole board 
told him, “We’re going to let you go because we think you’re a good one.”

“The truth is that I was innocent,” Ajamu told an audience Monday night in 
Eagle. “The guilty suffer, but if you’re not guilty … you cannot imagine the 
depth that their brains and hearts go to.”

Along with everything else, Ajamu suffered humiliation — going to the bathroom 
with 34 others, showering with 200 and “my 18-year-old butt.” After 28 years in 
prison, it took him another 11 years to be exonerated.

Sabrina Butler-Smith was 19 when she was sentenced to die in prison, convicted 
of killing her infant son. He died of heart and kidney problems, not at his 
mother’s hand.

Gary Drinkard was sentenced to die in an Alabama prison for a robbery and 
murder he did not commit. He was barely in the same area code when it happened, 
but because he’d had regular scrapes with the law, the investigation focused on 
him and didn’t end until he was wrongly sentenced to death.

“They were going to kill me for something I didn’t do,” Drinkard said.

All three were part of a panel discussion brought to Eagle Monday evening by 
Witness to Innocence, the only national organization composed of and led by 
exonerated death row survivors and their families.

‘Their stories are important’

They were here because Assistant District Attorney Heidi McCollum invited them. 
During a training session last year she met three other exonerees from Witness 
to Innocence.

“I thought their stories were important to be told and that’s why I invited 
them to Colorado,” McCollum said.

Enlightenment was her goal.

“We were looking to help educate our community on this typically unseen part of 
the criminal justice system,” McCollum said.

Coloradans are better off than many, McCollum said. This state’s prosecutors’ 
No. 1 charge is to “do justice,” she said.

The state has a robust public defender system that provides criminal defendants 
with competent attorneys. In fact, entry-level public defenders are paid more 
than entry-level prosecutors, McCollum said. The state’s rules of evidence make 
it tough for police and prosecutors to withhold evidence from defense 
attorneys. If they do, they’re branded for life.

No judge in the 5th Judicial District — Eagle, Lake, Summit and Clear Creek 
counties — has ever handed down a death sentence in a capital murder case.

Generally, there is not a move to investigate a case after an exoneration.

“For me and others in this room, that doesn’t sit right,” McCollum said.

How it happened to them

Most prisoners are behind bars because they’re guilty, Ajamu said. Some are 
not. Some are the victims of misconduct by police, prosecutors and 
inexperienced or incompetent defense attorneys.

If anything changes, it will probably start with prosecutors, Elizabeth Zitrin, 
of Witness to Innocence said.

There are no rich people on death row, they all agreed.

“If I’d had good lawyers to begin with this would not have happened,” 
Butler-Smith said.

Sabrina Butler-Smith was wrongly convicted of killing her infant son and 
sentenced to death in Mississippi. She was exonerated and was part of a panel 
discussion Monday night in Eagle.

She says her attorney in her 1st trial constantly ate candy all the time to 
cover his constant drinking.

“I was black, poor and in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Butler-Smith 
said.

Drinkard said his attorneys were 25 years old and had never handled a case of 
this importance. The prosecutor was trying to get convictions and had political 
ambitions.

“He let the killers walk to get 1 conviction,” Drinkard said.

Drinkard admits he had not been an angel and had a criminal record. Decatur, 
Alabama, police decided he murdered an automobile junk dealer. A bad back, pain 
killers and muscle relaxers had him on the couch during the killing. His 
conviction rested primarily on testimony by his half-sister and her common-law 
husband, who both faced charges for unrelated crimes. In exchange for 
testifying, the charges against Drinkard’s half-sister were dismissed.

Gary Drinkard was on pain pills and muscle relaxers when he was arrested for 
robbery and murder. His half-sister and her common-law husband were granted 
immunity if they testified against him. He was acquitted and exonerated after 
being wrongly convicted and imprisoned.

In 2000, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered a new trial because of prosecutorial 
misconduct. With the help of the Southern Center for Human Rights, Drinkard won 
an acquittal in 2001.

Drinkard said Alabama will not pursue the real killers.

Butler-Smith was a 17-year-old mother of 2. She had a 2-year-old daughter and a 
9-month-old son. Her daughter was with her grandparents. She put her 
9-month-old son to sleep and went jogging. When she returned, he wasn’t 
breathing. She picked him up and ran outside banging on doors. Following 
someone’s instructions, she did adult CPR on her infant son.

First responders could not save him.

Police officers arrested her on capital murder charges and took her to the city 
jail. She said she did not know for weeks that she was charged with murdering 
her son.

She said the doctors, nurses and police officers went into a room and decided 
how their story was going to go. The district attorney was 25 years old and 
trying to make a name for himself. He took the jury on a picnic during the 
trial, she said.

She was 19 when she was wrongly convicted and was sentenced to die.

As she was moving from prison intake to death row on her 1st day in prison, she 
says a guard told her, “You will die here!” She cried when they put her in a 
cell the size of a small bathroom.

“There was nothing else to do,” she said.

Rats, ants and depression found her. She did not have her family; she could not 
grieve for her son.

“I didn’t know where he was buried, even for two years after I was out,” she 
said.

Finally, she learned as much as she could about the law. She earned her GED and 
college credits.

She works with Witness to Innocence because she has a bigger purpose: “To get 
the bad guys off the street.”

In Ajamu’s case, police coerced a purported witness, a 12-year-old boy whose 
mother was fighting ovarian cancer. They kept that boy locked up for eight 
months, forcing testimony that was the only evidence in a trial that sent 
Ajamu, then known as Ronnie Bridgeman, his brother Ricky Bridgeman and friend 
Ricky Jackson to death row.

Kwame Ajamu, known at the time as Ronnie Bridgeman, was 17 years old when he 
was arrested and wrongly convicted for robbery and murder in Ohio. He was 18 
when he was sentenced to death.

The boy tried to recant his statement at the time of the police lineup in 1975 
but said that police told him it was too late and forced him to testify, 
according to Ajamu.

“The boy had parts of four different trials. He gave four different stories. 
That’s part of how they solidified that it was all lies,” Ajamu said.

When that boy grew into a man, his pastor convinced him to go public.

Ajamu’s brother Ricky and friend Jackson were also exonerated, but are still 
suffering.

Kwame Ajamu was exonerated after 28 years in prison and 11 more years of 
working to clear his name.

“When human beings are separated from other human beings it creates serious 
emotional issues,” Ajamu said.

While in prison, Ajamu finished his education. He implemented a program for 
pre-release counseling and launched a program to teach inmates to read. It’s 
called Each One Teach One, and it’s still being used.

“I was always a do-gooder, doing things like taking flowers to the old women in 
the nursing home,” he said.

Even in innocence, trials don’t end

Even free and exonerated, prison leaves a long shadow over their lives.

Butler-Smith walked around from 1995-2005 without a job.

“You have two applicants. One has a prison record and one doesn’t. Who are you 
going to hire?” she asked.

Her son was buried in the woods. She says she’s fighting with the state of 
Mississippi to have him moved and buried properly.

Drinkard received no compensation from Alabama. Alabama says he has to bring 
the real perpetrator to justice to get compensation.

“If you were innocent to begin with, why should you have to bear the burden of 
proof to try to get compensation?” Drinkard asked.

If you take something from someone, especially against their will, you should 
pay them for it, he reasoned.

Ajamu said Ohio paid him $51,000 a year for every year he was incarcerated.

Sabrina Butler-Smith says even after the case against her was dismissed and she 
was exonerated, she still faced all kinds of trials because of her prison time.

“They didn’t have a problem taking their freedom away. They took from her and 
from him the very same things they took from me,” he said gesturing toward 
Drinkard and Butler-Smith.

Ajamu, now 61, said to the Monday night crowd in Eagle that he’s “ecstatic to 
be here.”

He worked through the system and was paroled. He did his own work to clear his 
name. Kyle Swenson, an investigative reporter with Cleveland Scene magazine, 
broke the story that helped get Ajamu a new trial. In November 2014, Judge 
Richard McMonagle granted new trials for Ricky Jackson and Wiley Bridgeman and 
vacated their convictions. The prosecution then dismissed the charges against 
both of them, and they were released.

A month later, Ajamu’s conviction was vacated, and the prosecution dismissed 
the charges against him. He was exonerated after 39 years.

He looked at the law enforcement officers gathered from around the region for 
Monday’s panel discussion and smiled as he admitted he wanted to be a police 
officer when he was young.

“Hope did not find me in a prison cell. The only race on this earth is the 
human race. We are all human beings made from the same mold. It didn’t break. 
Someone just forgot about us,” Ajamu said.

The work goes on

Witness to Innocence says in the modern era of the U.S. death penalty, there 
has been 1 exoneration for every 9 executions.

In July 1976, false forensic testimony and an eyewitness identification 
manipulated by police misconduct sent Charles Ray Finch to North Carolina’s 
death row. In June he became the 166th person released and officially 
exonerated after 43 years in prison.

He left prison in a wheelchair.

(source: Vail Daily)








UTAH:

In Utah death penalty case, public defender says he only admitted errors to 
move on



When former public defender Sean Young signed a 24-page document agreeing to 
give up his law license for 3 years, he admitted to damning facts about the 
work he did on a trial for a Utah death row inmate.

He said he interviewed only 2 of the 18 witnesses he had been assigned to 
prepare before Douglas Lovell’s 2015 trial. That he had reassured Lovell and 
another attorney that he was doing his job. That he did not properly question 
witnesses on the stand, and that he didn’t properly object when attorneys with 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tried to limit how many bishops 
could testify.

But as Young sat on the witness stand in an Ogden courtroom this week, he 
asserted none of that was actually true. He said he never read the document 
before signing it in July 2018.

“My only purpose of signing this was to have all of these complaints go away,” 
Young testified, “and get rid of all of this and move forward.”

Young was facing accusations from 20 clients who told the Utah State Bar that 
he hadn’t handled their cases properly, including Lovell.

But for Lovell, the stakes were higher. After his 2015 trial, a jury sentenced 
him to die for killing a woman in 1984 to prevent her from testifying that he 
had previously raped her.

Lovell is appealing the outcome of the trial, and an evidence hearing has been 
underway this month. Young’s performance in 2015 — and whether he contacted 
those possible witnesses — is at the heart of the hearing. Second District 
Judge Michael DiReda is tasked with deciding whether Young failed to do his 
job, a process that could lead to another trial for Lovell.

This is the 1st time Young has spoken publicly about the allegations and so 
far, he’s spent nearly 12 hours answering questions about Lovell’s case.

Young’s memory was fuzzy about many of the specifics, but he asserted Tuesday: 
“I tried to make contact with every single person I was assigned.”

His testimony contradicted that offered by others. Kent Tucker, a Weber County 
bus driver who is married to Lovell’s cousin, said Young never reached out to 
him, instead he showed up to the courthouse during trial and found Young in the 
hallway, asking when he could testify on Lovell’s behalf.

He said Young put him on the stand that afternoon with little preparation, and 
he testified for less than 15 minutes. Tucker wonders now if he would have 
gotten to testify at all if he hadn’t tracked down Young in the courthouse.

(source: Salt Lake Tribune)








OREGON:

New law could take Lane County man off death row



A new law that redefines the crime of aggravated murder in the state of Oregon 
could mean that a Lane County man may be taken off of death row, to the 
surprise of prosecutors who were reassured during the legislative session that 
the law wouldn’t apply to old cases.

Senate Bill 1013, which was signed into law this month by Gov. Kate Brown and 
goes into effect Sept. 29, limits the crimes eligible for the death penalty and 
narrows the definition of aggravated murder, which is the only crime in Oregon 
eligible for a death sentence.

Aggravated murder now only applies to defendants who kill two or more people as 
an act of organized terrorism, kill a child younger than 14 intentionally and 
with premeditation, kill another person while in jail or prison for a previous 
murder, or kill a law enforcement, correctional or probation officer.

Before the new law, aggravated murder applied to cases involving murder for 
hire, more than one victim, torture, a criminal justice professional victim, a 
juror or a witness, or a defendant that was in custody or a fugitive when the 
murder occurred. It also applied to defendants previously convicted of murder 
or manslaughter, and to cases involving murder that occurred during another 
felony act, murder committed to conceal a crime, or murder that was committed 
using explosives.

The new law also affects how a jury decides on a sentence of death, removing 
“future dangerousness” as a factor in making the decision. It requires the 
state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant should receive a 
death sentence. It also reclassifies all current manners of committing 
aggravated murder as 1st-degree murder. The crime of murder is now renamed 
2nd-degree murder.

In an Aug. 9 email to Oregon prosecutors, Oregon Department of Justice 
solicitor general Benjamin Gutman said his office concluded that the new, 
narrower definition of aggravated murder in SB 1013 does apply to pending 
cases, including cases that have been sent back for new penalty or guilty 
phases.

Gutman reviewed the new law on request of attorneys representing death row 
inmate Martin Allen Johnson, who was convicted in Washington County in 2001 of 
eight counts of aggravated murder for the 1998 rape and murder a 15-year-old 
girl. Johnson was granted a new trial in 2017, on the grounds of inadequate 
representation. After the DOJ’s assessment that the new law affects Johnson, 
the judge ruled that Johnson’s crimes now aren’t considered aggravated murder 
and therefore he is not eligible for the death penalty.

“I know that I have had conversations with many of you in which I suggested 
otherwise,” Gutman’s email to prosecutors read, “but after careful review of 
the issue in a Washington County case where the court ruled that the death 
penalty was not available, we have concluded that we don’t have a plausible 
basis for an appeal ... This was a surprise to me.”

Locally, the law also would affect the case of Jeffrey Dale Tiner, who was 
convicted in 2000 of murdering a Springfield boat builder.

Tiner, now 61, returned to Lane County Circuit Court last fall because his 
aggravated murder conviction and death sentence were overturned when a judge 
ruled Tiner was not given a proper defense during the sentencing hearing of his 
trial. A conviction for intentional murder — a lesser homicide charge that 
carries a life sentence — remains intact.

But his new trial, which was expected to begin in February of this year, was 
postponed. Tiner’s attorneys said they needed more time to prepare for trial, 
furthered delayed by the new bill that narrowed the definition of aggravated 
murder, of which Tiner was convicted of two counts. His new trial is scheduled 
for November 2020.

Lane County District Attorney Patty Perlow said she was not surprised by the 
Department of Justice email. She testified in the House and Senate against the 
bill, “not as an advocate for the death penalty, but because it was a poorly 
drafted bill,” she said.

“There will be no cost savings from this bill,” Perlow said. “Every aspect of 
it will require litigation at every level from the trial court, through the 
appellate courts, to post-conviction relief.”

According to the Oregon Department of Corrections, there are 30 people on 
Oregon’s death row — 29 men and one woman. The last person to be executed on 
Oregon’s death row was Harry Charles Moore in 1997. It was the second and last 
execution in Oregon since 1962. Perlow said fewer than six of those cases would 
be eligible for the death penalty under the new law in Oregon, none of which 
are Lane County cases, such as that of David Ray Taylor or Jesse Caleb Compton.

Perlow foresees more confusion that may come from SB 1013. While the new law 
defines aggravated murder to include the killing of a child younger than 14 
intentionally and with premeditation, Perlow points out that the term 
“premeditated” isn’t defined anywhere in Oregon law but is an element of the 
new version of aggravated murder.

For 1st-degree murder, the presumptive sentence is life with the possibility of 
parole after 30 years, but the judge can impose a sentence of life without 
parole if she or he gives “reasons” for imposing that sentence, Perlow said. 
There is no guidance of what acceptable “reasons” would be, Perlow added, 
meaning the appellate courts would have to determine in every case whether the 
“reasons” were sufficient.

State Rep. Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, told The Oregonian/OregonLive last 
month that lawmakers drafted a separate bill, Senate Bill 1005, to make clear 
that SB 1013 wouldn’t apply to those who have been previously sentenced but 
have been granted reversals.

Gutman said he and many others were under the impression that SB 1005 ensured 
that SB 1013 would not apply to cases that had previously been tried and were 
being retried after an appeal or post-conviction relief.

“There are news stories citing legislators as saying as much,” Gutman said.

(ssource: The Register-Guard)

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

Death penalty bill generates clashing views



Nearly 2 months have passed since the 2019 Legislature wrapped up its work, but 
there's still plenty of confusion surrounding one of the session's most 
significant bills, the measure that limits how the death penalty can be applied 
in Oregon.

The key question is this: Is the bill retroactive — that is, does it apply to 
the 31 inmates who currently are on death row in Oregon?

One of the bill's key backers, state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Eugene Democrat, 
has said a special legislative session is required to make it clear the law 
doesn't apply to death penalty cases sent back for new sentencing hearings as 
well as new trials. But another backer, former House Majority Leader Jennifer 
Williamson, D-Portland, has said no additional work is needed on the bill and 
that it always was intended to cover situations such as new sentencing hearings 
in old cases and new trials.

A recent opinion by the state Department of Justice sided with Williamson's 
interpretation, noting that the new law applies to death penalty convictions 
and sentences that have been overturned, in addition to pending cases.

The measure in question, Senate Bill 1013, narrows the definition of 
"aggravated murder," the only crime in Oregon that can be punished by death. 
The death penalty in Oregon now can only be applied in four types of crimes: 
killings motivated by terrorism, murders of children 14 years or younger, 
killings by an incarcerated person who's serving a previous aggravated murder 
sentence and premeditated killings of police or corrections officers.

Other crimes that used to be considered aggravated murder, such as slayings 
committed during a rape or robbery, no longer can be punished with the death 
penalty.

The bill was carefully constructed (perhaps too carefully) to ensure that it 
didn't require a vote of the people; such a vote would be required of a measure 
that called for completely doing away with the death penalty in Oregon.

It's probably fair to say that many, if not most, legislators believed that the 
bill was not meant to apply retroactively. In that light, the measure didn't 
seem likely to make much difference for death-row inmates: It's been more than 
two decades since Oregon executed a prisoner and Gov. Kate Brown is continuing 
a moratorium on the death penalty that was instituted by her predecessor, John 
Kitzhaber.

But the idea that the bill could be applied retroactively to some cases changes 
that calculation to some extent: As The Oregonian's Noelle Crombie reported, 
it's not at all unusual for aggravated-murder convictions or death penalty 
sentences to be overturned or remanded to a lower court. In fact, Crombie 
noted, seven cases have been reversed in the last two-and-a-half years, and not 
one of Oregon's death row inmates has exhausted their legal challenges. It 
would be interesting to see if legislators approach the bill differently should 
it come up again in a special session or next year's short session.

Regardless of what happens to Senate Bill 1013, legislators should stop 
sneaking around the issue of the death penalty and fully confront it by 
referring to voters a measure to abolish capital punishment in Oregon.

Oregonians have a long and tangled history with the death penalty. Capital 
punishment was outlawed by Oregon voters in 1914 and then reenacted in 1978. 
Three years later, the state Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was 
unconstitutional, a ruling that paved the way for a 1984 initiative in which 
voters reaffirmed capital punishment.

Since then, the topic rarely has been revisited in Oregon, and the 
gubernatorial moratoriums have had the effect of sweeping the debate about 
capital punishment under the rug. Meanwhile, the national conversation about 
the death penalty has taken fascinating turns.

It's been almost 4 decades since state voters affirmed the death penalty. It's 
long past time to bring this conversation to all of Oregon.

(source: Editorial, Corvallis Gazette-Times)