[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----N.H., N.C., FLA., OHIO, KY., TENN., COLO., WYO., USA

[Rick Halperin]

February 13



NEW HAMPSHIRE:

Now is our chance to end the death penalty



This year can be the culmination of many years of effort to end the death 
penalty in New Hampshire if those who are convinced that the practice is 
wrongheaded will contact legislators and let them know how and why you hold 
your views.

Wrongheaded for so many reasons.

Wrongheaded because it is not a civilized response to heinous crimes. 
Wrongheaded because it is a “remedy” that cannot be undone when (not if) 
mistakes are made. Wrongheaded because it costs so much to prosecute that funds 
are stolen from other important cases or support for victims’ families. 
Wrongheaded because our religions all teach that redemption is possible for 
even the worst. “Only one eye for an eye” is a quotation truly misunderstood 
and misused. Wrongheaded because the penalty falls unequally upon people who 
are not white. The list goes on.

Please. This is the year. Write your legislators. You know it makes a 
difference. You know you care that this wrong must be corrected. What can hold 
you back? Will we take this moment to become a more civilized society?

GREGORY HEATH

(source: Letter to the Editor, Concord Monitor)








NORTH CAROLINA:

Poll: Death Penalty Supporters are the New Minority



North Carolina has long been considered a pro-death penalty state, but a 
first-of-its-kind poll found voters overwhelmingly believe the death penalty is 
error-prone and racially biased. And a majority say it should be replaced with 
alternative punishments.

David Weiss is a capital defense attorney at the Center for Death Penalty 
Litigation. He said the poll findings reflect a trend of public concern over 
sentencing people to death.

"And so we're seeing on the ground that the death penalty is just not really 
being used anymore, and I think this poll tells us why,” Weiss said. “It's 
because the people of North Carolina don't support it anymore."

Public Policy Polling interviewed more than 500 voters across the state, and 70 
% believe it is likely that an innocent person has been executed in North 
Carolina. North Carolina juries have sent 1 person to death row since 2014.

Weiss said lawmakers and the court system should seriously consider this poll 
since 61 % of respondents said they believed the courts should re-examine the 
death sentences of prisoners who were tried before a series of legal reforms 
were enacted. That’s more than 131 individuals.

Weiss said cases filed under the state's Racial Justice Act, which uncovered 
evidence of statewide race discrimination in capital cases, are expected to be 
argued later this year.

5 people who were sentenced to death in North Carolina have been exonerated in 
recent years. And, Weiss said more than two dozen others have been removed from 
death row after the courts found serious errors in their cases, and that black 
jurors often were removed from the pool in capital cases.

"It's evidence that we need to face as a state and it's evidence we need to 
face in the courts,” he said. “And I think this poll, in part, tells 
policymakers, tells the courts, that this is a matter of real public concern in 
North Carolina."

The poll also showed that when voters considered a range of alternatives to the 
death penalty, including restitution to victims' families, only 25 percent of 
those interviewed favored the death penalty.

(source: Antionette Kerr, Public News Service - NC)

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

Man charged in Raleigh double killing researched punishments for murder, 
prosecutors say



Jurors in Wake County capital murder trial learned the defendant researched 
potential punishments for killing a pregnant woman in the hours after a deadly 
shooting.

Seaga Gillard, 30, is charged with the murders of 22-year-old April Lynn 
Holland and 28-year-old Dwayne Garvey. Investigators found the victims' bodies 
on Dec. 2, 2016, at America's Best Value Inn on Arrow Drive. Holland was about 
12 weeks pregnant. She and Garvey had 3 other children.

During opening statements, Wake County Assistant District Attorney David Saacks 
told jurors about evidence found on Gillard's cell phone.

"Right after this murder happened, the defendant's phone was used to search a 
lot of various news outlets about this murder, looking for homicides in 
Raleigh," Saacks said.

"When the news broke, (he read pages about) the story on the phone. When the 
victims were identified, searching about the victims. 'Two men are wanted in 
this murder.' Searching about the search for the 2 men. On this phone, all 
kinds of searches about this murder," he said.

"And then at the very end, there are 2 very peculiar searches. "One is a search 
for 'what can you get for a double homicide in North Carolina?' And then after 
that, there's a search about, and some research about, 'what states have fetal 
homicide laws?'"

Saacks said investigators also found messages about a sex-for-hire transaction 
for $140.

The other participants in that text conversation were Holland and Garvey. 
Prosecutors said Holland turned to prostitution to make some money, and Garvey 
was her partner and protector. Attorneys said Holland posted advertisements on 
a "notorious" website.

"She found a customer, and unfortunately it was the last customer she would 
ever see. That customer turned out to be this defendant," Saacks said as he 
pointed to Gillard.

"The big question is do (Holland and Garvey) matter? Do they matter? Because of 
who they are, who they were, what they were doing? Do they matter? All of you, 
all of you told us in jury selection that yes, a prostitute could be the victim 
of a crime," he said.

"Even if you happen to disagree, or start to rethink that answer, how could 
anyone think that murder would be an appropriate and deserving consequence of 
what they were doing?"

Raleigh Police who responded to the initial 911 call testified that they found 
Holland naked in the motel room, shot twice. One officer said there were seven 
$20 bills on a table and an unused condom on the floor, with its wrapper 
discarded.

Prosecutors said Gillard shot and killed Holland less than 10 seconds after 
Xavier Brandon Hill shot Garvey 7 times.

Surveillance cameras at the motel recorded both shootings. Saacks said Hill 
came to the motel with Gillard but went to a different area of the building 
while Gillard and Holland were alone in the room. Garvey went to a vending 
machine, which attorneys said was the routine while Holland was with a 
customer.

At some point, Garvey and Hill crossed paths. Saacks said there were text 
messages between Garvey and Holland about something being wrong. The video 
shows Garvey runs to the room and bang on the door. Then Hill comes around the 
corner with his gun drawn and fires seven shots which all strike Garvey.

"What kind of gets lost in some of that melee that's going on between Hill and 
Dwayne Garvey, is what happened to April Holland with this defendant 
(Gillard)," Saacks said.

"Shortly after Hill is done firing all those seven shots, you see this 
defendant come back out of the door of 220 where he was with April, and as you 
can clearly see he looks and sees what's going on, all of a sudden he faces 
back, puts up his hand, for a couple of moments, and then runs out with Mr. 
Hill down that side hallway back towards the front where the parking lot is," 
the assistant district attorney said.

Gillard's defense attorneys said he is on trial for a murder he did not commit. 
Edd Roberts said Hill killed Garvey, so Gillard should not be charged with that 
homicide.

"Both subjects in this case have been charged with both killings," Roberts 
said.

"You have to not only weigh within your mind is Mr. Gillard guilty of the 
killing that the state is saying he's responsible for (April Holland), but also 
is he guilty of the killing that they say Brandon Hill is responsible for 
(Dwayne Garvey), because there's 2 counts of murder that you have to consider," 
he said.

"When you see the evidence and the evidence comes out, these killings did not 
happen after some kind of discussion between the two people. There's no 'hey 
we're going to do this when the things go bad.'"

Roberts said neither shooting was premeditated or planned.

When discussing the camera that shows the hallway outside Holland's motel room, 
the defense did not name Gillard, but said instead that "somebody" came out of 
the room. Roberts said the video shows an arm raise while the hand and a gun 
are out of view. He acknowledged investigators found two shell casings. An 
autopsy confirmed Holland was shot twice.

Roberts said what happened between the man and Holland was likely in response 
to hearing the seven shots that killed Garvey.

"Think about the john that's inside that room. Think about his mindset and what 
he's processed. He doesn't know who's out there with a gun. He doesn't know 
whether April Holland's protector has a gun," Roberts said.

"He's likely at the door trying to frantically assess the situation. 'Am I 
going to walk out there into gunfire?' He likely has, that john, likely has his 
gun out."

Testimony continued Tuesday morning in the trial. Jurors heard from 5 witnesses 
on Monday. One is a motel employee, two were other customers who stayed there 
the night of the shootings, and 2 are Raleigh officers who responded to the 
shots fired call.

Death penalty cases are uncommon in Wake County. District Attorney Lorrin 
Freeman's office averages one a year. Death sentences are even rarer. The last 
time a Wake County jury backed capital punishment in a case was in 2007.

After a jury recommended a life sentence in a 2018 capital case, Freeman said 
she will continue to seek the death penalty in the worst of the worst cases.

(source: WNCN news)






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

Our View: Death penalty loses support



Nobody on North Carolina’s death row has been executed since 2006. Nobody’s 
likely to be executed this year either. That’s mostly about all the court 
challenges to this state’s execution policies, and also a natural reticence by 
prosecutors and juries to impose death sentences on people who turn out to be 
innocent. 5 inmates have gone free since 2006 after they were found to be 
wrongly convicted.

Until recently, though, North Carolina residents strongly supported the 
imposition of the death penalty for capital crimes. As recently as 2015, polls 
found nearly 3/4 of respondents supported executions. But that may be changing, 
and dramatically so. A poll released this month by Public Policy Polling showed 
that 51 % of North Carolina voters want to replace the death penalty with life 
in prison without parole.

While it’s a sudden change, it’s in tune with the way people are changing their 
thinking about capital punishment across the country. Many states have 
eliminated the death penalty altogether. We expect North Carolina will be one 
of the last states to take that step, but the reality is that in practice, 
we’ve already done just that. We’ll be surprised if this state ever gets back 
into conducting executions.

(source: Editorial, Fayetteville Observer)








FLORIDA:

Gordon guilty in brutal 2015 Haines City stabbing murders



Mary Feiock quietly wept in a Polk County courtroom Tuesday as Circuit Judge 
Jalal Harb read the verdict in Michael Anthony Gordon’s murder trial.

Guilty for the murder of her mother, Patricia Moran.

Guilty for the murder of her only sister, Deborah Royal.

The women were stabbed in a brutal home-invasion double-murder in January 2015. 
After three weeks of testimony, jurors deliberated nearly 6 hours Tuesday 
before convicting Gordon of the murders and the attempted murders of law 
enforcement officers who were fired upon while pursuing Gordon’s car. They also 
found him guilty of robbing an Auburndale pawn shop, which initiated the crime 
rampage that led to the killings.

Gordon, 38, sat motionless and without expression, his eyes fixed on Harb, as 
the guilty verdict in each of the 14 counts against him was announced. Behind 
the defense table, his ankles were shackled.

Wednesday, the same jurors will return to hear testimony regarding Gordon’s 
punishment. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against him, and the jury 
of eight men and four women will recommend either mandatory life in prison or 
death by lethal injection. The final decision will rest with Harb.

Prosecutors intend to argue 4 statutory reasons for imposing the death penalty, 
including that Gordon murdered the women to avoid capture and that the murders 
were particularly vicious.

During the trial, jurors heard that Moran, 72, was stabbed 57 times, and her 
daughter, 51-year-old Royal, 54 times. Their throats were slit, and the wound 
on Royal’s neck cut down to her spine, according to court testimony.

Gordon is the 2nd of 4 co-defendants to be convicted of robbery and the women’s 
murders. Terrell Williams, 33, was sentenced to life imprisonment in October 
after a jury found him guilty. The other two defendants — Devonere McCune, 26, 
and Jovan Lamb, 33 — remain in the Polk County Jail without bail awaiting 
trial.

The rampage began in the late afternoon of Jan. 15, 2015, when three armed men 
wearing masks robbed the Cash America Pawn Shop in Auburndale while Lamb, 
alleged to be the getaway driver, waited outside. When scooping jewelry from a 
shattered display case, they unknowingly grabbed a GPS tracker that enabled law 
enforcement to pursue them as they sped toward Haines City.

The chase ended when the 4 assailants crashed their car near the entrance to 
the Chanler Ridge subdivision in Haines City. McCune was the 1st to be captured 
when a K-9 trapped him near the car. The other 3 ran, but would be apprehended 
within hours.

Gordon was taken into custody after crashing through Moran’s garage door in her 
car and driving across an open field before slamming into an embankment along 
the shoreline of Lake Confusion.

As he was being taken into custody, officers discovered the bodies of the two 
women inside Moran’s house, along with a single tennis shoe and a pair of 
gloves with a logo stamped on the back. During the trial, prosecutors presented 
surveillance video from the Auburndale robbery showing Gordon wearing gloves 
bearing the same logo and shoes like the one found at the murder scene.

Officers also found bloody clothes in the women’s washing machine that 
prosecutors said Gordon had been wearing in the pawn shop’s surveillance video. 
One of the bloody shirts had Gordon’s DNA on the collar, according to court 
testimony.

Clearwater defense lawyer Jervis Wise, representing Gordon, told jurors 
Williams and Lamb were still on the run when the women were murdered, and 
suggested their involvement in the killings. He said Gordon was escaping a bad 
situation when he used Moran’s car to flee.

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

Chuluota man indicted in killings of parents, brother; prosecutors still 
weighing death penalty



A Seminole County grand jury on Tuesday indicted Grant Amato, the Chuluota man 
accused of killing his parents and brother last month, on 3 counts of 
1st-degree murder. The indictment comes nearly 3 weeks after Chad Amato, 59, 
Margaret Ann Amato, 61 and Cody Amato, 31, were found shot to death in their 
Sultan Circle home Jan. 25.

Grant Amato, 29, was located at an Orlando hotel the next day. He admitted 
getting into an argument with his parents centering on his communication with a 
Bulgarian woman he met on an adult website. Amato’s surviving brother told 
deputies Amato had stolen more than $200,000 from their family to send to the 
woman.

Chuluota man stole $200K for Bulgarian woman he met on adult website before 
killing his parents, brother, deputies say

Prosecutors are still deciding whether to pursue the death penalty against 
Amato, said Todd Brown, a spokesman for the Seminole-Brevard State Attorney’s 
Office.

“The option to pursue capital punishment in this case is still under review,” 
Brown said in a statement.

Amato is being held in the Seminole County Jail without bond, but his lawyers 
are asking a judge grant him pre-trial release, saying no forensic evidence 
ties him to the killings.

A hearing will be held March 21 to determine whether Amato is eligible for a 
bond.

(source: Orlando Sentinel)








OHIO:

Fatal Clermont County standoff: Man indicted on charges of aggravated murder, 
attempted aggravated murder



The man accused of shooting and killing a Clermont County detective and 
injuring another has been indicted on charges of aggravated murder and 
attempted aggravated murder.

Earlier this month, Clermont County prosecutors said in court they planned to 
seek the death penalty for 23-year-old Wade Winn. Winn had been accused in a 
fatal shootout that was the result of a 12-hour standoff with law enforcement.

At that time, bond was set at $10 million.

This week, Winn was officially indicted on the charges stemming from that 
incident. Counts 2 and 2 are in reference to the aggravated murder charges. 
Counts 3 through 14 are in reference to attempted aggravated murder charges.

Winn was live on Instagram during the incident, which took place at a Pierce 
Township apartment complex. Officials can be heard in videos naming the suspect 
and asking him to surrender. Prosecutors have said in court that Winn faked his 
own suicide and was "lying in ambush” when two law enforcement officers entered 
the apartment to render him aid.

Then, according to prosecutors, he fired several shots, killing Detective Bill 
Brewer and hurting another officer.

(source: Fox News)

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

Jury selected, trial to begin in quadruple homicide



While opening statements and testimony were expected to get underway in a 
quadruple murder trial in Ironton on Monday, a mid-morning “legal issue” caused 
final jury selection to hit a snag, slowing down the trial process.

Arron L. Lawson, 24, of Township Road 1051 in Ironton, faces 4 counts alleging 
aggravated murder in the 2017 death of 4 family members.

Opening statements in the case will start at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday at the Lawrence 
County Courthouse in Ironton, Ohio.

Lawson's alleged victims — Stacey Holston, 24; her son, Devin Holston, 8; 
Stacey's mother, Tammie L. McGuire, 43; and McGuire's husband, Donald McGuire, 
50; all of Pedro — were shot to death Oct. 11, 2017, at the Holstons' home. 
Lawson is Tammie McGuire's nephew.

If found guilty in those deaths, Lawson faces a penalty of death.

Todd Holston, Stacey Holston's husband, also was stabbed with a pocketknife 
inside the family's trailer during the attack, but survived his injuries.

Lawson also was charged with aggravated burglary, attempted murder and 
felonious assault of Todd Holston, the rape of Stacey Holston, abuse of a 
corpse, kidnapping of Devin Holston, tampering with evidence, theft of a motor 
vehicle and failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer.

Following the killings, he is accused of having fled the scene. A manhunt 
involving more than 100 Tri-State law enforcement officers lasted for 36 hours 
before Lawson was arrested along County Road 52.

Lawson appeared in court Monday in a button-down shirt with his long locks of 
hair and long beard, which had been shaved shortly after his arrest, growing 
back to their original state.

He showed no emotion during Monday’s proceedings, but spent a lot of the time 
stroking his beard with a quizzical look in his face.

Monday started with Judge Andy Ballard ruling in final motions and discussing 
some juror issues before bringing in the remaining jurors for the final 
selection. After about 20 minutes, however, an undisclosed issue occurred and 
court was delayed until afternoon.

Upon returning Monday afternoon, Ballard said the issue had been a legal one 
and had since been resolved during the break.

Court was not dismissed until after 5 p.m. Monday. By the end of the day, 50 
potential jurors had been cut to the final 12 jurors and 4 alternates, most of 
whom are women.

Dozens more had been cut during previous jury selection, which started Jan. 28.

Ballard did not allow media into the courtroom for any of the jury selection 
process.

The trial is expected to last several weeks. The jury will be sequestered from 
the outside world during deliberations.

When the trial starts Tuesday, each side will be given an hour and a half for 
opening arguments after the jury is seated; however, Kirk A. McVay, assistant 
state public defender, said he only would need 15 minutes. Lawrence County 
Prosecutor Brigham Anderson represents the state on the case.

At one point it is expected the jury will be taken to view the locations of 
where the alleged crimes took place. McVey said his client did not wish to 
attend that.

Ohio death penalty laws require a death penalty case to be a bifurcated trial. 
The 1st part of the trial will focus on his guilt or innocence.

If found guilty, Lawson will face a 2nd trial in which the same jury will 
recommend a penalty or life in prison or death.

(source: The Herald-Dispatch)








KENTUCKY:

Prosecutor seeking death penalty in Owensboro triple murder case



Daviess County Commonwealth Attorney Bruce Keugel says he seeking the death 
penalty for Arnett Baines.

Baines was arrested in connection to the triple homicide on Audubon Avenue in 
Owensboro earlier this year.

Cylar Shemwell was also arrested. Kuegel tells us he’s still working through 
evidence to determine if he can file the death penalty for Shemwell as well.

Baines and Shemwell were in court Tuesday morning. The judge set Baines’ bond 
at $250,000. Shemwell has no bond.

Police responded to a shots fired call on January 17. They found 4 people had 
been shot inside a home on Audubon. Jay Michael Sowders, Robert Smith, and 
Chris Carrie died. Carmen Vanegas was also shot, but survived.

Baines is back in court on April 12 and Shemwell will have a bond hearing on 
February 19.

(source: WFIE news)








TENNESSEE:

Tennessee mulls 1 less court review before executions



As Tennessee ramps up for another round of executions, the Republican-led 
Legislature is considering eliminating 1 level of state court review of death 
sentences.

A bill named for fallen Dickson County Sheriff's Sgt. Daniel Baker would 
provide for automatic reviews of death penalty cases by the state Supreme 
Court, skipping over Tennessee's Court of Criminal Appeals. The same concept 
failed 2 years ago. This year, it has the support of the Senate and House 
speakers.

After Baker's fatal shooting in May, prosecutors have said they're seeking 
death sentences for two people still awaiting trial in a gruesome case in which 
Baker's police cruiser was set on fire with his body inside. Dickson County 
Sheriff Jeff Bledsoe afterward pledged to prod government leaders to look into 
changing the legal system with victims in mind.

Tennessee was 1 of 3 states to resume executions in 2018 after long breaks; 
meanwhile, the 25 death sentences carried out nationwide last year remained 
near historic lows, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. 
Tennessee executed 3 men in 2018 — 1 died by lethal injection and 2 chose the 
electric chair, arguing the injection would be a prolonged, tortuous death.

4 more Tennessee executions are scheduled this year, starting in May.

In sending death sentence appeals to an intermediate court first, Tennessee 
stands alongside Alabama as an outlier, said Jeff Cherry, executive director of 
the Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, a group that opposes the 
legislation.

House Speaker Glen Casada and Senate Speaker Randy McNally both hailed the bill 
as a means of achieving more timely justice. Republican Sen. John Stevens, a 
bill sponsor, said House sponsor GOP Rep. Mary Littleton added Baker's name.

"The penalty can only be truly effective if it is carried out deliberately and 
efficiently," McNally said. "Justice delayed 20 and 30 years is not justice at 
all. This bill would preserve due process, provide timely justice and restore 
the death penalty as a meaningful deterrent."

Before the proposal crashed in 2017, a district attorneys general group backing 
the bill told lawmakers that death sentence reviews were added to the Court of 
Criminal Appeals' duties in the early 1990s.

A public defenders group, meanwhile, testified that year that the change would 
only save less than a year on death penalty cases on average. Federal reviews 
would remain the same.

Currently, 13 of the 58 people on Tennessee's death row were sentenced in the 
1980s.

Cherry said trial court death penalties in Tennessee are overturned in more 
than 1/2 of cases, with most reversals coming from the Court of Criminal 
Appeals. That typically involves a new sentencing hearing, possibly leading to 
new plea negotiations and changes to life without parole sentences, Cherry 
added.

3 of Tennessee's 202 death penalties imposed since 1977 have resulted in 
exonerations, Cherry said.

"The better policy result, particularly in a death penalty case is to get the 
right result, not to get a fast result," Cherry said. "If that takes an extra 
level of review, so be it. It is a further safeguard in a system where the 
government imposes the ultimate sanction on one of its citizens."

Senate Democratic Minority Leader Jeff Yarbro criticized the timing of the 
bill, given that the Legislature and new Republican Gov. Bill Lee are pledging 
to reform the state's criminal justice system.

Lee gave no indication how he would lean on the issue, saying Tuesday he hasn't 
seen the proposal yet and will review it.

"I think it'll make the work of the Supreme Court harder," Yarbro said. "And it 
will not save any time or money for anyone."

(source: Associated Press)




COLORADO:

Colorado Governor Likely to Commute Death Sentences if State Abolishes Death 
Penalty



Colorado Governor Jared Polis has said he will “strongly consider” commuting 
the death sentences of the three men on the state’s death row if the state 
abolishes the death penalty. In a February 7, 2019 interview on Colorado Public 
Radio, Polis told Colorado Matters host Ryan Warner, “if the legislature sends 
us a bill to eliminate the death penalty in Colorado, I would sign that bill … 
[and] I would certainly take that as a strong indication that those who are 
currently on death row should have their sentences commuted to life in prison.” 
Polis, who voiced his opposition to the death penalty during his 2018 campaign 
for governor, reiterated his views during the Colorado Matters interview. “I 
think it’s not cost effective, I think it’s not an effective deterrent,” he 
said. “If the State Republicans and Democrats were to say, and I were to sign a 
bill that said we no longer have the death penalty in Colorado, whether it's 
formally in the bill or not,” the Governor said, “then I would strongly 
consider making sure that penalty that is no longer on the books in Colorado is 
not carried out for anybody who's in that process.”

Colorado’s previous governor, John Hickenlooper, imposed a moratorium on 
executions in 2013. Hickenlooper said he initially had supported the death 
penalty, but changed his views when he learned more about the issue: “My whole 
life I was in favor of the death penalty. But then you get all this 
information: it costs 10 times, maybe 15 times more money to execute someone 
than to put someone in prison for life without parole. There’s no deterrence to 
having capital punishment. And I don’t know about you, but when I get new 
facts, I’ll change my opinion. I didn’t know all of this stuff.” Former 
prosecutor and state representative Doug Friednash, who sponsored a bill to 
expand Colorado’s death penalty to include multiple murders committed during a 
single criminal episode, has undergone a similar evolution. In a February 1 
op-ed in the The Denver Post, Friednash called on the legislature to repeal its 
capital punishment law. “25 years ago, as a freshman House Democrat, I 
sponsored legislation to expand the death penalty,” Friednash wrote. “I was 
wrong.” The law he supported was used to prosecute James Holmes, who killed 12 
people in a shooting at an Aurora movie theater in 2012, and Dexter Lewis, who 
stabbed 5 people to death in a Denver bar. Juries sentenced both to life. 
Holmes’ case, he says, illustrates some of the problems with the death penalty 
– the law failed to deter Holmes and his capital trial, which resulted in a 
life sentence, cost taxpayers approximately $5 million. Holmes was tried in 
Colorado’s 18th Judicial District, where defendants are "4 times more likely to 
face a death prosecution than elsewhere in the state.” All 3 of the state’s 
death-row prisoners are Black men who were tried in that district. Friednash 
concludes, “It’s time to close this chapter in Colorado’s history books. The 
Colorado legislature should abolish the death penalty this session. And then 
Gov. Jared Polis should commute the death sentences of our three death-row 
inmates to life without the possibility of parole.”

In a February 9 editorial, the Boulder Daily Camera also urged the legislature 
to abolish the death penalty. Citing the lack of deterrent effect and the high 
cost of capital punishment, the paper wrote: “If the worth of a public policy 
is its ability to achieve policy objectives, then capital punishment is a 
failure.” The editorial also noted “great economic, geographic, and racial 
disparities” in Colorado’s imposition of the death penalty. “The location of 
the county line in relation to a crime,” it said, “should not determine whether 
a defendant lives or dies, and neither should the skin color of the accused.” 
And in conclusion, it pointed to former Governor Bill Ritter’s 2011 posthumous 
pardon of Joe Arridy, who was wrongfully executed by Colorado in 1939 despite 
what Ritter called “an overwhelming body of evidence” that Arridy was innocent. 
“The state-sanctioned killing of an innocent person is more morally repugnant 
than the execution of a guilty one could be morally just,” the editorial board 
wrote. “For this reason alone — given that innocent people almost certainly die 
under a regime of capital punishment — Colorado should abolish the death 
penalty.”

(source: Death Penalty Information Center)








WYOMING:

Death Row exoneree shares his story



Wyoming residents have been discussing House Bill 145...a proposal to end the 
death penalty in Wyoming. It passed on third reading in the House at the 
beginning of February.

Death Row exoneree Gary Drinkard invited residents to hear his story and why he 
believes that the death penalty should be abolished.

Drinkard was exonerated in 2001 after spending almost six years on Alabama's 
death row. In 1995, he was sentenced to death for robbing and murdering a 
65-year-old automotive junk dealer in Alabama.

According to Drinkard, at the time of the murder, he was at home recovering 
from a debilitating injury.

In 2000, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered a new trial and Drinkard won an 
acquittal the following year.

This man believes that life in prison is a more severe punishment than 
ultimately being executed; however, supporters of the death penalty say that 
they see it as an effective deterrent.

The League of Women Voters of Wyoming, ACLU of Wyoming, and Catholic Diocese of 
Cheyenne hosted Drinkard at Highlands Presbyterian Church so that residents 
could hear his story.

At the end, it was announced that the Senate hearing will take place Wednesday, 
February 13, at noon at the Jonah and will be open to public comment.

(source: KGWN news)








USA:

The Supreme Court Is Playing Favorites With Religion

Last week, the Supreme Court permitted the state of Alabama to execute a Muslim 
man, Domineque Ray, without his religious advisor present. The court’s 5-4 
decision reversed an emergency lower-court order that had temporarily delayed 
the execution because of grave concerns that Alabama’s practice of allowing 
only the state’s Christian chaplain to be present in the execution chamber 
unconstitutionally favored Christian prisoners.

Without even acknowledging those concerns, the court issued a brief, callous 
decision that is, as Justice Kagan noted in dissent, “profoundly wrong.” It is 
also the latest example of a disturbing trend of religious favoritism, in which 
minority faiths — particularly Islam — are given second-class legal status.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the “clearest command” of the 
First Amendment’s Establishment Clause “is that one religious denomination 
cannot be officially preferred over another.” The strict rule against 
denominational preference lies at the heart of American religious liberty, and 
it dates back to the founding of our nation. The constitutional framers 
recognized that “religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its 
‘unhallowed perversion’ by a civil magistrate.” When the government officially 
favors one faith over others, it intrudes on matters of conscience and 
religious autonomy, fosters religious division and animosity, and tramples our 
national commitment to equality among faiths.

Yet that’s precisely what happened in Alabama last week. Although Alabama 
routinely permits a Christian chaplain to be present in the execution chamber 
to minister to the needs of Christian prisoners, state officials rejected Ray’s 
request for the same treatment. With the green light from the Supreme Court, 
Alabama executed Ray without his imam to attend him in his final moments. As 
the court of appeals recognized, the religious favoritism could not have been 
clearer: “If Ray were a Christian, he would have a profound benefit; because he 
is a Muslim, he is denied that benefit.”

Alabama prison officials offered no meaningful defense of their discriminatory 
policy, beyond unfounded, conclusory assertions that in the interest of safety 
and security, only the state-employed Christian chaplain could be present. As 
Justice Kagan made clear, however, the state “offered no evidence to show that 
its wholesale prohibition on outside advisers is necessary to achieve” the 
general goal of prison security. And the Supreme Court majority simply ignored 
the substance of the policy and any claimed justifications for it. Rather, in 
lifting the stay of execution and reversing the lower court, the majority 
merely fell back on a 2-sentence procedural argument that Ray had waited too 
long to make his request.

But Justice Kagan easily refuted that theory, noting that Ray had, in fact, 
sought judicial relief only five days after learning that his imam wouldn’t be 
with him in the execution chamber — and not, as the majority implied, three 
months after. Faced with compelling evidence that Alabama’s policy violated 
“the Establishment Clause’s core principle of denominational neutrality,” the 
Supreme Court could have allowed the lower courts to address this weighty 
constitutional issue. Instead, the majority rushed to “short-circuit that 
ordinary process,” just to let the state have its “preferred execution date.”

Sadly, the Alabama case was hardly the first threat to religious equality in 
recent years. Just last term, the Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions that 
cast serious doubt on its commitment to religious liberty for all. In 
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court ruled on 
narrow grounds in favor of a Christian-owned bakery in Colorado that wouldn’t 
sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple on the same terms as all other 
customers. The court in Masterpiece excused an indisputable violation of the 
state’s civil rights law because, in the majority’s view, state officials had 
acted with anti-religious hostility when enforcing the law against the bakery.

The purported evidence of bias was weak at best, yet the court went to great 
lengths to remind us that fundamental religious freedom “bars even subtle 
departures from neutrality on matters of religion.” The First Amendment, the 
court noted, “commits government itself to religious tolerance, and upon even 
slight suspicion” that state policies “stem from animosity to religion or 
distrust of its practices, all officials must pause to remember their own high 
duty to the Constitution and to the rights it secures.”

Alabama prison officials apparently never got that message. Nor, evidently, did 
President Trump, when he repeatedly disparaged Islam and Muslims and then 
enshrined that animosity into national immigration policy with his Muslim ban. 
Remarkably, only weeks after the Masterpiece decision, the Supreme Court let 
him get away with it.

In Trump v. Hawaii, a deeply divided court upheld the president’s ban, which 
imposed strict, indefinite entry restrictions on individuals from certain 
Muslim-majority countries. Unlike in Masterpiece, the evidence of 
anti-religious hostility underlying the Muslim ban was massive, consistent, and 
unambiguous. Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump regularly vilified 
Islam and called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the 
United States” in a statement that remained on his campaign website well into 
his presidency. Only one week into his presidency, Trump made good on that 
deplorable promise, issuing an executive order that targeted Muslim-majority 
countries and included thinly veiled attacks on Muslim communities here and 
abroad. Later iterations of the ban followed the same basic blueprint, and the 
president continued to malign Islam throughout the process.

But none of that mattered to the Supreme Court majority in Trump v. Hawaii. In 
upholding the final version of the ban, the court essentially ignored the 
overwhelming evidence of blatant anti-Muslim animus underlying the policy, 
crediting superficial changes the president made in response to earlier court 
rulings. In the end, the court gave Trump a free pass to discriminate against 
an entire faith.

Coming on the heels of the Masterpiece decision, the message came through loud 
and clear. The Muslim ban ruling, Justice Sotomayor explained in dissent, 
“erodes the foundational principles of religious tolerance that the Court 
elsewhere has so emphatically protected, and it tells members of minority 
religions in our country that they are outsiders, not full members of the 
political community.”

Later this month, religious neutrality will face another crucial test in the 
Supreme Court. On Feb. 27, the court will hear oral argument in American Legion 
v. American Humanist Association, addressing the constitutionality of a 
40-foot-tall, government-owned Latin cross. Applying decades of precedent, the 
lower court in the case concluded that government’s giant display of the cross 
— “the preeminent symbol of Christianity” — as a war memorial to honor the 
sacrifices of all veterans violates the First Amendment’s ban on official 
religious preference. Proponents of the state-sponsored cross, including the 
Trump administration, hope to upend that precedent and thereby open the 
floodgates to divisive religious meddling by the government.

But the lower court got it right, and the American Legion case powerfully 
illustrates the multiple dangers of governmental favoritism in matters of 
faith. First, the state’s elevation of this singular, prominent religious 
symbol as a war memorial conveys a message of exclusion and disfavor to 
non-Christians who sacrificed their lives for their nation. As the Jewish War 
Veterans of the USA explained to the court, “A government undertakes few tasks 
more solemn than honoring its war dead. And when the memorial takes the form of 
a religious symbol of an afterlife available only to Christians, the government 
favors one faith over others in a profound way. . . . Veterans of all stripes 
are united by their love of country, but they are not united by the cross.”

Second, just as the founders feared, the government’s display of a Latin cross, 
including its strained effort to secularize the meaning of this unambiguously 
and uniquely spiritual symbol, threatens a serious degradation and corruption 
of the faith. In their amicus brief to the court, a coalition of Christian and 
Jewish groups, led by the Baptist Joint Committee For Religious Liberty, 
pointedly noted that the government’s “welter of alleged secular meanings for 
the cross, and their efforts to minimize its religious meaning, are offensive 
to many Christians. The [state] violates its obligation to be neutral among 
faiths both when it sponsors the cross and when it spins stories attempting to 
secularize the cross.”

Although the Supreme Court continues to pay lip-service to the “clearest 
command” of the Establishment Clause, its recent decisions have fallen woefully 
short. In the American Legion case, the court has another chance to honor the 
constitutional promise of religious neutrality. For Domineque Ray, it’s already 
too late. But let’s hope the trail of religious favoritism ends here.

(source: By Daniel Mach, Director, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and 
Belief----ACLU)