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

[Rick Halperin]

February 28



TEXAS----impending execution

Billie Coble scheduled to become oldest man executed in Texas during modern era 
of the death penalty----Coble, 70, was sentenced to death nearly 30 years ago 
in a 1989 triple murder near Waco. He is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stop 
his execution.



On Thursday, Texas is scheduled to execute a 70-year-old man for killing 3 of 
his wife's family members in the Waco area nearly 3 decades ago.

Unless the U.S. Supreme Court or Gov. Greg Abbott stops the execution, Billie 
Coble will become the oldest person Texas puts to death since the modern era of 
the death penalty began in the 1970s, according to prison data. He is part of 
an aging death row population; Coble is 1 of nearly 30 inmates who have lived 
on Texas’ death row for more than 25 years.

In a late filing, Coble asked the nation’s high court to stop his execution, 
claiming a recent ruling that tossed out a Louisiana man’s death sentence last 
year should apply to his case. In that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that 
the defendant can insist his lawyers don’t admit to guilt at trial even if they 
think it’s the best way to sway jurors to vote against the death penalty.

Coble was convicted of capital murder in the 1989 slayings of his estranged 
wife’s parents and brother in McLennan County, court records show. He had been 
married to his wife, Karen, for a little over a year when she told him she 
wanted a divorce. They lived in the small town of Axtell, just across the 
street from her parents, Robert and Zelda Vicha, and down the road from her 
brother, Bobby.

According to court records, when Karen came home from work, she found her 
children tied up, and Coble approached her and told her that he had killed her 
parents and brother. At gunpoint, he led her to the car and tried to flee with 
her. She fought back, and eventually a sheriff’s deputy began following them 
before Coble crashed into a parked car.

At trial, the prosecution showed evidence of a long history of Coble 
brutalizing and molesting women, including his former wives and young girls. 
The jury also heard evidence that Coble had a traumatizing childhood; he lived 
in a state home for 12 years while his mother was institutionalized and 
enlisted to fight in the Vietnam War at age 17. He was found guilty of the 
murders and sentenced to death in June 1990.

But in 2007, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out that sentence 
based on changing precedent on how explicitly jurors have to weigh mitigating 
evidence, like Coble's troubled childhood, that could make them lean toward the 
lesser sentence of life in prison. Still, after a jury weighed such evidence, 
Coble was again sentenced to death in 2008.

Even in the short time when his death sentence was lifted, courts always 
determined Coble to be guilty of capital murder. Now, in a last-shot petition 
to the U.S. Supreme Court, he is asking the justices to review his conviction, 
not his sentence, based on another ruling that the court recently handed down.

In Robert McCoy’s case out of Louisiana, a majority of the justices held that 
under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has the right to choose the objective of 
his defense. At McCoy’s trial, despite his loud objections in court that he was 
innocent, his lawyers were allowed to concede that McCoy killed his wife’s 
family as part of an effort to sway the jury away from a death sentence.

The high court ruled last year that once McCoy communicated to the court and 
his lawyers that he objected to his lawyer’s strategy, “a concession of guilt 
should have been off the table.”

Coble’s current attorney, A. Richard Ellis, claims the McCoy ruling should also 
apply to his client since Coble also objected to his lawyers’ strategy. His 
petition to the high court said that before Coble’s trial, his lawyers filed a 
notice that they would raise an insanity defense, but after the state rested 
its case in the guilt phase of the trial, they “abruptly changed course.”

Ellis said that in a stunning move, Coble’s trial lawyers largely just played 
silent footage of scenes from Vietnam and, in closing, conceded that Coble was 
guilty. He said Coble’s objective was to present a defense.

But there are some key differences between Coble’s and McCoy’s cases: Coble 
seemingly only objected to his lawyers, not the court itself, about the defense 
being presented, and he didn’t want to claim innocence — he simply didn’t want 
to concede guilt.

Those differences are partially why the state has argued Coble’s petition 
should be denied and his execution carried out. The state claimed Coble didn’t 
complain about his lawyer’s strategy until he was in the appeals process, which 
the McCoy ruling doesn’t apply to, and that courts already rejected Coble's 
earlier appeals based on claims of faulty trial lawyers.

“The public’s interest is not advanced by staying Coble’s execution to consider 
a procedurally defaulted and meritless claim based on a decision handed down 
three decades after Coble terrorized and murdered his ex-wife’s entire family,” 
wrote Texas Assistant Attorney General Gwendolyn Vindell in the state’s brief 
to the high court Monday.

Ellis has countered that the McCoy ruling needed to be clarified to explain if 
it applies to what happened at Coble’s trial, saying that there are a number of 
things in the ruling left unclear — like whether defendants need to voice their 
objection explicitly to the court.

“They’re not schooled in the law, they don’t know what to say, and they don’t 
even know if they’re allowed to say it,” Ellis told The Texas Tribune on 
Monday. “It’s a pretty good assumption that the Supreme Court will want to 
clarify the contours of McCoy in the near future, and I think this is a good 
vehicle for them to do that.”

If the execution proceeds, Coble will become the 2nd man executed in Texas this 
year, after Robert Jennings' execution last month, and the 3rd in the nation. 5 
other executions are scheduled in the state through September, according to 
prison records.

(source: Texas Tribune)

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

Family member of victims speaks ahead of Billie Wayne Coble's execution



On Thursday night, Billie Wayne Coble will be executed in Huntsville.

In 1990, Coble was convicted of a triple murder in Axtell. Now, the family will 
get justice after nearly 30 years of waiting.

J.R. Vicha was just 11 years old when Coble murdered his father, Bobby Vicha, 
and grandparents, Robert John and Zelda Vicha.

He and his dad lived just a single house down his grandparents. His aunt Karen, 
who was married to Coble, lived on the other side of the street.

On the day of the killings, Vicha said he remembers getting off the school bus 
and walking over to Karen's house with her daughter.

"I can remember walking in and Bill was in there and so were my other cousins," 
J.R. said. "I remember he took my lunch box, set it on the table."

J.R. said Coble had 3 sets of handcuffs waiting for Karen's 3 daughters. Coble 
forgot that J.R. would be there and tied him up since he didn't have another 
set.

"He took us into Ann Marie's bedroom and put us each on one corner of the bed," 
J.R. said. "I don't remember what he used on me, maybe some rope or something, 
I still don't remember."

J.R. believes they were in the room for hours.

"He would come and go," J.R. said. "At that point, I was 11. I didn't think 
anything bad was going on. I wasn't scared. I think through the whole thing, I 
didn't really know what was going on."

During that time, Coble shot and killed Robert John and Zelda Vicha and Waco 
police officer Bobby Vicha inside their own homes.

"Those were probably the 3 people I was closest too," J.R. said.

While J.R. didn't see Coble as a dangerous man at the time, his opinion changed 
in the years ahead as he watched him in the courtroom.

"I was a prosecutor for 8 years, so every day I dealt with criminals. A lot of 
bad cases, a lot of bad people," J.R. said. "I've never dealt with anybody that 
I thought was as bad or as evil as he is."

J.R. said Coble has never apologized or shown remorse for his actions.

"The last time they brought him here to set his execution date, he refused to 
come out of his cell which was a change," J.R. said. "All the court appearances 
before that over the last 29 years he would come out smiling, stare at people 
like it was a show."

J.R. plans to witness Coble's execution on Feb. 28. He said this will give his 
family some closure.

"Knowing this whole time that he's still alive and having a life, even though 
he's in prison he has a life," J.R. said. "So I guess finally knowing that he's 
not there anymore, that will help."

Karen Vicha will be driving in from San Antonio for the execution, but she 
won't witness it. Karen tells us she'll be waiting in the support room to be 
there for her family.

"I had absolutely no control that day when everything happened back in August 
of 1989," Karen said. "But the one thing I can control is what he sees in the 
last few minutes of his life and it's not going to be me, because I know how he 
is and I know he would just be happy to see me in his sick mind."

During Coble's last trial, Karen took the stand. She told jurors that in the 
weeks before the killings, she told Coble she didn't love him anymore and 
wanted a divorce.

Karen said she has horrific memories of the day her parents and brother were 
killed.

"I was in disbelief. I remember telling him, 'I can't believe you could do 
something like this' and he showed me proof that he had done it," Karen said. 
"At first, you don't think human beings are capable of doing that to each 
other. Now we know there are just evil people in this world."

Karen is disappointed with the justice system and how long it's taken for Coble 
to be executed.

"I wish it worked differently and I certainly don't think he should've been 
alive this long," Karen said. "We're glad to see that it's finally coming to an 
end."

Karen said Coble has a son and she feels sorry that he will be losing his 
father, but she doesn't want people to see her family as "poor, pitiful 
victims."

"We're survivors," Karen said. "His idea was to destroy me and to destroy my 
family and he did not accomplish that. We're still here and he's not going to 
be."

(source: KXXV news)

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

Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----41

Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----559

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

42---------Feb. 28----------------Billy Wayne Coble-------560

43---------Mar. 28----------------Patrick Murphy----------561

44---------Apr. 11----------------Mark Robertson----------562

45---------Apr. 24----------------John King---------------563

46---------May 2------------------Dexter Johnson----------564

47---------Sept. 4-----------------Billy Crutsinger---------565

(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)

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

USA----countdown to nation's 1500th execution

With the execution of Dominique Ray in Alabama on February 7, the USA has now 
executed 1,492 condemned individuals since the death penalty was relegalized on 
July 2, 1976 in the US Supreme Court Gregg v Georgia decision. Gary Gilmore was 
the 1st person executed, in Utah, on January 17, 1977. Below is a list of 
scheduled executions as the nation approaches a terrible milestone of 1500 
executions in the modern era.

NOTE: The list is likely to change over the coming months as new execution 
dates are added and possible stays of execution occur.

1493-------Feb. 28------------Billy Coble----------------Texas

1494-------Mar. 28------------Patrick Murphy------------Texas

1495-------Apr. 11------------Mark Robertson------------Texas

1496-------Apr. 24------------John King------------------Texas

1497-------May 2--------------Dexter Johnson------------Texas

1498-------May 16-------------Donnie Johnson-----------Tennessee

1499-------May 29-------------Cleveland Jackson--------Ohio

1500-------July 10--------------Kareem Jackson----------Ohio

1501-------Aug. 14-------------Gregory Lott---------------Ohio

(source: Rick Halperin)








NEW HAMPSHIRE:

Richard O'Leary: In opposition to the death penalty



I spent 33 years as a Manchester police officer, ending with the rank of Deputy 
Chief of Police. I’m adamantly against the death penalty, and here are my 
reasons why:

First, I don’t believe we have the right, under any circumstance other than 
immediate self-defense, to take a life. Almost every religion says, “Thou shalt 
not kill.” Once a murderer has been subdued, arrested, and separated from 
society, I cannot see where the state has any compelling interest in executing 
him. It’s simply wrong.

Second, the criminal justice system is not perfect and innocent people can be 
killed. Take for example Cameron Todd Willingham from Texas, who was executed 
after being convicted for killing his three children in a fire. The only 
evidence was based on shaky arson science. Under today’s scientific practice, 
Willingham would now be alive and a free man. To date, The Innocence Project 
has freed more than 160 death row inmates who were wrongfully convicted across 
our country. How do you bring anybody back who’s been executed and who you 
later find out was innocent? You can’t.

Third, how can we really decide which categories of victims merit the death 
penalty? How do we make a judgment on whose life is more important? My wife and 
I have six adult children. Two are teachers, one teaches kindergarten and one 
is at Central High and also a baseball coach. I have a daughter who’s a nurse 
in Rhode Island and a son who is a police officer in Manchester.

One of my sons works as a chef. Another is a tech man at SNHU. As you look at 
the carnage across the country, all of these occupations have been involved in 
mass shootings. Think of the teachers down in Sandy Hook, Conn. In a recent 
shooting, it was a football coach who died. He was there when the shooting 
occurred because that’s where he works. How does my son, the baseball coach and 
teacher, compare to my other son who’s a Manchester policeman? Is a policeman 
more important than a nurse? More important than a teacher? More important than 
a tech man at a college? If I’m a lawmaker or on a jury, how do I choose for 
which kind of victim the perpetrator should get death, and for which kind he 
shouldn’t? I don’t think we should be making these kinds of distinctions among 
victims. Every murder is heinous to the ones who lose a loved one.

Fourth, the death penalty does nothing to deter people from murdering. These 
people are drug addicts and crackheads most of the time. Are they really going 
to stop and reflect on their actions ahead of time and think, “I might get 
killed if I do this, so I better not”? That’s the furthest thing from their 
mind. In my prison work, I’ve had the opportunity to ask some of these folks, 
“Did you know you were going to face the death penalty or life in prison?” 
Absolutely not. They just acted without thinking. On the other hand, 
premeditated murderers just think they’re too smart and will never get caught.

Fifth, the death penalty turns murderers into celebrities, and that’s not good 
for the family members of the victims. Today, everybody knows Michael Addison’s 
name. The guy he killed, officer Michael Briggs, was a standout policeman. But 
he’s gone now. So who gets remembered? Michael Addison, because of years and 
years of appeals. But notice how nobody talks about Cleo Roy, the guy who 
killed police officer Ralph Miller in the early 1970s here in New Hampshire, 
and who got life in prison. He’s pretty much remained a nobody for 50 years.

I’ve been fortunate to talk to a lot of family members of murder victims. They 
were not interested in revenge. They just wanted justice by putting the guy 
away, so that they don’t have to keep being reminded of their loss every year 
for 15 or 20 years, every time another appeal happens.

What does the death penalty do? Nothing. It takes another human life for no 
good reason. We don’t need the death penalty. Life in prison, life in a 6 by 
10-foot cell with your freedom forever taken from you, is adequate punishment. 
It protects society and allows for the possibility of rehabilitation. That’s 
what jail is supposed to do.

I strongly encourage Gov. Chris Sununu to sign HB 455 that will likely be 
passed by the New Hampshire House and Senate with bipartisan support.

(source: Richard O’Leary is a former state representative and former deputy 
chief of the Manchester Police Department. He lives in Manchester----Union 
Leader)








VIRGINIA:

Death Row Survivor, Legal Activist Joseph Giarratano Shares Story



Last Tuesday, Joseph Giarratano shared his experiences of being on Virginia’s 
death row for a crime that many believe he did not commit to a packed audience 
in the Wortmann Ballroom. Sponsored by the James C. & S. Maynard Turk Pre-Law 
Program’s Gentry Locke Speakers Series, this event painted a sobering picture 
of Virginia’s deeply flawed criminal justice and corrections systems. Joseph 
Giarratano was paroled in December of 2017 after spending almost 40 years in 
prison. He currently works for the Innocence Project at the University of 
Virginia School of Law.

“It was only through a stroke of luck and attorneys working for free that the 
few people who are exonerated survive,” said Giarratano.

Giarratano detailed his painful journey from the beginning, focusing on how the 
corrections system dehumanized him and those around him. At one point he was 
suddenly transferred to a supermax prison in Utah, where he was kept in 
solitary confinement for 23 hours per day, drugged with the strong 
antipsychotic thorazine, and illegally tortured under the authorization of many 
of the prison administrators who were later arrested for performing extreme 
torture at the Ahu Ghraib prison complex in Iraq.

“Prisons function as predatory environments. The best our prison system can do 
is make a conducive environment for self-growth and positive change. Our system 
is built on retribution. At some point that punishment has to stop,” said 
Giarratano.

Giarratano advocates for major changes in Virginia’s corrections system and the 
systems in other states.

“I had no responsibility [on the inside], and that creates dependence. Give 
them something that they can take pride and joy in. We have to fix the system, 
and the fix isn’t going to happen from within. It’s people like you who will 
bring about that change,” said Giarratano.

Agreeing with most contemporary criminal justice scholars, Giarratano believes 
that “tough on crime” statutes cause far more harm than good.

“You hear politicians saying they’re getting tough on crime, and it’s not 
working. Something’s wrong with that picture. And there’s no magic bullet to 
fix that. The victims need a voice. They need to be heard,” said Giarratano.

He now dedicates his life to advocating for the falsely imprisoned. He works as 
a paralegal and has filed many lawsuits to help exonerate or secure more humane 
conditions for prisoners, some of whom he was friends with during his 
incarceration.

“I want to be the best human being I can be, and the only way I can do that is 
to give back. I feel responsible to help, and I’m able to do that because 
people like you support me. People caring makes all the difference. We have the 
programs, but unless we treat [prisoners] as human beings it’s not going to 
make a difference,” said Giarratano.

For students who wish to make a difference in some way, Giarratano encourages 
civic advocacy and taking action such as visiting prisons and enrolling in an 
RC criminal justice class that allows students and Roanoke County jail inmates 
to collaboratively learn the same course material.

“I would encourage students to support the Inside Out Program and to write 
their legislators to let them know they are being held accountable. You pay 
taxes for prisons, you can go into the prisons,” said Giarratano.

The death penalty is currently legal in 30 states, but many states do not use 
it often anymore due to the litigation and cost involved. Because the innocence 
rate is 4.1 percent but the death row exoneration rate is only 1.6 %, there is 
considerable evidence to suggest that an untold number of innocent people have 
died at the hand of state.

“We’ve had over 100 exonerations based on forensic in the past few decades, and 
one in five involve false confessions. Why do we kill to show that killing is 
wrong? They think that people are determined from committing heinous crimes 
because they are afraid of being put to death, and there’s little to no 
evidence that it’s a crime deterrence,” said Dr. Todd Peppers, the Henry H. & 
Trudye H. Fowler Professor of Public Affairs at RC.

Rising costs have resulted in the gradual decline of the use of the death 
penalty, and Peppers predicts that controversial punishment will recede in 
popularity over the next few decades for this reason.

“It costs about $1 million more in a capital murder case to try, convict, and 
execute someone rather than to incarcerate them for life. I think that the 
death penalty is going to die not due to moral repulsion, but caused by 
shrinking state budgets and outrage over how much it costs taxpayers. We’re 
starting to see a trend across the country of states abandoning the death 
penalty due to cost,” said Peppers.

(source: roanoke.com)








GEORGIA:

Donnie Rowe argues for 'rights,' asks for Death Penalty to be thrown out



Donnie Rowe -- 1 of 2 men charged with killing 2 guards on board a bus from the 
Baldwin State prison in 2017 -- accused the Department of Corrections of 
"blatantly' violating his rights Wednesday in Putnam County Court.

Rowe's defense team asked for his federal rights, state rights, privacy rights 
and 14th Amendment rights to be processed.

The state agreed to suppress Rowe’s medical records. But if he tries to use his 
physical or mental state as a defense, his medical records will be opened for 
use in the case.

The defense is also motioning to strike the Death Penalty out.

Jury members are currently being selected in Grady County.

Rowe's next court date is March 22. Trial is expected to begin in November.

(source: WGXA TV news)








ALABAMA:

Supreme Court blocks death sentence for murderer with dementia who can't 
remember crime



The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Alabama cannot execute a convicted 
murderer whose health has deteriorated to the point that he cannot remember 
committing the crime or link it to his punishment.

The 5-3 decision was a victory for Vernon Madison, 68, who suffers from 
vascular dementia as a result of physical and mental deterioration during 33 
years in solitary confinement that has left him blind and incontinent.

But the court stopped short of creating a broad category of offenders who could 
escape death row under its reasoning, as it has done before for juveniles and 
people with intellectual disabilities. Instead, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, 
who wrote the majority opinion, simply said Madison's dementia was sufficient 
to decide his case.

"The Eighth Amendment doesn't care about the particular diagnosis," Kagan said.

The case was heard in the first week of the court's 2018 term, before Associate 
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed and seated. That raised the potential for 
a split decision that would leave Madison's death sentence in place.

But Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's four liberal justices, as 
he has done in several cases already this term. Associate Justices Samuel 
Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

Former Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired last July, wrote the high 
court's 2007 decision barring capital punishment for people who cannot 
understand their punishment and its 2005 decision barring executions of 
children, both decided by 5-4 majorities. He played a key role in its 6-3 
decision in 2002 that barred executing people with intellectual disabilities.

The justices in 2017 reversed a federal appeals court ruling that had struck 
down Madison's death sentence for killing a police officer. The lower court 
said that because Madison had suffered strokes in prison and could not remember 
the crime, he could not make sense of his punishment.

At that time, the Supreme Court ruled there is a difference between condemned 
inmates who cannot recall their crimes and those who cannot "rationally 
comprehend the concepts of crime and punishment." They said that under federal 
law, Madison's lawyers had not proved he was incapable of understanding that.

But three of the court's more liberal justices – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen 
Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor – said then that the court had never ruled on the 
question of memory loss and should hear such a case in the future.

When prisoners' rights attorney Bryan Stevenson presented Madison's case in 
October, it appeared that at least Chief Justice John Roberts might join his 
liberal colleagues in ruling Madison incompetent enough to be spared lethal 
injection in Alabama.

Madison says he no longer remembers shooting and killing Julius Schulte in 
1985. But Stevenson conceded that a mere claim of memory loss is not enough to 
save Madison's life. In this case, he said, the strokes have left Madison with 
vascular dementia, rendering him "frail, bewildered, vulnerable" and unable to 
"tell you the season of the year."

"We recognize that it's too easy for any offender to say 'I don't remember,'" 
Stevenson said.

Trial courts in Alabama had ruled Madison eligible for the death penalty 
because he was not judged to be insane or psychotic. But as the years passed, 
he suffered more strokes that caused brain deterioration and cognitive 
deficits.

Even so, Alabama Deputy Attorney General Thomas Govan said during oral argument 
that the state still deserved to win "retribution for a heinous crime," calling 
Madison's claim "unprecedented."

Breyer, the court's leading opponent of the death penalty, said Madison's many 
medical impairments may not be unusual, given that death row prisoners are 
older on average than in the past and have been awaiting execution for 20, 30, 
even 40 years.

"This will become a more common problem," he said during oral argument.

(source: USA Today)

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

Opinion analysis: Court orders new look at death sentence for Alabama inmate 
with dementia



Today the Supreme Court gave an Alabama death-row inmate at least a temporary 
reprieve, sending the case back to the lower courts for them to consider 
whether the inmate’s dementia leaves him so incompetent that he cannot be 
executed. The vote was 5-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s 
4 more liberal justices in a ruling in favor of the inmate. Justice Samuel 
Alito wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas 
and Neil Gorsuch; Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in the case, 
which was argued before he joined the court.

The decision came in the case of Vernon Madison, who has been on the state’s 
death row for over 30 years for killing a police officer, Julius Schulte, while 
Schlulte sat in his patrol car. A veteran of the Mobile police force, Schulte 
had responded to a domestic dispute at the house that Madison shared with his 
former girlfriend, and Schulte had remained on the scene to protect the 
girlfriend and her daughter while Madison moved out of the house.

Since then, Madison has suffered several strokes, which left him with dementia 
(among other things). As a result, his lawyer told the Supreme Court at oral 
argument in October, Madison’s memory is poor, and he is “bewildered and 
confused” most of the time.

A state court in Alabama refused to block Madison’s execution. In its view, 
although the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution’s ban on cruel and 
unusual punishment bars the state from executing someone who is incompetent 
because he is insane or delusional, those rulings do not apply to someone who 
argues that he is incompetent for other reasons, such as dementia.

Today the Supreme Court ordered the Alabama court to reconsider its ruling, in 
an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan. The Supreme Court has already decided, Kagan 
explained, that an inmate who suffers from a mental illness cannot be executed 
if he does not understand why the state is trying to execute him. The focus of 
the court’s inquiry in such cases, Kagan continued, is the inmate’s 
comprehension of the reasons for his death sentence – his diagnosis doesn’t 
matter.

This means, Kagan concluded, that the Eighth Amendment does not categorically 
prohibit the execution of an inmate just because the inmate does not remember 
committing the crime for which he has been sentenced to death: The inmate could 
understand why he is being executed even if he doesn’t remember the crime. On 
the other hand, just as with mental illness, Kagan added, the Eighth Amendment 
would bar the execution of an inmate with dementia if he did not understand why 
he was being executed.

The Supreme Court did not itself weigh in on whether Madison can be executed. 
Instead, it sent the case back to the state courts for what Kagan herself 
described as a “do-over” because it was not clear to the justices whether the 
state courts believed that the Constitution would only bar Madison’s execution 
if he were mentally ill.

Kagan’s opinion laid out a roadmap for the state courts, instructing them that 
Madison’s competency to be executed hinges only on whether he understands “why 
the state wants to execute him.” In making that determination, she stressed, 
“the state court may not rely on any arguments or evidence tainted with the 
legal errors we have addressed. And because that is so, the court should 
consider whether it needs to supplement the existing record.”

In his dissenting opinion, Alito complained that what “the Court has done in 
this case makes a mockery of our Rules.” In particular, Alito suggested, 
Madison had pulled a bait and switch: Although he had asked the justices to 
decide whether the Eighth Amendment bars the execution of an inmate who can’t 
remember committing the crime for which he would be executed, once review was 
granted Madison adopted “an entirely different argument, namely, that the state 
court had rejected” his “claim that he is incompetent to be executed because 
the court erroneously thought that dementia, as opposed to other mental 
conditions, cannot provide a basis for that claim.” “Our whole certiorari 
system would be thrown into turmoil” if litigants were allowed to do this on a 
regular basis, Alito lamented, and he would have dismissed Madison’s petition 
as improperly granted.

(source: Amy Howe, scotusblog.com)

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

Chief Justice John Roberts sides with liberals in death penalty case



The Supreme Court sent a case concerning a death row inmate, who claims he can 
no longer remember his crimes because of several strokes he had while in 
prison, back down to the lower courts to take a second look.

The court had already stayed the inmate Vernon Madison's execution last 
January.

In a 5-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts sided Wednesday with the liberals on 
the court in favor of Madison.

Only 8 justices had heard the case because Justice Brett Kavanaugh had not been 
confirmed by the time the case was argued. "The state court, we have little 
doubt, can evaluate such matters better than we. It must do so as the first 
step in assessing Madison's competency — and ensuring that if he is to be 
executed, he understands why," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority's 
opinion.

States are forbidden from executing individuals whose mental state precludes 
them from understanding the reason for punishment.

"The justices had already voted to stay Madison's execution last January, so 
today's decision sending the case back to the state court for another look is 
not that surprising," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and 
professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law. "It's still 
significant, though, because, for the 2nd time in 8 days, Chief Justice Roberts 
joined with the more progressive justices to form a majority in siding with a 
death-row inmate. I don't think that's a sign that the chief's views on the 
death penalty have changed, but it's further evidence that he has become the 
swing vote on the court's most divisive cases."

Madison was convicted 3 times in the shooting of Mobile police Cpl. Julius 
Schulte, who was responding to a April 1985 domestic disturbance call. Madison, 
who was on parole, shot Schulte twice in the head, according to court 
documents.

His sentence was imposed in 1994 by a judge, after a jury recommended life 
without parole.

Madison suffered a series of strokes, including in 2015 and 2016, and was 
diagnosed as having vascular dementia.

(source: CNN)








LOUISIANA:

Lawsuits against Caddo DA, coroner by former death row inmate dismissed



A federal lawsuit against the Caddo Parish District Attorney's and Caddo Parish 
Coroner's offices, filed by a Shreveport man whose murder conviction was 
vacated in 2016, has been dismissed.

The suit filed in 2017 by Rodricus Crawford, 31, was dismissed with prejudice 
by U.S. District Judge Elizabeth E. Foote in a memorandum ruling issued Monday 
in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport.

Crawford originally was convicted in Caddo District Court in 2013 of 1st-degree 
murder in the death of his infant son, Roderius Lott. He spent almost 3 years 
on death row before the conviction was vacated by the Louisiana Supreme Court, 
which sent the case back to the trial court for a new trial.

The Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office announced in April 2017 that it 
would not retry Crawford in the case. During the original trial, the 
prosecution said the baby had been smothered, while a defense expert testified 
that Roderius died of pneumonia and sepsis. “I woke up and found him, ran and 
took him to the ambulance,” Crawford said in an interview with The Times in 
April 2017. “When he left my hands, my whole world changed.”

In his complaint, Crawford alleged intentional infliction of emotional 
distress, among other counts. He claimed that he was investigated, charged, 
detained and prosecuted based on his race.

"They have a right to appeal," said Caddo Parish Assistant District Attorney 
Tommy Johnson. "However, the dismissal with prejudice means the case is over."

Johnson said "the court recognized that he was never found innocent, despite 
his allegations. The Supreme Court of Louisiana did not find Mr. Crawford 
innocent of the charges; it just remanded the case for a new trial. We've 
always asserted he was not innocent of any crime and that his claims lacked 
merit."

Judge Foote's 46-page ruling, Civil Action No. 17-01509, also granted the 
defendants' motions to dismiss all penalty, punitive or exemplary damages 
sought by Crawford.

The defendants were represented in the case by Joy C. Rabalais of 
Lafayette-based Borne, Wilkes and Rabalais, LLC.

(source: Shreveport Times)