[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, FLA., ALA., LA., MO., OKLA., NEV., USA

[Rick Halperin]

January 30



TEXAS----impending execution

30 years after killing a Houston police officer, Robert Jennings is set for 
execution----Jennings is expected to be put to death on Wednesday for the 1988 
murder of Elston Howard. His sentence has been complicated by constantly 
evolving death penalty law — changes his lawyers are citing in a last-ditch 
attempt to stay his execution.



Robert Jennings has been on Texas’ death row for nearly 30 years. On Wednesday, 
the 61-year-old is set to die in the nation’s 1st execution of 2019.

Jennings was sentenced to death in the 1988 murder of Houston police officer 
Elston Howard. According to court records, Jennings walked into an adult book 
store to rob it, and Howard was there arresting the store clerk for a municipal 
violation. The clerk testified that Howard had no time to even reach for his 
gun before Jennings shot him multiple times, killing him.

The lengthy stretch of time between Jennings' 1989 sentencing and his scheduled 
execution shines a light on the complications that can arise during the appeals 
process in the face of constantly evolving death penalty law. In their current 
attempt to halt Jennings' execution, his lawyers are zeroing in on changes in 
how death penalty juries weigh "mitigating evidence"— factors that can lessen 
the severity of the punishment that are largely based on the defendant's 
background, like an abusive childhood or intellectual disability.

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court points out that, at the time of Jennings' 
trial, Texas juries were not told they could opt for a sentence of life in 
prison rather than death if they believed the defendant’s background or 
character warranted mercy — a key aspect of death penalty trials now.

Rather, the so-called "special issue" questions Texas juries were required to 
answer after finding someone guilty of capital murder asked them to determine 
whether the murder was deliberate or provoked — and whether the defendant was a 
potential future danger.

At the punishment portion of Jennings 1989 murder trial, where the jury was 
supposed to answer those questions, the prosecution brought up Jennings’ long 
rap sheet — he had been to prison multiple times for aggravated robbery, and 
had been released on parole only 2 months before Howard’s murder, according to 
court records. In his confession to police after his arrest, he also confessed 
to several other robberies in the 2-month span.

Meanwhile, Jennings’ lawyers only brought forth a Harris County jail chaplain, 
who said Jennings wasn’t “incorrigible,” in reference to potential danger 
posed. The jury also heard Jennings’ recorded confession, where he admitted he 
had been drinking and using drugs and expressed remorse for the shooting.

But days before the trial, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in an unrelated 
case that a death penalty jury must be specifically directed to determine 
whether mitigating evidence warrants sparing the defendant from execution. In 
an attempt to address the ruling at the last minute, Jennings’ jurors were told 
after closing arguments to consider any mitigating evidence already introduced 
and, if they found it appropriate, to answer against the death penalty in one 
of the already-existing questions.

The jury was unconvinced, and Jennings was sentenced to death. It wasn’t until 
more than a decade later that the Supreme Court again took up the issue and 
determined that telling a jury to weigh mitigating evidence by overwriting an 
existing special issue is not constitutional.

Jennings’ lawyers have argued that the jury’s inability to properly weigh his 
drug use and how remorseful he was for Howard’s death warrants him a new trial 
with the new special issue questions, which now include a question on 
mitigating evidence. They’ve also said if the trial counsel had known to raise 
other mitigating evidence, including mental deficits and a troubling childhood, 
the jury would have reached a different conclusion.

“It gets extremely complicated because the law evolves and then the question 
is: Do new decisions get applied retroactively?” Randy Schaffer, one of 
Jennings’ lawyers, told The Texas Tribune.

But not every death sentence handed down before juries were instructed to 
consider mitigating factors was tossed after the Supreme Court ruling.

Rather, the nation's highest court said it depended on the nature of the 
evidence presented at trial. So far, the courts have ultimately said Jennings’ 
remorse doesn’t make the cut — though he did get one execution date taken off 
the calendar as a Texas court took up the issue in 2016.

Jennings’ lawyers have argued against the court decisions by pointing to dozens 
of other capital murder cases that got new sentencing trials after the Supreme 
Court rulings. Specifically, they point to the case of Arthur Williams, another 
man who was sentenced to death for the murder of a Houston police officer under 
the old punishment standards and eventually re-sentenced to life in prison 
based largely on showing remorse for the killing.

The Brief

"Both Williams and Jennings exhibited remorse after killing a police officer in 
Houston. They were convicted and sentenced to death in the same court," 
Schaffer wrote in a pending appeal before the Supreme Court. "However, they 
have been treated differently thereafter."

The state said in its response that the Supreme Court “has never held that 
remorse alone is sufficient to grant” a new punishment trial.

“In this case, Jennings attorneys presented their limited evidence of remorse 
to the jury. And the jury rejected it,” wrote Texas Assistant Attorney General 
Ellen Stewart-Klein.

Complicating matters further is another appeal that just landed in front of the 
U.S. Supreme Court, where Jennings’ other lawyers are faulting Schaffer, 
Jennings' longtime appellate lawyer, and his trial lawyers for “bad lawyering.” 
They argue that the trial lawyers were at fault for not calling for changes to 
the trial after the Supreme Court ruling on mitigation, instead blindly 
accepting improper jury instructions from the prosecution. And they said 
Schaffer, as the appellate lawyer, didn't properly raise the trial counsels' 
mistakes in the appeals process to get Jennings a new punishment trial.

Unless the court steps in, Jennings is scheduled to be put to death in the 
Huntsville execution chamber after 6 p.m. on Wednesday. It would be the 1st 
execution of the year in the nation. Earlier this month, the Texas Court of 
Criminal Appeals stopped the execution of Blaine Milam based on changes to 
forensic science and death penalty law.

The executions of those convicted of killing law enforcement often draw a small 
crowd of officer supporters on motorcycles who rev their engines at the time of 
execution. Jennings' scheduled death comes only 2 days after 4 Houston police 
officers were shot during a narcotics bust.

(source: The Texas Tribune)

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

Execution set for Houston cop killer



Texas is scheduled to execute inmate Robert Jennings Wednesday at the 
Huntsville “Walls” Unit after nearly 30 years on death row.

If things move forward as expected, Jennings, 61, would be the first man put to 
death in 2019, although attorneys are still fighting to delay his execution 
once again.

Jennings was sentenced to death after he was convicted of murdering a Houston 
police officer in 1988.

Background

Jennings was convicted of capital murder for killing Houston Police Officer 
Elston Howard on July 19, 1988 while attempting to rob an adult bookstore. The 
murder occurred 2 months after he was released from prison on an aggravated 
robbery conviction.

According to court records, Jennings then entered Empire Book Store, planning 
to rob it after previously robbing a nearby movie theater. Upon entering the 
bookstore, Jennings saw that the clerk, Larry Overholt, was being arrested by a 
Houston police officer, later identified as Elston Howard.

Overholt told police that Jennings walked up to the officer and shot him twice. 
After the officer collapsed to the floor, Jennings shot Howard twice more.

Jennings proceeded to rob the store and escaped in a vehicle with getaway 
driver David Lee Harvell, telling him he had shot a “security guard.”

"He came back with that story. I didn't believe him," Harvell said to the 
Houston Chronicle in 2016. "But when I took the gun, I saw it had 4 spent 
shells. So, I believed it. … I was pretty upset. I took him down the street and 
tried to get him out of the car. He didn't know whether he had shot a cop or 
not. He's never been all that sharp."

In an effort to force Jennings from his car, he shot the convicted murderer in 
the hand. Harvell confessed to driving the getaway car for several earlier 
robberies with him.

Jennings was arrested later that day at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, while 
Harvell was arrested at his mother’s house in Euless. Harvell was also 
convicted in connection to the robberies and sentenced to 55 years in prison.

Ongoing legal challenges

It's the 2nd time in 3 years that Jennings, a man with claims of mental 
impairment, has faced a date with death.

Jennings narrowly escaped the needle in 2016, when the Texas Criminal Court of 
Appeals stayed his execution to further review claims that officials destroyed 
a police interview shortly after his arrest. According to appeal court records, 
the tapes allegedly showed Jennings expressing remorse for shooting Howard.

In September 2018, his longtime appellate attorney Randy Schaffer filed a 
motion to appoint a "conflict-free" counsel for his client in federal court. 
His latest appeal, which was denied by the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals on 
Thursday, argued that Jennings’ new legal team has had less than 90 days to 
review the case and take action before his execution.

Should Jennings be the 1st inmate to die in the new year, he'll be the 559th 
person killed by the state since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

(source: The Huntsville Item)

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

Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----40

Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----558

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

41---------Jan. 30----------------Robert Jennings---------559

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

(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)








FLORIDA:

Prosecutor in Lake City played part in Ted Bundy's execution----“You would 
think 30 years after his execution, over 40 years after his last homicide that 
the attraction would start wearing off… but apparently it does not."



The infamous serial killer Ted Bundy is back in the spotlight, 40 years after 
he raped and murdered 12 year old Kimberly Leach in Lake City. There were 2 
film productions recently released about him.

Bundy was executed 30 years ago, on January 24, and we’re approaching the 
anniversary of the disappearance of his final victim.

Kimberly Leach was snatched from Lake City Junior High School Feb. 9, 1978. 
Lake City has not been the same since.

“You would think 30 years after his execution, over 40 years after his last 
homicide that the attraction would start wearing off… but apparently it does 
not,” said former State Attorney Jerry Blair, who was a prosecutor in the case.

Zac Efron is starring in a movie for Sundance Film Festival called “Extremely 
Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile.” It chronicles the life of Ted Bundy.

“I don’t plan to see the movie, I really have no interest in seeing it,” said 
Blair.

Recently, Netflix also released a documentary series called, “The Ted Bundy 
Tapes,” where journalists release the tapes recorded of Bundy speaking of his 
murders while he was on death row.

It is evident the interest in Bundy has not died with him.

“Bundy defied our stereotypes and what we thought a murderer would look like," 
Blair said. "He was educated, handsome, articulate, he had a certain amount of 
charm."

Blair now hangs memorabilia on the wall of his office, showcasing his victory, 
after his case against Bundy got him the death penalty. “I had to take 
satisfaction that the system worked, that Bundy had paid the ultimate price,” 
he said.

He remembers Bundy’s effect on America. For example, the “groupies” of women 
who came to the trial to see him in Orlando. Blair said it’s unfortunate his 
name reopens old wounds.

“There were dozens of families whose lives were just shattered including 
Kimberly Leach’s family,” Blair said.

Though the school where she disappeared from still stands, Kimberly Leach’s 
parents are no longer with us. Her mother never lived to see Bundy executed, 
but Blair remembers the agony she felt during the trial. “Her life was 
shattered by her daughter’s death,” he said.

(source: firstcoastnews.com)








ALABAMA----impending execution

Alabama death row inmate claims Muslim spiritual adviser barred from execution



An Alabama death row inmate set to die by lethal injection next week claims his 
execution should be stayed because the prison won’t let him have a Muslim 
spiritual adviser present in the execution chamber.

Domineque Ray, 42, is set to be executed at Holman Prison on Feb. 7 at 6 p.m. 
by lethal injection for the 1995 killing, rape, and robbery of 15-year-old 
Tiffany Harville. On Monday, Ray’s lawyers filed a lawsuit in federal court 
claiming Ray’s right to freedom of religion was being violated. They also asked 
for a stay of execution.

The lawsuit claims Ray, a Muslim, asked Holman’s Warden Cynthia Stewart last 
week that he be permitted to have a Muslim spiritual adviser—or imam—in the 
execution chamber instead of the prison’s longtime Christian chaplain. The 
warden denied his request and denied Ray’s 2nd request to not have the chaplain 
present in the execution chamber at all, according to the lawsuit.

Ray made a 3rd request to have no autopsy performed on his body because it 
conflicted with his religious beliefs, and Stewart said she “had no control” 
over that accommodation, the complaint says.

The same day Ray met with the warden, Ray also met with the prison chaplain. 
The Christian chaplain told Ray his requests "could not be honored due to ADOC 
policy,” the lawsuit says.

Ray claims in the suit he has not been allowed to see a copy of the policy that 
details chaplain presence or guidelines.

The lawsuit claims Ray’s First Amendment rights have been violated, along with 
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and 
Institutionalized Persons Act.

Tuesday, Ray’s lawyers also filed in federal court an emergency motion for a 
stay of execution, claiming Ray’s constitutional violations should halt the 
scheduled execution. “Alabama has made a policy decision… the chaplain is there 
solely for a religious purpose,” the motion says. “In other words, Mr. Ray’s 
freedom of religion lasts until he enters the execution chamber.”

The ADOC allows inmates who are about to be executed to use the prison’s 
visitation area each day of the execution week to see friends, family, 
attorneys, and spiritual advisers, the lawsuit says. Per policy, the inmate 
must leave the visitation area at 4:30 p.m. on execution day and is only 
permitted to meet with his or her spiritual adviser before being taken to the 
execution chamber for the scheduled lethal injection at 6 p.m.

“Alabama law does not require the presence of the prison chaplain at an 
execution,” the lawsuit claims. “Once in the execution chamber, a 
death-sentenced inmate who wishes to have physical contact with a religious 
leader while making a final prayer may do so only with the prison chaplain.”

Ray’s imam will be allowed to witness the execution from a room adjacent to the 
chamber through one-way glass. “There is no compelling governmental interest in 
preventing a condemned inmate from having his or her spiritual adviser- who has 
been approved to have a contact visit… moments before the execution begins—from 
taking the place of the prison chaplain in the execution chamber,” the suit 
states. “When that spiritual adviser is otherwise available, in the moments 
before death, imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of Mr. Ray’s 
religious beliefs.”

The Christian chaplain’s “mandatory presence” in the execution chamber serves 
an unconstitutional interest in “safeguarding the soul or spiritual health of 
the condemned inmate in the Christian (non-Catholic) belief system… [it] has 
the principle of primary effect of advancing Christian (non-Catholic) religion 
and inhibiting all other religions,” the lawsuit claims. The suit also says the 
chaplain policy creates an “excessive entanglement of government with 
religion.”

The lawsuit asks Ray to be allowed to have imam take the place of the prison 
chaplain during his execution and also to order the ADOC not require the 
presence of a chaplain in the chamber.

John Palombi and Spencer Hahn, assistant Federal Defenders, are representing 
Ray in the federal cases. Palombi said, “Mr. Ray’s suit goes to the heart of 
one of the most cherished of all rights, the right to freedom of religion. 
Neither Mr. Ray’s right to practice his religion nor his right to be free from 
having a different religion forced on him ends at the door to the execution 
chamber. We hope that the Commissioner will not force someone of a different 
religion on him and deny him the right to have his spiritual adviser with him 
at the moment of his death should that occur.”

Neither the Alabama Attorney General’s Office nor the ADOC responded to 
requests for comment by the time of publication.

Ray currently has a separate case pending in state court, where another team of 
lawyers have appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Ray’s is the 
1st execution date set for 2019, and if carried out will be the 1st execution 
since Walter Leroy Moody’s execution in April.

Ray was also convicted of capital murder for the slayings of brothers Earnest 
Mabins and Reinard Mabins, and was sentenced to life in prison without the 
possibility of parole. He was convicted of that killing 5 months before the 
Harville trial in 1999.

(source: al.com)

************************* Man facing 2 capital murder charges in killing of son 
gets no bond



Damion Little is being held on no bond on the 2 capital murder charges. He has 
a preliminary hearing date of Feb. 21, 2019.

A toddler was shot to death in Prichard on Saturday.

Investigators named 22-year-old Damion Little as the suspect in the shooting 
that killed the young boy and injured the 23-year-old mother.

Charges have been upgraded against Damion Little for the murder of his 
3-year-old son in Prichard. Little now faces 2 counts of Capital Murder in the 
death of Damion Little, Jr.

The 2nd count states that Little was outside the house and fired into the 
house, killing Damion Little, Jr.

Alabama state law allows for capital murder charges to be filed if the victim 
is under the age of 14. Little could now face the death penalty or life in 
prison without parole.

Prichard police released this statement:

On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at around 10:00 pm, officers responded to the 400 
block of Minnie B. Turnbo Dr, in reference to a shooting incident involving a 
juvenile.

The juvenile was transported to a local hospital where he later died.

The juvenile’s mother was also injured in this incident, and was also taken to 
the same hospital where she was immediately taken up for surgery.

(source: WPMI news)








LOUISIANA:

Reeves seeks help from U.S. Supreme Court to avoid death penalty



It’s been nearly 18 years since Jason Reeves brutally murdered a little girl 
from Moss Bluff.

He’s sentenced to death, but there is another appeal aimed at saving him from 
execution.

4-year-old Mary Jean Thigpen was raped and stabbed by Reeves. Her tiny body was 
found in a cemetery.

Time after time, attorneys for Reeves lodged appeals. This time, it was a 
last-minute petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on an issue Calcasieu First 
Assistant D.A. Cynthia Killingsworth says has already been ruled on before.

In this filing, they are challenging how the state picked a jury. They are 
saying that we exercised our challenges based on racial discrimination. That 
issue has been decided a number of times: it was decided by the trial court, it 
was decided at the appellate court, it was decided by the Louisiana supreme 
court

Killingsworth says Reeves is the only person from Calcasieu Parish currently on 
death row at Angola. After what Reeves did, Killingsworth says he should to 
die.

"He had raped her when she was alive, and he killed her brutally. And for that, 
he deserves the death penalty,” Killingsworth said.

She says Reeves had tried to kidnap another child.

"He's a pedophile. In fact, there was information he tried to kidnap at least 1 
other child prior to getting Mary Jean Thigpen."

Killingsworth says Mary Jean’s parents supported the death penalty. Her father 
died in a car crash, but her mother Carin has always agreed Reeves should die.

“She was just a bright and delightful child; always happy, always loving. And 
we just miss her every day. He needs to be punished accordingly for what he’s 
done.”

Once there are no more appeals, the state will seek a death warrant from Judge 
Mike Canaday which will start the process for Reeves to be executed by lethal 
injection.

We have reached out to the anti-death penalty attorneys who are handling Reeves 
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gary Clements, with the capital 
post-conviction project of Louisiana, sent us the following statement:

As always, our sympathy goes out to the Thigpen family. As attorneys for Jason 
Reeves, we believe that there was an unfair process in the picking of his jury. 
We have therefore raised that jury selection issue in a filing to the U.S. 
Supreme Court. Also, we believe that there are mitigating circumstances that 
should reduce Jason Reeves’ death sentence to life imprisonment without the 
possibility of release. Those issues will be raised in the federal courts as 
well.

(source: KPLC news)



MISSOURI:

Missouri Supreme Court Hears Case on ‘Hung Jury’ Death Sentences



The Missouri Supreme Court may soon rule on the constitutionality of the 
state’s practice of having the trial judge determine whether a capital 
defendant should live or die if the sentencing jury is unable to reach a 
unanimous verdict. Death-row prisoner Marvin Rice was sentenced to death by the 
trial judge in August 2017, even though 11 of the 12 jurors in his case voted 
for a life sentence. His appeal, which the state court heard on January 23, 
2019, argues that the portion of Missouri’s death-penalty statute that gives 
the trial judge exclusive sentencing authority in the event of a hung 
sentencing jury violates his “constitutionally protected rights to due process, 
a trial by jury, and to a unanimous jury verdict.”

At the time of the offense, Rice – a former deputy sheriff and disabled Army 
veteran – was suffering from a major depressive disorder that had been worsened 
by the effects of a pituitary gland tumor. Court documents indicated that he 
had been diagnosed with 12 various medical and psychiatric conditions for which 
he had been taking 17 different medications. 11 jurors were persuaded by this 
and other mitigating evidence that Rice’s life should be spared, but a single 
hold-out juror for death hung the jury. Trial judge Kelly Wayne Parker then 
disregarded the jury’s vote and sentenced Rice to death.

Rice’s appeal also challenges the constitutionality of Missouri’s capital 
punishment statute on the grounds that virtually any homicide now qualifies as 
a capital offense. This, he argues, violates the constitutional requirement 
that the death penalty be limited to a narrow class of the worst-of-the-worst 
killings. He also seeks a new trial based upon police and prosecutorial 
misconduct in his case. Police, he says, unconstitutionally continued to 
interrogate him while he was hospitalized for gunshot wounds sustained during 
his arrest, even after he had said he did not want to answer their questions. 
He also argues that the prosecutor repeatedly violated his constitutional right 
to remain silent, improperly commenting on both his decision not to testify at 
trial and his refusal to answer police questions after having been given his 
Miranda warnings. Rice’s lawyer, Craig Johnston told the state justices: “This 
court has repeatedly held that where an objection is made and overruled as 
happened here, a direct reference to the defendant’s failure to testify will 
invariably result in a new trial.”

Only Missouri and Indiana allow a judge to impose a death sentence following a 
jury deadlock in the sentencing phase of a capital trial. Alabama also allows a 
judge to impose a death sentence following a non-unanimous jury sentencing 
vote, but only if at least 10 jurors vote for death. No jury in Missouri has 
imposed a death sentence since 2013, but judges sentenced Rice and Craig Wood 
to death after juries could not reach a unanimous sentencing decision. Wood was 
sentenced to death in 2018 after his jury voted 10-2 for a death sentence. The 
U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed the constitutionality of Missouri’s hung 
jury sentencing practice. However, in 2016, the Court struck down Florida’s 
death sentencing statute saying its provision requiring the judge, rather than 
a jury, to find facts necessary to impose a death sentence violated the Sixth 
Amendment right to a jury trial.

(source: Death Penalty Information Center)








OKLAHOMA:

Oklahoma's next execution is a long way off



Oklahoma's death row houses 18 inmates who have exhausted their legal appeals, 
meaning they're eligible for execution. When — or whether — any of those 
executions occurs, however, is an open question.

The state hasn't carried out an execution since January 2015 — 4 years ago — 
and officials have been unable to get ahold of the machinery needed for the 
state's new execution protocol. In short, this is a mess.

Oklahoma officials announced last year that the state would go away from using 
three drugs in its executions, and instead would become the first state to use 
nitrogen gas. The change was driven, largely, by the difficulty in acquiring 
the necessary drugs — more and more manufacturers, wary of reprisals by 
anti-death penalty groups, have stopped selling their products if they're to be 
used in executions.

The same problem has arisen with nitrogen, as The Oklahoman's Nolan Clay 
reported Sunday.

Potential makers of a gas delivery device, said Department of Corrections 
Director Joe Allbaugh, are “all concerned and afraid of the same thing — every 
one of them. Retribution, losing their business, protests.”

This move stemmed from Oklahoma's considerable troubles with its former 
execution practices.

Those came under extreme scrutiny in 2014 with the execution of Clayton 
Lockett, who writhed on the gurney and wasn't pronounced dead until 43 minutes 
after the procedure began. A federal appeals court panel later called the 
execution a “procedural disaster."

A post-Lockett investigation revealed numerous problems, including faulty 
insertion of the intravenous line and a lack of training by members of the 
execution team. The state's use of the sedative midazolam in the Lockett 
execution also drew complaints, and lawsuits by other death row inmates who 
said the drug could result in an unconstitutional level of pain. The U.S. 
Supreme Court nixed that argument.

The state had an execution ready to go in September 2015, but it was halted 
after a doctor discovered that one of the drugs to be used was not part of the 
state's protocol. That wrong drug had also been used in the January 2015 
execution, but the mistake wasn't found until after the fact.

The aborted execution in September 2015 was investigated by a state multicounty 
grand jury that cited, among other things, egregious failures by correctional 
officials and a shoddy execution protocol. The grand jury recommended several 
changes.

Now the state wants to use gas but can't find companies willing to build the 
machine. Attorney General Mike Hunter suggested the state may have to build one 
itself — something that surely would result in legal challenges beyond those 
that will result from using this new method in the first place.

In November 2016, Oklahoma voters showed they want capital punishment when they 
gave strong approval to a pro-death penalty state question. In early 2019, the 
state's next execution looks a long, long way off.

(source: The Oklahoman Editorial Board)








NEVADA:

ACLU's Holly Welborn on death penalty, criminal justice and Marsy's Law



>From banning private prisons to lowering sentences for burglary and parole 
violations, Nevada lawmakers can expect extensive discussions on how to amend 
the state’s criminal justice system in the 2019 session.

One person poised to be at the center of the debate is Holly Welborn, policy 
director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and the civil 
liberties organization’s primary voice at the table during the 120-day 
legislative session.

Welborn, who graduated from UNLV and worked on political campaigns prior to 
joining the ACLU, sat down with reporters from The Nevada Independent on Friday 
to discuss her organization’s priorities for the upcoming session.

Death Penalty

Welborn and the ACLU of Nevada played a key role in opposing the execution of 
Scott Dozier last summer, filing numerous lawsuits and legal motions opposing 
the state’s attempt to carry out the death sentence. Dozier, who was convicted 
of murdering two people in the early 2000s and had given up further appeals, 
died by suicide earlier this month.

Welborn said Dozier’s suicide was a “terrible tragedy” and indicated problems 
inherent with the state’s application of the death penalty.

“It should be clear what individuals would be facing if they are going to die 
at the hands of the state, but I think it more so shows what a broken system it 
is, that Mr. Dozier…the last month of his life was living in this obsession of 
wanting to end it and go through that process,” she said. “I think it’s time 
that we end the death penalty once and for all so that way people who are 
living in the Department of Corrections and living on death row serving a life 
sentence have something else to focus on and we can end this inhumane 
practice.”

Welborn said at least two lawmakers — Democratic Assemblyman Ozzie Fumo and 
Democratic Sen. James Ohrenschall — had submitted bill draft requests outlawing 
use of the death penalty, and said she was heartened that Gov. Steve Sisolak 
came out in opposition to the death penalty during last week’s IndyTalks event.

Welborn acknowledged that the procedural hurdles and difficulty in obtaining 
proper lethal injection drugs left the state with a “de facto moratorium” on 
the death penalty, but said that shouldn’t stop the state from acting to get 
rid of it in the upcoming legislative session.

“If they can’t find the pharmaceuticals, I’m sure they’re not going to be able 
to proceed with executions in the state,” she said. “Now, I don’t think that 
there is any kind of drive for pharmaceutical companies to change their 
position on that, but there’s always that possibility, so I think we have to 
proceed with the fact that either the death penalty is still alive here in the 
state of Nevada and there are interests that want to proceed with executions 
and people want to see that happen. So I think that repeal is the track that we 
need to be on.”

Criminal Justice Reform

Welborn said the ACLU was preparing to push for a slew of changes to the 
state’s criminal justice system, boosted by Sisolak’s public promises to end 
cash bail, banning private prisons and expunging convictions for 
marijuana-related offenses.

Welborn said that the ACLU was prepared to advocate for bills implementing the 
25 recommendations made by the Boston-based Crime and Justice Institute and 
approved earlier this month by an interim panel of lawmakers and criminal 
justice leaders, estimated to save the state up to $640 million over a decade 
in prison costs.

But Welborn said despite agreements with law enforcement in the interim to 
update things like Nevada’s definition of burglary and drug possession, 
lawmakers and others became skittish over recidivism proposals.

“There were about 13 offenses that myself and the District Attorney’s 
Association agreed should probably be reclassified, but then once it gets to 
the session, there’s the complete breakdown because people are so apprehensive 
to just try it,” she said. “Other jurisdictions have made changes and they’ve 
had success and the prison rate has dropped without impacting public safety. So 
I think it’s time that we finally have the data to work with to move that 
through.”

Welborn said she was “encouraged” that Sisolak pledged to end cash bail during 
his IndyTalks appearance and was working with Fumo on a bill to reform bail 
practices, including changing pre-release risk assessment criteria.

Welborn said she anticipated a more conciliatory relationship between the ACLU 
and Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford and Sisolak than their Republican 
predecessors, but said the organization had no plans to change its approach 
regardless of the party or individuals in power.

“The nature of the relationship will always be adversarial,” she said. “That’s 
what we do. We are a government watchdog organization. We are going to 
constantly file lawsuits and advocate for prisoners, et cetera, whose rights 
are violated on a regular basis no matter who is in power. That’s just the way 
that it is, but we’re looking forward to that open and transparent relationship 
to really solve these issues.”

Marsy’s Law

The Nevada ACLU was one of the few organizations statewide to oppose Question 1 
— or Marsy’s Law — on the 2018 ballot.

Approved with nearly 60 percent of the vote, the ballot measure implements a 
long list of crime victim protections into the state Constitution, but state 
agencies have indicated the measure will have unknown costs because it will 
prioritize restitution payments to victims and reduce the chances that 
governmental entities can collect fees to maintain their programming.

Welborn said changing restitution requirements could prevent people from 
completing speciality drug courts and other fee-based aspects of the state’s 
criminal justice system, or could keep people otherwise eligible for parole or 
probation behind bars for longer if there are delays in notifying victims or 
court proceedings.

“We can try to fight for court opinions on that to interpret what this very 
big, broad law means, but it’s going to be a long fight to overcome the 
consequence of Marsy’s Law,” she said.

Indigent defense

Last year, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the state of Nevada over its public 
defender system, alleging the system was so inefficient and threadbare it 
violated defendants’ constitutional rights to an attorney.

For the most part, Nevada’s lightly populated rural counties contract out to 
private attorneys to represent people who cannot afford their own legal 
representation, but studies — including a state-backed Sixth Amendment Center 
study in August — found major issues with rural indigent defense 
representation.

“That’s exactly what was happening, a very different result in one county 
versus another county because there’s not standards in place,” Welborn said. 
“There aren’t caseload standards in place. There isn’t the ability for an 
attorney in a lot of counties to be reimbursed for any costs that are 
associated, so that drives down the level of the quality of the representation 
that a client is getting.”

Welborn said the ACLU’s lawsuit against the state was still proceeding, but 
wanted to push for additional state funding toward rural indigent defense in 
the upcoming legislative session. She said Sisolak’s proposal to create a 
statewide office of indigent defense was a “step in the right direction,” but 
wanted to see the state commit to shouldering more of the burden in paying for 
rural public defense.

“We’re still moving forward because there are major deficiencies and we need to 
make sure that we’re holding the state accountable,” she said.

Transparency

The ACLU is joining a coalition of media organizations and nonprofits seeking 
an overhaul of the state’s public records system ahead of the next legislative 
session. Similar to a stalled proposal championed by the group in 2017, Welborn 
said the coalition wants to refine public records law, including making 
electronic records the default and managing high fees associated with some 
requests for public information.

“It really is kind of against the spirit and intent of the public records law 
to charge somebody that because no one will be able to pay that fee to access 
it,” she said.

Welborn said the bill is being introduced by Democratic Sen. David Parks and 
won’t include a provision from the 2017 version requiring state lawmakers to 
comply with public records law, but said the organization still believes that 
it’s “an important conversation to keep engaging in.”

Disclosure: Holly Welborn has donated $140 and Steve Sisolak has donated $2,200 
to The Nevada Independent.

(source: thenevadaindependent.com)








USA:

More charges for US synagogue accused----Robert Bowers' new charges include 
obstructing exercise of religious beliefs and hate crimes.



US authorities have added 19 hate-crime and firearms charges to their case 
against a Pennsylvania man accused of massacring 11 people at a Pittsburgh 
synagogue last October in the deadliest anti-Semitic attack in US history.

Robert Bowers, 46, could face the death penalty if convicted on any of 22 
capital-eligible offences contained in the full 63-count superseding indictment 
returned by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh.

A 1-time truck driver who frequently posted anti-Semitic slurs online, Bowers 
is accused of storming the Tree of Life synagogue during Saturday services on 
October 27 and yelling "All Jews must die".

The new charges announced on Tuesday against Bowers, who has pleaded not guilty 
to 44 earlier charges, include obstructing free exercise of religious beliefs 
that led to death and injury, committing hate crimes resulting in death and 
discharging a firearm.

As well as the mostly elderly congregants who died in the shooting, authorities 
said 2 were wounded, along with 5 police officers, before Bowers surrendered 
and was taken into custody after he was wounded in a shootout with police.

Federal authorities said Bowers entered the synagogue in the city's Squirrel 
Hill neighbourhood, a heavily Jewish area, armed with multiple firearms.

Bowers, a Pittsburgh resident, had made many anti-Semitic posts online, 
including one early on the day of the attack that said, "I can't sit by and 
watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in."

In another, he slammed US President Donald Trump for doing nothing to stop an 
"infestation" of the United States by Jews.

At a November 1 court appearance, Bowers pleaded not guilty to the first 44 
counts filed against him after entering the courtroom wearing a red jumpsuit 
and a bandage on his left arm. He also requested a jury trial.

(source: Associated Press)