[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, FLA., COLO., UTAH, AIZ., USA

[Rick Halperin]

July 6




TEXAS:

Mexican man charged in crash that left 6 dead



A 23-year-old Mexican man has been arrested and charged with smuggling migrants 
in a run that ended death for 6 migrants.

A statement Friday from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Corpus Christi says Ivan 
Dario Puga-Moreno of Montemorelos, Nuevo Leon, Mexico was arrested Thursday in 
Houston. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

Police in Robstown, about 17 miles west of Corpus Christi, say its officers 
tried to stop a sport utility vehicle on suspicion of speeding late Tuesday, 
but the SUV got away. Hours later, Nueces County sheriff’s deputies found the 
SUV’s wreckage in a ditch, 6 of its occupants dead and 9 others injured 
severely. The federal complaint says Puga-Moreno had been the driver of the 
vehicle containing 18 migrants and had fled the scene.

(source: Associated Press)








FLORIDA:

The murder was caught on stunning surveillance video. The accused now faces 
execution----David Paneque, 29, is accused of murdering Leandro Lopez, 31, at a 
West Miami-Dade strip mall on March 4, 2019.



The reputed Miami gang member accused of murdering an associate on stunningly 
clear surveillance video now faces the death penalty.

Prosecutors on Friday announced they would be seeking to execute David Paneque, 
29, who is charged with the killing of 31-year-old Leandro Lopez. A grand jury 
on Wednesday indicted Paneque for first-degree murder, armed robbery and 
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Lopez was gunned down in March atop a parking garage in West Miami-Dade; 
surveillance footage showed that Lopez begged for his life before Paneque 
gunned him down, took something off of his body and drove off in a truck.

Paneque did not appear for Friday’s court appearance. He pleaded not guilty, 
through his defense attorney. Lopez’s family and supporters were in the gallery 
wearing shirts with the slain man’s photo.

Detectives are unsure of a motive, but the 2 men had spent the night drinking 
at strip clubs.

At the time of the killing, Paneque was on probation after he served 10 years 
in prison for stabbing a man during an armed robbery. Born in Cuba, Paneque had 
been ordered deported because of his criminal conviction.

Even under renewed diplomatic relations established under former President 
Barack Obama, the island accepts back relatively few of its criminal citizens. 
Deportations to Cuba have risen under the aggressive policies pursued by 
President Donald Trump but still number only in the hundreds.

More than 37,000 Cubans in the United States are facing orders of removal for 
convictions of crimes or immigration violations. Most of those are living 
freely under orders of supervision, which require them to check in at least 
once a year.

Cubans were rarely ever deported in the years before diplomatic relations 
resumed in 2015 under Obama. Even now, the country is considered “recalcitrant” 
and will not accept back most of its nationals.

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

Ex-assistant principal likely faces death penalty in case of murdered Norland 
High teacher----Ernest Joseph Roberts appeared in a Miami-Dade court Friday for 
arraignment as prosecutors announced they will go to a grand jury to get an 
indictment for 1st-degree murder.



Prosecutors plan to seek an indictment against the ex-Norland High assistant 
principal accused of murdering a teacher — which means he’ll likely face the 
death penalty.

Ernest Joseph Roberts appeared in a Miami-Dade court Friday for arraignment as 
prosecutors announced they will go to a grand jury to get an indictment for 
1st-degree murder. In Miami-Dade, prosecutors automatically seek the death 
penalty on all 1st-degree murder cases when they are filed.

For now, Roberts is charged with 2nd-degree murder. Roberts pleaded not guilty, 
through court documents filed by lawyer Rod Vereen.

“There shouldn’t be a rush to judgment. My client is being convicted in the 
court of public opinion, and they don’t know the facts of the case,” Vereen 
told the Herald on Friday. “Let justice run its court. My client is innocent 
until proven guilty.”

Roberts, 39, is accused of murdering Kameela Russell, a teacher and test 
proctor at Norland High in North Miami-Dade. The popular educator disappeared 
on May 15, failing to pick up her daughter at a relatives’ home in Miami 
Gardens.

Her body was found days later in a canal near Roberts’ home. From the 
beginning, he was the chief suspect — Russell was last seen alive pulling her 
car into the front his home that evening.

Court documents paint a compelling circumstantial case against Roberts, who had 
been friends with Russell since childhood and was even the godfather of her 
children.

Miami Gardens police detectives say Russell’s blood was found on an Amazon box 
inside his bedroom, which had been thoroughly cleaned with bleach. Surveillance 
video from a neighbor showed her pulling in his house. He is seen putting 
something — believed to be her body — in her trunk, then driving her car away, 
according to the arrest warrant.

He also tried enlisting the help of a school janitor to get rid of her car, 
even penning him a note and leaving it for him hidden inside a cabinet at Linda 
Lentin K-8 Center in North Miami, where he’d been most recently working.

“Do you know anyone that can chop up a car? If so or make it ‘disappear’ take 
these keys,” Roberts’ note read, according to the warrant. “Its behind the 
speedway racetrack on 441 by County line. Friends are gone and need it to 
disappear. If not leave it + I’ll work it out later. THROW THIS NOTE AWAY!”

According to police, Roberts also told the janitor that an intruder broke into 
his home and he hit and killed the person with a baseball bat. Roberts even 
asked the janitor “how to get rid of the blood stains,” the warrant said.

The Miami-Dade Medical Examiner’s Office ruled that Russell died of blunt force 
trauma. Investigators have not determined a motive.

(source for both: Miami Herald)








COLORADO:

Repeal the death penalty



DEAR EDITOR:

Murder the innocent. That is what the death penalty has done. Joseph Arridy, a 
23-year-old who had the mental capacity of a 6-year-old was executed.

He was found to be a victim of a misled prosecution only after his death. 
Lengthy and costly procedural protections put in place since then are no use to 
Joe. The finality of an execution left him with nowhere to turn after the fact.

In 2011 Joe was granted a posthumous pardon citing an overwhelming body of 
evidence indicating his innocence. More than 70 years after he gave away his 
favorite toy train and entered the gas chamber, the pardon didn’t bring about 
his resurrection and freedom. He was murdered because we had the death penalty, 
and although nothing we do now can make it right for Joe, we can extinguish the 
possibility of repeating this mistake.

It is tempting to dismiss Joe’s case as a mistake of a different era. A mistake 
that could only happen because we didn’t have a mandatory appeals process, or 
DNA evidence, or other techniques and procedural protections. However, we must 
not forget that the reason we employ these new technologies and continue to 
develop additional procedures is because we know that mistakes do occur.

Furthermore, despite all the wisdom of modern science and procedural 
protections, wrongful conviction on capital offense cases still happen today. 
This fact is completely unacceptable when we hold presumption of innocence as a 
prime value in our criminal justice system. We must acknowledge that it is also 
entirely unavoidable. Whether it be due to malice, ambition, or chance, as long 
as humans are making the judgment, there will be wrongful convictions.

We cannot eliminate the possibility of a wrongful conviction, so we must remove 
the possibility of murdering another innocent soul by repealing the death 
penalty.

— Ray Higashi

(source: Letter to the Editor, Sentinel Colorado)








UTAH:

LDS Church appears in court over accusations it interfered in a death penalty 
case



Lawyers for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appeared in court 
for a hearing on accusations that the faith pressured some of its clergy 
assigned to the prison not to testify in support of a death row inmate.

Doug Lovell has accused the faith of meddling in his case by telling a group of 
prison bishops they shouldn't be character witnesses at his trial.

"It has been a focal point of this case," Second District Court Judge Michael 
DiReda acknowledged as he began Friday's hearing.

3 of the now-former bishops who were assigned to minister to the Utah State 
Prison's maximum security unit ultimately testified on Friday. Only one 
suggested he broke ranks with church superiors to testify in support of Lovell.

Lovell was convicted and sentenced to die for the 1985 murder of Joyce Yost. He 
was accused of killing her to prevent her from testifying against him for 
kidnapping and raping her. Yost's body has never been found.

Lovell originally pleaded guilty the day his original trial was to begin. He 
promised to lead police to her body, which he claimed was in Ogden Canyon. He 
was then sentenced to die and appealed. In 2011, the Utah Supreme Court ruled 
he had not been properly advised of his trial rights and overturned his 
conviction. He went on trial all over again in 2015 and was convicted and 
sentenced to execution.

Lovell's defense believes the Church put pressure on the prison bishops from 
serving as character witnesses on his behalf and testifying about his 
redemption efforts while on death row. The Church, they believe, was concerned 
it would look like they were siding with a murderer (the faith is officially 
neutral on capital punishment).

"Ultimately, I had to decide if I should agree to testify in a case of a member 
of my congregation or follow a suggestion from a higher ecclesiastical 
authority," said Dr. Jack Newton. "And I chose to not be limited by what an 
ecclesiastical authority would say to me."

In court filings, attorneys for the LDS Church have argued they are not 
necessarily seeking to prevent prison bishops from testifying -- but from 
getting into attorney-client privilege and having witnesses incorrectly speak 
for the faith itself.

"As Mr. Lovell’s counsel is aware, there is a long-standing Church policy that 
bishops and other Church leaders generally should not involve themselves in 
civil or criminal cases of members over whom they preside," Church attorney 
David Jordan wrote. "The purpose for the policy is, in part, to prevent 
misunderstandings about whether the Church leader is testifying on behalf of 
the Church or in the Church leader’s personal capacity. When Church leaders are 
asked to testify about matters of Church policy, their personal views may be 
incorrectly attributed to the Church."

That became evident when Lovell's defense attorney, Colleen Coebergh, sought to 
ask Newton about who suggested he not testify. Jordan objected. When he was 
allowed to answer, Newton said a letter from the Church had been shared with a 
stake president.

"If I had to decide between testifying about experiences I had with Doug vs. 
filtering those through a third-party, I would prefer to just give my own 
testimony," Newton told the court.

Another former prison bishop, Gary Webster, testified to Coebergh that he had 
no responsibilities as a clergy after he was released from his calling. Nor did 
Brent Scharman, the 3rd witness.

Church attorneys agreed to provide the defense with copies of the Handbook of 
Instruction, a guide given to LDS bishops on various matters involving the 
faith. All sides will return to court in August for a month-long hearing as a 
part of Lovell's appeal of his death sentence, and whether or not character 
witnesses may have been prevented from testifying.

Jordan declined to comment to FOX 13 outside of court. Lovell's attorney also 
left without commenting.

(source: Fox News)








ARIZONA:

Prosecutors can't seek execution in case against immigrant



Prosecutors can no longer seek the death penalty against a Mexican immigrant 
charged with murder in the 2015 shooting death of a convenience store clerk in 
a Phoenix suburb because the accused is intellectually disabled, a judge has 
ruled.

The ruling Wednesday means Apolinar Altamirano will face life in prison if he's 
convicted of 1st-degree murder in the killing of 21-year-old clerk Grant 
Ronnebeck at the store in Mesa.

The case against Altamirano has been cited by President Donald Trump, who has 
railed against crimes committed against American citizens by immigrants who are 
the United States illegally.

Trump, who has created a new office to serve victims of immigration crimes and 
their relatives, has invoked such crimes at rallies, pointing to case after 
case in which people were killed by immigrant assailants who slipped through 
the cracks.

It's unclear whether prosecutors will appeal the ruling. "We are reviewing the 
analysis and the record to assess next steps," according to a statement from 
the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, which is prosecuting Altamirano.

Altamirano is a citizen of Mexico who has lived in the United States without 
authorization for about 20 years. He was deported and returned to the United 
States.

He is accused of fatally shooting Ronnebeck after the store clerk insisted that 
Altamirano pay for a pack of cigarettes. Authorities say Altamirano stepped 
over Ronnebeck to get several packs of cigarettes before leaving the store.

He led officers on a high-speed chase before his arrest, and a handgun and 
unopened pack of cigarettes were later found in his vehicle, police said.

Altamirano has already been sentenced to 6 years in prison for his earlier 
guilty pleas in the case to misconduct involving weapons.

He still faces murder, robbery and other charges in Ronnebeck's death. He has 
pleaded not guilty to the remaining charges. His trial is scheduled for Aug. 1.

(source: Associated Press)

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

Advocates: High court’s ruling in death-row case could affect 19 others



There is no question that James McKinney murdered Christine Mertens and James 
McClain in 2 separate botched burglaries in the Phoenix area in 1991.

But should he be put to death for it?

That’s the question the Supreme Court will consider this fall, and experts say 
its ruling in McKinney’s case could affect as many as 19 other Arizona 
death-row inmates who were sentenced under the same guidelines as McKinney.

“The Arizona state courts in the 1990s were making the same mistake in a whole 
bunch of cases, which is they weren’t considering the mitigation the way they 
were supposed to,” said David Euchner, a Pima County public defender.

McKinney’s attorneys argue that the mistake in his case was a failure to fully 
consider “mitigating evidence” – evidence that weighs against imposition of a 
death sentence – of the post-traumatic stress disorder McKinney suffered as a 
result of a “horrific childhood.”

They also argue that from the time McKinney’s original sentence was upheld in 
1996 to the last time it was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court, in 2018, the 
law had changed.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that the death penalty could only be 
imposed by a jury, not a judge, which means McKinney’s sentence should have 
been reconsidered by a jury, not the court, they argue. The state disagreed, 
saying McKinney’s case was final after his 1st round of appeals failed in 1996.

Attorneys for McKinney did not respond to requests for comment on the case. But 
a spokeswoman for Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich said the state supreme 
court acted properly when it upheld McKinney’s sentence last year.

“We believe the Arizona Supreme Court previously addressed the Ninth Circuit’s 
(Court of Appeals) concerns and therefore there is no need for the U.S. Supreme 
Court to get involved at this stage,” said Katie Conner, the attorney general’s 
spokeswoman.

“That being said, we feel confident in our arguments and believe we will 
ultimately prevail at the federal level as well,” Conner said in a prepared 
statement.

McKinney and his half-brother Charles Hedlund were convicted for a string of 
burglaries in 1991 that ended with the murders of Mertens and McClain.

McKinney, Hedlund and two others first broke into Mertens house on Feb. 28, 
1991, but left when she came home unexpectedly. They returned on March 10, this 
time finding Mertens at home, where they brutally beat and stabbed, then held 
her on the floor and shot her in the back of the head at point-blank range.

Nearly two weeks later, McKinney and Hedlund broke into McClain’s home, where 
he was asleep on March 23 when the 2 men broke in and fatally shot the 
65-year-old in the head with a sawed-off rifle.

McKinney and Hedlund were tried together in front of separate juries in 1992. 
McKinney was convicted on 2 counts of 1st-degree murder, 2 counts of burglary 
and 1 count of theft, while Hedlund’s jury convicted him of the same theft and 
burglary charges, 1st-degree murder or McClain’s death and 2nd-degree murder 
for Mertens’ killing.

In July 1993, both were sentenced to death by a Maricopa County judge, who 
cited aggravating factors of previous convictions and crimes committed for 
monetary gain and, in McKinney’s case, that the murder was “especially heinous, 
cruel or depraved.”

The judge considered mitigating circumstances of their childhoods – in which 
they were frequently beaten, abandoned and neglected – saying it was “beyond 
the comprehension of most people.” But he did not weigh it because, under 
Arizona law at the time, evidence of a defendant’s background could only be 
considered if it had a “causal nexus,” or direct link to the crime. The judge 
determined it did not.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in McKinney’s case in 2015 that 
Arizona courts had erroneously applied a “causal nexus” test for as long as 15 
years after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the practice in a case known as 
Eddings.

“They didn’t consider all of his mitigating factors unless it had a causal 
nexus to the crime and that was wrong,” Euchner said. “They did it to a bunch 
of cases back in the ’90s.”

Among the 19 cases that McKinney’s attorneys listed in his appeal are inmates 
who have spent decades on death row, many found to have aggravating 
circumstances that included “especially heinous, cruel or depraved” murders.

They include Alfonso Salazar, on death row for more than 30 years for the 
murder of 83-year-old Sarah Kaplan, who was beaten and strangled with a phone 
cord. And Robert Poyson, sentenced in 1988 for a triple-murder in which he 
bludgeoned one victim with a cinderblock, shot another and pounded a bread 
knife through the ear of a 15-year-old victim before crushing his skull, 
according to court records.

Donna Leone Hamm of Tempe-based Middle Ground Prison Reform said there is a lot 
more known about the effects of PTSD than there used to be, but “there are 
still lingering doubts about the authenticity of the claim.”

“Just how real did the condition contribute to the crime and I think that’s 
where it no longer relies on science but it relies on the gut feeling and the 
hearts and minds of the judges,” she said.

“You have to look at what else the defendant do during the offense that 
suggests that he was not suffering,” she said. “Was his state of mind 100% in a 
PTSD mode, or was he doing things that showed a consciousness of guilt and 
premeditation?”

Euchner said the 9th Circuit’s ruling had the effect of reopening McKinney’s 
case and giving him “the right to question what set of rules that apply” to his 
resentencing – those in effect in 1996 or those in effect now.

“In McKinney’s case, and many others like McKinney, it’s not just that they 
were denied a jury trial but they’re getting their case reopened – so it 
becomes unfinal,” Euchner said.

“The question that the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding is if McKinney’s appeal 
was final or not final – and if it’s not final he will get a jury trial,” 
Euchner said. “So all the other cases that have been reopened for the errors 
made by the Arizona courts in the ’90s about mitigating circumstances will also 
be awaiting the opinion to see if they also get jury trials.”

But Hamm cautioned that the court could write a “very narrow” opinion that 
applies only to McKinney and not the others, “so you just don’t know until you 
see how the opinion is written.” Even then, she said, it’s not a sure thing for 
McKinney.

“I don’t think that anyone is very confident that this Supreme Court has great 
sympathy toward prisoner rights, especially when they become aware that it 
could result in overturning convictions on not just his case but many others, 
even in other states,” she said. “It’s worrisome – you have to hope that they 
will consider fairly the facts of the case.”

Euchner said he is hoping for a broad and favorable ruling, saying it’s “more 
than just McKinney’s case … we really need this.”

(source: azpbs.org)








USA:

Jury To Consider Death Penalty In Chinese Scholar Killing Case



A federal jury must now decide whether a former University of Illinois doctoral 
student should be put to death for the murder of young Chinese scholar Yingying 
Zhang.

The federal jury convicted 30-year-old Brendt Christensen of her kidnapping, 
torture and death. But while there is no death penalty anymore in the state of 
Illinois, capital punishment is still in play in this case because it was 
brought under federal law, which does allow it.

If one juror holds out against the death penalty, Christensen would get life in 
prison without parole. The rules of evidence are looser in the federal penalty 
phase, allowing hearsay, opinion and emotion. If the jury votes for death, 
appeals can delay executions for decades.

(source: WBBM Radio news)