[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----MO., UTAH, NEV., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

June 20




MISSOURI:

Missouri woman to spend life in prison after plea agreement



A Missouri woman will spend the rest of her life in prison after admitting that 
prosecutors had evidence to convict her of killing a mentally disabled man in 
what authorities believe was part of a complicated plot to divert attention 
from another homicide case.

Pamela Hupp, 60, of O'Fallon, entered an Alford plea Wednesday that calls for 
life in prison without the possibility of parole at sentencing in August. Hupp 
could have faced the death penalty if convicted of first-degree murder in the 
August 2016 death of 33-year-old Louis Gumpenberger.

St. Charles County prosecutor Tim Lohmar said after the hearing that the 
evidence was overwhelming and he believes Hupp "deserves to be put to death." 
But he cited several factors in the plea deal, including the fact that the 
victim's family preferred that she spend life in prison. He also cited the 
expected $300,000 cost of a trial.

St. Charles County authorities believe Hupp killed Gumpenberger to distract 
from the re-investigation of the stabbing death of Betsy Faria in 2011 in 
neighboring Lincoln County.

Russ Faria was convicted of killing his wife in 2013, but the conviction was 
overturned and he was acquitted in a 2015 retrial. Russ Faria blamed Hupp, 
saying she had a motive after becoming the beneficiary of a $150,000 life 
insurance policy shortly before Betsy Faria was killed.

Lincoln County prosecutor Michael Wood told The Associated Press that he wants 
to re-examine the Faria investigation now that Hupp's case is resolved in St. 
Charles County.

Wood said he hasn't determined if Hupp is a suspect in Betsy Faria's death, but 
"people in the community believe she's the leading suspect."

A phone message left with Hupp's attorney was not returned.

Gumpenberger, who was mentally and physically impaired from a 2005 car wreck, 
was killed on Aug. 16, 2016, the victim of a bizarre plot staged by Hupp to 
make it look like she was a kidnapping victim acting in self-defense, police 
said.

Hupp originally told police that she got out of her car on her driveway and 
Gumpenberger, whom she described as a stranger, pulled a knife and demanded she 
take him to a bank "to get Russ's money," an apparent reference to the 
insurance money she collected from Betsy Faria's death.

Hupp told authorities she knocked the knife out of Gumpenberger's hand and ran 
into her house on a quiet, middle class street. She said she got a gun and 
fatally shot Gumpenberger, who had followed her inside.

The story quickly unraveled. Lohmar said that days before the killing, a woman 
reported that someone matching Hupp's description in an SUV approached her 
claiming to be a producer for the TV show "Dateline" and promised to pay $1,000 
if she would record a scripted sound bite about 911 calls. The woman at first 
agreed but backed out when the woman failed to show any credentials.

Lohmar said a surveillance camera showed the SUV's license plate, which matched 
Hupp's. He has said authorities believed Hupp was "vetting a potential victim."

Data from Hupp's cellphone indicated that Gumpenberger was not a stranger as 
Hupp had claimed — GPS showed she was at his apartment, 13 miles (20.92 
kilometers) from her home, less than an hour before the fatal confrontation.

Police found $900 in plastic bags in Gumpenberger's pocket after his death, and 
a note that appeared to be instructions to kidnap Hupp and collect Faria's 
money. Authorities said the money and note were planted.

Lohmar said that after Hupp was arrested in Gumpenberger's death she stabbed 
herself with a ball point pen multiple times in the neck and arms in the 
O'Fallon police station, requiring hospitalization.

(source: kansascity.com)








UTAH:

Weber County alleges unethical misrepresentations by death penalty attorney in 
billing disputes



Weber County says it fired a death penalty appeal lawyer for 
"misrepresentations and falsehood," not because he sought more money to defend 
murder convict Doug Lovell and complained to a judge and the media.

In a January 2018 U.S. District Court lawsuit, indigent appeals attorney Sam 
Newton charged the county violated his First Amendment right of free speech by 
terminating his contract more than a year early.

He also argued the county was miserly in its funding of capital appeals, which 
are guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment.

But in a June 14 motion for summary judgment, Kristin VanOrman, an attorney 
representing the county, urged Judge Robert Shelby to dismiss the suit. She 
contended the county did not violate Newton's freedom of speech and planned to 
cancel Newton's contract regardless.

Newton and the county jousted through 2017 over his requests for more funding 
to handle Lovell's latest round of appeals. Lovell was sentenced to death for 
the 1985 killing of Joyce Yost of South Ogden and the case has been on appeal 
ever since.

During a 2nd District Court hearing before Judge Michael DiReda and in 
newspaper interviews in 2017, Newton asserted the county was inhibiting his 
efforts to mount a constitutionally adequate appeal for Lovell.

After spending most of an initial $75,000 budgeted by the county, Newton asked 
for another $75,000 to $105,000. The county commission and Weber County 
Attorney Chris Allred balked and the commission offered Newton $15,000 at least 
to start.

As part of that negotiation, the county questioned his billing practices and 
asked why he needed to spend so much time in discussions with Lovell.

Newton then withdrew from the case, saying the county had backed him into an 
impossible choice. Without more funding, he said, "Zealous advocacy for Mr. 
Lovell on this case may jeopardize my livelihood."

In that same court hearing, Lovell complained to DiReda that the county had 
underfunded his defense through several sets of indigent attorneys since his 
1st conviction more than 25 years ago.

Ironically, Newton was seeking funding to press his appeal over the alleged 
ineffective counsel by Lovell's defense attorney during his 2015 retrial.

"This past year you have made various representations to the media and to the 
court that have been untruthful and harmful to the county's reputation," County 
Commissioner Jim Harvey said in an Oct. 26, 2017, letter to Newton canceling 
the contract.

In her court filing last week, VanOrman said Newton's public airing of the 
billing disputes damaged the county because after he quit the Lovell case 
county officials had to scramble to find a replacement.

"The county had to pay the new attorney a premium, presumably due to (Newton's) 
comments," VanOrman said.

She argued the county did not violate Newton's First Amendment rights because 
his speech was delivered as part of his official duties and thereby was not 
protected.

And even if the federal court found his speech was impinged, the three county 
commissioners and Allred are protected by governmental immunity, which shields 
public officials and employees from civil damages, she said.

The county made a good-faith effort to meet Newton's requests, eventually 
funding $33,000 beyond the original $75,000, VanOrman said.

Newton, whose practice is now in Kalispell, Montana, said stress over the 
funding battle caused him health problems.

In the 2017 Ogden court hearing, Newton said he earlier had been denied 
$100,000 in attorney fees in Salt Lake County while representing killer Floyd 
Maestas.

"That ended up resulting in a lot of stress for me," he said. "I ended up 
having a cardiac event because of that."

In his suit against Weber County, Newton alleges he was treated unfairly "for 
calling attention ... to important issues in how Utah handles death penalty 
cases."

Weber, Salt Lake and 3 other counties do not contribute to a statewide indigent 
defense fund, instead shouldering Sixth Amendment obligations themselves. The 
self-funding by counties leads to conflicts such as the tussle involving 
Newton, he alleged.

His suit pointed out that Harvey's letter did not cite any dissatisfaction with 
Newton's performance but was rather "in retaliation for unspecified statements" 
he had made publicly.

VanOrman's motion said Newton's statements in the Ogden court hearing were 
ethically questionable and contained "misrepresentations and falsehood."

In an affidavit filed in connection with Newton's lawsuit, expert witness 
Marissa Sandall-Barrus said she had been hired in an earlier part of the appeal 
process to replace another expert "who had quit for non-payment."

Sandall-Barrus said she agreed to work on the case "against my better judgment 
... because Weber County has a reputation for non-payment."

Newton's controversy isn't the first time an indigent appeals attorney has been 
axed by Weber County.

In 2012, veteran Ogden attorney Randy Richards and Newton both worked under 
contract for the county on indigent appeals.

In his private practice, Richards at the time was representing Matthew David 
Stewart, accused of killing an Ogden police officer in a drug bust shootout.

According to Standard-Examiner coverage at the time, the county canceled 
Richards's indigent contract.

(source: Standard-Examiner)








NEVADA:

Death penalty overturned in I-80 Good Samaritan murder



A Serbian national who killed a Good Samaritan on Aug. 24, 1994, who stopped 
along Interstate 80 east of Sparks to help him had his death penalty overturned 
June 12.

U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan upheld the guilty verdict against Avram 
Vineto Nika, 49, so he remains convicted of the murder of Edward Smith of 
Fallon.

But Mahan ruled that Nika within 60 days must either get a non-death penalty 
prison sentence or must be scheduled for a new penalty hearing. Jury selection 
for the new penalty hearing must start within 180 days.

The Washoe County District Attorney’s Office said Wednesday it had not reviewed 
the decision and was not ready to comment on what it would do next.

Nika’s car broke down on Interstate 80 west of the Derby Dam exit. Smith lived 
in Fallon but worked in a Reno-area Burger King. Nika killed Smith when he 
stopped to help him and took Smith’s car. Smith’s body was found the next day 
next to a fence between the railroad tracks and Interstate 80.

Chicago authorities found Nika with Smith’s car less than a week later.

A Washoe District Court jury convicted Nika of murder in July 1995 and 
sentenced him to death.

Nika’s appeals wound through state and federal courts. Mahan ruled on Nika’s 
habeas corpus appeals. He ruled that Nika’s lawyers at trial did not present 
information about Nika’s tough childhood that may have swayed the jury to not 
give him the death penalty. Nika lived in poverty, the judge wrote. The family 
burned manure for fuel and he begged for food. His father was an alcoholic who 
beat Nika’s mother and his children.

Additionally, the judge ruled that Nika’s lawyers failed to tell Nika he could 
contact the Yugoslavian consulate for help with an interpreter and get help 
mitigating the case against him, as allowed by the Vienna Convention.

“The Court finds that Nika's trial counsel unreasonably failed, before trial, 
to advise Nika of his rights under the Vienna Convention and to contact the 
Yugoslavian consulate, and that, if Nika's trial counsel had contacted the 
Yugoslavian consulate before trial, and had, with the assistance of the 
consulate, developed evidence for presentation in mitigation in the penalty 
phase of Nika's trial, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of 
the penalty phase of Nika's trial would have been different,” the judge wrote.

The Serbian government has sought to intervene on Nika's case.

(source: KOLO TV news)








CALIFORNIA:

McStay family slayings: Prosecutor urges death penalty for Merritt----The 
circumstances of the crime 'outweighs any possible mercy' for the defendant, 
jurors are told.



Charles “Chase” Merritt was a “familiar face” let into the Fallbrook home of 
the four-member McStay family on the night of Feb. 4, 2010 – but turned into a 
“monster of destruction” and killed them, a prosecutor said Wednesday as he 
asked jurors to vote for the death penalty.

Merritt, 62, was convicted June 10 of 1st-degree murder in the bludgeon deaths 
of former business associate Joseph McStay, 40, his wife, Summer, 43, and their 
two children, Gianni, 4, and Joseph Jr., 3.

The same jury that convicted him is hearing evidence from prosecutors in the 
penalty phase of the trial, in which the panel will decide whether to recommend 
life in prison without parole, or death by lethal injection.

The defense has elected not to offer any witnesses for this phase, saying they 
are not conceding that Merritt is guilty of killing the family that had just 
moved from San Clemente. It will instead appeal to any lingering doubt jurors 
may have, hoping that strategy keeps him off of death row.

In a downtown San Bernardino Justice Center courtroom, Supervising Deputy 
District Attorney Britt Imes told the panel to consider the slayings of the 2 
boys.

“What possible motive can a human being have to murder a 4-year-old and a 
3-year-old?” Imes said. “Are they the only people left in that house after 
killing Joseph and Summer – they can identify him?

“That’s simplistic to look at. Or is it cold, callous, collateral damage?” Imes 
went on. “Then it’s evil. What line must be crossed, ladies and gentlemen, to 
take the life of a defenseless 4-year-old, and a defenseless 3-year-old?

“There is no motive that can be ascribed to the killer of a 4-year-old and a 
3-year-old that passes muster.”

Merritt, a former Apple Valley resident, was arrested in November 2014 – a year 
after the McStay family’s skeletal remains were discovered in two shallow 
graves west of the 15 Freeway near Victorville. A three-pound sledge hammer 
investigators said was used to kill the family was buried there as well.

Imes noted that defense attorneys will likely point to the lack of forensic 
evidence presented by the prosecution, “the lack of a crime scene, the 
unanswered questions. But remember why those exist. Who was in control of any 
evidence that was left behind after their murders?

“Who hid those bodies in a remote location, where they sat undetected for 3 
years, 9 months and 7 days?” Imes asked.

“Death is an appropriate sentence – punishment – for this defendant,” Imes 
said. “The gravity of the offense so substantially outweighs any possible 
mitigation, any possible mercy you could show him.”

The prosecution is scheduled to offer more arguments Wednesday afternoon, 
followed by the defense’s.

McStay and Merritt had worked together in the sale, design and building of 
large-scale custom waterworks for clients that included Paul Mitchell salons. 
McStay found customers, and Merritt, whose business was separate from McStay’s, 
built the pieces.

Prosecutors said Merritt was being cut out of the relationship by McStay for 
poor performance, and on Feb. 1, 2010, McStay sent an email to Merritt stating 
Merritt owed him $42,845. The McStay family was last heard 3 days later.

Then, prosecutors said, Merritt began looting McStay’s business, forging checks 
to himself in McStay’s name and backdating them to Feb. 4, because Merritt knew 
that was the last day anyone would have heard from McStay or his family.

Defense attorneys said the men were best friends and future prospects for their 
business relationship were too lucrative for Merritt to kill McStay and his 
family.

They said the checks were an effort to keep the waterworks business going after 
Joseph McStay disappeared and his fate was unknown. They said another business 
associate of McStay’s, a web designer, had disputes with McStay and was 
overlooked by investigators.

(source: The Press-Enterprise)

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

Home Investigations Accused Gunman to Stand Trial in Death Penalty Case in 
Slaying of San Diego Police Officer----Accused Gunman to Stand Trial in Death 
Penalty Case in Slaying of San Diego Police Officer



The death-penalty case for a man accused of fatally shooting one San Diego 
police officer and wounding another in 2016 moved forward Wednesday when a 
judge ordered Jesse Michael Gomez to stand trial on murder and attempted murder 
charges.

A 3-day preliminary hearing in San Diego Superior Court ended with Judge 
Frederick Link finding enough evidence had been presented to try Gomez on 
suspicion of killing Officer Jonathan “J.D.” De Guzman and wounding Officer 
Wade Irwin.

Gomez, 58, faces the special circumstance allegation of murdering a police 
officer, for which he could be given the death penalty if convicted. He also 
faces several weapons allegations and a charge of being in a felon in 
possession of a gun.

Deputy Public Defender Troy Britt asked the judge to not find sufficient 
evidence against Gomez, saying, “From the beginning, this case has been about 
keeping the defense in the dark.”

During the preliminary hearing, defense attorneys questioned Irwin and 
investigators about other possible suspects related to the shooting. But the 
judge limited their line of inquiry, saying it was not relevant in the hearing 
solely aimed at presenting evidence against Gomez.

Britt said Wednesday that those restrictions prevented him from presenting the 
defense that someone other than Gomez committed the crimes. The attorney also 
had earlier complained that he didn’t have time to properly examine the volumes 
of prosecution evidence and prepare his case.

The judge ordered prosecutors to make sure the defense had all the evidence in 
the next few weeks. Deputy District Attorney Michael Runyon said he turned over 
his last batch of evidence 2 1/2 months ago.

Irwin testified in the hearing about the 2-sided gunfight that erupted shortly 
before 11 p.m. on July 28, 2016 in the Southcrest neighborhood. He and De 
Guzman, then on the uniformed gang suppression team, stopped their patrol car 
to talk to 2 men walking along Acacia Grove Way.

Irwin said the men had split up by the time he got out of the patrol car. He 
asked the man nearest him if he lived around there. The man answered by pulling 
out a handgun and shooting Irwin once, in the throat.

While he tried to stanch the bleeding with 1 hand, Irwin drew his pistol with 
the other hand and fired at the gunman, the officer testified. Meanwhile, he 
said, the gunman walked toward the open passenger door, firing more rounds into 
the car.

One round hit De Guzman under his right arm as he sat behind the steering 
wheel. He never had time to draw his own weapon.

The shooter staggered away, leaving a blood trail down the sidewalk and into a 
brushy ravine off South 38th Street.

Irwin also testified that he radioed for help and activated his body-worn 
camera. Several dozen officers from many law enforcement agencies converged on 
the neighborhood, helping the wounded officers, blocking off streets and 
looking for the shooter.

De Guzman died at a hospital. Irwin spent nearly a month in the hospital and 
later returned to full duty.

Investigators testified to finding a Ruger handgun, a magazine with 9 mm rounds 
and a bag and a small pouch with additional bullets near Gomez in the ravine. 
They recovered 4 Ruger casings in the street along with nine casings from 
Irwin’s gun.

A San Diego police DNA analyst testified on Wednesday that there was “strong 
support” for concluding that 99 % of the DNA found on the Ruger handgun and 
magazine belonged to Gomez. A 2nd, unknown person had contributed 1 % of the 
DNA on the magazine.

(source: The San Diego Union-Tribune)








USA:

Biden appears to be softening his stance on the death penalty----An aside by 
the Democratic hopeful at a town hall triggers questions about whether he's 
changed his mind on another hot-button issue.

Joe Biden said in a 1992 speech that criminal justice legislation he was 
pushing was so strict that “we do everything but hang people for jaywalking.” 
Two years later, his signature crime bill made dozens of additional offenses 
punishable by death.

But in a little-noticed remark earlier this month in New Hampshire, the 
Democratic presidential frontrunner seemed to offer a decidedly different 
stance on the death penalty.

Fielding a question from a voter aligned with the ACLU about how he’d reduce 
the federal prison population, Biden gave a long and winding answer: He 
defended his crime bill, advocated for reforms to the criminal justice system 
involving nonviolent and drug offenders, and said he was proud of his work with 
Barack Obama to cut the federal prison population by 3,800.

Then, unprompted, Biden added: “By the way, congratulations to ya’ll ending the 
death penalty here.”

Biden’s campaign would not comment on his answer, or shed light on whether he’s 
changed his position on the death penalty. The ACLU also declined to weigh in, 
given the ambiguity of his comment.

COUNTDOWN TO 2020

The race for 2020 starts now. Stay in the know. Follow our presidential 
election coverage.

Biden's support for the death penalty was consistent throughout his 30-plus 
years in the Senate. Whether that stand holds will be another case study of how 
he reconciles long-held beliefs with the leftward march of his party. His 
record is full of tough-on-crime bills and statements that were in line with 
Bill Clinton-style centrism, but now look out of step.

This isn’t the first time in recent weeks that Biden, pressed by an ACLU 
volunteer, answered a question in a way that runs counter to his record. In 
May, Biden said he would commit to repealing the Hyde Amendment, which bars 
federal funding for most abortions. His campaign then said he misheard the 
question and reaffirmed his support for Hyde.

Then, mere hours later, amid the rush of states to stamp out abortion rights, 
Biden used a speech in Atlanta to reverse his position on the amendment.

“The former vice president has no choice but to change almost every position 
he’s ever taken,” said Colin Strother, a Democratic strategist in Texas, where 
capital punishment has long been a flashpoint. "We’ve seen it with a couple 
positions and we’re going to see it more.”

Most of Biden’s Democratic opponents support abolishing—or at least 
halting—capital punishment. After California Gov. Gavin Newsom froze the death 
penalty earlier this year, Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker were quick to 
add their support for the move. Both highlighted that defendants of color are 
disproportionately represented on death rows.

Others have long records of opposition: Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she didn’t 
think Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should face the death penalty. 
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee halted executions in his state; in a statement he 
called the death penalty "costly and capricious."

Other Democratic hopefuls, including Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke and Pete 
Buttigieg, are just as opposed.

“It’s not an equitable, fair, just system right now,” O’Rourke said recently.

The U.S. is moving away from the death penalty, with nine states eliminating it 
in the last 15 years. Experts say the changes have come mostly through the 
political process—and usually with the support of some Republicans. Four other 
states have placed moratoria on executions.

“People have become more educated about the problems with the death penalty, 
including the risk of executing the innocent, that the death penalty is more 
expensive than life in prison, that it is applied in a racially biased way, and 
other reasons,” said Jeffrey Kirchmeier, who authored a book chronicling the 
history of the death penalty in the U.S.

Biden spent decades voicing strong support for the death penalty, and was a 
force behind expanding the number of crimes that were subject to capital 
punishment. Even when he called for a moratorium on executions nearly two 
decades ago, Biden continued to back executions in principle, and stressed the 
timeout should be temporary.

“I support the death penalty,” Biden said in a Senate Judiciary Committee 
hearing in 2000. “Let me put it this way: I don’t oppose the death penalty on 
moral grounds, but I have been fastidious … that if you are going to have a 
death penalty, you had better go out of your way to make sure you don’t execute 
an innocent person.”

His stance was in line with Clinton's repositioning of the Democratic Party on 
crime, an attempt to shed its bleeding heart liberal image. During his 1992 
run, Clinton flew to Arkansas to personally oversee an execution and argue 
Democrats "should no longer feel guilty about protecting the innocent.”

Obama backed the death penalty during his campaigns, though he later called the 
practice “deeply troubling.” Hillary Clinton had reservations but also 
supported executions. Yet in 2016, the Democratic Party platform for the first 
time explicitly called for abolishing capital punishment.

Now, Biden is being forced to adapt in real-time to the party's drastically 
different mindset.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

Former President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both previously 
supported the death penalty. The Democratic Party explicitly called to abolish 
capital punishment for the first time in 2016.

The 1994 crime bill, which Biden colloquially named after himself and later 
called his greatest accomplishment, created 60 new death penalty offenses under 
41 federal capital statutes, according to a Brennan Center for Justice analysis 
of its impact some 2 decades later.

Nearly 1,500 people have been executed since 1976, more than a third of those 
in Texas, per statistics kept by the Death Penalty Information Center. After 
the 1994 law took effect, the number of executions increased from 31 that year, 
to 56 in 1995, 74 in 1997 and a high of 98 in 1999. Executions fell off 
precipitously since then, down to 9 so far in 2019.

There were 61 federal prisoners on death row as of December. 26 were black and 
7 were Latino.

During the early 90s, Biden stood behind his support for capital punishment, 
but legislation he carried sought to protect juvenile defendants and those with 
disabilities from being subject to the federal death penalty. After pushing for 
leniency in cases where “racial patterns” were found to have occurred, and 
expressing concerns over inadequate criminal defense counsel, he continued to 
back an expansion of the death penalty.

The Racial Justice Act, a bill that had been introduced for years but failed to 
pass, would have allowed death penalty defendants to cite evidence—such as 
statistics—demonstrating that the death penalty had been administered in a 
racially biased way. While members of the Congressional Black Caucus reportedly 
tried to pressure then-President Clinton to include the language in the 1994 
crime bill, they relented over fears that it would stall the full law.

The difficulty for Biden isn't just potentially adjusting his position but 
explaining why, Strother said. The death penalty debate, which floored Michael 
Dukakis during his 1988 run, is especially tricky given Biden’s long track 
record on the issue, full of old video clips.

“Times change," Strother said, "but morality doesn’t. It’s constant.”

(source: politico.com)