[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.C., S.C., ALA., LA., OKLA., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

March 28



TEXAS----impending execution

Board Denies Clemency for Texas Man Convicted Under Law of Parties Who Was Not 
Present When Killing Occurred



The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denied clemency for Patrick Murphy 
(pictured) on March 27, 2019, moving the state one step closer to executing him 
on March 28 for a murder he neither committed nor intended to commit nor was 
present when it occurred. Murphy was convicted under the state’s “Law of 
Parties,” which allows defendants to be sentenced to death based upon the 
actions and intent of others, if the defendant played even a small role in a 
crime that resulted in someone’s death. Critics of the law argue that it 
violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1982 constitutional prohibition against 
executing a person who did not kill or intend that a killing take place and was 
a minor participant in an offense that resulted in a killing. Murphy was one of 
the “Texas 7,” a group of prisoners who escaped from prison in 2000. Days after 
their escape, the men planned to rob a sporting goods store, but Murphy told 
the group’s leader, George Rivas, that he did not want to participate in the 
robbery. Murphy waited outside the store in a truck, radioed the others when he 
saw police arriving, and drove away from the store to a nearby apartment 
complex. After he left, Officer Aubrey Hawkins was killed in a shootout with 
the other men.

In 1982, in Enmund v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote that “the death 
penalty … is an excessive penalty for the robber who, as such, does not take 
human life.” The Court ruled that the focus of a capital punishment trial must 
be on the culpability of the defendant for his own acts, “not on that of those 
who committed the robbery and shot the victims.” Murphy’s court-appointed trial 
lawyer failed to object to the capital charges against him and his 
state-appointed post-conviction lawyer failed to raise trial counsel’s 
ineffectiveness, barring the issue from federal review. Murphy’s current 
lawyers asked the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reopen his case to 
consider the issue, but the court denied that request on March 25. They also 
sought clemency from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. However, the Board 
rejected that request and an alternative request for a temporary reprieve until 
the state legislature acts on pending legislation that would eliminate the 
death penalty for people convicted under the law of parties. In a statement, 
his attorneys David Dow and Jeff Newberry said, “It is unconscionable that 
Patrick Murphy may be executed for a murder he did not commit that resulted 
from a robbery in which he did not participate, at the exact moment when 
lawmakers are considering whether anyone possibly convicted under Section 
7.02(b) of the Texas Penal Code should be eligible for the death penalty.” 
Following the Board’s action, Murphy’s lawyer’s submitted a request for a 
1-time 30-day reprieve from Governor Greg Abbott “so that he is not executed 
before additional legislation is passed that would [make] clear convictions 
obtained in trials identical to his are not eligible for a sentence of death.” 
While that bill would not be retroactive to Murphy’s case, his lawyers wrote, 
there is “a substantial possibility” that if the bill passes, the state courts 
“would hold Mr. Murphy’s death sentence is unconstitutional.”

Murphy also has filed motions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the 
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in which his attorneys 
argue that Texas is violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment 
by refusing to allow Murphy’s Buddhist spiritual advisor to be present in the 
execution chamber instead of a Christian or Muslim chaplain. The Texas 
Department of Criminal Justice employs Christian and Muslim chaplains, who are 
allowed to be present in the execution chamber, but does not allow chaplains of 
other faiths, saying that they present a security risk because they are not 
employees. “A law or policy that is not neutral between religions, like TDCJ’s 
policy, is inherently suspect and strict scrutiny must be applied when 
determining whether the policy violates the First Amendment’s Establishment 
Clause,” Murphy’s attorneys wrote. A similar claim was raised before the 
Alabama execution of Domineque Ray, a Muslim prisoner who was not allowed to 
have his imam present at his execution. The state court denied his motion on 
March 25 and the federal court followed suit on March 27, both saying his claim 
was untimely filed.

(source: Death Penalty Information Center)

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

2nd To Last Texas 7 Death Row Inmate Patrick Murphy Says Life Should Be Spared: 
‘I Think It’s About Vengeance’



One of the last living members of a notorious group of former fugitives will be 
executed in Huntsville on Thursday.

Patrick Murphy was one of the Texas 7 prison escapees convicted for the murder 
of Irving Police Officer Aubrey Hawkins during a crime spree on Christmas Eve 
2000.

In his final interview before he enters the death chamber, Murphy told CBS 11 
his life should be spared because he was on the other side of the building when 
the fatal shots were fired. However he does blame himself for being where he is 
and says he doesn’t want anyone to think he’s innocent.

“I’m not challenging the guilt of the crime,” said Murphy.

The 57-year-old has been on death row for 17 years for the murder of Officer 
Hawkins.

“My role was basically really to be the getaway driver,” he said.

Murphy and six violent convicts broke out of a South Texas prison and together 
headed back to his hometown of Irving where they donned fake security guard 
uniforms and collected an arsenal of firearms by robbing a sporting goods store 
on Christmas Eve.

“I didn’t even realize shots had been fired for probably 10 or 15 minutes,” he 
said.

Murphy was in a getaway car in front of the store when the other escapees were 
confronted in the back by the officer who was shot 11 times.

“Im sorry. I regret what occurred,” he said.

Murphy was sentenced to death like the other 5 surviving escapees when they 
were captured a month later, but because he didn’t fire shots, Murphy believes 
he doesn’t deserve to die.

“I don’t think sentencing and culpability about law of parties is about 
justice. I think it’s about vengeance,” he said.

Murphy’s prosecutor says he should be executed because he tipped off the others 
the officer was coming.

“He in a sense led Aubrey Hawkins to the ambush that took his life,” said Bill 
Wirskye, who prosecuted Murphy.

A bill in the Texas Legislature filed by Republican Rep. Jeff Leach from Plano 
would prohibit death sentences for accomplices if they are unaware a murder 
will happen.

Murphy laughs in the face death while that bill is being debated.

“I’m not really afraid of death,” he said. “I’ve accepted that I’m really at 
peace with it. Do I want to die? Not necessarily, but I don’t wanna spend the 
rest of my life the way I am right now.”

Only 1 other member of the Texas 7 remains on death row.

Murphy acknowledged his chances for a last minute Supreme Court stay of 
execution are quote, “very, very slim.”

(source: CBS News)

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

On Eve of Execution, Inmate Fights for Buddhist Priest



A Texas death-row inmate who believes chanting prayers with his Buddhist priest 
as he is executed will help him be reborn in the “Pure Land” has asked the 
Fifth Circuit for a stay because Texas will not let the priest accompany him in 
the execution room.

Patrick Henry Murphy, Jr., 57, was serving a 50-year sentence for aggravated 
sexual assault in December 2000, when he and six other inmates escaped from a 
prison in Kenedy, Texas.

Now known as the “Texas 7,” some of the men held up a sporting goods store in 
Irving, Texas on Dec. 24, 2000.

Irving policeman Aubrey Hawkins pulled up to the store and was met with a hail 
of gunfire. The escaped convicts shot him 11 times, and then ran over his 
lifeless body as they fled with 44 stolen guns.

Six of the seven inmates were apprehended the following month after a friend of 
the owner of an RV park in Colorado saw a spot about them on the TV show 
“America’s Most Wanted” and told the owner he believed the men were staying on 
the property.

One of the men shot himself as police moved in. In 2003, a jury convicted 
Murphy of capital murder for Hawkins’ death and he was sentenced to death.

Murphy became an adherent of Pure Land Buddhism a decade ago, according to a 
lawsuit and motion to stay his execution filed Tuesday in Houston federal 
court.

“Accordingly, Murphy believes it is possible for him, after death, to be reborn 
in the Pure Land, a place where he could work towards enlightenment,” the 
petition states.

But Murphy, who is set to die by lethal injection Thursday night, believes he 
can only be reborn if he can focus on Buddha as the pentobarbital Texas uses to 
execute prisoners enters his veins and shuts down his organs.

Through his attorneys David Dow and Jeff Newberry, professors at the University 
of Houston Law Center, he asked the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to let 
his Buddhist spiritual adviser Rev. Hui-Yong Shih be beside him in the death 
chamber so they could chant prayers as he leaves this world.

The TDCJ denied his request because its policy is only its employees can be in 
the death chamber in Huntsville during executions.

The agency only employs Christian and Muslim chaplains and it did not respond 
to Murphy’s inquiry if it has any Buddhist priests on staff who could accompany 
him in the execution room.

Murphy says in his lawsuit he assumes the TDCJ restricts access to the 
execution room for security reasons, but Rev. Shih poses no risk as he’s been 
visiting Murphy in prison for the last 6 years.

He claims Texas’ policy violates the First Amendment, which bans Congress from 
passing laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or establish any 
religion.

He also says TDCJ’s policies run afoul of the Religious Land Use and 
Institutionalized Persons Act. Passed by Congress in 2000, the law bars prison 
officials from interfering with “any exercise of religion” by inmates “whether 
or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”

U.S. District Judge Sim Lake denied Murphy’s motion to stay Tuesday afternoon, 
finding he had waited too long, “until the eve of his execution,” to make his 
case.

Murphy appealed to the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans on Wednesday morning.

His claims mirror arguments a Muslim death-row inmate in Alabama made in 
January. Domineque Ray, 42, said his execution would be unconstitutional 
because Alabama would not let his imam into the death room.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with him, but the U.S. Supreme Court 
reversed in a 5-4 decision.

The high court’s majority said Ray had waited too long, just 10 days before his 
death date, to bring a challenge in federal court. Ray was executed Feb. 7.

Murphy’s lawyers say the timing of his challenge differentiates his case from 
Ray’s.

“Murphy made his request to TDCJ an entire month before his scheduled 
execution. By doing so, Murphy gave TDCJ more than adequate time to address its 
interest in assuring his execution is secure,” his stay motion states.

If his efforts fail, Murphy will be the 4th U.S. inmate executed in 2019 and 
the 5th member of the Texas 7 executed by Texas, according to the Death Penalty 
Information Center.

Its executive director Robert Dunham told the Associated Press in February that 
U.S. states generally allow spiritual advisers to accompany inmates to the door 
of the execution room, but not into it.

A TDCJ spokesman told Courthouse News the agency does not employ any Buddhists 
who could serve as Murphy’s spiritual adviser in the execution room.

(source: Courthouse News)

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

"Texas 7" prisoner hopes legislation limiting death penalty for accomplices 
will stop his execution----Patrick Murphy was one of the escaped convicts 
sentenced to death for the murder of Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins 
during a robbery. But he didn't pull the trigger on Hawkins. He was the lookout 
who said he warned the others to leave.



A Texas man set for execution Thursday evening hopes a bipartisan state 
legislative proposal to prohibit death sentences for some convicts who didn’t 
kill anyone will persuade the governor to spare his life.

Patrick Murphy, 57, is one of the two living members of the infamous “Texas 7,” 
a group of escaped prisoners who committed multiple robberies and killed a 
police officer near Dallas in 2000 during more than a month on the run. 4 
others have already been executed, 1 killed himself when police caught up to 
them in Colorado, and 1 other remains on death row with Murphy.

But Murphy’s death sentence and upcoming execution differ from the other men’s 
in one distinctive way: Records indicate he didn’t participate in the officer’s 
murder and wasn’t there when it happened. Now, his lawyers are hoping bills 
proposed in the Texas Legislature to take the death penalty off the table for 
some accomplices who didn't pull the trigger will convince the governor to 
delay Murphy's execution.

On Christmas Eve in 2000, Murphy was the lookout in the robbery of a sporting 
goods store in Irving, remaining in the car in front of the store and listening 
to a police scanner while the other six men went inside, according to court 
records. He and another escapee later said that Murphy used a two-way radio to 
warn the others to flee when he heard that police were on their way. And as 
31-year-old Officer Aubrey Hawkins began to drive to the back of the store 
where the other robbers were, Murphy left the scene on the instruction of the 
group’s leader.

He said he didn’t find out the other men had shot Hawkins 11 times and run over 
him in a stolen car until the group reunited later.

Under Texas law, Murphy is just as culpable as the men who fired their weapons 
at Hawkins because he was participating in the robbery, and a jury determined 
that either Murphy was acting with the intent to help in the crime, or, even if 
he had no intent to kill anyone, the murder “should have been anticipated as a 
result” of the robbery. To be sentenced to death, the jury must have agreed 
that Murphy at least anticipated the death. The statute is part of a 
controversial law commonly referred to as the “law of parties,” under which 
accomplices and triggermen are treated alike.

State Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston, for a decade has filed bills to eliminate 
the death penalty in the law-of-parties instances that hinge on that 
"anticipation" clause, but they have never made it to a vote on the chamber 
floor. In 2017, the issue picked up some attention from other lawmakers, 
including a staunch conservative, after death row inmate Jeff Wood, who was a 
getaway driver in a planned robbery that became a murder, narrowly avoided 
execution the year before.

“[Wood] may have suspected, he may have anticipated, but he didn’t know,” said 
state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, at the beginning of the 2017 legislative 
session. “You can’t be executing people like that — you just can’t. We can keep 
them in prison for life, but to execute them is an entirely different 
conversation.”

Still, the 2017 bills — authored by 2 House Democrats — died before going to 
the floor for a vote. This year, Leach and state Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, 
D-McAllen, have also put their names on similar legislation. The bills have not 
been scheduled for a committee hearing yet, and although Leach was vocal on the 
Wood case in 2017, he declined to comment on Murphy's upcoming execution. It's 
unclear if a jury found Murphy guilty under the anticipation clause of the law 
of parties which is targeted by the legislation, or the first section, which 
includes intent to assist in the crime.

When prosecutors have argued against the bills in the past, they have used the 
Texas Seven case as an example as to why the law is needed, giving more tools 
to those pursuing heinous cases. Before the prison escape, Murphy was serving a 
50-year sentence after being convicted of breaking into a woman’s home and 
sexually assaulting her at knifepoint. And court rulings note that Murphy told 
police after his arrest that his "purpose 'was to initiate firefight'" if he 
was pursued by police when he left the store.

Murphy’s lawyers said this week it is “unconscionable” for Murphy to be 
executed while lawmakers consider changing the law in cases similar to his. 
They acknowledge that the law, even if passed, wouldn’t apply retroactively to 
Murphy’s case, but they believe it would open the way for the courts to find 
his death sentence unconstitutional.

“Carrying out the execution of Patrick Murphy, who neither fired a shot at 
Officer Hawkins nor had any reason to know others would do so, would not be 
proper retaliation but would instead simply be vengeance,” wrote David Dow and 
Jeff Newberry in a petition to the parole board asking for a recommendation to 
change his sentence to life in prison or delay the execution.

On Tuesday, the board voted against such a recommendation in Murphy’s case, and 
state and federal courts have also ruled so far against stopping his execution.

In a letter Wednesday, Dow and Newberry asked Gov. Greg Abbott to grant a 
30-day delay of execution while the legislation on the law of parties plays out 
at the Capitol. Abbott has stopped one execution since he took office in 2015, 
when he changed the sentence of Thomas Whitaker to life in prison after a 
unanimous recommendation by the parole board.

Murphy's lawyers planned to raise another last-shot appeal before the U.S. 
Supreme Court on Wednesday. The filings claim prison policy violates his 
religious rights because the Texas Department of Criminal Justice will not let 
a Buddhist priest into the death chamber with him. The filings claim only those 
employed by the department can be in the death chamber, and TDCJ only employs 
Christian and Muslim clerics. Often, a chaplain will rest his hand on the 
condemned man's lower leg while he is injected with lethal drugs.

The appeals relate to a case out of Alabama that recently drew national 
attention. In that case, the federal appellate court agreed to halt the 
execution of Domineque Hakim Marcelle Ray because the state would not allow a 
Muslim spiritual adviser in the execution room, but the U.S. Supreme Court 
overturned it based on the late timing of the filing.

State courts and lower federal courts have already ruled against Murphy in the 
appeals for a Buddhist priest, also saying the pleadings were filed too late. 
If the governor or high court doesn’t intervene, Murphy will be the third 
person executed in Texas this year. Ray from Alabama was the only other person 
executed in the country in 2019.

(source: Texasd Tribune)

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

Lawyers for man accused of murdering East Texas child ask for change of venue, 
seek to preclude death penalty----Gustavo Zavala-Garcia's attorneys filed the 
application for the change of venue motion Friday and the other motions earlier 
last week, according to Smith County judicial records.



Lawyers for capital murder suspect Gustavo Zavala-Garcia want to move his trial 
out of Smith County, preclude the state from seeking the death penalty and 
suppress his statements made to law enforcement when he was arrested.

Zavala-Garcia's attorneys filed the application for the change of venue motion 
Friday and the other motions earlier last week, according to Smith County 
judicial records.

Zavala-Garcia, 26, is accused of the 2016 killing of 10-year-old Kayla 
Gomez-Orozco and, if convicted on the capital murder charge, could be sentenced 
to death.

The application said there is great prejudice against Zavala-Garcia and he 
cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in Smith County.

The document goes on to ask the court to change the venue to a county "that is 
free from this and other objections."

Three signed affidavits were included with the motion, including one from a 
Flint resident and another from a Bullard resident.

Both indicate the residents are familiar with the case, and have heard and seen 
media coverage described as" pervasive, prejudicial and inflammatory" and 
believe Zavala-Garcia cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in Smith County.

"I have personally heard numerous people state in their opinion that their does 
not even need to be a trial," a signed affidavit from a local defense attorney 
reads. "I believe that the vast majority of people in Smith County believe Mr. 
Zavala-Garcia is guilty of the murder."

The defense also made several motions asking the court to take the death 
penalty off the table.

Zavala-Garcia's defense attorney is asking the court to not seek the death 
penalty because he grew up in Mexico and an investigation into his life history 
is not possible due to the violence in Nuevo Leon and Guanajuato State.

"Both of these regions have become so violent and dangerous that it is 
impossible to carry out a reasonably safe and constitutionally effective 
mitigation investigation there," the motion reads. "Proceeding to a capital 
trial without the benefit of a thorough mitigation investigation would violate 
Mr. Zavala-Garcia's Sixth, Eighth and 14th Amendment rights. In these exception 
circumstances, the only equitable remedy is to preclude the death penalty."

The defense is also asking the court to not allow statements Zavala-Garcia gave 
to authorities during his interrogation on November 7, 2016, or to have a 
hearing prior to jury selection to determine if the statements should be 
allowed.

The motion said law enforcement didn't entirely advise Zavala-Garcia of his 
right to terminate the interview at any time when he was read his rights.

"The failure to meet all requirements renders Mr. Zavala-Garcia's statements 
inadmissible," the motion reads.

The motion goes on to say Zavala-Garcia's waiver was not intelligent because 
the interrogating officer provided an incomprehensible and inadequate statement 
of the right to have a lawyer present to advise him prior to questioning.

The document also said authorities failed to notify Zavala-Garcia of his right 
to seek consular assistance from the Consulate of Mexico and then refused to 
permit consular access to him until after Zavala-Garcia was interviewed about 
the murder even though he was detained on an immigration detainer days prior to 
the seven-hour interrogation.

The motion said the Consulate of Mexico in Dallas wasn't notified of 
Zavala-Garcia's detention until November 10, 2016, when the office received a 
letter from the Smith County District Attorney's Office.

The motion included a statement from an employee of the Consular Protection 
Department who said he learned about Zavala-Garcia's arrest on a media report.

"The following day, I traveled to Smith County, pursuant to the consulate's 
protocol of providing immediate assistance to detained Mexican nationals," the 
statement reads.

The statement said the employee from the consular did not see Zavala-Garcia 
until about 8:30 p.m.

"The failure to advise him of his right to consular notification is 
incompatible with international law," the statement reads.

Zavala-Garcia's next court appearances are set for April 11 and May 2. The 
court anticipates sending out jury summonses in May with jury selection slated 
to begin June 6.

Zavala-Garcia is accused of killing Gomez-Orozco in November 2016. He was 
related to her by marriage and was among the last people to see her before she 
went missing Nov. 1, 2016, from the foyer of Bullard First Assembly on U.S. 
Highway 69.

Her body was found four days later in a well on the property where 
Zavala-Garcia lived, in the 22100 block of Farm-to-Market Road 2493 (Old 
Jacksonville Highway) in Bullard.

It is unclear what exactly caused her death, and at the time the indictment was 
released, then-District Attorney Matt Bingham declined to comment, citing the 
restrictive and protective order in the case.

In the indictment, prosecutors contend Zavala-Garcia attacked Gomez-Orozco and 
sexually assaulted or attempted to sexually assault her after her kidnapping.

Prosecutors also contend he struck Gomez-Orozco with and against a blunt 
object, asphyxiated her and drowned her.

(source: KYTX news)








NORTH CAROLINA:

Jury deliberated for a just a few hours Tuesday in Wilmington



A Pender County jury found James Opleton Bradley guilty of 1st-degree murder 
Tuesday in the 2013 slaying of Elisha Tucker.

The jury deliberated for just a few hours at the New Hanover County Courthouse. 
Closing statements ended Monday after a trial that drew 23 witnesses and 185 
pieces of evidence.

The sentencing phase for Bradley will begin at 9:30 a.m. Thursday. Ben David, 
District Attorney for New Hanover and Pender counties, has also announced his 
office could pursue the death penalty.

Tucker, 33, had been missing from Wilmington since August 2013, five months 
after Bradley, a former Army sergeant, was released from prison after serving 
23 years in the Fayetteville killing of his 8-year-old stepdaughter, Ivy 
Gipson.

Police found Tucker’s body while searching for another missing Wilmington 
woman: Shannon Rippy Van Newkirk, 53, last seen April 5, 2014, while walking to 
a downtown Wilmington bar. Van Newkirk’s body has never been found, but Bradley 
was convicted of second-degree murder in her presumed death in 2017.

But Bradley’s conviction in Rippy’s murder was not admissible evidence in his 
current trial. One juror, who on Monday morning accidentally heard TV coverage 
of Bradley’s trial and conviction in Rippy’s death, had to be dismissed Monday

David laid out the state’s argument for convicting Bradley of 1st-degree 
murder. If the jury condemns Bradley to the death penalty, he will be the 1st 
person from the region sent to death row in 15 years.

David walked the jury back through the grisly discovery of Tucker’s body in 
April 2014, when she was found buried in a field in Pender County, bound in 
duct tape inside trash bags.

“Elisha Tucker is gone, and now we know exactly what happened to her,” David 
said.

Tucker’s autopsy, David told the jury, showed she had 4 broken ribs. Her head 
had been bludgeoned 4 times with a blunt object, or slammed against something. 
By the time her body reached the autopsy table, there was no blood left in it.

At multiple points Monday, defense attorney Geoffrey Hosford motioned for a 
mistrial, arguing that David was improperly instructing the jury and that he 
had made improper references to Rippy’s murder.

When David showed jurors a copy of the verdict sheet and asked them not to 
choose 2nd-degree murder, Hosford argued that David was implying the defense 
was pushing for that conviction. As in any trial, the burden of proof rests 
with the prosecution.

“He’s telling them that we asked for it,” Hosford said. “That’s improper, 
that’s not truthful, that’s not the law. That’s a mistrial, your honor.”

Hosford’s motions were denied.

(source: WIlmington Star)

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

Wake Forest residents recount 2016 triple-homicide during death penalty trial



Several Wake Forest residents testified Tuesday about the sights and sounds of 
the day 3 years ago when three people were gunned down in their neighborhood 
and one of their neighbors was arrested.

Jon Frederick Sander faces three counts of 1st-degree murder in the March 25, 
2016, deaths of Sandy Mazzella, 47, his mother, Elaine Mazzella, 76, and his 
wife, Stephanie Ann Mazzella, 43. He could face the death penalty if convicted.

Sander lived next door to Sandy and Stephanie Mazzella on Clearsprings Drive, 
and he and Sandy Mazzella worked together in a landscaping business. Their 
families often went on vacations and spent holidays together, but the 
relationship started to fray in late 2015, according to prosecutors.

Kristen Myers, whose home backed up to Sander's, said the Mazzellas warned her 
not to let her children play at Sander's house because they believe he had 
molested one of their family members.

On the days of the shooting, Myers said, she heard gunshots coming from the 
direction of Sander's home and called 911.

"I remember hearing someone shouting 'child molester' and then seeing Mr. 
Sander walk through the backyard holding a shotgun," she testified.

Carrie Ruppert said she was driving home after picking up pizza when Sal 
Mazzella, Sandy Mazzella's father and Elaine Mazzella's husband, ran in front 
of her car and begged for help.

Sal Mazzella testified Monday that he saw Sander kill his wife, and his son 
told him to get out so he wouldn't be shot too.

"He was very agitated," Ruppert said, noting that Sal Mazzella kept trying to 
get into her car. "He said his wife had been killed, another woman had been 
killed. At one point, he told me he thought he would be next."

Ruppert and 2 other neighbors also called 911 to report the shooting, and 
jurors heard recordings of all of the 911 calls.

Joey Kern, Stephanie Mazzella's brother, said he and Sander had an argument in 
the yard shortly before the shooting and that Sander appeared to be drunk. He 
said he was in the backyard with his sister when the gunfire started.

"I remember hearing a gunshot. I heard another gunshot. I heard him say, 'You 
called me a molester' several times and then three or four shots," Kern 
testified.

When Stephanie Mazzella started running toward the house, he said, he tried to 
hold her back, but she pulled away. He briefly hid behind a tree before going 
in through the garage.

Kern said he saw Elaine Mazzella dead inside the house and Sandy and Stephanie 
Mazzella on the porch.

"I was standing over them. Sandy was still breathing," he testified, adding 
that, after his brother-in-law died, he went upstairs and found his niece 
hiding and took her to safety.

Sgt. Bradley Hecox of the Wake County Sheriff's Office was one of the first law 
enforcement officers on the scene. After handcuffing a man who was on the 
Mazzella's front porch – it was Kern – he went next door and learned their was 
a man inside who refused to come out.

"The first thing I remember him saying was that he was not coming out, [that] 
he was already dead," Hecox said. "He continually said he was dead, that he 
loved his children, [but] he was not coming out."

Authorities were finally able to talk Sander out of the home and take him into 
custody.

Other deputies recalled the Mazzellas' daughter screaming that her parents had 
been shot and one of Sander's daughters yelling, "My father did it. They 
deserved it."

Sander appeared to doze through parts of Tuesday's testimony. On Monday, 
Superior Court Judge Graham Shirley ordered him removed from the courtroom when 
he started yelling at Sal Mazzella during his testimony. Shirley warned him 
that he would watch the rest of the trial on a monitor from a holding cell at 
the courthouse if there was another outburst.

Defense attorney Tom Manning told jurors Monday that Sander has denied killing 
the Mazzellas and would testify in his defense during the trial.

Testimony is expected to resume Tuesday morning, and the trial could last up to 
3 weeks.

(source: WRAL news)








SOUTH CAROLINA:

After 20 years on death row, convicted killer of Rock Hill parents seeks new 
trial ----James Robertson remains on death row in South Carolina after being 
convicted of murdering his parents during Thanksgiving week 1997. Robertson 
continues to appeal his 1999 conviction and sentence. A hearing in his appeal 
is set for Dec. 1.



After serving 20 years on South Carolina’s death row after he was convicted of 
killing his parents for $2 million in inheritance, Jimmy Robertson will be back 
in a York County courtroom Tuesday claiming he deserves a new trial.

Again.

Prosecutors plan to fight James “Jimmy” Robertson’s claim that his trial 
lawyers were ineffective during the 1999 trial.

The last time Robertson appealed in 2016, the S.C. Supreme Court ruled his 
court-appointed lawyer did not have the legal training required under South 
Carolina law, despite having 35 years of death penalty trial experience.

Now, Robertson’s new lawyers will argue Tuesday that he deserves a new trial 
because the 1999 trial lawyers failed to do an adequate job. They want an 
expert on parricide, the crime of killing one’s parents, to be the focal point 
of a new trial.

Robertson, now 45, was sentenced by a York County jury to death for the 1997 
murder of his parents, Earl and Terry Robertson. Robertson was convicted of 
stabbing his mother to death, then crushing his father’s skull with a hammer 
and baseball bat after he blinded his father with bathroom cleaner.

Robertson, then 24, tried to make the killings look like a break-in and fled 
toward Philadelphia, where his brother was in college. Robertson left a trail 
of evidence along the way, including a bat and bloody clothes. Robertson was 
arrested by police waiting for him in Philadelphia. He was sentenced to death 
in 1999 and has been on death row at Lieber Correctional Facility in Columbia.

“The overwhelming evidence of Mr. Robertson’s guilt was littered up and down 
the East Coast,” said 16th Circuit Solicitor Kevin Brackett, who was part of 
the 1999 trial team that prosecuted Robertson. “The testimony and physical 
evidence left no doubt whatsoever that he brutally murdered his mother and 
father to expedite his inheritance. He is a remorseless killer and the sentence 
of death imposed by the jury was well deserved.”

S.C. Rep. Tommy Pope, R-York, formerly 16th Circuit solicitor who was lead 
prosecutor in 1999, said Robertson is guilty and received a fair trial.

“Jimmy Robertson sealed his own fate when he bragged in great detail of how he 
brutally murdered his parents,” Pope said. “A jury of York County citizens 
heard every detail and found Jimmy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and 
sentenced him to death. His attorneys at trial did everything legally possible 
to protect his rights. Mr. Robertson should look in the mirror, not blame his 
attorneys, when he finds himself facing the death penalty for the death of his 
parents.”

Rock Hill defense lawyers Jim Boyd and Bill Hancock represented him in the 1999 
trial. Hancock has since died.

Filing appeals

Days before Robertson was set to be executed in 2005, he filed appeals court 
documents blaming his lawyers.

His execution was again scheduled in 2010 before Robertson filed a federal 
lawsuit claiming he was wrongly convicted.

Roberton’s claims blaming his trial lawyers, called post-conviction relief, 
were denied in 2011 after a civil trial. However, the S.C. Supreme Court ruled 
in 2016 that the post-conviction relief case was improper because the PCR 
lawyer did not have a handful of hours of continued course credit.

So now, Robertson’s new lawyers say mistakes made during the 1999 warrant a new 
trial. The claims include the 1999 trial lawyers did not introduce mental 
health histories of both Robertson and Robertson’s mother. His lawyers said he 
was bi-polar and abused Ritalin.

Robertson’s lawyers, Keir Wyble of Cornell Law School in New York and Emily 
Paavola of Columbia, have experts in bi-polar disorder and parricide who have 
been interviewing him on death row, documents show.

The lawyers said in court documents that Robertson had “long-standing, severe, 
improperly treated mental health issues.”

Robertson and his lawyers also say prosecutors improperly inflamed the 1999 
trial jury.

Prosecutors said in 1999 court documents that Robertson was tested for mental 
competency several times and knew right from wrong.

“The prosecution showed how Robertson brutally and maliciously murdered his 
parents, and that the murders were motivated by greed to obtain the money from 
their estates or life insurance policies,” S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson 
wrote in court documents.

Robertson’s defense lawyers in 1999 focused on trying to get a sentence of life 
without parole, attorney general prosecutors said. They testified previously in 
post-conviction appeal hearings that the defense team developed a mental health 
defense for Robertson.

Judge Keith Kelly of Gaffney has been appointed by the S.C. Supreme Court to 
hear Tuesday’s case.

Kelly could decide Tuesday whether to grant Robertson a new post-conviction 
relief civil trial. Either side could then appeal that ruling up to the S.C. 
Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court, legal experts said.

The federal lawsuit Robertson filed is on hold until the state appeal is 
finished.

(source: heraldonline.com)








ALABAMA----new death sentence

Yeiter sentenced to death in murder



It took the Escambia County jury 38 minutes to agree that Brett Richard Yeiter 
be sentenced to death by lethal injection last Wednesday for the murder of his 
father-in-law Paul Phillips on Oct. 27, 2014.

Under Alabama law there are only 2 punishments for capital murder: life without 
parole or death. For the defendant to be sentenced to death, 10 jurors have to 
vote for death. The judge cannot overrule the jury’s decision.

“We feel like it was an appropriate sentence based on the evidence that was 
presented,” District Attorney Steve Billy said. “It was a cruel act against a 
defenseless elderly victim with no means of escape. The jury struggled with it. 
It was their decision.”

However, Billy said Phillip’s family was split because a few family members had 
fixed opinions on death penalty in any case.

The defense attorney Chuck Johns said that he and his team were surprised that 
the jury disregarded the wishes of Phillips wife Jewel Phillips. On the day of 
the sentencing, Phillip’s wife said she didn’t believe in the death penalty for 
religious reasons and that she still loves Yeiter.

Johns said that Yeiter has asked them to prepare the documents necessary to 
appeal his conviction. After they set a motion for a new trial, Johns and his 
team will resign from their role as Yeiter’s appointed counsel.

During the state’s opening statements, Billy described Yeiter’s prior felony 
charge. He said Yeiter was convicted of first degree robbery with a shotgun in 
1986, making Yeiter 18 years old at the time of the crime. The crime was 
committed on Christmas Eve against a woman in Michigan for money.

Billy said he believes the jury placed a lot of weight on Yeiter’s prior 
offense and the aggravating circumstances. Billy’s opening also argued the 
cruel nature of the crime. Billy said the killing of an unarmed, elderly man is 
what makes this crime so heinous.

Johns’ opening statements downplayed the cruel nature Billy described by saying 
the only reason this murder constitutes as capital is that Phillips was in his 
truck during the murder. Johns said that if Phillips weren’t in his truck, this 
case would have been a regular murder trial.

The state’s first witness on the day of the sentencing was Phillip’s daughter 
Connie Clifton. Billy asked her about the impact the death of her father had on 
her, her family and community. She said that both she and Phillips’ grandson 
Nathan Blair, who heard the fatal gunshot, have had to take medication for 
anxiety. Clifton also said that the Book of Acts Church her father pastored has 
since shut down.

The defense called an expert witness clinical psychologist Dr. Thomas S. Bennet 
to testify the psychological state of Yeiter. Bennet met with Yeiter twice in 
August 2018 to assess the competency of Yeiter and to see if his personality or 
background played a role in the murder.

Bennet said that Yeiter shows signs of borderline personality disorder and poor 
impulse control. He said that could have been caused by Yeiter’s alcohol abuse 
since the age of 10, his parent’s divorce and death of his grandfather, who 
Yeiter’s mother testified played a huge role in his life.

Bennet said that Yeiter needs a structured environment like prison, but Bennet 
also said Yeiter has issues with authority figures. The state later made the 
point that prison is filled with authority figures.

The state’s closing statements focused on Yeiter’s prior conviction, the 
cruelty of killing an unarmed 68-year-old man and Yeiter’s very own statement: 
“Give me the damn death penalty right now. It would be a lot easier than this 
(expletive).”

John’s closing statements focused on the wishes of Phillips’ wife and Bennet’s 
testimony.

(source: The Brewton Standard)








LOUISIANA:

Democrat and Republican file bills to end death penalty in 
Louisiana----Bipartisan effort underway to abolish death penalty



2state lawmakers from both sides of the aisle and opposite ends of the Capitol 
are coming together to try to end Capitol Punishment in Louisiana.

On Wednesday (March 27) Representative Terry Landry (D) from New Iberia and 
Senator Dan Claitor (R) from Baton Rouge pre-filed 2 bills for the Legislative 
Session to abolish the death penalty.

The 2 lawmakers say they were motivated by different reasons for wanting to 
abolish the death penalty.

"As a Republican I look at programs that work and I look at programs that work, 
and try to improve on those, and I look at programs that don't work, and try to 
improve on them or get rid of them. And as it turns out, in my view, the death 
penalty doesn't work," said Claitor.

His colleague from across the aisle Representative Terry Landry is former law 
enforcement and says he's had a change of heart.

"I've evolved, initially I was pro-death penalty, working in law enforcement, 
seeing the carnage of violent crimes but I evolved basically having more facts.

Both lawmakers now believe the death penalty isn't a deterrent to violent 
crime.

"We in Louisiana have the highest per capita homicide in the U.S. and the death 
penalty and it's not making any difference so why follow that path," said 
Claitor.

Abolishing the death penalty has been attempted in the legislature before, with 
little support. And according to a poll by the Reilly Center for Media and 
Public Affairs at LSU's Manship School of Mass Communication a majority of 
Louisianans favor the death penalty.

When asked "Do you favor or oppose the death penalty for persons convicted of 
murder". 58% said they do. 34% oppose it.

Breaking the numbers down between Democrats and Republicans produce an even 
larger gap.

According to the research only 42% of Democrats are in favor of the death 
penalty while 74% of Republicans polled favor the death penalty.

So Senator Claitor has a tough sell in the Senate come April 8th.

"Oh you could definitely say I'm an outlier on this issue. But as more 
information is shared and people realize it's not an efficient program, and 
it's also exorbitantly expensive, we basically spent 100 million dollars in the 
last 10 years to get one volunteer, how effective is that program?" said 
Claitor.

Their legislation is being proposed as the State's death penalty, more 
specifically the type of drugs used to carry out the death penalty is being 
challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court.

An execution hasn't been carried out in Louisiana sense 2010.

An issue that could become a fodder for debate in the race for governor 
featuring a Democrat Governor, and 2 Republican challengers.

Claitor and Landry deny the court challenge has anything to do with their 
effort to get rid of Capitol Punishment in Louisiana.

According to Landry's version HB 215 the proposed change "eliminates the death 
penalty as a possible punishment for the crimes of 1st degree murder, 1st 
degree rape, and treason. Further, provides for the penalty of life 
imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence 
for these offenses."

The change in law would only apply to offenses committed on or after August 1st 
2019.

Prior death sentences would still apply.

(source: brproud.com)








OKLAHOMA:

Death penalty sought against Tulsa man in slayings of Muskogee brothers, 3 
other shootings



The Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office asked Wednesday for consideration 
of the death penalty against a man accused of killing two people and shooting 3 
others in separate incidents in September.

In a bill of particulars, District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler alleged Ondriel 
Layson Smith should face the possibility of capital punishment because, among 
other grounds, one of the homicides occurred in an attempt to avoid or prevent 
being arrested.

The document also reveals Smith has nine prior felony convictions and that his 
actions created “a great risk of death” to more than one person, which means 
there is a probability he would continue to commit acts of violence “that would 
constitute a continuing threat to society.”

One of his previous convictions was for attempted robbery with a firearm, which 
can be used as an aggravator in a request for a death sentence.

“In a 33-day period, the defendant shot 5 persons ... killing 2 of them,” the 
bill states, adding that evidence shows Smith shot another person about four 
months prior to the fatal shootings. That case was dismissed "pending further 
investigation" but can still be used as an aggravating factor in requesting the 
death penalty.

Smith is next due in court April 9 before District Judge Dawn Moody.

Smith, 35, was charged in the unrelated shootings of 3 people before his arrest 
Sept. 17 on an outstanding warrant for shooting with intent to kill related to 
an incident on April 22. The arrest followed a traffic stop in which officers 
said they chose to make contact after determining his vehicle matched the 
description of one suspected in a string of burglaries.

On Sept. 25, Tulsa Police added 2 1st-degree murder complaints against him in 
the double homicide of Keith Williams and Glynn Williams in the 5600 block of 
East Skelly Drive on Sept. 5.

Detectives have said they found a 9mm handgun in Smith’s vehicle on Sept. 17, 
and that cartridge casings matched those found at the site of the homicides as 
well as those recovered from a Sept. 11 double shooting at Incredible Pizza 
near 71st Street and Memorial Drive.

An arrest report indicates police learned Smith's ex-girlfriend purchased the 
9mm handgun in March from a pawn shop. She told police she was with Smith when 
he killed Muskogee brothers Keith and Glynn Williams.

The bill of particulars states prosecutors believe Glynn Williams was killed 
because Smith wanted to avoid arrest or prosecution for having shot Keith 
Williams to death in front of him.

In a Jan. 31 preliminary hearing, the ex-girlfriend alleged she later got in a 
fight with Smith that resulted in him pointing a gun at her and eventually 
shooting her in the leg.

Special Judge Millie Otey allowed the state to add a count of assault and 
battery with a dangerous weapon to the case against Smith apparently based on 
the ex-girlfriend's testimony, according to court minutes.

Smith, in an interview, denied involvement in the homicides but acknowledged 
having the firearm, according to the arrest report.

The reported victims in the shooting outside Incredible Pizza told police they 
received a text message from a man who owed one of them money and who asked 
them to meet. Smith is accused of firing at them when the male occupant exited 
his car to talk in the parking lot, injuring him and the woman. Both survived.

The man and woman told police Sept. 17 they found a photo of their assailant on 
Facebook, who they later learned was Smith.

Tulsa Police Homicide Sgt. Brandon Watkins said during the preliminary hearing 
that he initially had a separate investigation into the Incredible Pizza 
shooting because he believed it was unrelated to the deaths of Keith and Glynn 
Williams.

Smith is additionally charged with 4 counts of knowingly concealing stolen 
property and 4 drug-related offenses, as well as possession of paraphernalia 
and obstruction. The charges are related to what officers said they found in 
his vehicle during the Sept. 17 arrest.

(source: tulsaworld.com)



CALIFORNIA:

Californians continue to sour on death penalty, poll finds, feeding momentum to 
end it



A new poll found that Californians, by a 2-to-1 margin, support sentencing 
first-degree murderers to life in prison rather than the death penalty, an 
indication that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent decision to impose a moratorium on 
executions may align with public sentiment against capital punishment.

The poll results could potentially revive efforts to abolish the death penalty 
in California, including a proposed constitutional amendment being considered 
in the state Legislature that could land on the 2020 ballot, and embolden 
Newsom to take additional action against capital punishment. The Democratic 
governor already is considering prohibiting any new death sentences in local 
criminal cases.

The Public Policy Institute of California poll found that 62% of Californians, 
in cases of first-degree murder, favored a penalty of life imprisonment with 
absolutely no possibility of parole, compared with 31% who favored death 
sentences. Support for the death penalty in the state has steadily declined 
since 2000, when Californians were evenly divided on the issue, according to 
the institute’s polling over that time period.

“This is a case where public opinion continues to shift, and shift support away 
from the death penalty,” said Mark Baldassare, the institute’s president and 
chief executive.

However, the survey runs counter to recent statewide votes on capital 
punishment. Californians rejected proposals to abolish the death penalty in 
2016 and 2012.

Baldassare said the dissonance between recent polls and the outcome of two 
ballot measures was driven largely by the successful campaigns by death penalty 
supporters to highlight some of the most brutal and heinous killers on 
California’s death row.

“The campaigns in 2012 and 2016 were very effective in bringing up examples of 
horrible crimes that were committed, and it raised questions in people’s minds 
about whether they were prepared to make that decision,” Baldassare said. 
“Voters are always more willing to vote ‘no’ than ‘yes.’ ”

In the 2016 election, death penalty supporters aired ads featuring Sandra 
Friend of Yuba City, whose 8-year-old-son was sexually abused and killed by 
Robert Boyd Rhoades in the 1990s in what she described as “a parent’s worst 
nightmare.” Californians in that election not only rejected a ballot measure to 
abolish the death penalty, Proposition 62, they approved a competing measure to 
accelerate the appeals process in capital cases, Proposition 66.

Michael Rushford of the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, 
said the PPIC poll results historically have been misleading since the survey 
only asked Californians what penalty they favored for “1st-degree murder.”

“They should have asked the right question: What should the penalty be for the 
worst of the worst murderers … not what it should be if they kill someone in a 
bar fight,” Rushford said.

Rushford said his foundation and some law enforcement organizations, including 
the California District Attorneys Assn., are looking into what options they may 
have to challenge the governor’s moratorium on executions. The Republican 
caucus in the California Senate on Wednesday also issued a scathing rebuke 
against Newsom’s death penalty moratorium.

The Republicans posted a video on its Facebook page featuring Marc Klaas, the 
father of Polly Klaas, a 12-year-old who was raped and murdered in 1993. The 
man convicted of killing her, Richard Allen Davis, is on death row.

“The death penalty now is all about Gavin Newsom and what a wonderful guy he is 
for sparing these poor men that just didn’t get enough hugs from their moms and 
dads when they were little kids,” Klaas says in the video.

2 weeks ago, Newsom signed an executive order granting a blanket reprieve to 
all 737 condemned prisoners in California, the state with the largest death row 
in the nation. Newsom also ordered the dismantling of the execution chamber at 
San Quentin State Prison and ended the state’s ongoing efforts to devise a 
constitutional method for lethal injection.

“My ultimate goal is to end the death penalty in California,” Newsom said, 
vowing that California will not execute any death row prisoners while he is 
governor.

The PPIC poll was being conducted when Newsom announced the moratorium, and 
Baldassare said the pollsters were able to add the death penalty question 
quickly enough to record the opinions of 1,110 Californians.

Baldassare said Newsom’s advocacy against the capital punishment could also be 
a catalyst to increase support for abolishing the death penalty in California. 
The poll found Newsom’s approval rating to be high among likely voters at 45%, 
compared to 36% who disapprove. Among Democrats, 65% approve of the job he’s 
done thus far.

The PPIC poll revealed a sharpening partisan divide over the death penalty, 
with 76% of Democrats and 56% of independents supporting life imprisonment and 
64% of Republicans favoring the death penalty.

That by itself indicates that public support for abolishing the death penalty 
may continue to increase. California is a solidly Democratic state and GOP 
voter registration has been on a steady decline, so much so that “no party 
preference” voters now outnumber Republicans in the state.

The survey found that a sentence of life without the possibility of parole also 
was favored by both men and women and across a spectrum of ethnic groups, ages 
and education levels.

California’s divide on the death penalty was narrower among likely voters than 
it was for the population as a whole. Among likely voters, the survey found 
that 58% supported life imprisonment for those convicted of 1st-degree murder, 
compared with 38% who favored a death sentence.

On the day Newsom announced his moratorium on executions, Assemblyman Marc 
Levine (D-San Rafael) introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to ban the 
death penalty in California. The measure will appear on the 2020 ballot if 
approved by the Democratic supermajorities in both chambers of the California 
Legislature.

(source: Los Angeles Times)

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

Opposition to death penalty grows in California as Gavin Newsom halts 
executions



President Donald Trump accused Gov. Gavin Newsom “defying voters” by suspending 
California’s death penalty, but new polling suggests Californians are coming 
over to the Democratic governor’s side.

A record share of Californians told pollsters the state’s worst murderers 
should face life in prison instead of execution, according to a Public Policy 
Institute of California survey, which gauged opinions on issues from housing to 
pension liability.

Newsom faced harsh criticism from Republican leaders when he announced earlier 
this month he won’t allow executions during his term. Californians voted in 
2016 not only to uphold the state’s death penalty, but also to speed up 
executions.

But the Public Policy Institute’s results indicate if voters are asked again, 
they might side with Newsom. The poll found 62 % of California adults and 58 % 
of likely voters prefer life imprisonment to capital punishment for those 
convicted of 1st-degree murder.

PPIC surveyed 1,706 California adults between March 10 and March 19.

Newsom’s approval rating is 45 percent, about where it was last time PPIC 
surveyed Californians in January.

(source: sacbee.com)

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

Mother Lode death row----Local murderers’ executions on hold after moratorium



Earlier this month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order placing a 
moratorium on the death penalty in California, citing a morally unjust and 
“failed” system that discriminates against the mentally ill, the impoverished 
and racial minorities.

Although the order does not alter any existing convictions or sentences, the 
lethal injection chamber at San Quentin State Prison has been shut down, and 
the 25 death row inmates who have exhausted their appeals will no longer be 
eligible for an execution date during Newsom’s term.

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1978, the state of California 
has executed 13 inmates. The most recent execution was carried out in 2006.

With 737 inmates, California’s death row population is the largest in the 
nation. Calaveras County has produced some of the deadliest killers at San 
Quentin, with Wesley Shermantine, one of 81 inmates convicted of 4 or more 
killings, and Charles Ng – possibly the most prolific killer on death row – 
believed to have murdered as many as 25 men, women and children.

West Point property manager Sandy Maynard doesn’t like to revisit the memory of 
her one-time tenants Lonnie Bond, Brenda O’Connor and their infant son, 
murdered by Ng and his accomplice, Leonard Lake. However, she doesn’t mince her 
words when voicing her disapproval of the moratorium.

“I think we need the death penalty, and I think the governor is not acting in a 
way that the people support,” Maynard told the Enterprise.

Here are the Mother Lode murderers who are currently on death row.

Keith Adcox, 57

Modesto resident Keith Adcox was convicted of murdering fisherman David Orozco 
in 1982 while camping near the North Fork of the Tuolumne River. Adcox’s 
16-year-old girlfriend, Annette Tillery, allegedly proposed that Adcox, then 
20, and their 18-year-old acquaintance Howard Love kill a fisherman to obtain 
some money for cinnamon rolls. Adcox and Love accused each other of shooting 
Orozco in the head and stealing his wallet and car. The Tuolumne County 
Superior Court found both guilty, but Love was given a lesser sentence of life 
in prison. Adcox has been awaiting execution since 1983. Mother Lode murderers’ 
executions on hold after moratorium

Jerry Frye, 63

Jerry Frye, of Sacramento, was convicted of murdering elderly prospectors 
Robert and Lucille Brandt in 1985 while he was cultivating a marijuana farm at 
a gold mining claim in Amador County. According to his girlfriend’s testimony, 
Frye shot the couple with a shotgun inside their cabin, stealing their cash and 
gold. He was arrested months later in South Dakota after a domestic disturbance 
and admitted to the officer that he was wanted for double-murder. He was 
extradited to Amador County and sentenced to death in 1988.

Charles Ng, 58

Charles Ng and his accomplice, Leonard Lake, are believed to have raped, 
tortured and murdered as many as 25 victims in the mid-1980s at a “dungeon” 
near Lake’s cabin in Wilseyville. Lake died in custody after swallowing cyanide 
pills, and Ng was extradited to Calaveras County after fleeing to Canada. He 
was later tried in Orange County and convicted of 11 homicides, condemned by 
evidence including a mass grave, journaled accounts and video footage the pair 
compiled during their killings. Ng has remained on death row since 1999.

Wesley Shermantine, 53

One half of the “Speed Freak Killers,” Wesley Shermantine is suspected of 
committing dozens of murders in a methamphetamine-fueled killing spree between 
1984 and 1999, along with his longtime friend, Loren Herzog. The deadly duo, 
from Linden, was convicted in the deaths of 25-year-old Cyndi Vanderheiden and 
16-year-old Chevelle “Chevy” Wheeler, whose bodies were uncovered near San 
Andreas in 2012, as well as several other murders throughout Calaveras and San 
Joaquin counties. Herzog’s conviction was overturned and his sentence was 
reduced due to faulty police work, but he later hung himself after learning 
that Shermantine had released the location of a well site in Linden that proved 
to be a mass grave. Shermantine has claimed 72 murders and was convicted of 4. 
He was sentenced to death in 2001.

Cary Stayner, 57

While working as a handyman at Cedar Lodge near Yosemite National Park in 1999, 
Cary Stayner went on a killing spree. He was convicted of kidnapping and 
murdering hotel guests Carole Sund, her 15-year-old daughter Juli Sund, and 
16-year-old Argentinian exchange student Silvina Pelosso, as well as 
26-year-old naturalist Joie Ruth Armstrong. Carole Sund’s and Pelosso’s remains 
were discovered in Sund’s charred rental car in Tuolumne County. Juli Sund’s 
body was located days later after Stayner sent a letter to the FBI, and 
Armstrong’s decapitated body was found a few months later. Stayner was arrested 
within the year at a nudist resort and confessed to the murders. The 
defendant’s lawyers argued that he suffered from mental illness and had a 
history of abuse, but Stayner was found sane and was sentenced to death in 
2002.

(source: Calaveras Enterprise)

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

Ending a barbaric, discriminatory practice----Governor’s death-penalty 
moratorium a major step on a most egregious wrong



Gov. Gavin Newsom dealt a major blow to the nation’s already anemic death 
penalty when he announced a moratorium on the practice in California. With 737 
death row prisoners, the state has by far the nation’s largest death row, 
dwarfing the next largest states, Florida with 353 and Texas with 232. The 
death penalty is barbaric and riddled with error and bias, and other states 
should follow California’s lead in halting its use.

The death penalty is inseparable from the taint of racial discrimination. In 
fact, racial bias does not come at one stage of this process—it permeates the 
entire process. Prosecutors discriminate against jurors of color in jury 
selection, and the death penalty is used overwhelmingly in favor of white 
victims rather than victims of color.

Another problem: Five former death row prisoners have been exonerated in 
California, and there almost certainly are other innocent prisoners languishing 
under California’s broken system. There is also a base problem of unfairness 
with the practice that is largely unseen by the public in the form of abysmal 
lawyering.

It’s worth pointing out that Newsom is now part of an accelerating nationwide 
trend in the legislatures and courts—and among governors—that have weighed the 
death penalty’s fatal flaws and rejected it accordingly.

The Washington State Supreme Court ended the death penalty in 2018, becoming 
the third high court to reject the it on state constitutional grounds because 
of racial bias. Wyoming and Utah—both conservative states—each have come close 
to repealing the death penalty, based on concerns about costs and innocence. 
And a large number of governors have suspended the death penalty because of 
grave concerns with its fairness and applications.

The death penalty represents the most egregious wrong our criminal punishment 
system can mete out—taking someone’s life. Newsom has struck a blow against 
this barbaric and flawed practice. Legislators, justices and governors should 
take note. So should the U.S. Supreme Court.

The tide is turning, and now is the time to end this arbitrary, unfair and 
discriminatory method of punishment nationally.

(source: Guest Columnist; Cassandra Stubba is the director of the American 
Civil Liberties Union Capital Punishment Project----The News Review)








USA:

2019 Is a Groundbreaking Year for Eliminating Capital Punishment



There has been so much activity around the death penalty in the 3 short months 
of 2019 that I’ve found nearly every reporter I’ve talked to asks some form of 
the same question: “What is causing this?”

The answer is: a bipartisan insurgency against the death penalty has been 
rising for several years. In recent months, the mutiny has hit a crescendo.

The latest hit saw California Governor Gavin Newsom place a moratorium on 
capital punishment in early March, going so far as to close the state’s death 
chamber. For a state that has maintained the largest death row in the country 
and spent a jaw-dropping $4 billion dollars to execute 13 people, this was a 
very big deal.

On the other side of the aisle, we saw Republican Governor Mike DeWine of Ohio 
also place executions on hold as the state seeks a constitutional method by 
which to carry them out. Add to that the 8 states that have seen 
Republican-sponsored bills to repeal the death penalty thus far, and you have 
what is beginning to look like a consensus.

Perhaps the most surprising development this year comes from the U.S. Supreme 
Court, where there’s been a good bit of movement as well.

Shortly after his appointment, Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled that he just 
might be a dark horse on capital punishment, breaking with conservatives during 
oral arguments in a recent case that pertains to torture, the Eighth Amendment, 
and execution protocols.

The Supreme Court did decline to hear an appeal by a Georgia death row inmate, 
Keith Tharpe, whose lawyers argued that a racist juror helped sentence him to 
death. But the Court’s refusal centered around a technicality, and another 
capital case was just heard that focuses squarely on matters of racial bias 
within the death penalty. That case also is shedding light on the ongoing and 
rarely punished problem of prosecutorial misconduct.

The case of Curtis Flowers is one of the more shocking you’ll come across in 
the history of capital punishment. And that’s why it has garnered enormous 
attention from the national media. Season two of the popular podcast "In the 
Dark" focuses solely on this case.

Flowers, a Mississippi black man of limited means, was first accused in 1997 of 
the murder of 4 people in a furniture store where he briefly worked. The 
prosecutor, Doug Evans, sought the death penalty and secured that verdict 
despite shoddy evidence that mostly hinged on the testimony of jailhouse 
informants he had allegedly planted and cut deals with.

The Mississippi Supreme Court promptly overturned the verdict due to egregious 
prosecutorial misconduct by Evans, as it should have. But Curtis Flowers did 
not go free; Doug Evans simply prosecuted the case all over again. Let’s keep 
in mind that 70 % of the death penalty’s costs are incurred at the trial level, 
and that each death penalty case can cost 10 times that of a life without 
parole case.

During the 2nd trial, the prosecutor continued to break the rules. He suggested 
there was proof that a witness was lying (there wasn’t), and he referred to 
evidence that wasn’t in the record. Evans again achieved a death sentence that 
was later thrown out due to his own misconduct. Still, he was allowed to 
re-prosecute the case.

Beginning with trial number 3, Evans started stacking his juries. He used all 
of his strikes to remove African Americans from the jury pool. That jury 
convicted Flowers for a 3rd time, but since it is illegal to remove jury 
members based on race — yes, that’s also prosecutorial misconduct — this 
verdict was again reversed.

Trial number 4 resulted in a mistrial, and in trial 5 the train really came off 
the tracks.

The jury was once again deadlocked, with the one African American serving on 
the jury as the single holdout. The juror, a man named James Bibbs, did not 
feel there was enough evidence to convict Flowers. This resulted in the judge 
dressing him down in the courtroom and having him arrested for perjury. That 
case dragged on for eight months before Evans finally recused himself at the 
behest of Bibbs' lawyer, who argued it was a clear conflict of interest for 
Evans to prosecute a former juror. Once he recused himself, the state attorney 
general’s office quickly took over and asked that the court dismiss Bibbs’s 
case.

For the record, in both trials number 4 and 5, Evans continued to use his 
strikes to remove black jurors.

After all that, if you can believe it, there was a 6th trial, which brings us 
to the present day.

That case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, and Justice Kavanaugh is yet 
again signaling he won’t toe any party line when it comes to justice. Even 
Justice Clarence Thomas broke his 3-year silence and asked a question during 
the arguments. The court seems primed to rule in Flowers’ favor in a move that 
could pave the way for real reform on prosecutorial misconduct and racial bias 
in jury selections.

All in all, 2019 is shaping up to be a groundbreaking year when it comes to 
capital punishment — and the moment that the country really starts killing off 
the death penalty.

(source: Hannah Cox is the National Manager of Conservatives Concerned About 
the Death Penalty. Hannah was previously Director of Outreach for the Beacon 
Center of Tennessee, a free-market think tank. Prior to that, she was Director 
of Development for the Tennessee Firearms Association and a policy advocate for 
the National Alliance on Mental Illness----newsmax.com)

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

Grand jury indicts Springfield man in deputy’s death



A Winnebago County grand jury on Wednesday morning handed up a 75-count 
indictment against a Springfield man charged earlier this month in a federal 
task force agent’s fatal shooting in Rockford.

Floyd E. Brown, 39, is accused of shooting through the door of a room at 
Extended Stay America hotel, 747 N. Bell School Road, jumping out of a 
3rd-story window and then shooting McHenry County Sheriff’s Deputy Jacob 
Keltner in the parking lot outside before fleeing on March 7. Brown later was 
caught downstate.

“We have 75 charged and 5 victims,” Winnebago County State’s Attorney Marilyn 
Hite Ross said.

Keltner was shot outside the Rockford hotel while trying to arrest Brown with 
members of the U.S. Marshal’s Great Lakes Regional Fugitive Task Force.

The stiffest charges, those of 1st-degree murder, are punishable by what would 
amount to natural life in prison.

Brown initially was charged on March 8 by Winnebago County prosecutors with a 
sole count of 1st-degree murder.

A federal grand jury indicted Brown last week on 3 counts: murder of a federal 
law enforcement officer, illegal possession of firearms by a felon and illegal 
possession of firearms with an obliterated serial number. After Brown’s 
arraignment in federal court last week, John R. Lausch Jr., U.S. attorney for 
the Northern District of Illinois, said Brown had 4 firearms in his possession, 
all with the “serial numbers obliterated.” He declined to comment on the reason 
Brown and his girlfriend were in Rockford on March 7 and whether Brown was in 
town to sell any guns.

The federal murder charge, which carries the stiffest penalty, is punishable by 
life in prison or the death penalty. After receiving input from Keltner’s 
family, the defense and prosecutors, U.S. Attorney General William Barr will 
make the call as to whether they will seek the death penalty.

Brown is due back in U.S. District Court in Rockford on Thursday.

Nationwide, Keltner’s death marked the 24th in the line of duty law enforcement 
fatality this year, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial 
Fund. Keltner is survived by his sons, Caleb and Carson, and wife, Becki.

Keltner, a 5-year member of the U.S. Marshals Great Lakes Regional Fugitive 
Task Force, and a nearly 13-year veteran of the McHenry County Sheriff’s 
Office, was part of the team trying to serve arrest warrants on Brown in the 
hotel.

A woman, whom authorities have said was Floyd’s Brown’s girlfriend, also was 
injured before Brown fled the hotel.

Brown remains in custody but authorities won’t disclose his location since he 
is being held on federal charges.

(source: The State Journal-Register)