[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.C., FLA., TENN.

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 5



TEXAS----execution

Texas execution: Billy Jack Crutsinger killed mom, daughter and then drove 
their Cadillac to a bar



A Texas death row inmate was executed Wednesday evening for fatally stabbing an 
89-year-old woman and her daughter more than 16 years ago in their Fort Worth 
home.

Billy Jack Crutsinger, 64, received a lethal injection for the 2003 killings of 
Pearl Magouirk and her 71-year-old daughter Patricia Syren. Authorities say 
Crutsinger killed the women then stole Syren's Cadillac and credit card. He was 
arrested 3 days later at a bar in Galveston, more than 300 miles away.

Crutsinger's appellate attorney had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop his 
execution, alleging his previous lawyer had a long history of incompetence in 
death penalty cases.

"The jury heard nothing from the defense that provided an explanation about the 
disease of alcoholism in relation to the offense conduct," including "a history 
of domestic violence and abuse, and repeated losses of significant friends and 
relatives," Lydia Brandt, Crutsinger's current attorney, wrote in her one of 
her Supreme Court petitions.

At trial, prosecutor Michele Hartmann told jurors that Crutsinger's actions had 
nothing to do with alcohol but were the result of "evil."

Brandt also argued that lower courts have wrongly denied Crutsinger funding to 
investigate competency and mental health claims that were not sufficiently 
reviewed by prior attorneys.

But the Supreme Court, like lower appeals courts and the Texas Board of Pardons 
and Paroles, also declined to stop the execution. Crutsinger became the 14th 
inmate put to death this year in the U.S. and the 5th in Texas.

Friends and family described Magouirk, known as "R.D.," as an avid gardener. 
Syren volunteered as a receptionist at her church. Both women were retired and 
lived together.

Crutsinger had been "spiraling downward much of his adult life." He had three 
failed marriages and a propensity for violence when he drank, according to a 
report by a forensic psychologist hired by his trial attorneys.

In the months before the slayings, Crutsinger became homeless and increasingly 
desperate after his wife kicked him out and his mother, who had enabled his 
behavior, stopped helping him, according to the report.

Crutsinger offered to do some work for Magouirk and Syren in their home, but 
when he realized they didn't have enough work to give him much financial 
relief, he flew into an alcoholic rage, the report said.

"All of his anger at being left to fend for himself and of having his safety 
net taken from him was then brought to bear on the victims," according to the 
report.

Magouirk was stabbed at least 7 times while her daughter was stabbed at least 9 
times.

DNA evidence tied Crutsinger to the killings and he confessed to the crime.

In an email, Brandt described Crutsinger's previous appellate lawyer, Richard 
Alley, as a "great word processor" who cut and pasted "worthless" legal 
arguments from other cases and who was removed from another death row inmate's 
case and had been suspended from practicing in federal court.

Brandt alleged Alley performed similar shoddy work in at least 6 other death 
penalty cases. Four of those inmates have been executed. An attorney for former 
death row inmate Bobby Woods also alleged incompetent work by Alley before 
Woods was executed in 2009.

In 2006, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals removed Alley from its list of 
lawyers eligible to represent death row inmates in their appeals.

Alley died in 2017.

"I do the best I possibly can on all these cases," Alley told the Austin 
American-Statesman in a 2006 story that was part of a series that looked at bad 
work by court-appointed attorneys in death penalty appeals.

The Texas Attorney General's Office called Crutsinger's allegations against 
Alley "speculative" because he had not identified any claim that Alley should 
have raised but did not. The attorney general's office also said Crutsinger's 
case has received an "extensive review" during his appeals process.

(source: KVIA news)

*************************----impending execution

Death Watch: Mark Soliz Hopes One Stay Leads to Another----Death row inmate 
argues fetal alcohol spectrum disorder renders him unfit for execution



2 weeks after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the execution of 
mentally disabled Dexter Johnson, another Texas death row inmate is hoping for 
the same outcome. Mark Soliz filed several documents with the same court on 
Friday, Aug. 30, in hopes of staving off his upcoming execution on Sept. 10.

Soliz was sentenced to death in 2012 for the murder of Nancy Weatherly during a 
botched robbery of her home following a weeklong crime spree. Since the trial, 
Soliz's counsel has argued that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder renders him 
mentally unfit for execution under the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Atkins 
v. Virginia. Soliz now argues, as did Johnson, that recent changes to the 
American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 
Disorders (DSM-5) make his diagnosis the "'functional equivalent' of conditions 
already recognized as disqualifying exemptions to the death penalty."

During his initial state appeals, Soliz's Atkins claim was dismissed on the 
basis of his IQ score, but the APA's changes mean "higher IQ scores no longer 
bar a diagnosis of an intellectual disability," according to Soliz's filing, 
which continues: "Expansion of the Supreme Court's holding in Atkins to protect 
offenders suffering from FASD is a constantly evolving doctrine that merits 
further consideration." Soliz seeks permission from 5CA to file a 2nd appeal 
for relief in the U.S. District Court in Dallas.

The filing credits the 5CA's ruling in another Texas case – that of Eric 
Dewayne Cathey, who also filed an Atkins claim – for paving the way for 
Johnson's stay by considering "changes in the standards for psychiatric 
evaluation." Soliz's recent evaluation, paid for by his counsel, found he has 
an IQ of 75, squarely in the 70-84 range considered "borderline intellectual 
functioning."

Soliz's current requests ask the 5CA simply to decide if he can file additional 
appeals, not whether his claims entitle him to relief. On Sept. 4, Texas 
Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a 71-page response, arguing that Soliz is 
asking for a do-over; while Johnson did not actually raise an Atkins claim 
until the DSM-5 changes suggested he deserved one, Soliz "seeks an extension of 
Atkins" to include FASD.

Soliz's attorney Seth Kretzer told the Chronicle that his client's execution 
"should certainly be stayed. ... Mr. Soliz is a victim of his mother's 
ingestion of harmful substances in the womb. Supreme Court doctrine will not 
permit the execution of people who are functionally developmentally impaired."

The 5CA appeals were filed shortly after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 
August denied Soliz's requests for a stay and to appeal his sentence, ruling he 
failed to "satisfy the requirements" of state law and thus ignoring the 
specifics of his claim. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Soliz's 
previous round of appeals.

Without intervention from the courts, Soliz will be the 6th man executed by the 
state in 2019. As we went to print Wednesday night, Billy Crutsinger was killed 
after SCOTUS denied his stay request filed earlier in the day. Another nine men 
are slated to die by lethal injection before the end of the year.

(source: Austin Chronicle)

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

Capital murder trial for man accused of killing pregnant woman begins Monday -- 
Investigators found her body along a trail in Little Elm one morning in March 
2016. It looked like she had been stabbed around the neck, according to an 
arrest affidavit. When they checked inside the woman’s purse, investigators 
found identification for Anjanette Harris and a sonogram photo. She was 
pregnant.



More than 3 years later, a jury trial will begin Monday morning for Daniel 
Greco. The 38-year-old from Little Elm is accused of killing Harris and her 
unborn child. Authorities say Greco and Harris dated for 2 years before the 
killing but that Greco denied being the child’s father.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys have worked since early July to select the 12 
jurors and their alternates. The trial is scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. 
Monday inside Judge Jonathan Bailey’s 431st District Court.

Greco is charged with capital murder. If he is convicted, the Denton County 
District Attorney’s Office has said it will seek the death penalty — the 1st 
time it has done so since 2011.

Throughout the pretrial phase, Greco’s defense attorneys have challenged the 
state with this underlying question: Why is this murder case the one in which 
the district attorney has chosen to seek the death penalty?

“It strikes us as odd,” said Derek Adame, Greco’s lead attorney. “We believe 
there are significant evidentiary problems for the district attorney’s office 
that they’re going to have to overcome.”

The defense made several motions as it sought to get that question answered. 
Among those motions was one to dismiss the entire case. In that one, the 
attorneys, Adame and Caroline Simone, argued that the doctor who did the 
autopsy did not properly keep and document biological evidence that was 
critical to understanding how Harris received the stab wounds.

“We would have had more evidence available to us for our experts to analyze,” 
Adame said Tuesday. “They basically made it impossible to check their work by 
destroying evidence.”

Judge Bailey ultimately denied that motion.

A Texas Ranger wrote in the original arrest warrant affidavit that Greco told 
investigators he bound Harris’ feet and hands and slapped duct tape over her 
mouth, something he said they did normally during their 2-year relationship. 
Next he wrapped a “piece of rubber material” around Harris’ neck, the document 
shows.

Greco said he knew Harris was pregnant at the time, police reported.

Greco told investigators he knew Harris was dead after she stopped breathing, 
her eyes no longer moving, police reported. He then put her body in the bed of 
his truck.

Authorities found video of Greco’s truck driving toward the area where she was 
found and shortly after driving back — with the tailgate dropped — toward his 
residence.

In picking the jurors, Adame said it was important to root out anyone who 
betrayed a bias in favor of law enforcement or the death penalty. He said his 
team is satisfied with the people chosen to sit on the jury.

“We think they’re going to be abundantly fair and give us every opportunity to 
present our case,” Adame said.

(source: Denton Record-Chronicle)

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

Why Pope Francis and the Texas bishops are trying to save a man on death row



The Catholic bishops in Texas are aiding efforts to stop the execution of a man 
whose case has captured Pope Francis’s attention amid a shift in the church to 
reject the death penalty in all circumstances.

As the Supreme Court prepares to decide in October whether to hear the case of 
Argentina native Victor Hugo Saldaño, the Texas Catholic Bishops Conference is 
lobbying the justices to lessen his sentence. Saldaño’s death sentence was 
first thrown out by the Supreme Court over a determination of racial bias, and 
the bishops argue that he was resentenced to death because solitary confinement 
had driven him to mental decline.

“The remedy for the violation of his rights cannot be another death sentence, 
but commutation of the sentence to life imprisonment,” attorneys for the 
bishops wrote last month in a petition to the Supreme Court.

Saldaño’s case has been of particular interest to Pope Francis, who also hails 
from Argentina. Saldaño’s mother, Lidia Guerrero, has said the pontiff told her 
in 2014 that he was praying for her son, who was convicted in a 1995 killing. 
Guerrero also has met with Pope Francis twice.

The Texas bishops’ intervention comes a year after Pope Francis revised 
Catholic teaching to hold that capital punishment is always inadmissible and an 
affront to the “dignity of the person.” The church had said the death penalty 
could be acceptable in rare cases.

This evolution in church teaching has been met with some resistance, including 
from five cardinals and bishops who in May signed a “declaration of truths” 
that they said reaffirmed the church’s position on issues including capital 
punishment. The Church, the document says, “did not err in teaching that the 
civil power may lawfully exercise capital punishment on malefactors where this 
is truly necessary to preserve the existence or just order of societies.”

The Texas bishops wrote in their petition that they were pleading Saldaño’s 
case not only because it involved the church’s position on the sanctity of 
human life, but also because the church holds that racial bias like that 
employed against Saldaño is evil.

Saldaño was convicted in 1996 of capital murder for kidnapping a man at a 
supermarket in Plano, Tex., driving him to a local lake and fatally shooting 
him. At Saldaño’s trial, a state psychologist, Walter Quijano, testified that 
Saldaño’s Hispanic heritage put him at a higher risk for perpetrating future 
violence.

Saldaño’s case rose to the Supreme Court in 2000 and elicited an admission from 
Texas’s attorney general that the race-based testimony had made Saldaño’s 
sentencing hearing unconstitutionally flawed, the bishops’ petition says. The 
court sent the case back to Texas, the petition says, but Saldaño had become 
mentally unstable by the time he got a new trial in 2004.

Saldaño was kept for four years before the retrial at Polunsky Unit in 
Livingston, Tex., where the petition says inmates stay alone in six-by-nine 
foot cells guarded by steel doors for 23 hours each day. Food is slipped 
through the bottom of the doors, the petition says, and visitors are not 
allowed. Saldaño attempted suicide in 2001, spent several periods of time in a 
psychiatric hospital and collected disciplinary infractions because of his 
mental decline, the petition says.

To sentence a defendant to death in Texas, a jury has to find they have a high 
likelihood of “future dangerousness,” said Jonathan Miller, an attorney for 
Argentina’s government, which is also advocating for Saldaño’s sentence to be 
commuted. At his retrial, Saldaño masturbated in front of jurors, looked at 
people strangely and spoke incoherently, Miller said, influencing the jury’s 
decision that he posed a continued threat to the public.

“He was so degraded mentally that it made any kind of analysis of future 
dangerousness impossible,” Miller, who is also a professor at Southwestern Law 
School, told The Washington Post. “How do you evaluate someone for future 
dangerousness if they’ve been in severe isolation for many years and they’re no 
longer the same person anymore?”

Texas has executed far more prisoners since 1977 than any other state, 
according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Recently, Larry Swearingen 
was executed Aug. 21 for killing a college student in 1998. He maintained until 
his death that he had not committed the murder.

(source: Washington Post)

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

Lawyers respond to Gov. Abbott's request to fast track executions for mass 
murderers



We are taking a closer look into a tweet by Governor Greg Abbott where he’s 
asking the legislature to speed up the death penalty process for convicted mass 
murderers.

This is following the mass shootings in El Paso and Odessa.

According to a death penalty lawyer, death penalty cases in Texas are actually 
tried pretty quick. Things slow down when they hit the Federal Court of 
Appeals.

In the tweet, the Governor linked to an article from the Blaze. The article 
cites a Bloomberg article stating the Department of Justice is drafting 
legislation to speed up the execution of people convicted of mass murder.

According to Joe Hoelscher, the managing attorney with Hoelscher, Gebbia, 
Cepeda PLLC, there are federal laws in place which would allow for a faster 
appeals process in a provision in the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death 
Penalty Act. He says the state tried to apply for that provision a couple years 
ago, but Texas didn’t qualify.

“We are fully capable of putting innocent people on death row and leaving them 
there for decades even after their innocence is established and we just haven’t 
developed a reliable system and making sure we're executing the right people," 
said Hoelscher.

Hoelscher went on to add expediting executions would likely not scare mass 
murderers because the majority of them are willing to die anyways.

“The effective changes won’t be trying to kill these people faster, we have to 
figure out how to stop them from killing in the first place,” Hoelscher said.

“The first thing that we could do to expedite capital litigation for mass 
shootings is eliminate habeas action,” said Robert Gebbia, a partner at 
Hoelscher, Gebbia, Cepeda PLLC.

Gebbia added changes could be made in the law specifically for those who commit 
mass shootings.

“You re-classify the crime from capital murder multiple persons to capital 
murder mass shootings. You change the range of punishment, you change the 
process around and you eliminate habeas,” Gebbia said.

Even if these changes are made, both lawyers agree this would likely not be a 
deterrent for shootings like we have seen in Sutherland Springs, El Paso and 
Midland-Odessa.

“That’s a mental health problem, that’s a gun problem, that’s a societal 
problem, and we don’t have a lot to do with that here. We just try to correct 
things after they’ve happened,” Gebbia said.

Multiple requests to Gov. Abbott's office for comment haven't been returned.

(source: foxsanantonio.com)








PENNSYLVANIA:

Hill-Evans and others wait as Pa. Supreme Court hears death penalty challenge



State Rep. Carol Hill-Evans, D-York City, is just one among a bipartisan group 
of legislators who are hoping the state Supreme Court will be convinced 
Wednesday by attorneys arguing that the death penalty is unconstitutional.

On Wednesday, Sept. 11, at least four entities will argue in front of the state 
Supreme Court in a hearing that could ultimately see Pennsylvania's death 
penalty struck down.

“If we want to be leaders in criminal justice, we need to do away with these 
archaic laws and abolish the death penalty for good," Hill-Evans wrote in a 
press release. "... This penalty is unjustly applied to minority and low-income 
individuals more than others."

The session of oral arguments will be a climax to a year-long effort by lawyers 
from the Philadelphia-based Federal Community Defender Office, which last year 
filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to intervene in 2 high-profile cases 
and use "king's bench jurisdiction" to declare the death penalty 
unconstitutional.

The lawyers represent two inmates sentenced to death in the 1990s: Jermont Cox, 
who was put on death row for a 1996 murder in Philadelphia; and Kevin 
Marinelli, who was condemned after killing a man in Northcumberland County in 
1994.

Since the Supreme Court agreed to take the case, the attorneys have used a 
variety of weapons in the fight, one of which was a legislative report last 
year that detailed significant faults in the state's death penalty laws.

The report found that a significant amount of death penalty cases were later 
overturned because of a lack inadequate legal representation. It also found 
defendants were more likely to be sentenced to death if the victim was white.

Most recently, the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office released a brief 
after the higher court asked it to look at Philadelphia death row inmates due 
the sheer volume of criminals given the death penalty within its boundaries.

The Philadelphia DA's examination found a variety of statistics deemed 
troubling by those involved. For example, of the 155 cases examined, 72% of the 
death sentences were later overturned, a majority of which were because of the 
"ineffective assistance of trial counsel."

The report also found 91% of those on death row were members of minority groups 
— 82% were black despite comprising 45% of Philadelphia’s population. A heavy 
majority couldn't afford an attorney.

The Philadelphia DA's office believes the 2 reports' correlating findings gives 
the case against the death penalty even more merit.

"The DEO did not base its findings on the report; that's completely separate," 
said Jane Roh, spokeswoman for the DA's Office. "But it definitely conforms 
with the report's finding that the death penalty is in serious need for reform 
and review."

Parties arguing to abolish the death penalty are the Philadelphia DA's office 
and a lawyer from the Federal Community Defender Office. The state Attorney 
General's Office and a lawyer representing Republican lawmakers will argue in 
favor of the penalty.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro has voiced his support for the death 
penalty in the most for "the most heinous of crimes," and he's also opposed 
king's bench jurisdiction, claiming it's not up to the court to create 
policies.

Proponents of the death penalty have argued that it is more cost-effective than 
life in prison and deters people from violent crimes.

However, studies have shown putting an individual on death row is more 
expensive, and there is no proof to support the deterrent claim. Hill-Evans 
also believes it is unconstitutional for another reason.

"It is unconstitutional under Pennsylvania’s ban against cruel punishment," 
Hill-Evans said. "This does nothing to deter criminals and gives no peace to 
the families of victims. Furthermore, it eliminates any possibility of 
rehabilitation.”

The Supreme Court's opinion on the petition, if in favor of the plaintiffs, 
would buck the trend of unsuccessful attempts from Democrats and some 
Republicans to make the state the 22nd in the nation to abolish the death 
penalty.

Most recently, in April state Reps. Christopher Rabb, D-Philadelphia County, 
and Frank Ryan, R-Lebanon County, announced their intentions to form bipartisan 
coalition to draft legislation to eliminate capital punishment in Pennsylvania.

The proposal has not yet been drafted into legislation.

Pennsylvania has only executed 3 individuals since 1976. In 2015, Gov. Tom Wolf 
promptly levied a moratorium prohibiting the death penalty. It is still in 
effect.

(source: yorkdispatch.com)

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

Vicki Schieber: Pennsylvania's death penalty doesn’t serve victims like me -- 
The only way to ensure that the state does not execute an innocent person is to 
stop using the death penalty altogether



When I was a young mother of my beautiful baby girl Shannon many years ago, I 
could never have imagined I would lose her to violent crime. I never suspected 
that her death would propel our family into the debate on Pennsylvania’s system 
of capital punishment, or that I would later be asked to serve on a government 
committee studying it. I never knew I would learn that Pennsylvania’s death 
penalty is too broken to fix and does not serve victims like me.

However, all of those things did happen. Now I want to add my voice to the many 
asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to abolish Pennsylvania’s capital 
punishment system, as other states have done.

Shannon was a beautiful and brilliant student at Philadelphia’s Wharton School 
when she was murdered by a serial rapist in 1998. Prior to her loss, I had not 
given the death penalty much thought — similar to most Americans, I would 
guess.

When our daughter’s killer was being tried in court, my husband and I turned to 
our Catholic faith and realized that we did not support the death penalty and 
that executing her murderer would not honor Shannon. Rather than respecting our 
views, the prosecutors in the case insulted us. The district attorney even 
publicly questioned our emotional health merely because we did not support the 
sentence he wanted to pursue.

Since then, I have found great solace in working as an advocate for victims who 
have suffered the same profound grief as our family did. The families I work 
with inspire me, and their healing has helped my own.

In December 2011, I was asked to join the advisory committee working with 
legislators studying Pennsylvania’s death penalty. For seven years, we reviewed 
data, held hearings and spoke to people affected by the death penalty. In 2018, 
the final report concluded that Pennsylvania’s death penalty is in dire need of 
immediate reform. It mapped out specific suggestions to improve the problems, 
but so far, none of our recommendations have been implemented.

Perhaps the report’s worst finding was that the death penalty in Pennsylvania 
is simply not accurate or reliable. With literally hundreds of death sentences 
overturned in past decades and six prisoners exonerated from death row, the 
report found that the only way to ensure that Pennsylvania does not execute an 
innocent person is to stop using the death penalty altogether.

The years of work I did with the committee studying Pennsylvania’s death 
penalty system left me with no doubt that it is deeply unfair and broken. My 
experience as a victim’s mother — being mocked and disrespected during the 
trial of my daughter’s killer — showed me that victims’ interests are not 
served by the death penalty.

The case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court argues that Pennsylvania’s death 
penalty system is cruel. I have lived that truth. Victims deserve better than 
endless trials and appeals that expend countless dollars on death penalty 
cases. We deserve better than a system meting out the ultimate punishment in 
our name whether we want it or not.

Pennsylvania should abolish the death penalty and replace it with a system that 
truly honors victims and their surviving family members.

(source: Commentary; Vicki Schieber served on the Pennsylvania Advisory 
Committee on Capital Punishment from 2011 to 2018----Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)








NORTH CAROLINA:

NC Supreme Court Considers Racial Bias Claims in Death Penalty Cases

In the coming weeks, 6 North Carolinians currently on death row will find out 
if they will get new hearings and be re-sentenced to life without parole.

The defendants, including five men and one woman, maintain that racial bias 
played a role in their sentencing.

Back in 2009, state legislators passed the Racial Justice Act, a law allowing 
people on death row to petition to be re-sentenced to life without parole if 
they could prove that racial bias was a factor in a court's decision to pursue 
capital punishment.

In 2013, the law was repealed.

The state Supreme Court heard the defendants' cases last week, and David Weiss, 
an attorney for one of them, says the high court next will decide their fates.

"One of the main issues that's before the court now is whether people who have 
filed claims under the racial justice act can proceed with those claims," he 
states.

Weiss says it will be several months before the justices render a decision.

Among other evidence of discrimination, Weiss and a team of attorneys found 
systemically unfair practices of jury selection among prosecutors.

"We found rampant discrimination in the way that capital juries are selected,” 
he states. “Black citizens who are qualified to serve on capital juries are 
removed by prosecutors from those juries at incredibly disproportionate rates 
when you compare them to white jurors. "

Out of the 6 defendants, 3 were given death penalty sentences by all white 
juries.

Weiss points out that prosecutors often aren't required to provide any 
explanation for removing prospective jurors.

He says other states have abolished the death penalty on similar grounds.

"The Washington Supreme Court recently got rid of the death penalty because of 
evidence of racial bias,” he states. “The Connecticut Supreme Court over the 
past few years did likewise. So, that's absolutely one option that's available 
to the court."

According to the state Department of Public Safety, 142 people currently are on 
death row in North Carolina.

(source: publicnewsservice.org)








FLORIDA:

Parkland killer’s legal team wants prosecutor tossed over ‘worse than Ted 
Bundy’ comment----Prosecutors released video of Nikolas Cruz's interrogation 
hours after he killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High on Feb. 14, 
2018.



Defense lawyers for Nikolas Cruz want to boot Broward State Attorney Mike Satz 
off the case for refusing to even entertain waiving the death penaty — and 
because they say he called the Parkland school shooter “evil; worse than Ted 
Bundy.”

Cruz’s lawyers, in a motion filed recently, argue that Satz and his office 
should be disqualified from the case because they won’t consider “mitigation,” 
or details of Cruz’s life story that might sway prosecutors to drop the death 
penalty as a possible punshment for fatally shooting 17 students and staffers 
in February 2018.

“The State Attorney’s determination that Mr. Cruz is evil does not appear to be 
a reasoned decision but instead a decision based on caprice and emotion,” the 
Broward Public Defender’s office wrote in a motion to disqualify Satz and his 
entire office from the case.

No hearing date has been set for Broward Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer to 
consider the request. If granted, prosecutors from another county would have to 
be appointed to handle the case.

Cruz has a routine court hearing on Monday, although it was unclear if Judge 
Scherer would entertain the request then. The State Attorney’s Office plans to 
issue a written response. “We will be opposing the motion, but reserve further 
comment for the courtroom and court documents,” according to a State Attorney’s 
spokeswoman.

Cruz, now 20, is accused of fatally shooting 17 people, and wounding 17 more, 
at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High on Feb. 14, 2018. It was the worst school 
shooting in Florida history, and sparked a wave of student activism, renewed 
political tension over gun control and forced the normally firearm-friendly 
Florida Legislature to pass a law tightening access to the weapons.

After his arrest blocks from the school that day, few doubted that Cruz would 
face the death penalty.

Cellphone video released by the Broward State Attorney's Office shows confessed 
school shooter Nikolas Cruz giving a detailed account of how he was going to 
pull off his attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, 
Florida.

The murder spree was well-orchestrated — Cruz made cellphone videos detailing 
his plans, took an Uber to the school and methodically went up and down the 
halls mowing down students and staff with an AR-15. Cruz, a former student with 
a long history of violence toward animals and threats of violence against other 
young people, also confessed to the murders, according to the Broward Sheriff’s 
Office.

With plenty of eyewitnesses who knew Cruz, surveillance videos and the 
confession, there’s never been any question over whether he was the gunman. An 
insanity defense is also a challenge — defense lawyers would have to prove he 
didn’t know right from wrong, always a tough sell to jurors.

It was against that backdrop that Broward Public Defender Howard Finkelstein, 
in a rare move, immediately announced Cruz would plead guilty if Satz agreed to 
allow a sentence of life in prison. Satz, in a statement after the arrest, 
said: “This certainly is the type of case the death penalty was designed for. 
This was a highly calculated and premeditated murder of 17 people and the 
attempted murder of everyone in that school.”

After a grand jury indicted Cruz for 17 counts of 1st-degree murder, 
prosecutors as expected announced they would seek the death penalty.

In capital litigation, defense lawyers are allowed to present “mitigation,” in 
this case Cruz’s long history of mental health trouble, missed warning signs 
about his potential for violence and tumultuous family life. If prosecutors 
decide the mitigation isn’t enough to warrant waiving the death penalty, jurors 
can hear that mitigation — and decide for themselves if execution is the proper 
punishment.

Satz, who is retiring after more than 4 decades in the elected office, is 
prosecuting the case himself along with a team of high-level prosecutors. 
According to Cruz’s motion, defense attorney Melisa McNeill in February asked 
Satz about revisiting the decision to seek death.

The state attorney, according to the defense, replied “that there is no 
mitigating evidence he would consider and that he will not waive the death 
penalty in this case. Satz explained that he believes Mr. Cruz is ‘evil; worse 
than Ted Bundy,’” a reference to the notorious serial killer who was executed 
in Florida in 1989.

“Satz’s refusal to even consider mitigation evidence” violates “Mr. Cruz’s due 
process rights and his right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment,” the 
defense said in its 15-page request.

The motion also said Satz’s refusal to entertain a life prison sentence is an 
“abuse of Satz’s prosecutorial discretion, and violates the ethical rules 
governing prosecutors.” The motion also criticizes Satz’s decision to bring 
back four high-ranking prosecutors, who are retired or are retiring, on a 
contract basis to help with the Parkland case

(source: miamiherald.com)








TENNESSEE:

The inadequacy of human judgment: liberty and justice for all?



It’s been more than 50 years since Gov. Frank Clement worked to abolish 
Tennessee’s death penalty. Though his efforts narrowly failed in the state 
legislature, Clement’s message rings true still.

“Can anyone deny that human judgment is inadequate?” He asked in his 1965 
speech to the state legislature.

The dubious adequacy of our judgment was front-and-center recently, in this 
instance the impact of racial bias in the sentencing of Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman. 
District Attorney Glenn Funk acknowledged prosecutorial misconduct in the 1987 
sentencing. The DA reached an agreement with Abdur’Rahman’s attorney to vacate 
the death penalty and have him serve a life sentence instead (consecutive to 
three other life sentences). Criminal Court Judge Monte Watkins approved the 
deal on Aug. 30.

Many studies have found that racial bias has played a role in the uneven 
application of the death penalty. The Death Penalty Information Center has 
reported results in line with our district attorney’s office, particularly when 
considering the race of the victim.

“Racial bias against defendants of color and in favor of white victims has a 
strong effect on who is capitally prosecuted, sentenced to death, and 
executed,” reports the DPIC.

I think that in 2019, we might describe that as a blinding glimpse of the 
obvious.

Defendants are punished more severely if the victim is white, which is indeed 
an unfair application of the death penalty. But the unfair application of the 
penalty does not necessarily mean that the conviction itself is unfair. I think 
the DPIC data speaks more to the unfair treatment of the victims than the 
unfair treatment of the criminal. If anything, these findings support the 
championing of fairness for all victims, regardless of the color of their skin.

The DPIC also points out disparities with regard to the racial makeup of people 
convicted of capital crimes. The group points toward racial bias in those 
convicted, but we can’t say that Tennessee mirrors the findings of the DPIC. 
When you look at the map of their data on the racial breakdown of those 
executed on death row, Tennessee has executed substantially more white death 
row inmates than members of any other race. This holds true for other states as 
well, including Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Florida, Virginia, Georgia and 
Alabama.

But we shouldn’t get lost in the analysis of data and forget the lives that the 
data represent. Viewing capital punishment as a data point or as a line item on 
a governmental budget makes it easy to forget that we are considering the value 
of human life.

Do we have the moral right and authority to commit people to death for their 
crimes? Are we absolutely certain that our judicial system is fair and blind to 
bias, as it was designed to be?

There is much disagreement over whether people convicted of murder deserve to 
die for their crimes. But we all agree on one thing: The victims most certainly 
did not deserve to die. Our debates too often forget the horrific crimes that 
put these criminals on death row. Victims cannot speak for themselves, and as a 
society, we must speak for them.

Many people say that the death penalty reflects negatively on our society — 
that Americans’ willingness to sentence criminals to death is a sign of 
brutality and ignorance. We will never be able to resolve this debate without 
first addressing the violent crime in our communities and the inequities of our 
system of justice. We must make sure that we don’t imprison or put to death an 
innocent person, and seek justice for every innocent victim.

Gov. Clement had it right. Human judgment is indeed inadequate.

(source: Opinion; Bill Freeman is the owner of FW Publishing, the publishing 
company that produces the Nashville Scene, Nfocus, the Nashville Post and Home 
Page Media Group in Williamson County----The Nashville Scene)