[Deathpenalty] death penalty news---WYO., UTAH, ARIZ., NEV., ORE

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 18




WYOMING:

Suspect in Deadly Cheyenne Shooting Could Face the Death Penalty



A 25-year-old Cheyenne man could face the death penalty after allegedly killing 
2 people and seriously injuring 2 others in a shooting in east Cheyenne. Andrew 
Weaver was booked into the Laramie County jail Monday night on 2 charges of 
1st-degree murder and 2 charges of aggravated assault. He has yet to make his 
initial court appearance.

Weaver is accused of killing 37-year-old Adrien Butler and 30-year-old Shaline 
Wymer, who were found shot to death inside their home at 3436 E. 11th Street 
around 4:30 p.m. Monday.

Police spokesman Officer Kevin Malatesta says 2 14-year-old Cheyenne boys, 
whose names aren't being released, were also in the house and suffered 
life-threatening injuries.

"They are all unrelated," said Malatesta, who didn't know why the teens were in 
the house.

"Last I knew, which was this (Tuesday) morning, they were both in the 
hospital," he added. "One had been life-flighted to Denver and the other is 
here at CRMC."

Malatesta says police "have evidence to believe" the shooting was 
methamphetamine-related.

The case remains under investigation by the Cheyenne Police Department.

(source: KGAB news)








UTAH:

Should religious ‘delusions’ keep Ron Lafferty from a Utah firing 
squad?----Inmate wants federal appeals court to rehear arguments it rejected 
last month



Condemned killer Ron Lafferty wants a federal appeals court to rehear arguments 
it rejected last month that would keep him from facing a firing squad.

Lafferty’s federal public defenders filed a brief Monday seeking an “en banc” 
hearing before the entire 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. En banc 
hearings are rarely granted.

A 3-judge panel last month rejected his request for a certificate of appeal, a 
legal document required for another court to hear arguments that a prior appeal 
was wrongfully denied. State attorneys said after that ruling that Lafferty 
could be months away from execution.

Lafferty’s lawyers argue that the panel’s decision conflicts with previous U.S. 
Supreme Court decisions on a defendant’s mental health.

The judges rejected Lafferty’s claim that a 4th District judge erred in finding 
him competent to stand trial in 1996. They also rejected his contention that 
the judge improperly relied on a psychiatrist’s opinion that Lafferty was 
“situationally competent.”

Lafferty and his brother, Dan Lafferty, were convicted of slitting the throats 
of his sister-in-law, Brenda Lafferty, and her infant daughter, Erica, in 1984 
— crimes they committed after Ron Lafferty claimed a revelation from God told 
him to kill them.

A jury convicted Ron Lafferty in 1985 and sentenced him to die. In a separate 
trial, a jury convicted Dan Lafferty and sentenced him to life in prison. Ron 
Lafferty was retried in 1996 after an appeals court found the judge used the 
wrong standard in finding him competent for trial. A jury again convicted him 
and sentenced him to die. He chose the firing squad.

One psychiatrist testified at a 1996 competency hearing that Lafferty’s buttons 
could be pushed in some instances by defense attorneys or prosecutors who could 
manipulate him and render him incompetent. Therefore, he found that Lafferty 
was “situationally competent” because he worked well with his lawyers and they 
were skilled at dealing with him.

The judge in 1996 also relied on a theory of delusions that was not accepted in 
the medical community, according to Lafferty’s latest court filing. The court 
failed to take into account that Lafferty’s severe delusions, which stemmed 
from his mental illness, prevented him from rationally understanding his legal 
proceedings and assisting his attorneys, according to the court filing.

Mental health experts testified that Lafferty received revelations, some of 
which came from God, but some of which came from evil beings or spirits he 
called “travelers.”

Lafferty identified the “travelers” as homosexual spirit beings with the power 
to inhabit the bodies of living persons or hosts, including the judge, the 
prosecutors, the experts, his lawyers, witnesses and the jurors. Travelers have 
the power to “exude evil” and to control the persons they inhabit. They have 
the ability to travel from one human host to another since they knew the “key 
words” necessary to travel, according to court testimony.

Two of the experts testified that Lafferty referred to some of the travelers as 
“factors”: the “B factor” was Beelzebub/Buddha/Mormon/Japan; the “M factor” was 
Lucifer/Mussolini/Moroni; and the “H factor” was Satan/Hitler/and Lafferty’s 
father, Watson. Lafferty also believed that he was enlisted in a war between 
good and evil on the side of God in a premortal existence in which he did 
spiritual battle with Lucifer. Experts testified that Lafferty believed he had 
“Christ-like powers.”

One psychiatrist conceded in his testimony that Lafferty’s beliefs were bizarre 
and not shared by any other religious group or any other single person. He also 
testified that Lafferty’s unusual religious ideas were “his own theological 
concept.”

Lafferty’s attorneys contend those findings meet the definition for delusions, 
and had the judge not relied on an “unverifiable” theory of delusions, he would 
have found Lafferty incompetent.

“The trial court treated Lafferty’s irrational belief system as irrelevant to 
whether he was rationally understanding his proceedings, despite that fact that 
Lafferty’s beliefs were pervasive and involved bizarre beliefs about his case, 
the court players, and the entire legal system,” according to the court filing.

Lafferty’s public defenders also argue that during the penalty phase of the 
1996 trial, the jurors never heard how evidence of his mental illness or mental 
state that could have been considered as mitigating factors to capital 
punishment.

“Evidence of this type would have weighed heavily against imposing the death 
penalty,” according to the court filing.

(source: deseret.com)








ARIZONA:

Media should hear Arizona executions, US appeals court rules



A federal appeals court says media should be able to hear and not just see the 
entire process of executing condemned inmates in Arizona.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the media and 
death-row inmates are not entitled to information about the origins of 
execution drugs or the qualifications of executioners.

The case challenges procedures created after the 2014 execution of Joseph Wood, 
which his attorney said was “horrifically botched.” Those procedures allow 
journalists to witness executions through a window, but a microphone is turned 
off once an intravenous line is inserted.

The case was brought by seven condemned inmates and the First Amendment 
Coalition of Arizona.

They argued the information would help the public determine whether the death 
penalty is carried out humanely.

(source: Brown County Democrat)








NEVADA:

Email shows reluctance to prosecute suspects in Nevada inmate’s death



Almost 3 years after a Nevada prisoner was fatally stabbed, a top prosecutor in 
the state attorney general’s office recommended that no charges be filed 
against the suspects, according to an email obtained by the Las Vegas 
Review-Journal.

“Absent some great testimony from a gang expert, I don’t see this as a case 
that should be filed,” Michael Kovac, chief deputy in the attorney general’s 
criminal prosecution unit, wrote in a November 2018 email to three other 
prosecutors.

In the email’s subject line are the words “Williams and Goicoechea,” a 
reference to Anthony “Mugsy” Williams and Tarik “Torque” Goicoechea, reputed 
members of the Aryan Warriors prison gang who were suspected of stabbing 
26-year-old Andrew Thurgood dozens of times inside a cell in February 2016.

“Thurgood comes off as completely unhinged and very likely an aggressor,” Kovac 
wrote.

Williams had been released from High Desert State Prison in May 2018 without 
facing charges in the killing and went on to commit a series of armed 
robberies.

In his email, Kovac described Thurgood as “the one running up on people and 
inviting them to his cell to fight” and added, “There’s no way to look at this 
objectively and say that it’s not just as likely (if not far more likely) that 
he was the aggressor.”

But in a sweeping indictment against the Aryan Warriors unsealed a month ago, 
the Clark County district attorney’s office announced murder charges against 
Williams and Goicoechea. Last week, county prosecutors said they would seek the 
death penalty against the pair.

It was not until the beginning of this year that the Clark County gang task 
force, which includes the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of 
Homeland Security, first started investigating the 23 Aryan Warriors charged in 
the case, an officer testified to a grand jury.

Charging decisions

Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson said Tuesday that his office did 
not learn of Thurgood’s killing until after that investigation started.

“During the course of the investigation into the AW’s, the DA’s office learned 
of the murder at the prison,” Wolfson wrote in a text message. “Our office 
contacted the AG, along with the Inspector General’s office, and they assisted 
in providing information that led to the indictment.”

News of Thurgood’s death was posted on the Review-Journal’s website shortly 
after it occurred.

The indictment was the 1st time prosecutors publicly linked Williams and 
Goicoechea to the slaying. No other crimes listed in the indictment occurred 
before January.

Asked why his office decided to pursue murder charges, despite Kovac’s 
assessment of the case, Wolfson responded: “Like any other case, all facts and 
circumstances are carefully considered in making charging decisions.”

Last month, Monica Moazez, a spokeswoman with the attorney general’s office, 
said reports were turned over to the district attorney’s office as part of the 
152-count racketeering case against the prison gang, but she did not say when.

Asked Tuesday about Kovac’s email, Moazez stated: “The determination referenced 
in this email is based on the available evidence present at that time. Given 
that this case remains ongoing and is being prosecuted by the Clark County 
District Attorney’s Office, we have no further comment.”

Within 2 months of Williams’ release from prison last year, the 36-year-old 
with a head and face covered with tattoos, led a crime spree that stretched 
from Laughlin to northwest Las Vegas. He was convicted and sentenced for those 
crimes before he was charged in the killing.

Williams has felony convictions dating back to 2001, while court records show 
that the 34-year-old Goicoechea has felony charges dating to 2003.

Prison video

A prison surveillance video that captured the two dragging Thurgood from a cell 
depicts Goicoechea and Williams walking around Thurgood’s writhing body before 
the two men shake hands and hug. They were handcuffed while corrections 
officers awaited a medical response team for Thurgood.

Photographs of Williams and Goicoechea taken at the time do not appear to show 
any injuries.

In Kovac’s email, he referenced a description of a phone call in an 
investigative report that has not been made public.

“He’s worried about being beat up, while at the same time threatening to stab 
people,” Kovac wrote of Thurgood.

A federal lawsuit filed last year by Thurgood’s family states that he was 
stabbed 52 times inside a locked cell with the other 2 men.

Goicoechea’s attorney, Kristina Wildeveld, said Tuesday she did not know of 
Kovac’s email until a reporter read it to her over the phone.

“It’s always important to get exculpatory information,” Wildeveld said. “We are 
already questioning why they waited three years to file charges against Tarik, 
especially given the fact that they are now seeking the death penalty against 
them. We have questioned why the DA would seek the death penalty in this case 
when the death penalty should be reserved for the most egregious of cases.”

An attorney for Williams could not be reached late Tuesday.

(source: Las Vegas Review-Journal)








OREGON:

Oregon asks U.S. Supreme Court to hold overturned sentences of Salem teen 
murderers



The Oregon Department of Justice is taking the Salem case of twin brothers 
sentenced as teenagers to almost 67 years in prison to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is asking the highest court to review 
and place a hold on the recent Oregon Supreme Court opinion reversing the 
"life" sentences of Lydell and Laycelle White.

The brothers were 15 in 1993 when they broke into the northeast Salem home of 
Richard, 82, and Grace Remy, 80.

The Whites beat and strangled the couple then stole Grace's wedding ring, $23 
in cash and the couple's car.

Lydell and Laycelle were convicted of the brutal murders and each sentenced to 
almost 67 years in prison. The Whites spent decades in juvenile facilities and 
prison, later becoming cellmates at the Oregon State Penitentiary.

The Remy family worked to move past the fear, grief and anger caused by the 
double murder.

But in May, the Oregon Supreme Court overturned the Whites' sentences because 
they amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth 
Amendment under a 2012 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

That ruling held that it was unconstitutional for juveniles to be sentenced to 
life without the possibility of parole due to their transient immaturity and 
developing brains.

The twins' lawyer Ryan O'Connor said it marked the 1st time the high court has 
applied the Miller decision to sentences that aren't true life, but essentially 
add up to life through the number of years.

The sentence would have allowed for the brothers' release at age 81.

State ruling finds sentences too severe

In the ruling, Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Martha Walters said the 
circuit court failed to take into account how teen offenders are different from 
adult offenders and whether the Whites were some of the "rare juvenile 
offenders (so) irreparably depraved" that they required a life sentence.

The ruling shocked and upset the Remy family, said grandson Jay Remy.

"To know that grandma and grandpa, who shared so much love with all of us, were 
attacked and killed the way they were — the way they died — was very, very 
devastating," Remy told the Statesman Journal in June.

"We just stopped talking about them because it brought back the horror of how 
they died ...," he said. "From the beginning, it's been a nightmare."

Now 41, the Whites' cases were set to head back to Marion County Circuit Court 
for re-sentencing.

But in June, the Oregon Department of Justice asked for a stay on the Oregon 
Supreme Court's decision ordering the re-sentencing while the U.S. Supreme 
Court to review juvenile sentencing law.

The issue of retroactively resentencing youth offenders sentenced to life in 
prison is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Malvo v. 
Mathena.

Lee Malvo, one of the men arrested for killing 10 people in the Washington, 
D.C., sniper attacks in 2002, was sentenced to life in prison for the murders. 
He was 17 at the time of the attacks and is now fighting the constitutionality 
of his life sentences.

In the motion, Rosenblum stated the Department of Justice's intent to file a 
petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the Whites' case along with 
Malvo's.

On June 21, the Oregon Supreme Court issued an order granting a stay of the 
appellate judgment pending the filing of the petition.

The Oregon Department of Justice, on behalf of Oregon State Penitentiary 
Superintendent Brandon Kelly, petitioned for a writ of certiorari —judicial 
review of a lower court's decision — of the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in 
White v. Premo.

They also requested the court hold the case pending the resolution of Malvo, 
which presented the same legal issue.

"A decision in Malvo will affect this case and all other pending challenges to 
non-mandatory juvenile true-life sentences," the petition said.

Attorney general asks equal treatment

Rosenblum said holding the White cases will ensure the brothers are treated the 
same as other juvenile offenders in Oregon who were also sentenced a long time 
ago.

"There is no reason to single out the White cases for special treatment simply 
because of the timing of the two Supreme Courts’ processes," she said.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Malvo Oct. 16.

Death penalty law: Will those on Oregon's death row stay there with changes to 
state's aggravated murder law?

Rosenblum's efforts in filing a petition with the Supreme Court in the White 
case drew sharp criticism from the Oregon Justice Resource Center.

“Attorney General Rosenblum’s decision to seek cert in this case comes on the 
heels of her recent support of the racist and xenophobic policy of 
non-unanimous jury convictions at the U.S. Supreme Court, fighting against DNA 
testing for an individual on Oregon’s death row who is asserting innocence, and 
defending discriminatory jury selection at the Oregon Court of Appeals," OJRC 
Executive Director Bobbin Singh said.

June's announcement that Rosenblum would be seeking review came on the heels of 
the DOJ's efforts to reform juvenile sentencing, including their work on Senate 
Bill 1008.

Singh said the decision to seek review backtracks on youth sentencing reform 
and risks jeopardizing reform across the country.

“Attorney General Rosenblum was exactly right when she said at the senate 
committee hearing on Senate Bill 1008 that a young person ‘can be many 
things…but the one thing they can never be…is an adult'," he said. "She should 
remember those words and the apparent contradiction in her department’s 
response to the recent Oregon Supreme Court decision in White v. Premo.

"The Oregon Supreme Court rightly recognized that it was time for a more 
progressive approach to lengthy prison sentences for young people in Oregon, 
coming into line with most other states."

Singh said juvenile offenders who were not emotionally or mentally mature at 
the time of their crimes have shown that they can grow, change and be 
rehabilitated.

"Denying this reality by seeking to prevent Lydell and Laycelle White from 
receiving a hearing that allows for consideration of youthfulness in deciding 
what sentence is proportional and appropriate in their cases is the wrong move 
by the attorney general and completely contradictory to her professed values," 
he said.

Rosenblum refuted OJRC's claim that she was backtracking on reform.

“I have consistently taken the position that sentences for juvenile offenders 
should take into account the age of the offender, and that the criminal justice 
system should not automatically treat children like adults," she said in a 
statement.

As a trial judge in Multnomah County when Measure 11 took effect in 1995, 
Rosenblum said she saw the serious effects removing judicial discretion had on 
these sentences.

But, she clarified the White brothers were sentenced pre-Measure 11.

"The trial judge determined, after a hearing, that they should be treated as 
adults, and the lengthy sentences he imposed took into account their youth as 
well as the vicious nature of their offenses, the vulnerability of their 
elderly victims, as well as many other relevant factors," she said.

(source: Salem Statesman Journal)