[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, GA., FLA., ARK.

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 19



TEXAS----impending execution

Death Watch: Failures at Trial Anchor Last-Chance Appeal for Sparks----If 
SCOTUS does not act, Sparks will be the 3rd man executed in Texas this month



Robert Sparks was deep in the throes of a psychotic break at the time of his 
crimes – that is not disputed. He was hearing voices; he thought his wife was 
trying to poison him. He stabbed her and his 2 stepsons to death and raped his 
2 stepdaughters, but he felt he'd be exonerated. Instead he was sentenced to 
death in 2008 in one of the most emotionally charged trials in the history of 
Dallas County. Now, his execution date approaches on Wednesday, Sept. 25.

Claiming insanity isn't a good strategy to overturn a death sentence; by law, 
defendants have to be not merely mentally ill, but uncomprehending of what is 
happening to them. Thus Sparks' lawyers, in what could be his final appeal 
before the U.S. Supreme Court, are looking elsewhere: to the flawed testimony 
of expert witness A.P. Merillat and inappropriate conduct of bailiff Bobby 
Moorehead.

Merillat was for many years a go-to witness for prosecutors in Texas in capital 
murder cases. His specialty was convincing juries that a defendant would be a 
future danger, a requirement to sentence a person to death. His testimony, 
according to the appeal, helped send at least 15 men to death row, including 
Sparks. But Merillat's star was tarnished in 2012 when the Texas Court of 
Criminal Appeals condemned his testimony as false in the trials of Adrian 
Estrada and Manuel Velez. In both cases, Merillat assured jurors that without a 
death sentence the defendants would land in general population, able to attack 
fellow prisoners in the mess hall, the library, the visitation area. But 
Merillat was mistaken; because of the viciousness of their crimes, both 
prisoners would have been segregated. The CCA knocked their death sentences 
down to life without parole, and Merillat was out of a job as an expert 
witness.

As a witness for the prosecution in Sparks' trial, Merillat again insisted 
Sparks would land in general population. Only upon cross-examination did he 
admit, reluctantly, that Sparks might be segregated from other prisoners. But 
at the end of cross-examination, he bizarrely doubled down on his original 
message. In Sparks' prior appeals, the CCA and 5th U.S. Circuit Court of 
Appeals ruled, in the words of the current filing, that "Merillat's false 
testimony was corrected when he briefly flirted with the truth on cross 
examination." Sparks' lawyers say Merillat's testimony, taken as a whole, left 
the jury with a false impression, thus violating due process.

The other major claim in Sparks' appeal concerns the conduct of bailiff 
Moorehead, who wore a black tie with a white needle emblazoned on it the last 
day of the trial. His attorneys argue the display violated Sparks' right to an 
impartial jury, a claim the CCA and 5CA have previously rejected, ruling the 
defense failed to prove that the jury saw the tie. But the appeal notes that 
Moorehead sat directly behind Sparks, 10 yards from the jury – "the media 
present at trial saw the tie, defense counsel saw the tie ... and portions of 
the jury box provided an unobstructed view of the tie."

If SCOTUS does not act, Sparks will be the 3rd man executed at Huntsville this 
month – Mark Soliz was put to death on Sept. 10 and Billy Crutsinger on Sept. 4 
– and the 7th since the start of the year. Another 8 are scheduled to die 
between now and December 11. To date, 564 Texans have died at the hands of the 
state since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

(source: Austin Chronicle)

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

Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----46

Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----564

Abbott#--------scheduled execution date-----name------------Tx. #

47---------Sept. 25---------------Robert Sparks-----------565

48---------Oct. 2-----------------Stephen Barbee----------566

49---------Oct. 10----------------Randy Halprin-----------567

50---------Oct. 16----------------Randall Mays------------568

51---------Oct. 30----------------Ruben Gutierrez---------569

52---------Nov. 6-----------------Justen Hall-------------570

53---------Nov. 13----------------Patrick Murphy----------571

54---------Nov. 20----------------Rodney Reed-------------572

55---------Dec. 11----------------Travis Runnels----------573

(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)

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

After Ranger testifies, end in sight for Little Elm capital murder trial



Jurors in the capital murder trial against Daniel Greco are expected to begin 
their deliberations Wednesday after both prosecutors and defense attorneys 
stopped calling witnesses and admitting evidence Tuesday afternoon.

The day ended with Judge Jonathan Bailey storming out of the 431st District 
Court, saying he was “ticked” after Greco’s defense attorneys submitted several 
requests that essentially asks for jurors to be given alternative charges to 
consider if they do not find him guilty of capital murder.

Most of the day was made up of testimony from the state’s final witness, Texas 
Ranger Clair Barnes, who walked into the courtroom and set his white felt 
cowboy hat on the witness stand and looked on as Assistant District Attorney 
Michael Graves played the video in which Barnes got Greco to confess that he 
“strangled” Anjanette Harris on purpose.

“Something just came over my brain,” Greco told Barnes on March 7, 2016. “I 
just wanted to strangle her.”

Greco told the Ranger he was high on a cocktail of cocaine, the antidepressant 
Klonopin and alcohol when on March 6 he “snapped” and decided to put a rubber 
strap around Harris’ neck while they were on his bed inside his home.

“I put it around her neck and pulled it tight,” Greco told Barnes. “I remember 
looking back in the mirror at myself. I remember looking at her. I let go. And 
then I was like, ‘Holy s--t!’ At that point, I realized what happened.”

While that evidence was likely the most damning presented in the entire trial, 
Greco’s defense attorneys did what they could to keep the door open to the 
possibility that Greco could be guilty of a lesser charge and not capital 
murder.

During cross examination, defense attorney Derek Adame asked Barnes if Greco 
ever confessed to wanting to “kill” Harris or “murder” Harris. Barnes said, as 
the video in court showed, that Greco only ever said during his interview he 
wanted to “strangle” Harris. There were other questions as to Greco’s confessed 
level of intoxication the night he killed Harris.

By the end of the day, Adame and the defense team suggested to Bailey that the 
jurors be given alternative charges to consider during deliberation. Caroline 
Simone, one of the defense attorneys, declined to say after court Tuesday what 
those suggested alternatives are, but they were significant enough that Bailey 
became obviously perturbed when he read them.

After reviewing the suggested changes, Bailey told the attorneys he was too 
“ticked” to make a ruling on the requested changes before leaving the 
courtroom. The jurors by then had already been dismissed for the day.

“These are changes you’ve had the opportunity to suggest for weeks,” Bailey 
told the defense attorneys, adding that everybody needed to be back in court at 
7:30 a.m. Wednesday, the earliest start so far in the trial.

Among the defense’s arguments against capital murder — the state has to prove 
Greco knowingly or willingly killed both the unborn child and Harris at the 
same time — is that Greco didn’t know Harris was pregnant the night he killed 
her, despite evidence showing Greco did know Harris was pregnant weeks prior to 
March 6.

They also argue that Harris’ own drinking “could” have killed the fetus before 
Greco killed Harris. No evidence presented in court shows any assertion from 
the Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office that alcohol killed the fetus.

Before Tuesday morning, jurors had only heard Greco say “not guilty” last week. 
By the time they broke for lunch, they had watched the confession tape and 
heard Greco confess to not only strangling Harris but also loading her into the 
back of his pickup, driving to a wooded area, taking her body out and dragging 
her down a trail.

“I just drove until I found a dark spot,” Greco told Barnes. “I opened my 
tailgate, I grabbed her by her feet, and I dragged her through some path. And 
that was it.”

He even told Barnes he planned to destroy the evidence — including the rubber 
strap, duct tape, shoes, a bloodied sheet and quilt — but investigators and 
police officers arrived at his house about 12 hours after Harris was discovered 
and began questioning him.

He does, however, deny ever stabbing Harris in the neck. Medical examiners and 
investigators observed obvious stab wounds to Harris’ neck but no evidence of a 
weapon has been shown to the jury.

In the video, Greco is sitting inside an interview room at the Denton County 
Sheriff’s Office, wearing his own clothes but with the jail-issued sandals and 
in shackles. He was at the beginning stage of a process that could end with his 
own death.

Greco declined to testify Tuesday. If jurors find him guilty of capital murder 
this week, Greco could be sentenced to the death penalty.

(source: Denton Record-Chronicle)

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

Indictment made public for man charged in El Paso attack



Officials in Texas on Wednesday released the grand jury indictment filed last 
week against a man accused of killing 22 people at an El Paso Walmart last 
month.

The 1-page indictment against Patrick Crusius offers few new details but lists 
the names of the 22 victims who were killed in the Aug. 3 mass shooting in the 
border city.

Crusius, 21, of Allen, Texas, was indicted last week on one count of capital 
murder of multiple persons. El Paso prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. 
Crusius remains jailed without bond.

A previously released arrest warrant prepared by police said Crusius told 
officers, "I'm the shooter," and that he was targeting Mexicans. In court 
documents, prosecutors allege that Crusius published a screed shortly before 
the shooting that said it was "in response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas."

It cited another mass shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, that killed scores 
of Muslims as inspiration for the attack.

The document allegedly published by Crusius mirrored some of President Donald 
Trump's immigration policy rhetoric. Some El Paso residents, including former 
congressman and current Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O'Rourke, blame 
Trump for promoting harmful stereotypes and fueling the idea that the uptick in 
migrant crossings is a semi-coordinated "invasion" by Latinos.

Crusius drove more than 10 hours from his grandparents' house where he lived in 
a Dallas suburb to carry out the attack, according to police.

Most of the dead had Hispanic last names, and 8 were Mexican nationals. Federal 
prosecutors have said they're weighing hate-crime charges against Crusius that 
could also carry the death penalty.

(source: Associated Press)








GEORGIA:

Study Finds Staggering Race-of-Victim Disparities in Georgia Executions and 
that the Death-Penalty Appeals Process Makes Them Worse



Defendants convicted of killing white victims in Georgia are 17 times more 
likely to be executed than those convicted of murdering black victims, a new 
study by researchers at the University of Denver has found, and the problem of 
discrimination is worsened by the appeal process.

The study by Sociology and Criminology Professor Scott Phillips and Law 
Professor Justin Marceau, to be published in an upcoming issue of the Harvard 
Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, found that “2.26% (22/972) of the 
[Georgia] defendants who killed a white victim were ultimately executed, 
compared to just .13% (2/1503) of the defendants who killed a black victim. 
Thus, the overall execution rate is a staggering 17 times greater (2.26/.13) 
for defendants who killed a white victim.” The issue, they say, “is not so much 
that [America’s] death penalty has a race problem as it is that the race 
problems of America manifest themselves through the implementation of the death 
penalty.” Racial disparity, they say, “is a recurring and defining feature of 
each stage of our capital punishment system.”

The new study builds on data collected by Professor David Baldus in his 
landmark 1980s analysis of racial disparities in death sentencing in Georgia. 
In that study, Baldus found that the odds that a defendant would be sentenced 
to death for murder in Georgia were 4.3 times greater if at least one victim 
was white than if all victims were black. Phillips and Marceau set out to 
determine whether those disparities continued through to the ultimate 
resolution of the cases. Reviewing execution data over the more than three 
decades since Baldus conducted his study, they found that Baldus had “actually 
understated the race problems inherent to the operation of modern death penalty 
jurisprudence” and that the appellate review process “exacerbate[ed] rather 
than remediat[ed] the problems of arbitrariness.”

Phillips and Marceau also say that their new study demonstrates that “the 
race-based arbitrariness of the death penalty is far worse than previously 
understood” and is “magnified by the appellate and clemency processes.” This, 
they believe, fundamentally undermines the Supreme Court’s assumption when it 
upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty in Gregg v. Georgia in 1976 
that appellate courts would “serve as an antidote to the arbitrariness” that 
led the Supreme Court to strike down existing death-penalty statutes in Furman 
v. Georgia in 1972. The new data, they argue, “show that this trust in 
appellate review as a check on discrimination is badly misplaced. Appellate 
judges appear unable or unwilling to reign in the racial disparities identified 
at the sentencing phase.”

Their study, Phillips and Marceau suggest, shows that executions under existing 
death-penalty schemes remain just as random as they were when Justice Potter 
Stewart wrote in Furman that the death penalty was unconstitutionally “cruel 
and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and 
unusual.” Of the nearly 2,500 murder cases studied by Baldus, fewer than 1% 
resulted in executions. “Our research,” the authors write, “shows that both 
rarity and race are operating in tandem such that the death penalty is racially 
disparate and simultaneously so rare as to be virtually random – a systematic 
lottery.” Paraphrasing Justice Harry Blackmun’s statement that appellate review 
could not cure the defects in capital punishment and he would “no longer tinker 
with the machinery of death,” the researchers conclude that “we should no 
longer ‘continue to coddle the Court’s delusion that the desired level of 
fairness has been achieved,’ [because] the steady stream of data confirms that 
‘the death penalty experiment has failed.’”

(source: Death Penatly Information Center)

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

Jury selection moved to February 2020 in death penalty case



For the 2nd time in less than 2 months, Donnie Rowe has learned that he won’t 
stand trial for the murders of 2 state corrections officers as originally 
planned. Rowe tentatively had been scheduled for trial in the double-murder 
case in January.

During a pre-trial hearing held Tuesday morning in Putnam County Superior Court 
in Eatonton, Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge Brenda H. Trammell 
said jury selection will instead begin on Feb. 10, 2020, in Grady County 
Superior Court.

Once a 12-person jury along with alternate jurors has been selected, they will 
be taken to Putnam County where they will begin hearing testimony in the case 
that could last up to a month.

Rowe and his co-defendant, Ricky Dubose, are accused of shooting to death 
Georgia Department of Corrections Sgts. Curtis Billue and Christopher Monica on 
the morning of June 13, 2017, in Putnam County. The 2 officers were helping 
transport prisoners from Baldwin and Hancock state prisons to the Georgia 
Diagnostic and Classification Prison near Jackson when Rowe and Dubose 
reportedly escaped through an unlocked gate as they were being transported from 
one facility to another one.

Both of the officers were shot to death with their own state-issued handguns, 
authorities said.

Rowe and Dubose, who are being tried separately for the alleged crimes, escaped 
from the prison transport bus and made it into Rutherford County, Tennessee 
before they eventually surrendered to residents nearby and later turned over to 
local, state and federal law enforcement authorities. The two state prison 
inmates led authorities on a nationwide manhunt for 3 days.

Billue and Monica were both assigned to the transportation department at 
Baldwin State Prison near Milledgeville. They also lived in Milledgeville.

As has been the case during nearly all of the pre-trial hearings of the 
defendants, several members of the victims’ families were on hand for the 
hearing on Tuesday.

One of Rowe’s defense attorneys, Franklin J. Hogue, of Hogue, Hogue, Fitzgerald 
& Griffin, LLP, of Macon, brought up Motion No. 47 during his client’s latest 
hearing.

The motion was filed in an attempt to prevent prejudicial security measures, 
said Hogue, who was recently named the lead counsel. He is being assisted by 
Adam S. Levin and Erin L. Wallace of the Georgia Capitol Defender Northeast 
Georgia Regional Office in Athens.

“It appears somewhere along the way, the court invited the sheriff to file a 
document saying what security measures he planned, and so Iooking at that 
document the sheriff filed on Aug. 6, 2019, 5 pages in which he lays out among 
other things, some security measures with respect to Donnie Rowe,” Hogue said.

After Trammell informed him of some particulars in how such actually came 
about, Hogue continued.

In response to the sheriff filing such security measures, the defense filed 
Motion No. 116, which bars the use of an electrical shocking device on the 
defendant. He described the device as a stun cuff.

Hogue was referring to Putnam County Sheriff Howard Sills.

“And just to perfect the record of this hearing, as we did in the prior 
hearing, in the sheriff’s five-page filing, on page two, paragraph three, he 
wrote that considering the defendant’s criminal history and severity of the 
crimes he is charged with, ‘it is my intent that he will wear

a stun cuff electronic wireless prisoner control device, and a humane restraint 
prisoner transport leg brace,’” Hogue said.

The defense attorney also brought up a recent demonstration that the sheriff 
put on in the courtroom and later was aired by an Atlanta television station. 
The demonstration was done during a hearing that involved the co-defendant in 
the case, Ricky Dubose.

Sills was called to testify during Tuesday’s hearing by Ocmulgee Judicial 
Circuit Assistant District Attorney T. Wright Barksdale.

Under questioning by Barksdale, Sills said this case marks the first time that 
he has ever been requested to provide a security plan in the many years that he 
has been sheriff of Putnam County.

“Sheriff, what factors do you look at when you provide security for the 
courthouse,” Barksdale asked.

The sheriff replied that one of those factors was the type of crime or crimes 
that the defendant is accused of having committed, as well as the defendant’s 
behavior, and most importantly, the defendant’s prior behavior, his prior 
record.

“All of that is considered, and likewise, we obviously cannot have restraints 
present on a defendant that a jury can see,” Sills said. “I’ve studied a number 
of devices over the years and found the stun cuffs to be … virtually impossible 
for anyone to see, yet still a very effective device. We used it in every 
criminal case in this county no matter what the individual was charged with 
whether it was a misdemeanor or a felony, and if they were in custody up until 
the time of the Weldon case.”

Sills said there had never been a problem and the device had never been 
activated.

(source: unionrecorder.com)

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

Judge denies death row inmate a new trial, DNA testing



The judge who presided at a Thomas County 1997 death penalty trial has denied 
the convicted defendant's motion for a new trial and DNA testing.

Superior Court Judge Frank Horkan pronounced a death sentence on Ray Jefferson 
Cromartie, then a Thomasville resident, in September 1997, when the 30-year-old 
defendant was found guilty of murdering a convenience store clerk during an 
1994 armed robbery.

After more than two decades on Georgia's death row and exhaustion of years of 
appeals to the state's and nation's highest courts, Cromartie's execution was 
imminent when a lawyer filed an extraordinary motion for a new trial and for 
post-conviction DNA testing.

The motion, filed Dec. 28, 2018, in Thomas County Superior Court, also wants 
DNA testing performed on evidence in another case in which Cromartie was 
convicted — shooting a convenience store clerk who survived.

The motion requests DNA testing of evidence in the shooting death of Richard 
Slysz, a clerk at a West Jackson Street convenience store, as well as the 
aggravated battery of Dan Wilson at a North Madison Street convenience store.

Cromartie also was found guilty in the Wilson case.

“The daughter of the victim in this case has publicly asked for DNA testing to 
occur, as have hundreds of members of the Thomasville community," said Shawn 
Nolan, chief, Capital Habeas Unit, Federal Community Defender Office, in 
response to the denial.. "Forensic DNA testing is essential to the pursuit of 
the truth and justice and to prevent the potential execution of an innocent 
man. The state has the evidence in its possession; all we need to do is test 
it. We will appeal to other decision-makers to continue to seek DNA testing in 
order to get these vital questions answered before it's too late.”

Co-conspirators each received 25-year prison sentences for robbery. Before the 
1997 trial, the then-district attorney offered Cromartie a plea deal to life in 
prison with the possibility of parole, which, at that time, would have resulted 
in parole eligibility after 7 years.

In Cromartie's most recent appeal efforts, in January and in March 2018, a 
panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied his appeals. On Dec. 3, 2018, 
the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request to review the lower court's rulings.

Horkan's order — filed Monday in Thomas County Superior Court — states the 
court determines the defendant failed to establish necessary requirements to 
obtain requested DNA testing.

Evidence is overwhelming proving Cromartie was the shooter at the Madison 
Street Deli where an employed was injured and the Junior Food Store on West 
Jackson Street where the clerk was murdered, the document states.

"Given the tenuous link between the clothing and the crimes, the court finds 
defendant's proposed DNA results would not create a reasonable probability of 
an acquittal or of different verdict(s) in light of evidence in the case," 
Horkan wrote in his order.

Cromartie avoided the risk of pre-trial DNA testing on some items that might 
implicate him in the crimes and waited until now to request the testing, the 
order stated.

"At no point, as admitted by defendant, in the 24 years since he committed his 
crimes has he requested DNA testing," Horkan wrote. "So far, the only reason 
offered by defendant to excuse the delay in bringing this action are that: he 
has been busy litigating his state and federal habeas petitions; and the DNA 
testing methods he is requesting only became available in recent years.

" ... In sum, defendant sat on his request until all other avenues were 
closed," the order continued. "And there is nothing in the record showing that 
defendant was precluded from requesting DNA testing in what could be considered 
a timely manner considering the facts and circumstances of this case."

Southern Judicial Circuit District Attorney Brad Shealy said if the state 
Supreme Court affirms Judge Horkan's decision, the state can move forward with 
Cromartie's execution.

"I think it's clear Cromartie is guilty of what he was convicted of," Shealy 
said.

(source: Thomasville Times-Enterprise)








FLORIDA----new death sentence

Davidson sentenced to death row for 2015 murder----Sexual predator gets 
ultimate sentence for killing Roseann Welsh



A judge decided Wednesday Donald Davidson Jr. should be executed for 2015 
murder of a Middleburg woman and the rape of her 10-year-old daughter.

Judge Don Lester sent Davidson to death row Wednesday morning by agreeing with 
the state’s position that aggravating factors outweighed any mitigating 
factors. Davidson, a registered sexual predator, showed little emotion when 
Lester said: “the appropriate sentence is death.”

Davidson showed no emotion when the sentence was announced.

Davidson pleaded guilty in June for killing 37-year-old Roseann Welsh and 
sexually battering her 10-year-old daughter in their Middleburg home, and he 
waved his right for a jury to recommend his sentence.

Prosecutors pushed hard for the death penalty, touching on the horrific details 
of the murder and his past as a sexual predator.

Davidson’s defense painted a picture of a man who was surrounded by other sex 
offenders, being abused for years by an older cousin, having mental issues 
created by his upbringing, drug abuse and a low IQ.

“With my very first involvement with the case, I thought the facts demanded the 
death penalty,” said chief assistant state attorney Leh Hutton, who presented 
the state’s case during the sentencing hearing. “This was not just personal to 
us, but to the people of Clay County. This was a crime that shocked people. I’m 
sure it instilled fear to think it could happen in your community. In this type 
of law and order community we have in Clay County, it was personal to them.”

Outside the courtroom, Welsh’s mother hugged a stuffed Teddy bear. She quietly 
thanked the prosecution team, the said, “Now maybe I can sleep.”

Welsh’s 2 children, including a son who was 13 when he discovered his mother’s 
body in bathroom, weren’t at court. A family member said they went to school.

Welsh’s aunt and uncle, Kim and Michael Hajaistron, drove from Tampa for the 
sentencing. They also were in the courtroom when Davidson pleaded guilty and 
they spoke on behalf of their niece during the sentencing phase.

“There’s closure because he can’t do this to anyone else,” Michael Hajaistron 
said. “We have a hole in our heart that will never heal. We might have an ugly 
scar that will form over a really long time but it's never going to go away.”

Neither the aunt nor uncle spoke of Davidson by name.

Tiffany Lagasse fought tears when she heard the verdict. Davidson attacked her 
in 2010 while she was pregnant. He was sentenced to prison for attempting to 
strangle her, but he was released shortly before he murdered Welsh. He was 
wearing a GPS ankle monitor, but he cut if off shortly after he used his 
shoelace and knife to kill Welsh.

Lagasse was relieved Davidson would soon be joining 341 other inmates on 
Florida’s death row.

“He won’t be allowed out to hurt anyone else’s families. He finally felt today 
what he did to all of us,” she said. “There was no choice, and he couldn’t 
change his fate of what he got just like he did to every one of us. He didn’t 
give any of his victims a choice. There’s no fixing pure evil, and that’s what 
he is.”

State Attorney Melissa Nelson said she immediately thought of Welsh’s children 
as Lester imposed his sentence.

"This case shocked the conscience of Clay County – a kidnapping of a child and 
rape and murder of her mother. Today brings an end to at least one chapter of 
the ongoing nightmare for Rosie Welsh's children, her husband and family.”

Davidson’s sentence will automatically be appealed to the state’s Supreme 
Court, Nelson said.

Mark Wright, Davidson attorney, said his client accepted responsibility for the 
crime and “quite frankly, he is not surprised that this day happened.”

(source: claytodayonline.com)

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

Executing the intellectually disabled serves little purpose



Most Americans don’t think much about the death penalty, although the current 
administration’s recent revival of the federal death penalty may change that. 
The execution of people with intellectual disability (formerly mental 
retardation) has been banned since 2002. So it may come as a surprise that in 
2019, intellectually disabled prisoners are still being executed in the United 
States.

Gary Bowles’ journey to death row began in Clifton Forge, Va., in 1962. His 
mother married a series of men who beat her and her two children. Depressed, 
alcoholic, and suicidal, she would abandon them for days. When he was eight, 
Gary turned to drugs and alcohol; a year later, he was sexually assaulted. 
After his stepfather beat him with a hammer, he left home for good at 13, 
living on the street and turning to prostitution. Eventually he did time in 
prison and was released 10 months before he was arrested for the murder of 
Walter Hinton in 1994.

Gary was staying at Hinton’s mobile home and the 2 men had been drinking and 
smoking marijuana all day when, in Gary’s words, something inside him 
“snapped.” He went outside, got a 40-pound concrete block, and dropped it on 
Hinton’s head. Then he strangled him and stuffed toilet paper in his mouth and 
a rag down his throat.

Gary confessed to Hinton’s murder — and the murders of 5 other gay men. He 
pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death. Three days after his conviction 
became final, the Supreme Court banned the execution of intellectually disabled 
prisoners. But under Florida law, only those with an IQ score of 70 or under 
qualified.

12 years later, in Hall v. Florida, the Supreme Court struck down Florida’s 
bright-line cutoff of 70 because it created an “unacceptable risk” that ID 
people would be executed. The Court declared that “[b]y protecting even those 
convicted of heinous crimes, the Eighth Amendment reaffirms the duty of the 
government to respect the dignity of all persons,” and reflects “the Nation we 
have been, the Nation we are, and the Nation we aspire to be.” The Court’s 
lofty language thrilled the defense bar but in Florida, it has proven to be 
empty rhetoric.

In 2016, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Hall was retroactive, meaning 
that ID prisoners who had previously been barred from challenging their death 
sentences could do so. Gary’s attorneys discovered he had an IQ of 74, within 
the ID range. Doctors gave sworn statements regarding his extensive brain 
damage, particularly in the area of the brain responsible for impulse control, 
problem-solving, and decision-making. They cataloged his low IQ, his inability 
to function independently, and his childhood trauma, tracing his path from 
birth to death row like a road map to hell. No doctor who ever evaluated him 
disputed that he was intellectually disabled.

But no court would listen.

Gary’s attorneys had been fighting for a hearing for nearly two years when Gov. 
Ron DeSantis signed his death warrant. Courts refused to hear his evidence 
because of a state procedural rule requiring ID prisoners to file their claims 
by 2004, even though those with IQs over 70 did not have viable claims until 
2016. Apparently, the “Nation we aspire to be” is a nonsensical bureaucracy 
that crushes citizens under the weight of its authority.MO< When Gary’s case 
finally reached the Supreme Court, his request for a stay of execution was 
denied. Justice Sonia Sotomayor released a statement lamenting Florida’s 
“Kafkaesque” procedural rule and criticizing the Florida Supreme Court for 
requiring ID prisoners to have brought their Hall claims in 2004, a full decade 
before Hall was decided. Although Sotomayor agreed that Gary’s case raised 
“important questions,” Gary’s fate was sealed.

The state of Florida executed Gary Bowles on August 22, 2019. His last words 
were an apology to his mother.

It’s hard to feel sympathy for a man who murdered six people, no matter how 
broken he may have been, but that is precisely what the Constitution requires 
of us. We must consider the “diverse frailties of humankind,” and recognize, as 
the Supreme Court did in 2002, that no penological purpose is served by 
executing the intellectually disabled.

(source: Commentary; The author, Nicole Noel, a professor at New England Law, 
taught previously at Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law 
in Davie----Orlando Sentinel)

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

How Serial Killer Aileen Wuornos Became a Cult Hero----To her fans, Wuornos's 
story offers a powerful example of a survivor who defies the respectability 
politics of victimhood.



Shortly before Cardi B released her single "Press" back in May, she revealed 
the track's controversial cover art—a recreation of an infamous photo of Aileen 
Wuornos in a prison jumpsuit, handcuffs raised around her neck. Wuornos was a 
sex worker who fell in love with a woman and spent a decade on death row after 
a jury found her guilty of 7 charges of 1st-degree murder, though she 
maintained that she committed these crimes in self-defense. The lurid story of 
a sex-working, man-killer stirred an unrelenting media frenzy. Following her 
death by lethal injection in 1992, the press dubbed Wuornos "the first female 
serial killer."

While some critics dismissed Cardi B's tribute to Wuornos as tasteless, in 
certain corners of the internet, the response was celebratory. "Yea props to 
Aileen Wuornos!!" one fan tweeted. Referencing a previous Cardi B tweet, 
another responded, "Sources has it saying that Cardi B's character from ‘Press' 
is inspired by a notorious serial killer named Aileen Wuornos. I say that's 
genius as fuck."Activists like Dani Love, an outspoken advocate for black 
women's liberation and sex workers' rights known online as @BlackSapphic, saw 
the image as a powerful symbol of solidarity and survival in the face of male 
violence. "This is so political," she Tweeted." I actually strongly support 
this. I respect it. I'm actually mind blown by this."

In the decades since Wuornos' death, some people have argued that her story 
deserves a more compassionate, nuanced examination. Born to a working-class 
family in Michigan, Wuornos endured a childhood marked by horrific violence, 
poverty, and sexual abuse. Turning to sex work for survival, Wournos hitchhiked 
down Florida highways where, as she later argued in court, she survived rape 
and violent assault. Over the course of her arrest, trial, and incarceration, 
she claimed men she killed had attempted to sexually assault her, and that she 
shot them in self-defense.

Though her testimony was contradictory at times—and she ended up pleading “no 
contest” to five of the murder charges—her supporters, many of them familiar 
with the violence sex workers face on the job, still take Wuornos at her word.

"This woman was a lesbian sex worker who k*lled a client who she thought her 
life was threatened by," Love told VICE. For Love, Cardi's callback to Wuornos 
sent a powerful message—especially in light of the rapper's own experiences 
working as a stripper as a young woman, often facing threats to her own safety 
from dangerous clients. "Aileen is bad-ass, and so is Cardi," Love said.

While this may have been the first time a high-profile musician invoked 
Wuornos' image as a symbol of defiance, sex workers, lesbians, feminists, 
sexual assault survivors, and those whose identities intersect these 
experiences have been quietly looking to Wuornos as a cult hero and feminist 
icon for some time. "Today marks the 10th anniversary of the death of Aileen 
Wuornos, a beautifully humane woman who will forever hold a place in my heart 
for her strength and courage in living through the horrific life cards she'd 
been dealt and that were completely out of her control," read a post on the 
now-defunct blog Feminist Rag in 2013, later reposted on a Men's Rights forum.

"I've always been kind of obsessed with Aileen Wuornos because one of my aunts 
was a truck stop hooker too," actor and drag performer Willam Belli told 
Billboard in 2018, shortly after releasing a Wuornos-inspired musical parody 
video. "I've done all the things that she's done, except kill people. I've 
hooked. I've bleached my hair. I've walked down I-95. Done all of it."

(source: vice.com)








ARKANSAS:

Rutledge wants Wendell Griffen barred from hearing her cases



THE ROOT CAUSE: Wendell Griffen's role in a death penalty protest figures 
prominently in Attorney General Leslie Rutledge's effort to remove him from all 
civil cases involving the state.

Andrew DeMillo of the Associated Press breaks news of a court filing in which 
Attorney General Leslie Rutledge wants Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen barred 
from hearing cases in which her office participates.

She says he routinely “bullies” lawyers from her office in court proceedings.

When state attorneys attempt to do their jobs and advocate for their clients, 
Judge Griffen routinely erupts in anger, treating the lawyers’ advocacy for 
their clients as personal attacks on his authority as the trial judge,” the 
filing said.

Mike Laux, attorney for Griffen, told AP there’s no bias.

“The problem for the AG’s office is the infirmity of its arguments, not the 
mean old judge.”

Laux commented further to me:

The AG‘s office needs to speak in terms of the law and not in terms of hurt 
feelings. In reality, Judge Griffen is a smart, well-read and evenly-tempered 
jurist who treats fairly all litigants before him. No one can credibly say 
otherwise. Might you get an earful if you come before him unprepared? Yes, you 
might, but that’s part of the game. The AG’s ill-advised motion smacks of 
politics.

Rutledge’s criticism came in an “emergency” petititon to the Arkansas Supreme 
Court after Griffen refused the state’s request to dismiss the appeal of 
Carpenter Farms, an unsuccessful applicant for a medical marijuana dispensary 
permit. The state claimed sovereign immunity, which has become a broad avenue 
for dismissal of lawsuits naming state agencies, but the doctrine does have 
exceptions.

Rutledge, of course, originated the complaint that got Griffen removed from all 
death penalty cases. He ruled against the state in a property rights case over 
execution drugs the state had illicitly obtained. The judge ruled that the drug 
distributors should get their drugs back. This had the effect of delaying 
scheduled executions. Griffen ruled the same day he participated in a church 
demonstration against the death penalty at the Governor’s Mansion.

Griffen has sued, so far unsuccessfully, against removal from death penalty 
cases and has said the Supreme Court should not hear his case on that issue 
because of improper ex parte communications outside court. Ernest Dumas 
burrowed into this controversy earlier this summer.

Here’s the full Rutledge petition.

It asks the court to overrule Griffen on a ruling from the bench in the case as 
well as seeking his removal. He refused a protective order on evidence sought 
in the appeal and set a short time line for response. On disqualifying him, 
Rutledge says:

Petitioners respectfully ask the Court to remove Judge Griffen from this case 
and all other cases in which the Office of the Attorney General is involved. 
Judge Griffen has a long history of unprofessional, improper, and biased 
conduct in cases involving the Attorney General’s Office and cannot be 
considered remotely impartial in cases involving the Attomey General’s Office. 
At a minimum, he cannot avoid the appearance of unfairness and his impartiality 
might reasonably be questioned.

This is, to put it mildly, an extraordinary move in the midst of a court 
proceeding. Challenging an evidentiary order as beyond his authority on ground 
of sovereign immunity is one thing. But removing a judge from all civil cases 
of the state of Arkansas?

Rutledge knows well this action will play well to the voters to which she and 
her party appeal. Wendell Griffen is a popular punching bag with Republican 
politicians. See Sen. Trent Garner particularly.

It’s important to note the appeal goes to a court that Griffen has suggested — 
with some evidence — as being biased against him.

The attorney general, indeed, cites the death penalty issue as proof that he 
should be removed after saying:

Moreover, a supervisory writ also lies with regard to Judge Griffen’s improper, 
unprofessional, abusive, and biased conduct against Attorney General staff in 
numerous cases. This bias has repeatedly prejudiced the Attorney General’s 
clients, who include most instrumentalities of the State of Arkansas.

Judge Griffen’s conduct towards the State and the Attorney General’s Office, 
therefore, harms “public confidence in the independence, integrity, and 
impartiality of the judiciary.”

There’s much more. A lot of it boils down, it appears, to the fact that Griffen 
often rules against the state and isn’t very nice about it. The state isn’t 
entitled to presumption of correctness, of course. And some judges are nicer 
than others. But there is a place to take complaints about temperament, the 
Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission, which in its history has called 
down judges for their demeanor. But I’m not aware they’ve ever removed judges 
from all cases of a complaining counsel. On Rutledge goes:

Judge Griffen has for years exhibited a pattem and practice of injudicious 
conduct that establishes he lacks impartiality, judicial temperament, and an 
ability to fairly adjudicate cases involving the Attorney General’s Office.

Multiple Assistant Attomeys General who have appeared in his Court have 
reported that Judge Griffen regularly yells at them, refuses to allow them to 
make a record or preserve arguments for appeal, belligerently argues with State 
attorneys and State witnesses, rules against the State despite a preponderance 
of the evidence and/or controlling case law in its favor, and imposes unfair 
requirements (such as unreasonably shortening time) in their cases. When State 
attorneys attempt to do their jobs and advocate for their clients, Judge 
Griffen routinely erupts in anger, treating the lawyers’ advocacy for their 
clients as personal attacks on his authority as the trial judge. The transcript 
of the recent motions hearing in this case, which is being transcribed by the 
court reporter and will be submitted to the Court as soon as it is available, 
reflects just ore recent example of Judge Griffen’s unprofessional and 
unjudicial conduct.

Judge Griffen also routinely bullies Assistant Attorneys General by threatening 
them with sanctions and even finding, sua sponte and without notice or an 
opportunity to be heard, that their good-faith representation of their clients 
violates Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure.

Rutledge also said Griffen had falsely made a misconduct complaint, later 
withdrawn, against the attorney general’s office for alleged out-of-court 
contact with the Supreme Court on the death penalty case. She complains further 
he’s written disparagingly about her on his blog. (Maybe that’s why she’s 
barred herself from talking to the Arkansas Times.)

She said the harm to the state was simply too great not to ask for Griffen’s 
blanket removal from all civil cases involving the attorney general.

The filing was submitted in the name of Rutledge and her solicitor general, 
Nicholas Bronni and signed by Jennifer Merritt, a senior assistant attorney 
general.

In Laux’s formal response, he might do well to ask the attorney general if this 
filing is a political ploy. Rutledge has refused to say whether she will file 
for Arkansas Supreme Court herself this year to succeed Justice Jo Hart, who’s 
past retirement age but hasn’t said if she’ll run again. Hart and Rutledge are 
close. There have been rumors Hart has been keeping quiet on plans to set up a 
last-minute run by Rutledge without opposition. That plan has been disturbed by 
Judge Chip Welch’s announcement that he’s planning to make the race.

I’ve said before that Wendell Griffen talks and writes too much for his own 
good, however much the Constitution should protect that speech from government 
restriction. He can be imperious and condescending. In recent weeks, I’ve found 
myself essentially lumped in his writings with “white supremacists and 
sycophants” for not joining his excoriation of those supporting an Elaine 
Massacre memorial in Helena.

But Wendell Griffen is entitled to his opinions and he is often right. He was 
right on the execution drug case, to name one, as another judge ruled. He’s 
right, as Ernest Dumas explains, that the Supreme Court has tarnished itself in 
politically motivated actions directed at Griffen (encouraged by Republican 
politicians, including a former Republican senator on the court).

Also: The removal action can’t be separated from his race. It is politically 
safe — maybe even a plus — in Arkansas these days to go after an outspoken 
black man like Wendell Griffen.

Just remember that Leslie Rutledge is NOT the state. She is only its elected 
representative. Rutledge’s record of animus toward women’s rights, gun safety, 
the environment, organized labor, sexual minorities and many others might lead 
me to say she’s not fit to fairly represent the people of Arkansas in court. 
But the electoral system says otherwise. And there are avenues of appeal and 
higher courts to judge her on the legal issues.

Rutledge should fight Griffen on legal grounds. But this case is not a sure 
thing. The sovereign immunity issue has been turned into a hopeless morass by a 
divided Supreme Court. She’s not entitled to an immediate free pass in 
Griffen’s or any other court. Losing a motion on the point is not prima facie 
evidence of bias.

lf there is a provable case of unacceptable judicial conduct, there’s a venue 
for that, too, the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. Not an 
emergency pleading to an already over-politicized Supreme Court.

Given the Supreme Court’s mishandling of the execution case, however, Rutledge 
has reason to like her odds.

(source: Max Brantley, Arkansas Times)