[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, ALA., KY., TENN., MO., CALIF., ORE., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 20




TEXAS:

1 Year Later: The trial of alleged BP serial killer Juan David Ortiz



Editors Note: 1 year later, the Laredo Morning Times is taking a look at the 
fallout from the serial killings that shook the Gateway City to its core last 
September. LMT reporters talked to the families affected the most after the 
series of murders and a resulting investigation ended with the arrest of Border 
Patrol agent Juan David Ortiz. One year later, the aftershock from the crimes 
can still be felt in Laredo.

Ortiz appeared in court for a bond hearing on April 28, but his first attorney, 
Joey Tellez, asked for more time to amend the application seeking bond 
reduction. The hearing was reset for Aug. 8, but it was delayed and will be 
held Oct. 3 in 406th District Court Judge Hale's court.

Webb County District Attorney Isidro "Chilo" Alaniz said the state is seeking 
the death penalty. Unlike other murder cases, capital murder is a murder case 
that factors in other elements, such as the circumstances of the case and how 
serious it was.

Capital murder includes killing someone under the age of 10, killing police 
officers or firefighters while carrying out their duties, or killing multiple 
people in the same episode.

1 Year Later

This story is 1 section of a 6-part series that details the fallout of the 
serial murders that affected the Gateway City last September.

"The decision to seek death is always a sensitive decision, because there's a 
lot that goes into that decision," Alaniz said. "It's punishment reserved for 
the most egregious, the most heinous and horrific murders that take place."

When it comes to motive, Alaniz said Ortiz made statements about the victims' 
work, but that more aspects of the motive will appear as the trial goes on.

"There were statements made by him, and I know people always want to know the 
reason why someone did something," he said. "That's something that we will 
eventually develop in the trial. It's complicated."

Alaniz said anything can happen between now and 2021. With capital murder, he 
said the jury must answer two questions to determine either the death sentence 
or life without parole: if there are any mitigating factors or if the suspect 
is a future danger.

"Is there a probability this person will commit crimes in the future?" he 
asked. "Mitigating factors go to circumstances surrounding the case: medical 
history, mental history, diseases, defects, other types of issues that the jury 
can consider."

Ortiz is held at a $2.5 million bond, and it is up to the judge to decide when 
or if there will be a bond reduction hearing.

"We will continue to argue that the bond be maintained at that amount," Alaniz 
said. "We consider him a danger to society, and we consider him a flight risk, 
just by the nature of the offense and the punishment."

(source: Laredo Morning Times)








ALABAMA----female may face death penalty

Lauderdale County capital murder suspect appears in court ? -- The suspect 
could be facing more charges.



A capital murder suspect in Lauderdale County, Peggy Hall, went before a judge 
Thursday morning.

The district attorney's office says she killed her ex-husband, Randall Bobo, at 
his home on County Road 130.

Hall is being held at the Lauderdale County Detention Center. She is being held 
without bond right now, and she could face additional charges. It's unclear 
what those could be yet.

The district attorney said they charged her with capital murder, because she 
came into Bobo's home with the intent to burglarize the place, and then ended 
up shooting him. The district attorney says grandchildren saw it all happen.

Bobo and Hall have 2 adult children together, and the prosecutor says all of 
that will factor into how they proceed.

"This is death penalty eligible, so we've got to make that decision in the next 
coming days and weeks if we will ask for the death penalty. It's certainly 
early in the investigation. We know what happened with the actual murder, but 
there are still some other items that need to be checked out," Chris Connolly, 
the Lauderdale County District Attorney, said.

He also said once the investigation is complete, Hall could be facing more 
charges.

In court Thursday morning, the judge read Hall's charges to make sure she 
understands them. She has a court-appointed attorney. We're waiting to hear 
when her next court appearance will be.

(source: WAAY news)








KENTUCKY:

Should people under 21 be eligible for the death penalty?----The Kentucky 
Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the death penalty should be an 
option for those ages 18-21.



The Kentucky Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday over whether 
the death penalty should be an option for those younger than 21 in the state 
(it is already banned for those under 18 nationwide). The death penalty is a 
contentious issue across the United States; some argue we shouldn’t have it at 
all, and even those who support it disagree on how and when to use it.

The Constitution was written a long time ago, and it uses words and phrases we 
don’t often hear today. A lot of it is pretty vague, too. As it turns out, its 
vagueness is both its genius and the source of many of our modern legal 
dilemmas.

“The Constitution is different from other laws,” said Douglas Linder, a 
constitutional law professor with the University of Missouri Kansas City. “The 
Constitution was meant to be a document that would be used for generations to 
come; and that means being a little less specific, a little more vague in the 
language that’s used.”

In a discussion over the death penalty, we turn to the Eighth Amendment. It 
reads:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel 
and unusual punishments inflected.

How much cash is too steep to demand for bail, though? Just how painful must a 
punishment be before we decide it’s “cruel and unusual?” The language is vague, 
and the Founders knew so as the wrote it.

“There was a congressman from Massachusetts,” Linder explained. “[He] said, 
'Hey, wait a minute, this is awfully vague. Maybe some judge in the future is 
going to say we can't cut people's ears off or we can't whip people, even 
though we might need it, right?’ Even thought he made that objection, the 
Congress went ahead and left the language as it was which a lot of people 
interpret to suggest that they wanted the language to be vague. That they 
wanted it to change, evolve over time.”

Yes, cutting people’s ears off as a punishment was a real thing we did. But, we 
phased it out. The Supreme Court has deemed this process our “evolving 
standards of decency.” For example, in 1992 it officially said that prison 
guards can't beat prisoners. In 2005, the Court held that people couldn't be 
put to death for crimes they committed before they were 18 years old, ruling 
our "evolving standards of decency" meant that doing so would now be cruel and 
unusual.

A similar question now sits before the Kentucky Supreme Court. Recent 
developments in science have shown that brain development doesn't end until a 
person is in his or her 20s, and therefore may lack full control over his or 
her impulses. Some argue that our "evolving standards of decency" should 
therefore ban the death penalty for anyone under 21. This, however, would be 
new: of the 29 states that still have the death penalty, none currently have a 
ban on this age group.

“Your case in Kentucky sort of suggests where a lot of these death penalty 
cases are going,” Linder said. “The Supreme Court has shown a reluctance to 
abolish the death penalty altogether, but it's taken a way the death penalty as 
a possibility for mentally incompetent people, for minors, in cases other than 
murder... so it's kind of an interesting question, I'll be interested to see 
how it comes out there.”

(source: WHAS news)








TENNESSEE:

New Ruling Puts An End To Drawn-Out Death Penalty Case In Nashville



29 states allow the death penalty, and there are currently more than 2,600 
people on death row.

Until recently, that list included Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman, who was convicted of 
1st-degree murder for a stabbing and armed robbery in Nashville that left 1 
person dead and another wounded.

But in August, a Tennessee judge reversed Abdur'Rahman's scheduled execution 
and granted him a new sentence of life imprisonment, citing questions about the 
fairness of his 1987 trial.

The ruling puts an end to a drawn-out legal process that took a toll both on 
the defendant and victims. And as Samantha Max (@samanthaellimax) of member 
station WPLN reports from Nashville reports, it's a common scenario in capital 
cases.

(source: WBUR news)








MISSOURI----impending execution

Catholic bishops ask Missouri governor to halt upcoming execution



Missouri’s 4 Catholic bishops are asking Gov. Mike Parson to spare the life of 
a convicted killer whose execution is approaching.

Russell Bucklew faces execution Oct. 1 for killing Michael Sanders in Cape 
Girardeau County in 1996. The Southeast Missourian reports that the bishops are 
urging Parson to change the sentence to life in prison.

Pope Francis has called for the “global abolition of the death penalty,” the 
bishops wrote.

“As Catholic bishops, we have consistently opposed the use of the death 
penalty. Evidence shows that the death penalty is often unfair and biased in 
its application,” they continued.

“By ending the use of the death penalty, we can hopefully begin to break the 
cycle of violence,” the bishops added.

An email message left Thursday with Parson’s spokeswoman wasn’t immediately 
returned.

Bucklew is 51 and suffers from a rare condition called cavernous hemangioma, 
which causes blood-filled tumors in his head, neck and throat. His lawyers say 
he could suffer during the execution process.

The bishops said Bucklew’s “particular medical situation warrants special 
consideration.”

(source: cruxnow.com)

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

Death Penalty Opponents Argue for Clemency in SEMO Murder Case



Convicted murderer Russell Bucklew's execution is scheduled for Oct. 1, but 
next week the American Civil Liberties Union will present a petition with 
30,000 signatures to Gov. Mike Parson, asking that Bucklew's sentence be 
commuted to life in prison.

The ACLU also is meeting with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 
next week in Washington to ask that group to weigh in.

Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU Human Rights Program, says the execution by 
lethal injection would inflict excessive pain and suffering because Bucklew has 
a rare disease that causes blood-filled tumors all over his body.

"The tumors that he has are likely to burst during execution," Dakwar points 
out. "That would really cause a gruesome situation where he could choke and 
suffocate."

Bucklew's conviction states that he murdered his ex-girlfriend's new partner, 
fired at that man's 6-year-old son - but missed - then raped the ex-girlfriend, 
and shot and wounded a police officer.

Later he escaped from jail and attacked the ex-girlfriend's mother with a 
hammer.

He appealed his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 
April that Missouri may proceed with the execution.

Dakwar laments the high court's ruling, noting that the U.S. has signed 
international treaties that ban torture.

"The majority of the court unfortunately concluded that the Eighth Amendment 
doesn't guarantee a painless death," he states. "This conclusion is in 
violation of international human rights law."

The ACLU also argues that there were significant problems during the 
post-conviction litigation, maintaining the attorney borrowed $27,000 from 
Bucklew's elderly parents and failed to investigate them or present evidence of 
childhood abuse, lead poisoning and opioid abuse to the court.

(source: WSIU news)








CALIFORNIA:

Jerry Brown says murder-accessory reform law he signed will stand up



In his final year in office, former Gov. Jerry Brown helped push through a bill 
limiting who can be charged with murder, a parting shot in his campaign to roll 
back decades of tough-on-crime history in California.

Now the law, under challenge by prosecutors across the state, is all but 
certain to end up before the California Supreme Court.

Brown, in an interview Wednesday, said he was certain of its constitutionality 
when he signed it.

“I’m confident that this Supreme Court will scrutinize this law with full 
fidelity,” he said.

SB1437 restricted when an accomplice to a fatal crime could be charged with 
murder.

Previously, anyone who participated in a crime that resulted in a homicide 
could be held criminally liable for murder, even if he or she was not present 
for the actual killing. Advocates argued that prosecutors wielded the law 
disproportionately against women and minorities.

Under the new law, accomplices can be charged with murder only if they directly 
solicited or assisted with a homicide or “acted with reckless indifference to 
human life.” It does not apply to killings of police officers.

The bill narrowly passed last year in the face of opposition from prosecutors, 
after behind-the-scenes lobbying by Brown’s office. The governor ultimately 
signed it without comment.

“It’s a simple matter of justice,” Brown said Wednesday.

He said the old accomplice liability law was “a very broad, sweeping provision 
that caught people in its net that were certainly less culpable than the actual 
perpetrator.”

“What we need to do is have a policy that’s human, that has proportionality,” 
he said.

Proponents say at least a dozen people, mostly in the Bay Area and Los Angeles 
County, have been resentenced and released since the change took effect Jan. 1. 
But in many counties, prosecutors are aggressively fighting inmates’ efforts 
and have sued to stop the law, arguing that it violates several voter-approved 
initiatives.

The matter is now before an appellate court, where state Attorney General 
Xavier Becerra offered his support.

Brown said he was also thinking about California’s overcrowded prisons when he 
signed the law. During his last term, he worked to undo some of the effects of 
fixed sentencing structure that began under his 1st governorship in 1976.

He blamed local district attorneys for helping to build a “bloated criminal 
code” and stacking sentences to force defendants to plead guilty to longer 
sentences.

“They certainly don’t all need to be caged for the decades that they’re being 
caged now,” Brown said.

He declined to comment on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decision in March to suspend the 
death penalty, granting reprieves to nearly 740 inmates on death row.

Brown was a vocal opponent of capital punishment early in his political career, 
but later defended death sentences as state attorney general. He defied calls 
to grant clemency to death row prisoners before leaving office in January.

“I generally try to refrain from providing a running commentary on my 
successor,” Brown said.

(source: San Francisco Chronicle)








OREGON:

Decision not to redo death penalty law met with anger, joy



Republican lawmakers were left fuming and justice reform advocates elated after 
Oregon’s governor decided against calling a special session of the Legislature 
to have lawmakers review a new law narrowing death penalty cases.

Despite assurances by Democratic lawmakers during the 2019 legislative session 
that the measure, which takes effect on Sept. 29, does not apply to crimes 
committed before that date, a top Department of Justice lawyer subsequently 
said it applies to cases sent back for retrial or new sentencing hearings and 
current cases awaiting trial.

“This bill was passed under false pretenses and it should be fixed,” GOP state 
Sen. Denyc Boles said on Twitter. ” This is wrong.”

Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Democrat from Eugene who helped get the bill passed, 
had urged a special session of the Legislature to clarify the scope of the new 
law.

Gov. Kate Brown said late Wednesday that as much as she wanted a special 
session there would be none because stakeholders and legislators had failed to 
craft language to fix bill and line up enough votes to pass the redo.

Prozanski said Thursday there were enough votes in the Senate but not in the 
House.

(source: Associated Press)








USA:

American Bar Association Death Penalty Representation Project Has Removed 100 
Prisoners from Death Row



In February 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned 
the conviction and death sentence of Tennessee death-row prisoner Andrew Lee 
Thomas, Jr., ruling that Shelby County District Attorney General Amy Weirich 
had unconstitutionally withheld evidence that a key prosecution witness had 
been paid for her cooperation in the case and then deliberately elicited 
perjured testimony from the witness that she had not received “one red cent” 
for her cooperation. Last month, pro bono lawyers from Winston & Strawn reached 
a plea deal for Thomas with Memphis prosecutors for a 25-year sentence that 
took Thomas off death row.

Winston & Strawn was recruited by the American Bar Association’s Death Penalty 
Representation Project in 2006 to represent Thomas. The Project has worked for 
the past 33 years to persuade law firms to agree to provide free representation 
to unrepresented or underrepresented death-row prisoners across the country. 
Thomas’ resentencing marked the 100th prisoner taken off of death row as a 
result of the efforts of volunteer lawyers recruited by the Project.

On September 19, 2019, the Project will hold its annual dinner acknowledging 
the work of pro bono lawyers. The keynote speaker for the event is Philadelphia 
District Attorney Larry Krasner, whose office on September 11 argued to the 
Pennsylvania Supreme Court that it should strike down the death penalty in the 
state because of the commonwealth’s systemic failure to provide competent 
defense representation to indigent capital defendants.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1989 that the Sixth Amendment does not 
guarantee counsel for capital prisoners in post-conviction or habeas 
proceedings, leaving many death-row prisoners to navigate the complex system of 
capital appeals alone. Since it began keeping case-placement records in 1998, 
the Project has assisted more than 350 prisoners with their death-penalty 
appeals. 100 of those cases have now resulted in final grants of relief that 
have permanently taken the Project’s clients off of death row.

Among the 100 are 15 people who were released from prison on evidence of 
innocence. Five received executive clemency to reduce their sentences, and the 
rest were resentenced to life in prison or a term of years after their lawyers 
showed that the death sentences in their cases had been unconstitutionally 
imposed. In announcing the 100th release from death row on September 3, the 
Project said, “[n]ot one of these victories came easily, in a system that is 
designed to leave death sentences in place even in the face of overwhelming 
evidence that execution would be unjust. Every life saved by the Project’s 
volunteer lawyers is a testament to the dedication, compassion, creativity, and 
countless hours of work devoted by these skilled advocates.”

The announcement also stressed the importance of pro bono counsel, even in 
cases that result in execution. “The Project counts every case placed with pro 
bono counsel as a victory, regardless of the eventual outcome. Without the 
assistance of counsel, a prisoner has no voice in the legal system to tell his 
story and seek help from the courts. In the absence of a constitutional 
guarantee of counsel, volunteer attorneys represent access to justice for their 
clients and integrity in the criminal justice system.”

Among the examples of prisoners who won relief with the assistance of the ABA 
Death Penalty Representation Project is Joe Lee Guy, a Texas prisoner whose 
trial attorney had been disciplined by the state bar more than a dozen times. 
The unlicensed investigator hired by the attorney “transitioned from defense 
investigator to mercenary,” in the words of the 2004 district court decision 
vacating Guy’s death sentence. The investigator befriended the victim’s mother 
and coached her on her testimony against Guy, the very person the investigator 
was supposed to be assisting. Guy’s pro bono counsel located more than 50 
mitigation witnesses to testify about Guy’s abusive childhood and low IQ, which 
the investigator had failed to discover.

Pennsylvania prisoner Jimmy Dennis was freed in 2017 thanks to the efforts of 
pro bono counsel. His lawyers uncovered exculpatory evidence that prosecutors 
had withheld: a statement implicating two alternative suspects, a statement 
from a prisoner who described a phone call with people who said they were the 
actual assailants, and a receipt that corroborated Dennis’ alibi that he had 
been on a bus elsewhere in Philadelphia when the murder occurred. In 2013, the 
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania vacated his 
conviction, writing that he “was wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to 
die for a crime in all probability he did not commit.” The district attorney at 
that time offered him a no-contest plea to lesser charges, which allowed for 
his release, but denied him a full exoneration and the opportunity to seek 
compensation for the 20 years he was wrongfully incarcerated.

(source: Death Penalty Information Center)