Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Arizona: Death Row Inmate Daniel W. Cook Wins Stay

The United States Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for Daniel W. Cook, who was scheduled to be executed Tuesday for killing a man and a teenage boy in 1987. 

The court will consider his lawyers’ argument that he had ineffective counsel; they say that in post-conviction proceedings, his initial defense lawyers did not present evidence that Mr. Cook had endured extreme physical and sexual abuse throughout his childhood.

Source: The New York Times, April 4, 2011


Supreme Court puts Arizona execution on hold

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a stay of execution for an Arizona inmate scheduled to die by lethal injection Tuesday.

The court granted the stay for Daniel Wayne Cook until it can consider his lawyers' argument that he had ineffective counsel during his post-conviction proceedings.

If the court disagrees with Cook's attorneys, he still could be executed at 10 a.m. Tuesday.

Cook's death warrant expires at 10 a.m. Wednesday.

Defense attorney Robin Konrad says she's "very happy" with the decision and hopes the court "considers this issue seriously."

Cook was convicted of 2 counts of 1st-degree murder in the gruesome July 1987 killings of 16-year-old Kevin Swaney, and 26-year-old Carlos Cruz-Ramos in Lake Havasu City.

A clemency board voted Thursday against recommending to stop or delay the execution of a death-row inmate convicted of killing two men after raping and torturing them for hours in Lake Havasu City in 1987.

Cook's lawyers have argued that their client should be given a life term, saying that he suffered from extreme physical and sexual abuse during childhood, and only recently was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and brain dysfunction.

Cook attended the hearing by phone, apologizing for the murders and asking the board to show him mercy.

"For nearly 24 years there has not been a day that's gone by that I have not thought of (the victims) and their families," Cook said from a state prison in Florence. "I do know, however, that no matter how agonizing this might have been to me, it must pale in comparison to the suffering I've caused. ... I've never been more sorry in my life than I am for this."

Mohave County Attorney Matt Smith argued that Cook should be executed, and said the only reason Superior Court Judge Steven Conn didn't know about the extent of the abuse Cook experienced was because he chose to represent himself at trial and chose not to discuss the abuse.

He also argued that Cook's crime is the "worst of the worst."

"What you have is a horrendous, absolutely horrendous crimes, and two innocent victims who did absolutely nothing in this case," Smith said.

Cook was convicted of two counts of 1st-degree murder in the gruesome July 19, 1987, killings of Kevin Swaney, 16, and Carlos Cruz-Ramos, 26.

Court documents say that Cook and his roommate and co-worker, John Matzke, were drunk and high on methamphetamine when they decided to rob Cruz-Ramos, who lived with the men and worked with them at Bob's Big Boy Restaurant in Lake Havasu City.

The two got $97 from the Guatemalan immigrant, then overpowered, gagged and tied Cruz-Ramos to a chair. Over the next six hours, Cruz-Ramos was cut with a knife, sodomized by Cook, burned with cigarettes on his stomach and genitals, and beaten with fists, a metal pipe, and a wooden stick, according to court documents.

Later, Matzke tried to strangle Cruz-Ramos with a sheet. When that didn't work, Cook and Matzke both pressed down on his throat with a pipe until Matzke stood on it, finally killing Cruz-Ramos, according to court documents.

Swaney, a runaway and occasional guest at the apartment who also worked at the Big Boy, showed up about 2 hours later.

Cook and Matzke then tied Swaney to a chair and gagged him. Matzke then said he wouldn't participate in the teen's torture and fell asleep. He awoke to see the teen crying, and Cook told him that he had sodomized Swaney and that they had to kill him, according to court records.

The 2 tried to strangle the boy with a sheet, and when that failed, Cook said, "This one's mine," and strangled him by hand, Matzke said. They put Swaney's body in the closet on top of Cruz-Ramos.

Cook was arrested after Matzke went to police. Matzke later testified against Cook to get a lighter sentence; he was released July 16, 2007, three days before the 20-year anniversary of the killings.

When questioned, Cook told police that "we got to partying, things got out of hand. Now 2 people are dead," and immediately admitted that he killed Swaney and that Matzke killed Cruz-Ramos.

At Cook's sentencing, the judge said he didn't believe that there was a connection between Cook's mental problems and the murders, although he didn't know about the abuse at the time.

"I almost relish giving you the death penalty because I believe that what you did was so awful," Conn told Cook. "Society should take your life away from you just as an expression of its revulsion toward the conduct that you have engaged in."

Cook's execution was expected to be Arizona's last use of a controversial 3-drug lethal injection method.

Corrections officials have said Arizona will switch to using just one drug in an effort to allay any "perceived concerns" that sodium thiopental is ineffective, but not until after Cook is put to death.

The drug is part of the 3-drug lethal injection method used by nearly all 34 death penalty states, but it became scarce last year after the sole U.S. manufacturer stopped making it. Some states started obtaining sodium thiopental overseas, and lawyers have argued that potentially adulterated, counterfeit or ineffective doses could subject prisoners to extreme pain.

Cook's attorneys are fighting the use of the drug, even though similar arguments failed to stop or delay the execution in Florence on Tuesday of Eric John King.

Kevin Swaney's adoptive father, James Swaney, sent a statement to the clemency board saying that Cook will experience a peaceful and dignified death, unlike his son or Cruz-Ramos.

"This heinous and barbaric crime served no purpose other than to torture two men for hours and murder them in cold blood and throw them in a closet as if they were no more than dirty laundry," Swaney said. "Daniel Cook saw no compassion for the humanity of these men, and in their final hours they suffered horrific pain, anguish and terror beyond our understanding. ... If Daniel Cook believes in God maybe he can find a reason to forgive him. We cannot."

Source: ABC News, April 5, 2011
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Death Penalty Opponents Assail Troy Davis Ruling

Troy Davis
Anti-death penalty activists criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to reject without comment death row inmate Troy Davis’ appeals seeking to delay his execution while he attempts to prove he was wrongfully convicted of killing a white police officer in 1991.

Without another appeal, commutation or pardon, Monday’s decision likely will allow the state of Georgia to set another execution date for Davis. There may be a slight delay in scheduling because of questions over the state’s supply of a key lethal injection drug.

Federal regulators seized the entire stockpile of sodium thiopental earlier this month after questions arose about the way the state obtained the drug.

“We are deeply shocked and disappointed because we think that [Davis] has made a compelling case of innocence and that there are too many questions to go forward with his execution,” Diann Rust-Tierney, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

Davis was convicted in 1991 of killing Mark MacPhail, an off-duty Savannah, Georgia police officer, largely on the basis of eyewitness testimony, but 7 of the 9 witnesses who implicated Davis have since recanted, and other witnesses have come forward to say another man confessed to killing MacPhail. Further, there has been no physical evidence linking Davis, who had no prior criminal record, to the killing.

Restrictions on federal appeals prevented Davis from having a hearing in federal court on the reliability of the witness testimony used against him. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles also rejected Davis’ application for clemency. An appellate court stayed Davis’ execution date so that his lawyers could file the appeals to the Supreme Court.

Davis was granted a stay of execution by the U.S. Supreme Court 2 hours before he was to be put to death in 2008, and the court in 2009 ordered the federal District Court to take another look at the case.

After holding a hearing to review evidence, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that Davis "failed to show actual innocence" in the case. The District Court suggested that, for procedural reasons, Davis should take his appeal of its ruling directly to the Supreme Court.

In January, Davis’ lawyers filed two pleas. One sought review of the Georgia federal judge's rejection of the innocence claim, and the other asked for a test of the 11th Circuit's refusal to review the case.

"Nobody walking out of that hearing could view this as an open-and-shut case," Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA, told WSAV-TV after Monday’s Supreme Court ruling.

"The testimony that came to light demonstrates that doubt still exists, but the legal bar for proving innocence was set so high it was virtually insurmountable," said Cox. “It would be utterly unconscionable to proceed with this execution, plain and simple."

“I think the position of the state has been the burden of proof is on the defense since there’s been a determination in the process,” Rust-Tierney said. “But when all the legalese is pushed aside, the question is is there enough confidence in this conviction to go forward with an execution?”

Davis' sister told CNN Monday that she was "very disappointed" by the Supreme Court's rejection.

Martina Correia-Davis said Davis' attorney told her they would continue to pursue all possible legal options, including a possible repetition of the Georgia State Board of Parole.

MacPhail’s son, Mark MacPhail, Jr. told WSAV-TV in Savannah that the High Court’s ruling proved what the evidence has always shown and what his family has known all along: that "Troy Davis is guilty."

MacPhail, Jr., who was just a few months old when his father was slain, told the television station he had been getting somewhat frustrated and nervous and "wondering what was taking so long."

But Davis’ case has received broad support from entertainment, social and political figures, including former President Jimmy Carter and Pope Benedict XVI. There also have been calls for the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole to commute Davis’ sentence.

It is unclear what Davis’ lawyers' options are, but defense attorney Jason Ewart told The Associated Press the likeliest route is appealing to the pardons and parole board, a five-member board that rarely postpones executions.

"The Troy Davis case is emblematic of everything that is wrong with capital punishment," Laura Moye, director of AIUSA's Death Penalty Abolition Campaign, told WSAV. "In a system rife with error, mistakes can be made.

“There are no do-overs when it comes to death," said Moye. “Lawmakers across the country should scrutinize this case carefully, not only because of its unprecedented nature, but because it clearly indicates the need to abolish the death penalty in the United States."

Source: BlackAmericaWeb.com, March 30, 2011


Why the war to save Troy Davis isn't over

On March 28, 2011 I woke up elated about my 10 year anniversary as a cancer survivor. I looked outside and it was cold and gloomy, the sun was nowhere to be found. It's about 9:30 a.m. and the phone rings, it's my brother Troy Davis' lawyer and from the tone in his voice I knew, it was not good news.

My heart sank to a heavy place as I listened to his monotone voice saying, "We just received news that the United States Supreme Court has denied Troy's appeal." Knowing that the appeals for Troy have always been an uphill battle and the lawyers have always stated that from a legal standpoint. Yet today I also heard optimism in the statement, "We will seek and exhaust all legal means available to us." I know from a legal standpoint denial by the Supreme Court is nothing a lawyer finds optimism in, yet I felt the readiness for yet another battle.

My first concern was my mother and my brother Troy. I cannot imagine facing three execution dates and the possibility of a fourth. I knew Troy would be more concerned about our family than himself, but I also knew that as much faith and spirituality as my mother has, she is still a mother and we are fighting for my brother's very existence. In this fight Troy is no longer voiceless and my family is no longer invisible, yet the court still refuses to hear what we have to say. Innocence does matter and beyond a reasonable doubt should be of utmost.

One thing for certain is that the global concern about this case is growing and yet the highest court in the United States is not willing to address the issue of innocence and new evidence. We live in country that is supposed to promote democracy and human rights for other countries yet it is not unconstitutional for us to execute innocent people in the U.S. if the courts feel they received a fair trial.

I am both enraged and empowered, for this battle to save Troy is a war of life and death for me! Until there is no breath left in my body I will fight for Troy, fight against the injustice of the death penalty, because this battle is bigger than Troy it is a war against a system is not impartial, a system that cares less for fairness and more for finality. In no way have we ever diminished the loss and hurt of the McPhail family, yet both families have been victimized. Being a mother and having Stage 4 cancer I understand the importance of life and I am willing to give my life to spare my brother's. No matter the final outcome of this case, my war against the death penalty is far from over and I will no longer be a victimize by this system in the United States, that justice depends on your ability to pay for it.

The hearing held in June 2010 in Savannah was like a puppet show, it was entertaining to some, upsetting to others, yet once the judge opened his mouth and looked at my brother with disgust I knew that no matter what Troy's lawyers had to present the judge had already made his decision to deny Troy, so he was just going through the motions like a puppeteer. I saluted the witnesses, even though they were criminalized by the state prosecutor for recanting their trial testimony. When they testified against Troy all those years ago, the police treated them like heroes, even though they had the same criminal history in 1989. It also seemed amazing that all the police who testified had amnesia about their role of misconduct with the witnesses, yet the judge chose to believe them over recanted testimony of the very witnesses they used to secure a conviction and death sentence for my brother.

The Georgia Parole Board said they will not execute when there is doubt. The case of Troy Anthony Davis is full of doubt.

As Troy said to me, "It's not over 'til God says it's over, this fight for justice did not begin with me and will not end with me."

The battle for Justice and the War to save Troy wages on! My name is Martina Correia and I am on Death Row because that is where my brother lives, our lives intertwined. If Troy is executed he will become even more powerful, because people all around the world are saying, "I AM TROY DAVIS," and his story will be heard.

Source: Opinion, Martina Correia, The Grio, April 3, 2011
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

High court rejects appeal from Troy Davis

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis, clearing the way for the state to resume planning for Davis' execution.

The justices on Monday refused to order the federal appeals court in Atlanta to examine Davis' case and they declined to do so themselves.

In 2009, the high court ordered a federal judge to examine evidence Davis said would show he was innocent of the 1989 killing for which he has been sentenced to death.

But the judge decided last year that Davis had failed to clear his name.

At the moment, executions are on hold in Georgia after federal agents seized the state's supply of a key lethal injection drug.

Source: Associated Press, March 28, 2011


Appeal denied in high-profile US death row case

The US Supreme Court Monday rejected an appeal to death row inmate Troy Davis who is seeking a new trial after 7 of the 9 witnesses against him recanted their murder trial testimony.

The Supreme Court rejected a request for an appeal hearing submitted by lawyers on behalf of Davis, a 42-year-old convicted of murdering a police officer in the southern state of Georgia in August 1989.

The decision clears the way for the execution of Davis, who has been on death row in Georgia since 1991 but has always maintained his innocence.

Davis's conviction rested on the testimony of the 9 witnesses, with no direct physical evidence such as a murder weapon, DNA or fingerprints linking him to the crime.

After a series of failed earlier appeals, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in August 2009 allowing Davis to present what he claimed was exculpatory evidence that was not reasonably available during his trial.

But after the rare hearing in August 2010, the judge decided there was not enough evidence to prove Davis's innocence.

With its racial overtones -- Davis is black, the officer Mark Allen MacPhail was white -- and the prisoner's continued claims of innocence, the case has triggered an international outcry.

Critics have included the European Union, whose member states oppose the death penalty, as well as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu of South Africa and Pope Benedict XVI.

Source: Agence France-Presse, March 28, 2011
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

US Supreme Court won't hear Mississippi death row inmate's claims of 'ineffective' lawyer

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear an appeal from Mississippi death row inmate Robert Simon Jr., who claims he could have avoided a death sentence had his sentencing jury been told of his abusive childhood.

Mississippi authorities quickly sought an execution date for Simon, who was sentenced to death for the 1990 killing of a married couple and their 12-year-old son.

A federal judge in Mississippi dismissed Simon's ineffective counsel claims in 2008. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision last fall. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case without comment.

The Mississippi attorney general's office asked the state's Supreme Court on Monday to set the execution date.

Simon was sentenced to death for the killings of Carl Parker, his wife, Bobbie Jo, and their son, Gregory, on Feb. 2, 1990. They were killed a few hours after returning to their rural Quitman County home from church services.

He also was sentenced to life in prison for the killing of Charlotte Parker, the slain couple's 9-year-old daughter.

The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld Simon's conviction and in 2004 denied Simon's arguments that he had found evidence to justify a new trial.

Authorities said the Parkers' bodies were pulled from their burning house. All 4 had been shot, but an autopsy showed Charlotte died from smoke inhalation.

Carl Parker's truck was found in Clarksdale. After an investigation, Simon and Anthony Carr were arrested in Clarksdale. Carr was convicted on 4 counts of capital murder and sentenced to die.

Simon had alleged in court documents that had his attorney looked into his background, he would have found a history of abuse at the hands of Simon's father. Simon claimed his counsel's failure to uncover this history of abuse resulted in a weak challenge to the prosecution's case for a death sentence.

Source: Associated Press, March 22, 2011
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

U.S. Supreme Court to review on missed death-row deadline in Alabama

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from a death row inmate who faces execution after a mailroom mix-up at one of the nation’s most prominent law firms.

Lawyers at the firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, had agreed to represent Cory R. Maples, a death row inmate in Alabama, without charge. When an Alabama court sent two copies of a ruling in Mr. Maples’s case to the firm in New York, its mailroom sent them back unopened and stamped “Return to Sender.”

Two associates handling Mr. Maples’s case had indeed left the firm, but it appears that no one told the court or the mailroom that new lawyers there had taken over. A court clerk in Alabama put the returned envelopes into the court file and did nothing more.

An Alabama lawyer, John G. Butler Jr., also represented Mr. Maples and also received a copy of the ruling. Mr. Butler said in a sworn statement that he was Mr. Maples’s lawyer in name only, serving as local counsel for the New York lawyers handling the case. He said he had not passed the ruling along to them or to Mr. Maples.

A deadline for filing an appeal from the ruling came and went, and so far the courts have rejected Mr. Maples’s request for an extension given the circumstances. “How can a circuit court clerk in Decatur, Ala., know what is going on in a law firm in New York, N.Y.?” Judge Glenn E. Thompson of the Circuit Court in Morgan County, Ala., later wrote.

Mr. Maples’s new lawyers, led by Gregory G. Garre, a former United States solicitor general, had asked the Supreme Court to consider two legal questions in the case, one technical, the other more fundamental. The court agreed to answer only the broader one: Whether missing a filing deadline may be excused when the inmate was blameless, the government’s actions were a contributing factor and the inmate’s lawyers had effectively stopped representing him?

In urging the court not to hear the case, Troy King, Alabama’s attorney general, wrote that Mr. Maples had been represented by “a team of attorneys from a multimillion-dollar law firm” who should know that rules are rules.

“Filing deadlines apply to death row inmates,” Mr. King wrote. “Countless attorneys have missed filing deadlines over the years, and state and federal courts routinely dismissed their client’s tardy appeal as a consequence. This case is no different, and it presents nothing new or nationally compelling.”

Mr. Garre responded that the case, Maples v. Thomas, No. 10-63, was hardly routine. Among other things, he said, “the state contributed to the missed deadline” and “a man’s life is at stake.”

The Supreme Court considered how hard the government must try to make sure that notice of a severe action was actually received in 2006 in Jones v. Flowers, which concerned the sale of a home for unpaid taxes. If a letter is returned unopened, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, officials must try harder to reach the owner.

“This is especially true,” he wrote, “when, as here, the subject matter of the letter concerns such an important and irreversible prospect as the loss of a house.”

Mr. Maples was convicted of murdering two companions after a night of drinking, and the jury was presented with substantial evidence of his guilt. He now contends that his court-appointed trial lawyers did a poor job of arguing that his life should be spared, a point his lawyers did not seem to dispute at the time, telling the jury apologetically that they “may appear to be stumbling around in the dark.”

Source: The New York Times, March 22, 2011
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Monday, March 7, 2011

Supreme Court says Texas inmate Henry "Hank" Skinner has right to DNA testing

Henry "Hank" Skinner
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has ruled that an inmate on death row in Texas can pursue his legal claims to crime-scene evidence that he says may show he is innocent.

The court’s narrow, 6-3 ruling Monday means that Hank Skinner will be not executed in the near future while his legal case continues.

But the decision will not necessarily result in Skinner winning the right to perform genetic testing on evidence found at the scene of the triple murder for which he received the death penalty.

Forty-seven states, including Texas, give convicted criminals in at least some circumstances the right to conduct post-trial DNA testing. More than 260 people have been exonerated after conviction through DNA evidence, according to the Innocence Project, which investigates cases and represents inmates.

The Supreme Court halted Skinner’s execution March 24, issuing an order less than an hour before he was scheduled to die.

The case is Skinner v. Switzer, 09-9000.

Source:Houston Chronicle, March 7, 2011


Supreme Court says Texas inmate has right to DNA testing

The Supreme Court has given another legal reprieve to a Texas death row inmate who says DNA testing of crime scene evidence will prove his "actual innocence."

It was unclear how the ruling will apply to similar legal challenges.

The justices by a 6-3 vote on Monday said Henry "Hank" Skinner does have a basic civil right to press for analysis of biological evidence not tested at the time of his trial.

The very narrow ruling does not yet get Skinner off death row for the murders of his girlfriend and her two sons, but it gives him another legal avenue to pursue to press his claims he did not commit the crimes.

Skinner came within 45 minutes of lethal injection before the justices stepped in and agreed to hear his constitutional claims.

Source: CNN, March 7, 2011
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Georgia executes Emmanuel Hammond

JACKSON, Ga. (AP) — A Georgia man convicted of killing an Atlanta preschool teacher more than two decades ago has been executed by state corrections officials.

Emmanuel Hammond (left) was put to death by injection Tuesday at the state prison in Jackson after state and federal courts turned down his appeals. The 45-year-old was pronounced dead at 11:39 p.m.

Hammond was convicted of the 1988 murder of 27-year-old Julie Love, who was abducted in north Atlanta after her car ran out of gas.

Prosecutors say Love was beaten and raped before Hammond took her into the woods, shot her to death and dumped her body into a trash pile.

Investigators didn't find her body until August 1989, when Hammond's girlfriend told police he was responsible for her disappearance.

Source: Associated Press, January 25, 2011


U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halts Georgia execution

The U.S. Supreme Court delayed the execution Tuesday of a death row inmate whose lawyers filed a last-minute appeal questioning the legality of using execution drugs that they said came from a company operating out of a London driving school.

The order from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delays the execution of inmate Emmanuel Hammond until the top court can address the concerns raised by his defense team. The order did not suggest how long that could take.

Hammond, 45, was convicted of the 1988 shotgun killing of preschool teacher Jule Love, who was abducted in north Atlanta after her car ran out of gas.

Hammond's execution comes amid a nationwide shortage of sodium thiopental, a part of the 3-drug cocktail used in Georgia's lethal injections. His attorneys sought more information on how the state obtained the drug, claiming in court filings it came from a "fly-by-night supplier operating from the back of a driving school in England."

But prosecutors urged judges to dismiss allegations that the state's supply was inferior, calling Hammond's claims a "red herring." A Fulton County judge agreed, denying his request for 2-week reprieve, and the Georgia Supreme Court upheld that decision.

Prosecutors have urged judges to uphold the conviction of the man nicknamed "Demon."

The court records lay out Love's killing in stark terms. The petite instructor was returning home from a "career chat" meeting with friends in north Atlanta when her car ran out of gas. As she walked down the road, a maroon Cutlass sedan carrying Hammond, his girlfriend Janice Weldon and his 18-year-old cousin Maurice Porter offered help.

She declined, telling the group she lived nearby. Before they drove away, someone in the car realized Love had tricked them, and Hammond jumped out with a sawed-off shotgun and threw Love into the car.

They drove her to an elementary school in a rundown neighborhood, where Porter rifled through her purse and found a little cash and ATM cards. At gunpoint, Hammond forced Love to reveal her pin number. But she was so nervous she gave him the wrong number.

Hammond sent Porter and Weldon to withdraw money from her account. When Weldon realized they would be returning empty handed, she told Porter: "Demon going to be mad," according to court records.

She was right. Hammond hit Love repeatedly with the gun barrel, and Porter pulled her aside and raped her. After a disgusted Weldon left, Hammond bound Love's hands, feet and neck with coat hangers and covered her in a blanket. She somehow managed to free her hands, yelling "Don't do it."

Then, Hammond marched Love into the woods. About three minutes later, Porter heard a gunshot and saw Hammond return with blood on his face. When Porter said to his cousin, "you didn't do what I think you did," Hammond's response was "had to."

Love's disappearance put her friends and family into a frenzy. Her fiance, Mark Kaplan, who had proposed just a week before she went missing, found her abandoned red Mustang and prodded police to launch an investigation. Then he made fliers, organized rallies and turned his home into a staging area for hundreds of volunteers.

It took almost a year for investigators to get a break in the case. In July 1989, Weldon, infuriated after suffering a particularly brutal beating by Hammond, went to a police station and told authorities about Love. Officers outfitted her with a recording device and sent her to talk to Porter, who corroborated what she said.

Authorities arrested Porter and Hammond, and they found Love's body in August 1989 about 30 yards from where Porter told them it would be.

Porter pleaded guilty to murder and rape charges and was sentenced to life in prison. Weldon was given immunity for her testimony.

Hammond's lawyers tried a new appeal strategy last week in a bid to delay the execution, saying they needed more time to investigate the state's supply of sodium thiopental, a lethal injection drug that's in short supply. They said in a hearing Monday that Georgia got the drug from Dream Pharma, a London-based company based in a driving school.

A Fulton County judge rejected the argument, saying Hammond had no evidence the drug was "adulterated or inferior." But his attorney appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court on Tuesday, claiming the state is about to execution someone using drugs illegally obtained from a "fly-by-night supplier operating from the back of a driving school in England."

"We wouldn't allow a dying pet to be euthanized using drugs with such dubious origins," said Sara Totonchi of the Southern Center for Human Rights, which filed the lawsuit. "That Georgia would carry out its business of extinguishing a human life in this manner is outrageous and embarrassing."

Love's friends and family, meanwhile, are still trying to cope with her death. Roz Cohen, an administrator at The Epstein School, where Love worked, recalled a vivacious, energetic teacher whose life ended far too soon.

"She was so excited about her future," said Cohen. "A life, right at the beginning, was just cut short because she was at the wrong place at the wrong time."

Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 25, 2011


Witness to death: Reporter’s account of Hammond execution

Editor’s note: At the invitation of the Georgia Press Association, The Daily Post volunteered to witness the lethal-injection execution Tuesday night of Emmanuel Hammond, who in 1990 was convicted of murder and related crimes in Fulton County.

In this line of work I’ve seen bad things.

Bodies in parking lots, a man broken in half when his truck flipped in an Indiana culvert, the charred remains of a trucker shot like a bullet from his fuel tanker and, most recently, an armed man gunned down by SWAT members in his front yard.

But I’ve never had an appointment with death.

Someone told me once to never pass up the opportunity to write about something you will always remember.

Two weeks ago, the name Emmanuel Hammond meant nothing to me. I hadn’t heard of the case, let alone reported on it, so I had no personal stake in his actions, or the lifetime of pain he surely inflicted upon good people. A burning hatred for someone is useful when you watch them die. Indifference is dangerous.

I read the court rulings and state-provided facts:

How Hammond, his girlfriend and cousin were driving through Buckhead one night in July 1988 when they happened upon a preschool fitness instructor named Julie Love, 27, whose Mustang had run out of gas. How Love refused a ride and kept walking. How Hammond beat her with a sawed-off shotgun, forced her in the car, assisted in her attempted robbery at an ATM machine and her rape on the grounds of an elementary school. How he tried unsuccessfully to strangle her with a clothes hanger and, later, forced her into some woods and fatally fired the shotgun into her face.

A conviction on strong evidence that pins a man to those sort of actions, in my book, lands him in the category of human cancer. Eye for an eye, right?

Despite this, I couldn’t help recall the musings of a brainy comedian, who said, in deceptively simple terms, that if killing a man is wrong, shouldn’t killing a man be wrong? What solution does death bring, especially when it’s relatively painless?

I volunteered, at the invitation of the Georgia Press Association, to watch Hammond’s state-sanctioned death as a means to more fully understand the process. For several days, the notion of 7 p.m. Tuesday, the reckoning hour, clung to my subconscious like a burr.

At the 24-hour mark, I found myself trying to mentally synch with the condemned, to be mindful of his parade of last things on this, his last day. Would he sleep on his last night? Would he count down the collapsing hours? This much was certain: His last day was a dreary, rainy, chilly affair, with low clouds caught across Georgia like gauze.

At 4 p.m. Tuesday I was flummoxed in the doorway of my closet, posed with the interesting question of attire: What does one wear to an execution? Funeral garb? More cheery, optimistic things? I donned a blue blazer and khakis and walked nervously out the door. This is when the dizziness began.

Dueling logic

Under Georgia law, murder, rape, armed robbery and kidnapping — along with less common crimes such as treason and aircraft hijacking — are punishable by death. Unlike in some states, where governors famously can intervene, Georgia’s parole board has sole constitutional authority to commute a death sentence, or reduce it to life in prison without parole.

As of 2008, the death penalty was authorized in 37 states. Georgia has executed 48 men since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the punishment in 1973. Hammond would be the 26th to die here by lethal injection.

Opponents argue the carrying out of executions in Georgia is too arbitrary. I know more than one prosecutor who feels lethal injections are too lenient, an escape hatch bereft of their victim’s suffering.

Gwinnett District Attorney Danny Porter explained this week that, in order for an execution to be green-lighted, a jury must find a “statutory aggravating circumstance” — such as torture, or a murder for hire — and a victim must have been killed, except in the aforementioned rare crimes.

Protesters representing Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty staged 11 protests and vigils in Georgia cities Tuesday night, including several in metro Atlanta. About 20 of them had braved a pesky rain to object to Hammond’s execution, huddled beneath a light post in a cordoned-off patch of soggy earth near the prison entrance. The state had provided them a Port-o-Potty.

The group has a saying that echoes in other anti-death penalty circles: Those without capital get the capital punishment.

“Most folks on death row are poor,” said protester Suzanne Hobby-Shippen, of Barnesville. “If you can afford to get a great attorney, chances are you’re not going to get a death sentence.”

Another activist asserted that it’s more expensive in Georgia to execute inmates than to keep them in prison on life-without-parole sentences. She was asked to elaborate on the cost comparison.

“It’s very, very hard to get that information,” she said. “Some other states do have it; we don’t for Georgia.”

Tense hours

Georgia Diagnostic and Classification
Prison in Jackson
From the highway, the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson looks surprisingly serene, like the entrance to a state park, all rippling lakes and soaring clusters of pines. I was met by a gaggle of armed guards and directed to park in a media staging area. The “bus,” I was told, would pick me up in an hour or so. Across the highway, Hess filling station and Dairy Queen patrons went obliviously about their day.

By this time, Hammond, 45, had wrapped up an allotted six-hour visitation with family and friends. Medical staff had administered his routine physical. And he’d probably finished his last meal: Fried chicken, French fries, corn on the cob, jalapeno peppers, mint chocolate chip ice cream and cherry limeade. The thought of eating anything made me nauseous.

Just before the bus arrived, several hundred yards away, Hammond was offered the anti-anxiety sedative Ativan, according to the Georgia Department of Corrections. His lawyers were meanwhile arguing the constitutionality of a much stronger sedative, sodium thiopental, a product of Dream Pharma, a company that operates in the back of a London driving school. The notion that a lethal injection drug like that shouldn’t be used from such a questionable source would land in the laps of U.S. Supreme Court justices that night, and would buy Hammond another 4.5 hours of life.

About 6 p.m., the bus, a sprawling Ford van, arrived. As required, I left all electronics, jewelry, even my pen inside my Volkswagen. The only other passenger was Andrew Adler, a writer from the Atlanta Jewish Times, who had covered the Love disappearance two decades prior and thought of Hammond’s demise like a salvo, a closing door. We arrived at the main prison entrance, where a tactical unit stood armed with shotguns. The dizziness resumed.

A long, bleak corridor. Clanging steel doors. No turning back. I wasn’t sure how near the execution chamber was, yet I was besieged by nerves and second thoughts. Prison staff handed us legal pads and No. 2 pencils. We came to a staff cafeteria and were introduced to DOC spokeswoman Joan Heath, our chaperone. She warned us that temporary stays are ordinary, and to not be alarmed should we wait around until midnight. We peppered her with questions to disarm surprises.

“It’s very dignified, professional,” Heath assured. “It’s done the right way. It doesn’t matter what time it is.”

Rumor holds that, on the day of an execution, the locked-down facility goes customarily quiet, a show of reverence by those awaiting similar fates. All of Georgia’s under-death inmates are housed there. It is the beginning and end of death row.

7:30 p.m. There was a prevailing sense of unease that we were in for a long night. No word from a DOC sergeant who would fetch us for a short ride to the death chamber. The appeal had made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who we realized would be attending the State of the Union address and would have to convene afterward. Deadlines grew increasingly impossible. I asked Heath who actually administers the drugs.

“I’m not sure,” she said. “We don’t know, and we don’t want to know.”

The conversation turned to last meals. Turns out there are no limitations. If Hammond would have wanted, say, Fat Matt’s Barbecue from the famed Atlanta shack, someone would have fetched it.

“You’d be surprised,” Heath said. “Most want the institutional meal that’s served that day.”

9:15 p.m. Starving, we were offered a snack (read: dinner) of Cheetos, Deer Park water and some sort of cream-filled raisin wafer. The anticipation gnawed.

9:25 p.m. Fearing an indefinite stay, prison officials allowed Associated Press writer Greg Bluestein to join us. He’d been designated the execution’s media “monitor,” the sole viewer of the IV insertions and the strapping in. He’d been waiting in the death chamber. His good friend was a 5-year-old pupil of Love’s in 1988. The room pulsated with boredom.

‘We’re on’

10:53 p.m. Rob Jones, DOC general counsel, took our orders for Subway sandwiches. I was famished and worried I’d not eaten enough. A few minutes later, Jones hustled back in the room, said the Supreme Court had ruled.

“We’re on,” Jones said.

The sandwiches were canceled.

11:15 p.m. A fuzzy mist clung to the night. The bus smelled like cigarettes. The mist became rain. We were driven around the prison’s periphery, thick with razor wire, through a series of checkpoints. Guards with shotguns searched beneath the hood, around the chassis. We drove across a rain-saturated prison yard to the execution chamber, where other buses were unloading witnesses. The chamber reminded me of a self-storage facility with a necklace of razor wire. The passengers from other buses trudged in. I asked Heath if we’d be able to speak with them afterward, to sort them out. She said that was out of the question. Adler and I would be last in, first out, first gone.

In the death chamber Hammond lay brightly lit behind panels of two-way glass, the gurney tilted toward the audience, his arms out, wrists up. He wore a white shirt; sheets lay across his stomach and legs, his head closely shaven and only a thin suggestion of a mustache on his lip. Everything he wore and everything around him seemed so clinically white he practically glowed. He worked his lips and jaws like a horse chewing cud. Even the nurse who tended Hammond’s tubes wore white, her face stern and aged, little stars of earrings sparkling.

The viewing room was tense and small, maybe 20 feet by 20 feet, rimmed elbow-to-elbow in law enforcement, medical personnel and stone-faced men in suits. There were three bright, yellow doors leading places we weren’t privy to. The audience consumed every open space in three pew-like benches, the victim’s kin and prosecutors who put Hammond there earning the front row. On the pews lay brown paper bags for vomit. A heavy door closed. I kept expecting a bull-rush to the exit.

Warden Carl Humphrey, a hulking and deep-voiced man, confirmed all witnesses were present. He asked that viewers remain quiet, and called a Jehovah’s Witness chaplain for prayer. Hammond, breathing hard, nodded when the chaplain called him “a faithful servant.” He had no last words, no audible remorse.

11:26 p.m. The controversial drug was administered first. Hammond’s lips lifted with his breathing, nostrils flaring. He yawned. He mouthed a couple words to someone in the second row, but the mic was turned off. Next was pancuronium bromide (a paralyzing agent) and lastly potassium chloride (the heartbeat stopper). Hammond’s muscled arms relaxed on the gurney. A man who Adler assured me was the victim’s fiance in 1988 fainted in the front row, his head draped back over the bench. Hammond’s head drooped toward his right shoulder, his mouth opened slightly and eyelids parted. Two doctors entered the room. They examined his chest and eyes, gave the nod.

11:39 p.m. Hammond was dead. His dying took 13 minutes. A man pulled a beige curtain across the windows, the one-act death skit over.

I scribbled these first, visceral impressions:

“Clinical, anti-climactic, eerie, tense, almost cinematic, haunting, professional, dizzying, fascinating, macabre, respectful, terrifying.”

Being whisked from the death chamber, a black van caught my eye. Its doors popped open and out came a stretcher. The bus took us back to our vehicles. They wished us well. In the immortal words of Kurt Vonnegut, “So it goes.”

Dizziness. That’s the only way to describe it. I squinted at the wet interstate all the way home.

I kept hoping the threat of state-sanctioned death, and any account that I might generate, would somehow serve as a deterrent, that the need for a demise like Hammond’s might one day dissipate. In this line of work I’ve seen bad things. So I have my doubts.

E-mail Josh Green at josh.green@gwinnettdailypost.com.

Source: gwinnettdailypost.com, January 29, 2011
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Troy Davis files new appeal with U.S. Supreme Court

Attorneys for Troy Anthony Davis are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule a federal judge who decided last year the Georgia death row inmate failed to clear his name after getting a rare chance to prove his innocence.

Davis' latest appeal, filed Friday, says the U.S. District Court judge ordered by the Supreme Court to hear his innocence claim last year "evinced a clear hostility to Mr. Davis and his claims throughout the hearing."

Davis has long said he could prove he was wrongly convicted of the 1989 slaying of off-duty Savannah police officer Mark MacPhail if a court agreed to hear new evidence.

The Supreme Court in late 2009 ordered U.S. District Court Judge William T. Moore Jr. in Savannah to preside over such a hearing. Moore heard 2 days of testimony in June.

In August, the judge ruled evidence presented by Davis' attorneys wasn't nearly strong enough to prove he's innocent. He wrote that while the evidence casts some additional doubt on Davis' conviction, "it is largely smoke and mirrors."

In their latest appeal, Davis' lawyers say the judge was wrong in refusing to hear from witnesses who say another man later confessed to MacPhail's killing.

They say the judge should have ruled that other testimony casting doubt on the case would have been sufficient to sway reasonable jurors from convicting Davis.

"The evidence, new and old, establishes that Mr. Davis is innocent by any reasonable standard," Davis' attorneys wrote.

A rejection by the Supreme Court would clear the way for Georgia officials to resume planning Davis' execution.

His case has taken a number of unexpected turns over the years. Davis has been scheduled for execution three times since 2007, but was spared each time by courts agreeing to take another look at his case.

Davis' lawyers tried to challenge Moore's ruling last year in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. That court refused to hear Davis' appeal, saying he must go straight to the Supreme Court because it ordered the hearing on his innocence claim.

Davis' lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to return the case to the 11th Circuit. But they also filed arguments challenging Moore's opinion in case the Supreme Court refuses to return the case to the lower appellate court.

MacPhail was working off-duty at a Savannah bus station on Aug. 19, 1989, when he was shot twice after rushing to help a homeless man who had been attacked. Eyewitnesses identified Davis as the shooter at his trial, but no physical evidence tied him to the slaying.

Davis' case has attracted international attention, including support from the NAACP, Amnesty International, former President Jimmy Carter and Pope Benedict XVI.

Source: Associated Press, January 25, 2011
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Alabama executes Leroy White

Leroy White
(Reuters) - Alabama executed by lethal injection a death row inmate on Thursday who had been convicted of murdering his wife by shooting her at point blank range with a shotgun.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas briefly raised the hopes of Leroy White, 52, when he granted a temporary stay of execution shortly before White was due to die.

But hours later the Court denied the request for a stay and White died at 9.10 p.m. central time at Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore, according to Brian Corbett, spokesman for Alabama department of corrections.

White murdered his estranged wife Ruby White in 1988 in a domestic dispute.

He shot her once and when she did not die immediately, he reloaded, picked up the couple's 17-month-old daughter, and fired again. He also shot his sister-in-law Stella Lanier four times, court documents said.

No members of the victim's family witnessed the execution, although two friends of White attended. White's last meal was a cheeseburger from the vending machine plus a V8 juice, pork skins and a Yahoo drink, Corbett said.

White's attorneys said their client had deserved more time for appeal because his previous lawyers did not notify him that a U.S. district court had turned down an appeal, which caused him to miss a crucial filing deadline.

White was executed "because he was too poor to get the legal assistance he needed at trial and thereafter for his post-conviction appeals," said his lawyer Bryan Stephenson.

"This is a case where the trial prosecutors did not believe the death penalty was appropriate, the jury did not believe the death penalty was appropriate, and the victim's family does not believe the death penalty is appropriate," said Stephenson.

Court documents showed the trial jury recommended life without parole. Stephenson said Lanier had also pleaded with Alabama governor Bob Riley for clemency.

With 30 executions carried out in 2010, Alabama ranked third last year in number of executions, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Texas far exceeded all other states with 269 executions in 2010, with Oklahoma second with 73.

White becomes the 1st condemned inmate to be put to death this year in Alabama and the 50th overall since the state resumed capital punishment in 1983.

White becomes the 3rd condemned inmate to be put to death this year in the USA and the 1237th overall since the nation resumed executions on January 17, 1977.

Source: Reuters, Rick Halperin, January 14, 2011


Leroy White's last few hours continued odd journey to his execution

Leroy White's last visitor left at 4:30 p.m. Thursday, an hour and a half before he was scheduled to be executed.

With no visitors allowed, White couldn't ask his lawyer what was happening. But shortly before the 6 p.m. execution, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a stay to consider a final motion in the former Huntsville resident and convicted murderer's case.

White sat in a cell near the gurney, waiting to learn his fate.

Nearly 3 hours later, shortly before 9 p.m., White was executed for the shotgun slaying of his estranged wife, Ruby White, at her Evans Drive home on Oct. 17, 1988.

The wait marked one final odd turn in White's case, which featured the victim's family asking that his life be spared, and one of White's own lawyers admitting he allowed White to miss a critical deadline to appeal.

That request was rejected by Gov. Bob Riley.

The jury at his trial recommended that he be given a life sentence for shooting his estranged wife twice with a shotgun, the 2nd time while he was holding the couple's 17-month-old daughter. But the judge in the case didn't accept the jury's recommendation and instead gave him the death penalty. The couple's daughter also asked Riley to spare White.

White's lawyer, Brian Stevenson, director of the Montgomery-based Equal Justice Initiative, which opposes capital punishment, took up White's case last summer, after White was notified Alabama had asked the state Supreme Court to set an execution date.

White was surprised to learn an execution date was approaching, and assumed he was still in the appeals process, Stevenson said.

Over the past week Stevenson petitioned both the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the execution be delayed because White's appeals process had been short-circuited by an inexperienced lawyer who withdrew without telling White.

That withdrawal resulted in White missing a crucial appeal deadline and started the clock for the scheduling of his execution.

Both courts rejected the missed deadline argument, despite an affidavit by former attorney G. James Benoit of Maryland, who admitted withdrawing for unrelated work reasons and failing to tell White about it.

Benoit, who took over White's case after another member of his law firm was suspended from practicing law, said he doesn't believe he communicated with White during the time an appeal could be filed. He said he was unaware of rules that required him to file an appeal.

"At all times I represented Mr. White pro bono," Benoit wrote. "I formerly practiced transactional tax and corporate law and no longer practice law. I have never tried a case and have never been in a courtroom in my career."

Benoit was White's lawyer in June 2009 when the U.S. District Court rejected his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial. White was offered a deal to plea to capital murder and spend life in prison, but he rejected it. Stevenson argued he was badly advised by his trial attorney.

Alabama Assistant Attorney General Clayton Crenshaw, who heads Alabama's Capital Litigation Division, said White had numerous reviews of his case and each of his arguments over the roughly 21-year appeals process was heard by the courts.

Crenshaw said the case file has filled 10 boxes.

He said the missed deadline is an issue that White's lawyers raised in the final days of his life, but they didn't have a persuasive argument on the key issue: given more time to appeal, could he win the appeal on the merits of his case?

Stevenson said about half of the roughly 200 prisoners on Alabama's death row were represented by a lawyer who is not allowed to spend more than $1,000 on out-of-court time working on the case, unless given permission by the trial court under Alabama indigent defense rules. He said that inequity leads to problems with the quality of assistance defendants are getting.

"The death penalty is not just about do people deserve to die for the crimes they are accused of, the death penalty is also about do we deserve to kill," Stevenson said. "If we don't provide fair trials, fair review procedures, when we have executions that are unnecessarily cruel and distressing, or if we have a death penalty that is arbitrary or political or discriminatory, then we are all implicated."

Source: The Hunstville Times, January 15, 2011

U.S. Supreme Court halts execution of Leroy White for further review

Leroy White
ATMORE, AL -- The U.S. Supreme Court halted the execution of Leroy White this evening just moments before he was scheduled to die by lethal injection.

The court issued a temporary stay until it could finish reviewing the details of the appeal, said Brian Corbett, spokesman for the Alabama Department of Corrections.

White, 52, was convicted of murder in the Oct. 17, 1988, shotgun slaying of his estranged wife, Ruby White, at her northwest Huntsville home.

White will remain in a holding cell adjacent to the execution room at Holman Prison in Atmore until the Supreme Court gives further instruction, Corbett said.

White would be the fourth person from Madison County - and first since 1998 - executed since the state took over executions from the counties in 1927.

Source: al.com, January 13, 2011


Justice Thomas stops Alabama execution temporarily

ATMORE, Ala. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has temporarily stopped the execution of a convicted killer in Alabama pending further action by the court.

Thomas issued the temporary stay shortly before the execution of Leroy White was scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. Thursday at Holman Prison in Atmore.

The temporary stay gives the court additional time to consider legal arguments in the case.

White was sentenced to die for the 1988 shotgun slaying of his estranged wife, Ruby. White fired while holding their 17-month-old daughter in his arms.

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, the Alabama Supreme Court and a federal judge in Alabama declined to intervene in the execution earlier Thursday.

Source: AP, January 13, 2011

Thursday, January 13, 2011

US court halts death penalty constitutionality case

District Judge Kevin Fine 
WASHINGTON — The highest criminal court in Texas intervened Wednesday to halt a rare case challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Texas District Judge Kevin Fine opened the case on December 6 with a series of hearings to determine whether the death penalty as applied in Texas risks executing innocent people.

Fine himself is a rarity, a heavily tattooed Democrat elected to his job in the politically conservative state.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals suspended hearings on December 7 on the case, and announced Wednesday that by a 6-2 vote it would not let the case proceed.

Judge Fine raised the issue in the case of John Green, 25. The prosecutor in the case has vowed to seek the death penalty for Green's involvement in a 2008 robbery.

However, Green's case has not been tried yet, so the appeals court ruled that the case was inadmissible.

"Mr. Green asserts that he is innocent, but apparently assumes that, if he goes to trial, he would be both wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death," read the ruling.

"These assumptions are simply not warranted before a jury has considered the evidence in the present case and rendered a verdict," the court said.

Green claimed that no jury can decide whether he is guilty of a crime that could result in a death penalty "because it is possible that an innocent person, perhaps in Texas, perhaps in some other jurisdiction, has been wrongly executed and therefore Mr. Green is subject to the possibility of being wrongfully convicted and wrongfully executed."

The Supreme Court "has never required human infallibility in its criminal laws or procedures," the court's ruling said.

It added that Green's challenge "can only be made when and if he has been convicted and sentenced to death. And it can be made only upon a showing that the Texas sentencing scheme has operated in an unconstitutional manner to deprive him of a constitutionally fair trial."

Issues surrounding the constitutionality of the death penalty in Texas "are indeed weighty public policy issues, greatly deserving of considerable debate," adding that the Texas Legislature "is an appropriate forum in which to debate these public policy issues."

Attorneys for Green said they were "deeply disappointed" that the appeals court shut down the hearing.

The appeals court "failed to assume the responsibility that Texas courts also have to address the underlying issue: whether the Texas death penalty trial process creates an unacceptable risk that innocent people have, and will continue to be, wrongfully convicted and executed," they said in a statement.

Both the Texas courts and the state legislature "have the obligation to address this overriding concern," they said.

The decision "does nothing to dispel the cloud of unreliability and indifference that hangs over the Texas capital punishment system," they said.

Two men sentenced to death whose guilt was challenged by the experts were executed in Texas in 2000 and 2004.

Claude Jones was convicted on the basis of a strand of hair found at the scene of the crime that later DNA tests determined was not his, and Todd Willingham was sentenced to death for setting fire to his home and killing his three daughters. Experts later showed that the fire was accidental.

Source: AFP, January 13, 2011

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Stevens and Death Penalty - Letter to the Editor of The New York Times

To the Editor:

Re "Stevens Settles Legal Mystery in Frank Essay" (Supreme Court Memo, front page, Nov. 28):

When the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of lethal injection in April 2008, Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he had concluded that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment. Yet between then and the date Justice Stevens left the court in 2010, nearly 120 people were executed in the United States, virtually all of them with Justice Steven's acquiescence.

It is nice, now that he has retired, that Justice Stevens is amplifying his reasons for finding capital punishment unconstitutional. It would have been nicer if, when he still had the power, he had voted to stop the scores of executions he instead voted to allow.

David R. Dow -- Houston, Nov. 28, 2010

The writer, a death penalty lawyer, is a professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Source: Letter to the Editor, New York Times, December 3, 2010 - David R. Dow is the University Distinguished Professor at the University of Houston Law Center. In March 2000, Dow founded the Texas Innocence Network, an organization that uses UH law students to investigate claims of actual innocence brought by Texas prisoners. He is also the litigation director at the Texas Defender Service, a nonprofit law firm that provides representation to death row inmates and works for reforms to the criminal justice system, especially on issues involving indigent defendants. Mr. Dow's Website can be found here.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Former Justice John Paul Stevens Criticizes Death Penalty

WASHINGTON — In 1976, just six months after he joined the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens voted to reinstate capital punishment after a four-year moratorium. With the right procedures, he wrote, it is possible to ensure “evenhanded, rational and consistent imposition of death sentences under law.”

In 2008, two years before he announced his retirement, Justice Stevens reversed course and in a concurrence said that he now believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional.

But the reason for that change of heart, after more than three decades on the court and some 1,100 executions, has in many ways remained a mystery, and now Justice Stevens has provided an explanation.

In a detailed, candid and critical essay to be published this week in The New York Review of Books, he wrote that personnel changes on the court, coupled with “regrettable judicial activism,” had created a system of capital punishment that is shot through with racism, skewed toward conviction, infected with politics and tinged with hysteria.


Source: The New York Times, November 28, 2010


Stevens' Powerful Anti-Death-Penalty Views

Former Justice John Paul Stevens (left), who retired from the Supreme Court in June after turning 90, has come out swinging in the past few days against the death penalty. In an appearance on 60 Minutes this past Sunday and a New York Review of Books essay that is now online, Justice Stevens makes the case that capital punishment as it is now administered in the U.S. is hopelessly flawed  and unconstitutional.

In so doing, he is pushing the death-penalty debate just where it needs to go. Supporters and opponents generally argue over whether capital punishment is right in the abstract. The discussion often comes off as little more than late-night dorm-room philosophizing: "Killing is killing, even if the state does it," or "Are you saying that if the allies caught Hitler, they shouldn't have executed him?"

Yet as Justice Stevens frames the question, it isn't whether you believe in a death penalty, it's whether you believe in this death penalty, the one the U.S. is currently using. It is a more relevant issue for those who care if the justice system is doing the right thing, and he makes a compelling case that none of us should.

Justice Stevens, who was appointed by a Republican President, Gerald Ford, has not always opposed capital punishment. In 1976, shortly after he joined the court, he provided a key vote in Gregg v. Georgia, one of a group of cases that ended a de facto death-penalty moratorium that had been in place since 1972. He did not join the most liberal Justices at the time, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, who insisted that any executions violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In 2008, Justice Stevens famously changed his mind. In a case challenging Kentucky's method of lethal injection, he said in a separate opinion that the court's decision in 1976 that capital punishment is constitutional was based on a belief that it would be applied in a way that would not be discriminatory, arbitrary, excessive or racially discriminatory. After three decades on the court, it had become clear to him that those conditions were not being met.

In his New York Review of Books essay, Justice Stevens gives a fuller explanation of what made him turn away from the death penalty. As he saw it, the 1976 ruling argued for a careful and narrow use of capital punishment, but since then, the Supreme Court has made its use increasingly less careful and less narrow.

One factor that has Justice Stevens and many other people questioning the death penalty is its unreliability. As Justice Stevens points out, more than 130 people have been exonerated and released from death row since 1973, a number of them based on DNA evidence.

Another chief concern is race. In 1987, a challenge was brought to the death penalty that showed it was being used in a highly disparate way: in Georgia, murderers who killed white people were 11 times more likely to get capital punishment than those with black victims. Justice Stevens, who dissented from that ruling, writes in his essay that the far greater punishment the system imposes for the killing of whites "provides a haunting reminder of once prevalent Southern lynchings."

Justice Stevens is also troubled by the way key procedural rules have been rewritten to make it easier to put people to death. One change involves so-called death-qualified juries -- that is, juries that don't include people who oppose the death penalty. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that opposition to the death penalty is not a valid reason to exclude someone from a jury. If you allow jurors to be excluded on this basis, you end up with juries that are much more pro-prosecution, and pro-death penalty, than society as a whole. But three years ago, a bitterly divided Supreme Court undid that ruling -- and cleared the way for death-qualified juries.

Another change is in the use of victim-impact statements. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that having a jury hear the often emotionally wrenching stories of victims could unfairly inflame jurors and was inconsistent with the "reasoned decisionmaking we require in capital cases." 4 years later, after turnover among the Justices, the court reversed itself - over Justice Stevens' dissent - and ruled that these statements can be used.

Justice Stevens' critique of death-penalty law is exactly right. It is also badly needed, as the current court is becoming ever more enthusiastic about capital punishment and ever more indifferent to important details -- like how certain we are that the person facing execution is even guilty.

Last year, Justice Antonin Scalia wrapped that indifference in constitutional theory, strongly suggesting in a dissent in a Georgia death-penalty case that there is nothing unconstitutional about executing someone who turns out to be actually innocent, so long as they had a proper trial and appeals process.

A great deal of death-penalty arguments, both pro and con, fall on deaf ears. If you oppose the death penalty as morally wrong, you are not likely to be impressed by reasoned (if flawed) arguments -- that it might deter crime, for example, or that it has long had a central place in western civilization. If you believe in capital punishment, you are unlikely to be moved by someone who simply says the state has no right to take a life.

Justice Stevens' arguments are powerful precisely because they come from someone in the middle of the debate -- a man who long believed capital punishment was constitutional provided it was properly applied. His sharp critique should reinforce the resolve of those who do not support the death penalty and raise unsettling questions for those who do.

Source: TIME Magazine; Adam Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board. Case Study, his legal column for TIME.com, appears every Wednesday, December 1, 2010