Rick Halperin
2018-11-09 15:51:13 UTC
November 9
TEXAS:
Texas AG fights Harris County prosecutors to keep Bobby Moore on death row
----Prosecutors and defense lawyers agree that Bobby Moore is too
intellectually disabled to execute - but the state of Texas wants him put to
death anyway.
A day after Harris County prosecutors made the rare move of siding with a death
row inmate in a Supreme Court filing, the Texas Office of the Attorney General
took the possibly unprecedented step of asking to take on the case and keep
pushing for the death chamber.
"The DA, who represents just 1 of Texas's 254 counties, does not represent the
Attorney General's interest," the state's top prosecutor wrote, claiming that
the district attorney offered "no analysis" beyond "2 conclusory sentences" in
her filing a day earlier.
The state's 17-page brief represents yet another twist in a groundbreaking case
that's already shaken up how Texas determines whether a prisoner is too
intellectually disabled to be put to death.
Lawyers for Moore, an attorney general spokesperson and the district attorney's
office all did not weigh in on Wednesday's filing. A day earlier, Harris County
District Attorney Kim Ogg offered a short statement pointing to an earlier
Supreme Court decision in the case.
"We agree with the Supreme Court that the intellectually disabled should not be
executed," she said.
The convicted killer was 1 of 3 men involved in a botched robbery at the
Birdsall Super Market, a 1980 slaying in which he fired the shot that killed
elderly store clerk James McCarble. That same year, the former carpenter was
sentenced to death during his 1980 trial.
For more than 3 decades, Moore fought his appeals, once coming within hours of
execution. Then, in 2017, the Supreme Court handed down a groundbreaking
decision, in a 5-3 ruling determining that Texas had been, for years, not
properly measuring intellectual disability in cases like Moore's. The ruling
booted Moore's claims back to a lower court, where prosecutors switched course
and asked for a life sentence.
But - even though the district attorney's office agreed to the more lenient
outcome - the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals didn't, handing down a split
decision Moore's lawyers condemned as an "outlier" and "inconsistent" with the
higher court.
Last month, Moore's legal team appealed that ruling up to the Supreme Court
again, asking the justices to yet again examine the state's standards for
intellectual disability, but also asking the high court to consider whether an
execution should count as unconstitutional if both sides agree that it is.
"As far as counsel is aware, this Court never has permitted an execution when
both the prosecutor and the defendant agree that the defendant is
intellectually disabled and ineligible for execution," defense attorney Cliff
Sloan and Pat McCann wrote in their Supreme Court filing. "For good reason."
Although the Supreme Court banned states from executing intellectually disabled
prisoners more than a decade ago, for years Texas skirted that by relying on an
out-dated, nonclinical test to evaluate mental capacity.
Named after plaintiff Jose Briseno, the test used seven questions to determine
intellectual disability, as outlined in a 2004 ruling that famously referenced
"Of Mice and Men" character Lennie as someone most Texans would agree should be
exempt from the death penalty.
But even though he failed every single grade, did not understand the days of
the week by age 13, and fell below the standard for being able to live
independently as an adult, under the old standard Moore still didn't qualify as
intellectually disabled.
The Court of Criminal Appeals twice decided that despite his apparent deficits,
he was still fit to execute. Then last year the Supreme Court reversed the
first of those two decisions with its groundbreaking 5-3 ruling.
The high court's 2017 ruling didn't just impact Moore's case, it also ordered
Texas to come up with new standards - something other than the Briseno factors
- for determining intellectual disability.
The ruling sparked a stream of requests from inmates hoping to get off death
row, and 2 condemned killers won stays this year because of the decision.
But even the Supreme Court's decision hasn't been enough to spare Moore - at
least not yet. After the high court's decision last year, prosecutors in
November 2017 agreed with the defense that a life sentence was appropriate.
And still, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said no. Even though the appeals
court came up with a new, clinical standard for measuring intellectual
disability, they still found that Moore didn't meet it.
So in October, Moore's lawyers filed another appeal in the Supreme Court. On
Tuesday, the district attorney's office agreed.
"The respondent parts company with the TCCA in its determination that the
applicant is not intellectually disabled," the district attorney's office
wrote. Citing the Supreme Court's earlier decision, the prosecutors laid out
some of the indicators of Moore's disability, and concluded by asking the
justices to reverse the Texas appeals court's decision.
In its unusual response a day later, the attorney general asked to replace the
district attorney on the case and accused the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
of taking on the role of the legislature when it adopted updated, clinical
standards for determining mental capacity earlier this year.
The state also dinged the county prosecutors for changing their stance on the
case.
"For one thing, the DA's concession was an abrupt reversal of her office's
longstanding position that the same evidentiary record demonstrated that
petitioner is not intellectually disabled," the state argued.
And, the attorney general wrote, the court requires arguments from 2 sides in
death penalty cases. But when prosecutors agree with the defense, they're not
really offering true opposition, the state said.
"Petitioner's arguments outlined above should be fully addressed by a true
brief in opposition before the Court considers the extraordinary remedy of
summary reversal," the attorney general wrote. "If allowed to intervene, the
Attorney General will perform that important function for the Court."
(source: Houston Chronicle)
FLORIDA:
Supreme Court vacates death penalty for St. Lucie County cop killer----Gary
Morales was shot and killed during a traffic stop in 2013.
A man sent to death row for the murder of St. Lucie County Deputy Sgt. Gary
Morales will be re-sentenced.
The Supreme Court of Florida vacated the death sentence of Eriese Alphonso
Tisdale on Thursday.
The court wrote in its opinion, "we vacate his death sentence because we cannot
conclude that the Hurst error in his case was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt."
In 2015, a jury convicted Tisdale of killing Sgt. Morales during a traffic stop
in 2013. 9 of the 12 jurors recommended death for Tisdale.
The judge then handed down the death penalty in April 2016.
However, Florida law changed in January 2016 when the United States Supreme
Court ruled 'Florida's sentencing scheme' unconstitutional, according to the
2018 Opinion from the Florida Supreme Court.
Prior to the ruling, a judge could impose a death sentence with a
recommendation by at least 7 jurors.
After the Supreme Court ruling, the new law required a recommendation of death
by at least 10 jurors.
The court reaffirmed Tisdale's convictions, and sentences on all the lesser
charges and ordered a new penalty phase of trial.
The St. Lucie County Clerk's Office says a re-sentencing date has not been set.
(source: CBS News)
***************
Unanimous jury sets high bar for death penalty cases
Getting a mandatory unanimous jury death sentence is difficult because jurors
are being asked to do something that judges should be doing, State Attorney
Brad King says.
“I’ve always believed that it is not the appropriate question to ask someone,”
King said of verdicts that call for death or life in prison. “That’s why we
elect judges.”
The U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned Florida’s old death penalty law, has
taken the opposite view.
In the past, juries voted on a sentence recommendation and the judge would make
the final decision. He or she could even reject the jury’s recommendation. The
closer the vote was to a unanimous death recommendation, the more likely a
defendant would be sentenced to die.
Judges know the law and they are aware of other cases across the state and how
they are being handled, King said. Likewise, the Florida Supreme Court reviews
cases to see if a sentence is unusually harsh.
“For jurors, this is the only case they have ever seen,” King said.
And it is the most troubling decision they will ever have to make.
King says jurors should be asked if the state proved its list of statutory
aggravating circumstances required for a death sentence and if there are
offsetting mitigating circumstances.
Defense attorneys, of course, favor the requirement for a 12-0 vote.
“It should be hard,” said Public Defender Mike Graves.
Graves’ public defenders still have their work cut out for them. They must
bring in all kinds of trial doctors and mental health experts at great expense.
Otherwise, they risk having a high court rule that they provided inadequate
counsel and make them try the case all over again.
This week’s death penalty rehearing for Raul Roque, who killed another prison
inmate, cost at least $200,000 for defense experts alone, according to John
Spivey, Graves’ executive assistant public defender. The jury didn’t even
record its vote when it decided to give Roque another life sentence.
The U.S. Supreme Court opposes state death penalty laws if it thinks the laws
are “arbitrary and capricious,” King said. But where else in society do we
require 12 people to agree on anything, other than a guilty or not-guilty
verdict?
Appellate courts don’t have to be unanimous, he said. They can overturn or
uphold a death sentence with a 1-vote margin.
To make matters worse, King said he knows of at least 3 cases where jurors have
lied in jury selection about being willing and able to consider a death
sentence. “They have gotten in there and said, ‘I don’t care. I’m not going to
do it, no matter what. Let’s go home.’”
There’s no repercussion either. “If a judge does that, people can vote him out
of office,” King said.
Despite the difficulty, King’s Assistant State Attorney Rich Buxman recently
scored 2 death sentences in Orange County, though a judge rejected the jury’s
decision in 1 case.
“It involved the death of a 3-month-old baby by a dad who basically stomped on
the baby’s head,” King said. Jurors heard the 911 tape of the man calling for
an ambulance while the baby is dying in the background.
“I really thought the jury was going to come out of the jury box to get their
hands on him,” King said.
The judge looked at the man’s borderline IQ and made the decision that death
was not the appropriate decision.
Though King said he disagreed with the ruling, at least it was a judge who made
the decision.
King has always been a proponent of the death penalty under the proper
circumstances.
“To me, if there is no death penalty, the value of that person whose life was
taken is less than the defendant’s. That’s not fair to me.”
Court rulings and even public opinion seems to have shifted in the other
direction.
People talk about “smart justice” now, King says, and how prisons are too full
and perhaps we should let some people out since the crime rate is low.
“The reason the crime rate is low is because they’re in prison,” he said. “To
me, this is backward thinking.”
He remembers a time when Florida prisoners were let out after serving only 17 %
of their sentence. Then, there was an outcry from crime victims and the law was
changed requiring that they serve 85 %.
Will the idea of a death penalty gain popularity again?
“I don’t know that I’ll see it in the time I have left in public service,” King
said.
It would probably take a horrific crime and the public demanding to know why
something more isn’t being done, he said.
In the meantime, it only takes 1 juror to say no. That was the case this spring
in the case of David Mariotti, who killed 84-year-old Bernadine Montgomery in
her Leesburg home and dumped her body in the Ocala National Forest.
Next year, Lake County has more death penalty cases for jurors to consider,
including 2 young men who killed a retired teacher in her home and the father
of a baby who said he killed his daughter because his wife wanted a divorce.
(source: Daily Commercial)
MISSISSIPPI:
Why would inmate risk execution? He says he would rather prove innocence and
'die fighting.'
Jeffrey Havard became angry when he was removed from Mississippi’s death row in
September, nearly 16 years after he entered.
His initial reaction to the court tossing out his death sentence was “worse
than doing nothing at all,” Havard said in an interview inside the Adams County
Jail. “I would rather die, taking my chances on death row and go down being
executed, fighting for my innocence, than to just be thrown into prison, life
without parole, and waste away.”
His lawyers plan to appeal the judge’s decision to the state Supreme Court,
opening the door for justices to reimpose the death penalty.
So why would anyone risk that?
“All I want to do is to be able to tell the jury my story,” Havard said. “I
haven’t gotten a chance to do that.”
She noticed that Chloe wasn't breathing
It was the night of Feb. 21, 2002, and 6-month-old Chloe Madison Britt was
crying.
Her mother, Rebecca, was gone, buying something from the store.
Havard said he thought Chloe had soiled her diaper, discovering instead she had
spit up.
He decided to give her a bath, and after she was done, he pulled her out.
As he reached for a towel, she was wiggling and fell from his grasp, hitting
the toilet, he said.
He returned her to his arms, gave her a little shake and spoke to her, he said.
“Chloe, are you OK?”
She started crying, he said. “I held her in my arms and made sure she was OK. I
dried her off, and she quit crying. I thought she was OK.”
Chloe Madison Britt, 6 months old, died on Feb. 21, 2002.
When Rebecca returned minutes later, she checked on Chloe, he said. “That eased
my mind, and I didn’t say anything.”
He said he gave Rebecca money to rent a movie for them to watch.
When she returned, she noticed that Chloe wasn’t breathing and began to scream,
starting CPR on her daughter.
Havard, who was in the bathroom, said Rebecca yelled out for him to go to his
grandparents down the road.
He said he replied, “No, let’s get in the car and go to the hospital.”
At Natchez Community Hospital’s emergency room, medical personnel scrambled to
revive Chloe, who wasn’t breathing and had no pulse.
At 10:04 p.m., they got their first ray of hope. Chloe’s blue skin began to
turn pink.
They could see bruises on her forehead and the front of her thighs. A nurse
removed her diaper to take her temperature and said, "Look at this."
They noticed the baby's rectum was dilated and called police.
Not long after, they lost her pulse. Her face swelled; so did her brain. By
10:50 p.m., doctors declared her dead.
'You're going to be executed for this'
By the time that declaration took place, Havard was already in the back of a
squad car.
At about 3 a.m., deputies led him from the jail to the interrogation room.
It was here, for the first time, that he learned Chloe was dead.
“And before I can even react, (the deputy) said, ‘And she’s been raped,’” he
recalled.
The news stunned Havard.
“Son,” he said the deputy told him, “she’s been ripped from end to end. You
tell us right f---ing now what you did to her, and maybe that will keep the
needle out of your arm up there in Parchman. You’re going to be executed for
this.”
The words shocked Havard.
“That scared the hell out of me,” he recalled. “I was scared to say I dropped
her at that point.”
The next day, a hospital conducted a DNA test on him, hoping to link him to the
sexual assault.
When he returned to the jail, authorities handed him with papers that explained
his arrest.
He said his head spun as he read the words, accusing him of sexual battery and
shaking Chloe to death.
Authorities continue to say Jeffrey Havard is guilty of a heinous homicide, but
he maintains he accidentally dropped 6-month-old Chloe Madison Britt.
When he saw the words “subdural hemorrhage,” he said he realized that
accidentally dropping her on the head may have caused her death.
He shared his story with deputies, who pressed him repeatedly on the
allegations of rape.
He said he wanted to be helpful and tried to think of what might explain this,
but they continued to believe he had sexually assaulted Chloe.
“It was the perfect storm,” he recalled. “It still is.”
'Absolute low point of evil and human depravity'
In December 2002, Havard went on trial for capital murder.
A parade of witnesses — doctors, nurses, the sheriff and others — described an
anal dilation the size of a quarter, along with tears, rips, lacerations and
bleeding they said they saw in the child’s anal area.
Then-state pathologist Dr. Steven Hayne told jurors that Havard had shaken the
baby to death, comparing the injuries to those seen in car crashes and falls
from significant heights.
No defense experts testified because Judge Johnson wouldn’t permit their
hiring.
He told defense lawyers they could question Hayne about the death. They didn’t
bother.
Jurors never heard from Havard, either, because his court-appointed lawyers
advised him not to testify.
After 40 minutes of deliberation, jurors convicted Havard, who professed his
innocence when he was sentenced, and recommended the death penalty.
Circuit Judge Forrest Johnson told him, “Just when you think that you have seen
everything and that you have seen or heard of the absolute low point of evil
and human depravity, someone like you comes along and shows us a new low in
human behavior."
Havard received a sentence of death by lethal injection.
Scientists discredit shaken baby syndrome
In the years that followed the trial, scientists have discredited shaken baby
syndrome.
In 2001, Minnesota pathologist Dr. John Plunkett conducted a groundbreaking
study, examining Consumer Product Safety Commission reports involving falls
from playground equipment. He concluded short-distance falls are capable of
producing the triad of symptoms previously identified as shaken baby syndrome.
"It's clear that low velocity, even a 2- or 3-foot fall can cause serious and
fatal brain injury," he told The Clarion-Ledger. "If people had paid attention
to the science, it would not have been a mystery."
The Clarion Ledger questioned Hayne about the changing science. He backed off
his shaken baby conclusion, acknowledging the injuries could have come from a
short fall.
He cited a 1979 study measuring the falls of children. "You can generate
tremendous G forces in a short distance when you hit a very hard surface," he
said.
Sexual assault was the underlying felony charge against Havard that enabled
authorities to pursue the death penalty against him.
Authorities believed sexual assault because of the anal dilation, but a 1996
study found anal dilation was common among children who died, especially those
who suffered brain damage.
Hayne told the Clarion Ledger that he informed prosecutors he didn’t see any
evidence of sexual assault.
A rape kit found no semen or foreign DNA, and he examined those sections under
a microscope.
His conclusion? There were no tears, rips or similar injuries to the child’s
rectum, he said. “I would think that would be a definitive evaluation.”
In 2015, the state Supreme Court ordered a new hearing for Havard, citing the
shifting science on shaken baby syndrome, but justices wouldn’t allow the judge
to consider evidence that no sexual assault took place.
Havard vows to keep fighting: 'The truth is the truth'
At that August 2017 hearing, Hayne and four other experts concluded that Chloe
did not die of shaken baby syndrome.
Hayne and another prosecution expert still believed her death was a homicide.
Renowned pathologist Dr. Michael Baden of New York City said he believes the
injuries of 6-month-old Chloe Madison Britt are consistent with a fall.
Renowned pathologist Dr. Michael Baden of New York City disputed that
conclusion, saying the baby’s injuries were consistent with the fall Havard
described. “With short falls,” he said, “you can have fatal injuries.”
After 3 days of testimony and hundreds of pages of briefs, Judge Johnson wrote
an order that took up less than 5 pages.
Despite the new evidence on shaken baby syndrome, Johnson concluded that Havard
was just as guilty, citing the testimony of Hayne and Dr. Scott Benton, chief
of the division of forensic medicine at the University of Mississippi’s Medical
Center.
But the judge tossed out the death sentence, concluding that while the evidence
was “not sufficient to undermine this Court’s confidence in the conviction,
there is a cautious disturbance in confidence of the sentence of death, even if
slight.”
That conclusion baffled Havard. “If I’m just as guilty as I was before, what
disturbs my death sentence?” he asked.
And if there is indeed doubt, he asked, wouldn’t that affect his conviction?
His resentencing is set for Nov. 19, where he is expected to receive a life
without parole sentence. (District Attorney Ronnie Harper told the judge that
his office won't seek the death penalty.)
Havard's appeal of the judge's order, however, opens the door for him to
possibly receive the death penalty.
For 16 years now, he said he has felt like he was underwater.
Since 2012, he feels he has been rising up in that water, more and more
evidence reflecting his innocence, he said. “Now I’m within an inch or two of
the surface.”
But instead of breaking through, the judge’s order has blocked his way, he
said.
He vows to keep fighting. “If it takes a week, if it takes 10 months, if it
takes 10 years, the truth is the truth,” he said. “I want the truth to come
out.”
(source: clarionledger.com)
KENTUCKY:
New Attorney to Prosecute Madden Death Penalty Case
This week’s election has produced a shakeup in a capital murder case in south
central Kentucky.
Nearly 3 years after a young Allen County girl was brutally murdered, a new
prosecutor is joining the case.
Clint Willis, the commonwealth’s attorney for Allen and Simpson counties, was
defeated in Tuesday’s election by Franklin lawyer Corey Morgan.
Willis built the case against Timothy Madden after he was charged in the
November 14, 2015 death of 7-year-old Gabbi Doolin.
Morgan has past experience as the assistant county attorney in Barren County.
He currently specializes in criminal defense and says that could be
advantageous in prosecuting the Madden case.
"I think that will help me a lot, not just this case, but all all my cases
because I have, in fact, defended a lot of cases in the past that are high
profile," Morgan told WKU Public Radio.
However, this is Morgan’s 1st death penalty case.
The Madden case has faced multiple delays in going to trial over the past three
years, but Morgan says he has every intention to get the case before a jury
next fall. The trial is currently is set for September 4, 2019.
A call placed to Willis was not returned. Morgan will be sworn into office on
December 31.
(source: WKYU news)
ARKANSAS:
Death penalty reversed in Pine Bluff killing for ineffective defense
The Arkansas Supreme Court today reversed the death penalty given Kenneth Reams
by a Jefferson County jury in the 1993 shooting death of Gary Turner during a
robbery at an ATM machine. The court said Reams had ineffective counsel during
the penalty phase of the trial.
The decision was 5-2, with Justices Rhonda Wood and Shawn Womack dissenting.
Justice Jo Hart concurred with the majority in .
A co-defendant in the case, Alford Goodwin, was convicted and sentenced to life
in prison before Reams went to trial. Reams' attorney failed to get Goodwin's
testimony in support of Reams' defense that Goodwin shot Turner, not Reams.
The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's finding in the appeal by Reams for
post-conviction relief. From the opinion:
Throughout the trial, trial counsel’s theory was that Goodwin had shot and
killed Turner. Despite this defense theory, trial counsel testified at the Rule
37 hearing that he could not talk to Goodwin because Goodwin was represented by
counsel. Trial counsel testified that he did not recall whether he had
approached counsel for Goodwin but that he did not have a good working
relationship with Goodwin’s counsel. Trial counsel further testified that “[he
didn’t] know when [Goodwin] pled in relation to [Reams’s] trial.”
Based on the above testimony and in light of the defense’s theory that
Goodwin shot Turner, there is no strategic reason not to at least investigate
and attempt to present Goodwin at trial to corroborate Reams’s defense that he
was not the shooter. Accordingly, we hold that trial counsel’s failure to at
least attempt to present Goodwin’s testimony during the penalty phase of trial
constitutes deficient performance.
The case was returned to Circuit Court for a new determination of penalty.
(source: Arkansas Times)
USA:
Can There Really Be A Humane Way To Kill A Person Who Wants To Live?
In January 2014, in Ohio, Dennis McGuire gasped, his stomach heaved violently
and his fists clenched through 25 minutes of a botched execution. Horrified, an
audience and a team of executioners watched a human being suffer before finally
succumbing to the lethal cocktail of drugs.
In April 2014, in Oklahoma, a new combination of drugs shrouded in secrecy and
untested was to be used on two death row inmates. The first of the 3 drugs was
meant to knock the offender unconscious so he couldn’t feel the excruciating
pain caused by the following drugs. The remaining two would ultimately kill
him. Clayton D. Lockett was the first of the two death row inmates set to die
and after searching for a vein for an hour, they administered the knock out
drug. Assuming he was unconscious, they then injected the lethal doses and
Lockett proceeded to writhe in visibly excruciating pain, clenching his teeth
and struggling to lift his head for 43 minutes. It was so disturbing a sight,
the execution team lowered the blinds so the witnesses could no longer see what
was going on. The second man, Charles Warner, received a stay of execution
after that.
In July 2014, in Arizona, it took Joseph R. Wood one hour and 40 minutes to die
from his injection, appearing to suffer through that time. One witness counted
640 gasps from Joseph as he struggled in front of an audience for near two
hours.
That was just 2014.
Lethal injection is the latest in a long line of execution methods. Each of the
previous methods was left behind because we no longer saw them as “humane”.
This is, of course, one of the most absurd conversations we’ve ever had as
modern human beings.
The word, “humane” is defined as having or showing compassion or benevolence.
You cannot apply that to a method of slaughter unless it is an act of mercy for
which the victim has a profound and unchangeable desire. Under no circumstances
can killing someone against their will ever be considered humane. If you’ve
somehow convinced yourself of the opposite, well, I congratulate you on denial
levels more impressive than a banana-munching Ray Comfort.
Describing any execution as humane is simply the attempt by the governing body
and people involved in the execution to shrug off guilt, to appear less cruel
than they actually are. Denying that is just a way to combat the cognitive
dissonance that comes with describing an act of needless violence and slaughter
as humane.
The first execution by lethal injection in the USA took place in 1982. It was
introduced to combat two things: The painfulness of the procedure so as to be
more “humane” and the horror that witnesses are subject to when watching an
execution. Being as the willing and premeditated slaughter of a human being
against their will can never be described as “humane”, this leaves us with only
one real reason for the introduction of lethal injection: to ease the
conscience of those involved. Pure, unadulterated, selfish reasons.
The one thing that is most often overlooked when studying the death penalty is
the impact on the family of the offender. Killers, rapists, and violent
offenders often have families just like yours or mine, with mothers who tried
their best and fathers who worked hard to make ends meet. They have loving
siblings and close-knit cousins and aunts and uncles and grandparents who love
and adore them, even though their loved one committed a heinous crime. These
loved ones of the offender are innocent, law-abiding citizens. Sometimes they
are elderly women, a sole survivor left of a family torn apart by crime just as
significantly as the victim’s family was. These are innocent, hardworking men
and women who have to prepare the very last thing they’ll utter to their loved
one. They have to plan what to wear to their son or daughter’s execution. They
have to lay awake nights fretting over the very possible likelihood that the
execution does not go smoothly. They try to put out of their minds the idea
that they may have to witness their child suffer in great pain as the victim’s
family shouts awful things at him or her. These are innocent, loving people who
didn’t choose to be related to a violent offender, and they feel every bit as
much as the victim’s family does.
Take, for example, Harriet, a woman who was profiled in Grief, Loss, and
Treatment for Death Row Families: Forgotten No More. Her son asked her to be a
witness to his execution and without hesitation, she said yes. Able to put
aside the horror she knew she would go through, she vowed to be there for her
son, and she was. It was not easy.
When Harriet witnessed her son’s execution, she was mindful of the presence
of the victim’s family members… She tried her best to focus all her attention
on her son as she communicated her love for him through her eyes. While she was
not permitted to speak, she mouthed, “I love you” to her son over and over. It
was particularly challenging for her to maintain her focus on her son, however,
with the victim’s family members calling out hateful messages to her son as he
was being executed.
For a moment, put yourself in Harriet’s shoes. She tried desperately to filter
out the loud declarations that the drugs were not painful enough, as she
watched her son die. Picture yourself in that very same situation, in a room
full of people foaming at the mouth with hatred for the person you love the
most as you watch that person die. Just close your eyes, and try to empathize
with this woman, who did nothing wrong, didn’t ask for this, and most certainly
does not deserve it.
How about Laverne, whose son was executed 10 years after his conviction, with
no regard for the fact that he was extremely mentally ill. She had been present
at her son’s execution so he had someone who loved him there, but she said that
witnessing her son die was overwhelming. She said her heart broke watching him
die and she has been haunted by images of it ever since. She explained that no
hour went by that she didn’t think about watching him die, or picture it in her
mind. She’d stopped leaving her house. She had stopped answering her phone. She
had stopped participating in life. She was profiled in the book, Hidden
Victims: The Effects of the Death Penalty on Families of the Accused.
It’s also extremely easy to overlook the effects of executions on correctional
officers, executioners and wardens.
Murder victims’ families also come out against the death penalty in significant
numbers. To this end, a non-profit was founded, Murder Victims Families For
Human Rights. This group is made up of the loved ones of those who have been
taken from them by murder, and who feel that the gruesome display of an
execution is an insult to their loved ones’ memories. They fight to abolish the
death penalty, just as hard as those who have never lost a loved one to violent
crime.
Witnessing a human being be killed is not something you walk away from
unscathed. Even if you feel anger towards that person, even if you hate them
more than you ever thought capable. While some victims’ families will witness
an execution and walk away from it unable to admit that it made them
uncomfortable, I don’t think the human condition allows for that, unless you’re
as cold-blooded as the murderer himself. It affects every last person who
witnesses it, from reporters and executioners, wardens and the offender’s
family. To expect that the murder victim’s family will walk out of that room
feeling good, is to be as gullible as human beings get.
The families of murder victims need care, they need compassion, they need to
grieve. Witnessing the slaughter of a human being is not going to facilitate
that, no matter how much they assert it will.
The last person an execution affects negatively is the medical personnel who
are required by most death penalty states to be present for a lethal injection.
More and more of these medical professionals are refusing to take part in
executions as it directly conflicts with the oaths they took to help and not
harm people. It violates, in every way possible, the medical profession’s
ethics. Many states are experiencing turmoil in their death penalty system as
it becomes harder and harder to find medical professionals willing to attend
executions.
Both the American Medical Association and the American Board of
Anesthesiologists have come out with statements against participation in lethal
injections. The American Board of Anesthesiologists even voted to revoke the
license of those men and women who have been found to assist in the execution
of a human being.
The act of aiding in an execution defies the Hippocratic oath directly and
leaves the medical personnel involved not only having to deal with taking a
life but also having to grapple with the fact that it violates the ethics of
their profession.
The death penalty is inhumane. It’s inhumane not just to the man or woman who
is losing their life, but also to their innocent loved ones who certainly
didn’t ask to have their world turned upside down by a violent crime. It’s
inhumane to the men and women who go to work for 30-60 days prior to an
execution, to prepare to kill a human being. It’s inhumane to the wardens and
executioners who have to train their staff how to kill a person. It’s inhumane
to the murder victims’ families who need positivity and compassion and time to
grieve, rather than grisly scenes of death all over again. Finally, it’s
inhumane to the men and women of the medical profession, who struggle to come
to terms with their guilt over having to take a human life and the fact that
the act defies the values of the very profession they are in.
There is no way you can ever make the case that lethal injection or any other
form of execution is humane. It’s just simply not possible.
(source: patheos.com)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
***@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenal
TEXAS:
Texas AG fights Harris County prosecutors to keep Bobby Moore on death row
----Prosecutors and defense lawyers agree that Bobby Moore is too
intellectually disabled to execute - but the state of Texas wants him put to
death anyway.
A day after Harris County prosecutors made the rare move of siding with a death
row inmate in a Supreme Court filing, the Texas Office of the Attorney General
took the possibly unprecedented step of asking to take on the case and keep
pushing for the death chamber.
"The DA, who represents just 1 of Texas's 254 counties, does not represent the
Attorney General's interest," the state's top prosecutor wrote, claiming that
the district attorney offered "no analysis" beyond "2 conclusory sentences" in
her filing a day earlier.
The state's 17-page brief represents yet another twist in a groundbreaking case
that's already shaken up how Texas determines whether a prisoner is too
intellectually disabled to be put to death.
Lawyers for Moore, an attorney general spokesperson and the district attorney's
office all did not weigh in on Wednesday's filing. A day earlier, Harris County
District Attorney Kim Ogg offered a short statement pointing to an earlier
Supreme Court decision in the case.
"We agree with the Supreme Court that the intellectually disabled should not be
executed," she said.
The convicted killer was 1 of 3 men involved in a botched robbery at the
Birdsall Super Market, a 1980 slaying in which he fired the shot that killed
elderly store clerk James McCarble. That same year, the former carpenter was
sentenced to death during his 1980 trial.
For more than 3 decades, Moore fought his appeals, once coming within hours of
execution. Then, in 2017, the Supreme Court handed down a groundbreaking
decision, in a 5-3 ruling determining that Texas had been, for years, not
properly measuring intellectual disability in cases like Moore's. The ruling
booted Moore's claims back to a lower court, where prosecutors switched course
and asked for a life sentence.
But - even though the district attorney's office agreed to the more lenient
outcome - the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals didn't, handing down a split
decision Moore's lawyers condemned as an "outlier" and "inconsistent" with the
higher court.
Last month, Moore's legal team appealed that ruling up to the Supreme Court
again, asking the justices to yet again examine the state's standards for
intellectual disability, but also asking the high court to consider whether an
execution should count as unconstitutional if both sides agree that it is.
"As far as counsel is aware, this Court never has permitted an execution when
both the prosecutor and the defendant agree that the defendant is
intellectually disabled and ineligible for execution," defense attorney Cliff
Sloan and Pat McCann wrote in their Supreme Court filing. "For good reason."
Although the Supreme Court banned states from executing intellectually disabled
prisoners more than a decade ago, for years Texas skirted that by relying on an
out-dated, nonclinical test to evaluate mental capacity.
Named after plaintiff Jose Briseno, the test used seven questions to determine
intellectual disability, as outlined in a 2004 ruling that famously referenced
"Of Mice and Men" character Lennie as someone most Texans would agree should be
exempt from the death penalty.
But even though he failed every single grade, did not understand the days of
the week by age 13, and fell below the standard for being able to live
independently as an adult, under the old standard Moore still didn't qualify as
intellectually disabled.
The Court of Criminal Appeals twice decided that despite his apparent deficits,
he was still fit to execute. Then last year the Supreme Court reversed the
first of those two decisions with its groundbreaking 5-3 ruling.
The high court's 2017 ruling didn't just impact Moore's case, it also ordered
Texas to come up with new standards - something other than the Briseno factors
- for determining intellectual disability.
The ruling sparked a stream of requests from inmates hoping to get off death
row, and 2 condemned killers won stays this year because of the decision.
But even the Supreme Court's decision hasn't been enough to spare Moore - at
least not yet. After the high court's decision last year, prosecutors in
November 2017 agreed with the defense that a life sentence was appropriate.
And still, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said no. Even though the appeals
court came up with a new, clinical standard for measuring intellectual
disability, they still found that Moore didn't meet it.
So in October, Moore's lawyers filed another appeal in the Supreme Court. On
Tuesday, the district attorney's office agreed.
"The respondent parts company with the TCCA in its determination that the
applicant is not intellectually disabled," the district attorney's office
wrote. Citing the Supreme Court's earlier decision, the prosecutors laid out
some of the indicators of Moore's disability, and concluded by asking the
justices to reverse the Texas appeals court's decision.
In its unusual response a day later, the attorney general asked to replace the
district attorney on the case and accused the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
of taking on the role of the legislature when it adopted updated, clinical
standards for determining mental capacity earlier this year.
The state also dinged the county prosecutors for changing their stance on the
case.
"For one thing, the DA's concession was an abrupt reversal of her office's
longstanding position that the same evidentiary record demonstrated that
petitioner is not intellectually disabled," the state argued.
And, the attorney general wrote, the court requires arguments from 2 sides in
death penalty cases. But when prosecutors agree with the defense, they're not
really offering true opposition, the state said.
"Petitioner's arguments outlined above should be fully addressed by a true
brief in opposition before the Court considers the extraordinary remedy of
summary reversal," the attorney general wrote. "If allowed to intervene, the
Attorney General will perform that important function for the Court."
(source: Houston Chronicle)
FLORIDA:
Supreme Court vacates death penalty for St. Lucie County cop killer----Gary
Morales was shot and killed during a traffic stop in 2013.
A man sent to death row for the murder of St. Lucie County Deputy Sgt. Gary
Morales will be re-sentenced.
The Supreme Court of Florida vacated the death sentence of Eriese Alphonso
Tisdale on Thursday.
The court wrote in its opinion, "we vacate his death sentence because we cannot
conclude that the Hurst error in his case was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt."
In 2015, a jury convicted Tisdale of killing Sgt. Morales during a traffic stop
in 2013. 9 of the 12 jurors recommended death for Tisdale.
The judge then handed down the death penalty in April 2016.
However, Florida law changed in January 2016 when the United States Supreme
Court ruled 'Florida's sentencing scheme' unconstitutional, according to the
2018 Opinion from the Florida Supreme Court.
Prior to the ruling, a judge could impose a death sentence with a
recommendation by at least 7 jurors.
After the Supreme Court ruling, the new law required a recommendation of death
by at least 10 jurors.
The court reaffirmed Tisdale's convictions, and sentences on all the lesser
charges and ordered a new penalty phase of trial.
The St. Lucie County Clerk's Office says a re-sentencing date has not been set.
(source: CBS News)
***************
Unanimous jury sets high bar for death penalty cases
Getting a mandatory unanimous jury death sentence is difficult because jurors
are being asked to do something that judges should be doing, State Attorney
Brad King says.
“I’ve always believed that it is not the appropriate question to ask someone,”
King said of verdicts that call for death or life in prison. “That’s why we
elect judges.”
The U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned Florida’s old death penalty law, has
taken the opposite view.
In the past, juries voted on a sentence recommendation and the judge would make
the final decision. He or she could even reject the jury’s recommendation. The
closer the vote was to a unanimous death recommendation, the more likely a
defendant would be sentenced to die.
Judges know the law and they are aware of other cases across the state and how
they are being handled, King said. Likewise, the Florida Supreme Court reviews
cases to see if a sentence is unusually harsh.
“For jurors, this is the only case they have ever seen,” King said.
And it is the most troubling decision they will ever have to make.
King says jurors should be asked if the state proved its list of statutory
aggravating circumstances required for a death sentence and if there are
offsetting mitigating circumstances.
Defense attorneys, of course, favor the requirement for a 12-0 vote.
“It should be hard,” said Public Defender Mike Graves.
Graves’ public defenders still have their work cut out for them. They must
bring in all kinds of trial doctors and mental health experts at great expense.
Otherwise, they risk having a high court rule that they provided inadequate
counsel and make them try the case all over again.
This week’s death penalty rehearing for Raul Roque, who killed another prison
inmate, cost at least $200,000 for defense experts alone, according to John
Spivey, Graves’ executive assistant public defender. The jury didn’t even
record its vote when it decided to give Roque another life sentence.
The U.S. Supreme Court opposes state death penalty laws if it thinks the laws
are “arbitrary and capricious,” King said. But where else in society do we
require 12 people to agree on anything, other than a guilty or not-guilty
verdict?
Appellate courts don’t have to be unanimous, he said. They can overturn or
uphold a death sentence with a 1-vote margin.
To make matters worse, King said he knows of at least 3 cases where jurors have
lied in jury selection about being willing and able to consider a death
sentence. “They have gotten in there and said, ‘I don’t care. I’m not going to
do it, no matter what. Let’s go home.’”
There’s no repercussion either. “If a judge does that, people can vote him out
of office,” King said.
Despite the difficulty, King’s Assistant State Attorney Rich Buxman recently
scored 2 death sentences in Orange County, though a judge rejected the jury’s
decision in 1 case.
“It involved the death of a 3-month-old baby by a dad who basically stomped on
the baby’s head,” King said. Jurors heard the 911 tape of the man calling for
an ambulance while the baby is dying in the background.
“I really thought the jury was going to come out of the jury box to get their
hands on him,” King said.
The judge looked at the man’s borderline IQ and made the decision that death
was not the appropriate decision.
Though King said he disagreed with the ruling, at least it was a judge who made
the decision.
King has always been a proponent of the death penalty under the proper
circumstances.
“To me, if there is no death penalty, the value of that person whose life was
taken is less than the defendant’s. That’s not fair to me.”
Court rulings and even public opinion seems to have shifted in the other
direction.
People talk about “smart justice” now, King says, and how prisons are too full
and perhaps we should let some people out since the crime rate is low.
“The reason the crime rate is low is because they’re in prison,” he said. “To
me, this is backward thinking.”
He remembers a time when Florida prisoners were let out after serving only 17 %
of their sentence. Then, there was an outcry from crime victims and the law was
changed requiring that they serve 85 %.
Will the idea of a death penalty gain popularity again?
“I don’t know that I’ll see it in the time I have left in public service,” King
said.
It would probably take a horrific crime and the public demanding to know why
something more isn’t being done, he said.
In the meantime, it only takes 1 juror to say no. That was the case this spring
in the case of David Mariotti, who killed 84-year-old Bernadine Montgomery in
her Leesburg home and dumped her body in the Ocala National Forest.
Next year, Lake County has more death penalty cases for jurors to consider,
including 2 young men who killed a retired teacher in her home and the father
of a baby who said he killed his daughter because his wife wanted a divorce.
(source: Daily Commercial)
MISSISSIPPI:
Why would inmate risk execution? He says he would rather prove innocence and
'die fighting.'
Jeffrey Havard became angry when he was removed from Mississippi’s death row in
September, nearly 16 years after he entered.
His initial reaction to the court tossing out his death sentence was “worse
than doing nothing at all,” Havard said in an interview inside the Adams County
Jail. “I would rather die, taking my chances on death row and go down being
executed, fighting for my innocence, than to just be thrown into prison, life
without parole, and waste away.”
His lawyers plan to appeal the judge’s decision to the state Supreme Court,
opening the door for justices to reimpose the death penalty.
So why would anyone risk that?
“All I want to do is to be able to tell the jury my story,” Havard said. “I
haven’t gotten a chance to do that.”
She noticed that Chloe wasn't breathing
It was the night of Feb. 21, 2002, and 6-month-old Chloe Madison Britt was
crying.
Her mother, Rebecca, was gone, buying something from the store.
Havard said he thought Chloe had soiled her diaper, discovering instead she had
spit up.
He decided to give her a bath, and after she was done, he pulled her out.
As he reached for a towel, she was wiggling and fell from his grasp, hitting
the toilet, he said.
He returned her to his arms, gave her a little shake and spoke to her, he said.
“Chloe, are you OK?”
She started crying, he said. “I held her in my arms and made sure she was OK. I
dried her off, and she quit crying. I thought she was OK.”
Chloe Madison Britt, 6 months old, died on Feb. 21, 2002.
When Rebecca returned minutes later, she checked on Chloe, he said. “That eased
my mind, and I didn’t say anything.”
He said he gave Rebecca money to rent a movie for them to watch.
When she returned, she noticed that Chloe wasn’t breathing and began to scream,
starting CPR on her daughter.
Havard, who was in the bathroom, said Rebecca yelled out for him to go to his
grandparents down the road.
He said he replied, “No, let’s get in the car and go to the hospital.”
At Natchez Community Hospital’s emergency room, medical personnel scrambled to
revive Chloe, who wasn’t breathing and had no pulse.
At 10:04 p.m., they got their first ray of hope. Chloe’s blue skin began to
turn pink.
They could see bruises on her forehead and the front of her thighs. A nurse
removed her diaper to take her temperature and said, "Look at this."
They noticed the baby's rectum was dilated and called police.
Not long after, they lost her pulse. Her face swelled; so did her brain. By
10:50 p.m., doctors declared her dead.
'You're going to be executed for this'
By the time that declaration took place, Havard was already in the back of a
squad car.
At about 3 a.m., deputies led him from the jail to the interrogation room.
It was here, for the first time, that he learned Chloe was dead.
“And before I can even react, (the deputy) said, ‘And she’s been raped,’” he
recalled.
The news stunned Havard.
“Son,” he said the deputy told him, “she’s been ripped from end to end. You
tell us right f---ing now what you did to her, and maybe that will keep the
needle out of your arm up there in Parchman. You’re going to be executed for
this.”
The words shocked Havard.
“That scared the hell out of me,” he recalled. “I was scared to say I dropped
her at that point.”
The next day, a hospital conducted a DNA test on him, hoping to link him to the
sexual assault.
When he returned to the jail, authorities handed him with papers that explained
his arrest.
He said his head spun as he read the words, accusing him of sexual battery and
shaking Chloe to death.
Authorities continue to say Jeffrey Havard is guilty of a heinous homicide, but
he maintains he accidentally dropped 6-month-old Chloe Madison Britt.
When he saw the words “subdural hemorrhage,” he said he realized that
accidentally dropping her on the head may have caused her death.
He shared his story with deputies, who pressed him repeatedly on the
allegations of rape.
He said he wanted to be helpful and tried to think of what might explain this,
but they continued to believe he had sexually assaulted Chloe.
“It was the perfect storm,” he recalled. “It still is.”
'Absolute low point of evil and human depravity'
In December 2002, Havard went on trial for capital murder.
A parade of witnesses — doctors, nurses, the sheriff and others — described an
anal dilation the size of a quarter, along with tears, rips, lacerations and
bleeding they said they saw in the child’s anal area.
Then-state pathologist Dr. Steven Hayne told jurors that Havard had shaken the
baby to death, comparing the injuries to those seen in car crashes and falls
from significant heights.
No defense experts testified because Judge Johnson wouldn’t permit their
hiring.
He told defense lawyers they could question Hayne about the death. They didn’t
bother.
Jurors never heard from Havard, either, because his court-appointed lawyers
advised him not to testify.
After 40 minutes of deliberation, jurors convicted Havard, who professed his
innocence when he was sentenced, and recommended the death penalty.
Circuit Judge Forrest Johnson told him, “Just when you think that you have seen
everything and that you have seen or heard of the absolute low point of evil
and human depravity, someone like you comes along and shows us a new low in
human behavior."
Havard received a sentence of death by lethal injection.
Scientists discredit shaken baby syndrome
In the years that followed the trial, scientists have discredited shaken baby
syndrome.
In 2001, Minnesota pathologist Dr. John Plunkett conducted a groundbreaking
study, examining Consumer Product Safety Commission reports involving falls
from playground equipment. He concluded short-distance falls are capable of
producing the triad of symptoms previously identified as shaken baby syndrome.
"It's clear that low velocity, even a 2- or 3-foot fall can cause serious and
fatal brain injury," he told The Clarion-Ledger. "If people had paid attention
to the science, it would not have been a mystery."
The Clarion Ledger questioned Hayne about the changing science. He backed off
his shaken baby conclusion, acknowledging the injuries could have come from a
short fall.
He cited a 1979 study measuring the falls of children. "You can generate
tremendous G forces in a short distance when you hit a very hard surface," he
said.
Sexual assault was the underlying felony charge against Havard that enabled
authorities to pursue the death penalty against him.
Authorities believed sexual assault because of the anal dilation, but a 1996
study found anal dilation was common among children who died, especially those
who suffered brain damage.
Hayne told the Clarion Ledger that he informed prosecutors he didn’t see any
evidence of sexual assault.
A rape kit found no semen or foreign DNA, and he examined those sections under
a microscope.
His conclusion? There were no tears, rips or similar injuries to the child’s
rectum, he said. “I would think that would be a definitive evaluation.”
In 2015, the state Supreme Court ordered a new hearing for Havard, citing the
shifting science on shaken baby syndrome, but justices wouldn’t allow the judge
to consider evidence that no sexual assault took place.
Havard vows to keep fighting: 'The truth is the truth'
At that August 2017 hearing, Hayne and four other experts concluded that Chloe
did not die of shaken baby syndrome.
Hayne and another prosecution expert still believed her death was a homicide.
Renowned pathologist Dr. Michael Baden of New York City said he believes the
injuries of 6-month-old Chloe Madison Britt are consistent with a fall.
Renowned pathologist Dr. Michael Baden of New York City disputed that
conclusion, saying the baby’s injuries were consistent with the fall Havard
described. “With short falls,” he said, “you can have fatal injuries.”
After 3 days of testimony and hundreds of pages of briefs, Judge Johnson wrote
an order that took up less than 5 pages.
Despite the new evidence on shaken baby syndrome, Johnson concluded that Havard
was just as guilty, citing the testimony of Hayne and Dr. Scott Benton, chief
of the division of forensic medicine at the University of Mississippi’s Medical
Center.
But the judge tossed out the death sentence, concluding that while the evidence
was “not sufficient to undermine this Court’s confidence in the conviction,
there is a cautious disturbance in confidence of the sentence of death, even if
slight.”
That conclusion baffled Havard. “If I’m just as guilty as I was before, what
disturbs my death sentence?” he asked.
And if there is indeed doubt, he asked, wouldn’t that affect his conviction?
His resentencing is set for Nov. 19, where he is expected to receive a life
without parole sentence. (District Attorney Ronnie Harper told the judge that
his office won't seek the death penalty.)
Havard's appeal of the judge's order, however, opens the door for him to
possibly receive the death penalty.
For 16 years now, he said he has felt like he was underwater.
Since 2012, he feels he has been rising up in that water, more and more
evidence reflecting his innocence, he said. “Now I’m within an inch or two of
the surface.”
But instead of breaking through, the judge’s order has blocked his way, he
said.
He vows to keep fighting. “If it takes a week, if it takes 10 months, if it
takes 10 years, the truth is the truth,” he said. “I want the truth to come
out.”
(source: clarionledger.com)
KENTUCKY:
New Attorney to Prosecute Madden Death Penalty Case
This week’s election has produced a shakeup in a capital murder case in south
central Kentucky.
Nearly 3 years after a young Allen County girl was brutally murdered, a new
prosecutor is joining the case.
Clint Willis, the commonwealth’s attorney for Allen and Simpson counties, was
defeated in Tuesday’s election by Franklin lawyer Corey Morgan.
Willis built the case against Timothy Madden after he was charged in the
November 14, 2015 death of 7-year-old Gabbi Doolin.
Morgan has past experience as the assistant county attorney in Barren County.
He currently specializes in criminal defense and says that could be
advantageous in prosecuting the Madden case.
"I think that will help me a lot, not just this case, but all all my cases
because I have, in fact, defended a lot of cases in the past that are high
profile," Morgan told WKU Public Radio.
However, this is Morgan’s 1st death penalty case.
The Madden case has faced multiple delays in going to trial over the past three
years, but Morgan says he has every intention to get the case before a jury
next fall. The trial is currently is set for September 4, 2019.
A call placed to Willis was not returned. Morgan will be sworn into office on
December 31.
(source: WKYU news)
ARKANSAS:
Death penalty reversed in Pine Bluff killing for ineffective defense
The Arkansas Supreme Court today reversed the death penalty given Kenneth Reams
by a Jefferson County jury in the 1993 shooting death of Gary Turner during a
robbery at an ATM machine. The court said Reams had ineffective counsel during
the penalty phase of the trial.
The decision was 5-2, with Justices Rhonda Wood and Shawn Womack dissenting.
Justice Jo Hart concurred with the majority in .
A co-defendant in the case, Alford Goodwin, was convicted and sentenced to life
in prison before Reams went to trial. Reams' attorney failed to get Goodwin's
testimony in support of Reams' defense that Goodwin shot Turner, not Reams.
The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's finding in the appeal by Reams for
post-conviction relief. From the opinion:
Throughout the trial, trial counsel’s theory was that Goodwin had shot and
killed Turner. Despite this defense theory, trial counsel testified at the Rule
37 hearing that he could not talk to Goodwin because Goodwin was represented by
counsel. Trial counsel testified that he did not recall whether he had
approached counsel for Goodwin but that he did not have a good working
relationship with Goodwin’s counsel. Trial counsel further testified that “[he
didn’t] know when [Goodwin] pled in relation to [Reams’s] trial.”
Based on the above testimony and in light of the defense’s theory that
Goodwin shot Turner, there is no strategic reason not to at least investigate
and attempt to present Goodwin at trial to corroborate Reams’s defense that he
was not the shooter. Accordingly, we hold that trial counsel’s failure to at
least attempt to present Goodwin’s testimony during the penalty phase of trial
constitutes deficient performance.
The case was returned to Circuit Court for a new determination of penalty.
(source: Arkansas Times)
USA:
Can There Really Be A Humane Way To Kill A Person Who Wants To Live?
In January 2014, in Ohio, Dennis McGuire gasped, his stomach heaved violently
and his fists clenched through 25 minutes of a botched execution. Horrified, an
audience and a team of executioners watched a human being suffer before finally
succumbing to the lethal cocktail of drugs.
In April 2014, in Oklahoma, a new combination of drugs shrouded in secrecy and
untested was to be used on two death row inmates. The first of the 3 drugs was
meant to knock the offender unconscious so he couldn’t feel the excruciating
pain caused by the following drugs. The remaining two would ultimately kill
him. Clayton D. Lockett was the first of the two death row inmates set to die
and after searching for a vein for an hour, they administered the knock out
drug. Assuming he was unconscious, they then injected the lethal doses and
Lockett proceeded to writhe in visibly excruciating pain, clenching his teeth
and struggling to lift his head for 43 minutes. It was so disturbing a sight,
the execution team lowered the blinds so the witnesses could no longer see what
was going on. The second man, Charles Warner, received a stay of execution
after that.
In July 2014, in Arizona, it took Joseph R. Wood one hour and 40 minutes to die
from his injection, appearing to suffer through that time. One witness counted
640 gasps from Joseph as he struggled in front of an audience for near two
hours.
That was just 2014.
Lethal injection is the latest in a long line of execution methods. Each of the
previous methods was left behind because we no longer saw them as “humane”.
This is, of course, one of the most absurd conversations we’ve ever had as
modern human beings.
The word, “humane” is defined as having or showing compassion or benevolence.
You cannot apply that to a method of slaughter unless it is an act of mercy for
which the victim has a profound and unchangeable desire. Under no circumstances
can killing someone against their will ever be considered humane. If you’ve
somehow convinced yourself of the opposite, well, I congratulate you on denial
levels more impressive than a banana-munching Ray Comfort.
Describing any execution as humane is simply the attempt by the governing body
and people involved in the execution to shrug off guilt, to appear less cruel
than they actually are. Denying that is just a way to combat the cognitive
dissonance that comes with describing an act of needless violence and slaughter
as humane.
The first execution by lethal injection in the USA took place in 1982. It was
introduced to combat two things: The painfulness of the procedure so as to be
more “humane” and the horror that witnesses are subject to when watching an
execution. Being as the willing and premeditated slaughter of a human being
against their will can never be described as “humane”, this leaves us with only
one real reason for the introduction of lethal injection: to ease the
conscience of those involved. Pure, unadulterated, selfish reasons.
The one thing that is most often overlooked when studying the death penalty is
the impact on the family of the offender. Killers, rapists, and violent
offenders often have families just like yours or mine, with mothers who tried
their best and fathers who worked hard to make ends meet. They have loving
siblings and close-knit cousins and aunts and uncles and grandparents who love
and adore them, even though their loved one committed a heinous crime. These
loved ones of the offender are innocent, law-abiding citizens. Sometimes they
are elderly women, a sole survivor left of a family torn apart by crime just as
significantly as the victim’s family was. These are innocent, hardworking men
and women who have to prepare the very last thing they’ll utter to their loved
one. They have to plan what to wear to their son or daughter’s execution. They
have to lay awake nights fretting over the very possible likelihood that the
execution does not go smoothly. They try to put out of their minds the idea
that they may have to witness their child suffer in great pain as the victim’s
family shouts awful things at him or her. These are innocent, loving people who
didn’t choose to be related to a violent offender, and they feel every bit as
much as the victim’s family does.
Take, for example, Harriet, a woman who was profiled in Grief, Loss, and
Treatment for Death Row Families: Forgotten No More. Her son asked her to be a
witness to his execution and without hesitation, she said yes. Able to put
aside the horror she knew she would go through, she vowed to be there for her
son, and she was. It was not easy.
When Harriet witnessed her son’s execution, she was mindful of the presence
of the victim’s family members… She tried her best to focus all her attention
on her son as she communicated her love for him through her eyes. While she was
not permitted to speak, she mouthed, “I love you” to her son over and over. It
was particularly challenging for her to maintain her focus on her son, however,
with the victim’s family members calling out hateful messages to her son as he
was being executed.
For a moment, put yourself in Harriet’s shoes. She tried desperately to filter
out the loud declarations that the drugs were not painful enough, as she
watched her son die. Picture yourself in that very same situation, in a room
full of people foaming at the mouth with hatred for the person you love the
most as you watch that person die. Just close your eyes, and try to empathize
with this woman, who did nothing wrong, didn’t ask for this, and most certainly
does not deserve it.
How about Laverne, whose son was executed 10 years after his conviction, with
no regard for the fact that he was extremely mentally ill. She had been present
at her son’s execution so he had someone who loved him there, but she said that
witnessing her son die was overwhelming. She said her heart broke watching him
die and she has been haunted by images of it ever since. She explained that no
hour went by that she didn’t think about watching him die, or picture it in her
mind. She’d stopped leaving her house. She had stopped answering her phone. She
had stopped participating in life. She was profiled in the book, Hidden
Victims: The Effects of the Death Penalty on Families of the Accused.
It’s also extremely easy to overlook the effects of executions on correctional
officers, executioners and wardens.
Murder victims’ families also come out against the death penalty in significant
numbers. To this end, a non-profit was founded, Murder Victims Families For
Human Rights. This group is made up of the loved ones of those who have been
taken from them by murder, and who feel that the gruesome display of an
execution is an insult to their loved ones’ memories. They fight to abolish the
death penalty, just as hard as those who have never lost a loved one to violent
crime.
Witnessing a human being be killed is not something you walk away from
unscathed. Even if you feel anger towards that person, even if you hate them
more than you ever thought capable. While some victims’ families will witness
an execution and walk away from it unable to admit that it made them
uncomfortable, I don’t think the human condition allows for that, unless you’re
as cold-blooded as the murderer himself. It affects every last person who
witnesses it, from reporters and executioners, wardens and the offender’s
family. To expect that the murder victim’s family will walk out of that room
feeling good, is to be as gullible as human beings get.
The families of murder victims need care, they need compassion, they need to
grieve. Witnessing the slaughter of a human being is not going to facilitate
that, no matter how much they assert it will.
The last person an execution affects negatively is the medical personnel who
are required by most death penalty states to be present for a lethal injection.
More and more of these medical professionals are refusing to take part in
executions as it directly conflicts with the oaths they took to help and not
harm people. It violates, in every way possible, the medical profession’s
ethics. Many states are experiencing turmoil in their death penalty system as
it becomes harder and harder to find medical professionals willing to attend
executions.
Both the American Medical Association and the American Board of
Anesthesiologists have come out with statements against participation in lethal
injections. The American Board of Anesthesiologists even voted to revoke the
license of those men and women who have been found to assist in the execution
of a human being.
The act of aiding in an execution defies the Hippocratic oath directly and
leaves the medical personnel involved not only having to deal with taking a
life but also having to grapple with the fact that it violates the ethics of
their profession.
The death penalty is inhumane. It’s inhumane not just to the man or woman who
is losing their life, but also to their innocent loved ones who certainly
didn’t ask to have their world turned upside down by a violent crime. It’s
inhumane to the men and women who go to work for 30-60 days prior to an
execution, to prepare to kill a human being. It’s inhumane to the wardens and
executioners who have to train their staff how to kill a person. It’s inhumane
to the murder victims’ families who need positivity and compassion and time to
grieve, rather than grisly scenes of death all over again. Finally, it’s
inhumane to the men and women of the medical profession, who struggle to come
to terms with their guilt over having to take a human life and the fact that
the act defies the values of the very profession they are in.
There is no way you can ever make the case that lethal injection or any other
form of execution is humane. It’s just simply not possible.
(source: patheos.com)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
***@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenal