The StandDown Texas Project

Exoneree Curtis McCarty

Omaha World-Herald columnist Matthew Hansen writes, "Decades on death row drive death penalty fight."  Here's the beginning of this must-read:

Oklahoma is killing a man at midnight, and so as darkness falls, another man on H Block slips off his prison-issue shoes.

He sits crossed-legged in front of the open toilet in his cell. He grips a shoe in each hand. He begins.

Bang. Bang. Bang.

As far as Curtis McCarty can remember, it just happens.

Another inmate takes off his shoes, and Curtis does, too, and the drumbeat spreads up and down the hallway and through the dozens of two-man cells commonly known as death row.

Bang! Bang! Bang!

The visitors begin to arrive. The grieving family members of the victim who has been brutally murdered. State officials upholding the laws of the state of Oklahoma. News reporters bearing witness in their constitutionally protected role. And the men whose job it is to administer a lethal dose of drugs to a convicted murderer and then watch as he dies.

As the visitors wait for the clocks to strike midnight, the banging grows louder and louder until it reverberates all the way through the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. The pipes shake. The walls and the floors tremble. Louder and louder until it seems like the building might crumble. Until it seems like the world might end.

BANG! BANG! BANG!

Earlier coverage from Nebraska begins at the link; also availble, earlier coverage of Curtis McCarty.

Florida News & Commentary

The Palm Beach Post publishes the editorial, "Scott should veto ‘Timely Justice Act’ on the death penalty."  It's by Randy Schultz for the Post Editorial Board.

In 2006, the American Bar Association showed Florida how to fix the state’s death penalty system in the best way. Having ignored those ideas for seven years, the Legislature now proposes to fix the system in the worst way.

Heading to Gov. Rick Scott is House Bill 7083, titled “The Timely Justice Act.” Rather than seek to make sure that executions are carried out fairly, the legislation seeks to have executions happen sooner. In the state with the most exonerations from Death Row — 24 since 1979 — this would be like giving Bernie Madoff a new line of credit.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, is the sponsor of HB 7083. As he put it, there are “problem judges” and lawyers who needlessly drag out Death Row appeals. It is true that of the 405 people awaiting execution, 16 committed their crimes before 1980. But as the legislative staff said in analyzing the bill, the average time between conviction and execution in Florida is 13.22 years, less than the national average.

HB 7083 rests on another faulty premise: All capital punishment cases are the same. A current case is the latest to debunk that premise.

Gov. Rick Scott has signed a death warrant for William Van Poyck. In 1987, as an inmate at Glades Correctional Institution, Van Poyck tried to escape from a doctor’s office in West Palm Beach. Guard Fred Griffis was shot and killed. Van Poyck should be in prison for life. But last week, the wife of the other inmate in the incident backed up Van Poyck’s story that he didn’t fire the fatal shot.

And:

Seven years ago, the American Bar Association recommended that Florida require a 12-0 jury vote to recommend a death sentence, as is required for conviction. Currently, a simple majority is enough to recommend death. That inconsistency is only one reason why Florida has a flawed capital punishment system. Gov. Scott should veto HB 7083 because justice matters more than timeliness.

Syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts writes, "On death penalty, wrongly accused are victims, too."  It's via his home paper, the Miami Herald.

At great political peril, George Ryan did the right thing.

Not to canonize the man. After all, the then-governor of Illinois was later imprisoned on corruption charges.

But that doesn’t change the fact that, in 2000, stung that 13 inmates had been exonerated and freed from death row in the previous 23 years, Ryan committed an act of profound moral courage, imposing a moratorium on capital punishment. In 2003, in the waning days of his term, he one-upped himself, commuting every death sentence in his state.

Recalling what Gov. George Ryan once did provides interesting context as Floridians and death penalty opponents around the country wait to see what Gov. Rick Scott will do.

Florida’s chief executive has on his desk awaiting his signature — or, dare we hope, his veto — a piece of legislation called the Timely Justice Act, passed by his state legislature in the apparent belief Florida is not killing people fast enough.

There are 404 people awaiting execution in Florida. We learn from a report by my colleague, Mary Ellen Klas, that 155 of them have been there longer than 20 years, and 10 have been there longer than 35 years. The average wait:13 years.

And:

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/18/3402949/on-death-penalty-wrongly-accused.html#storylink=cpy

More to the point, there’s this: Since the death penalty was reinstated in the mid-70s, Florida has executed 75 people. But it has exonerated 24, many of whom spent more than a decade on death row. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, Florida has the highest error rate in the country.

So how can a state that gets it wrong at least one time in every four want to speed up the process? Does no one care about the increased likelihood of executing someone who committed no crime?

We are always called upon to be solicitous of the pain suffered by victims’ families. Where is our solicitude for innocent people, wrong place, wrong time, people — usually indigent people of color — who are rushed, perjured, bumbled, erred and “oopsed” onto death row? Why does their pain affect us less? Why are they less deserving of our compassion? Are they not victims, too?

"Gov. Rick Scott speeds up warrants for Death Row inmates," is by Steve Bousquet, Tallahassee Bureau Chief for the Miami Herald and the Tamp Bay Times.

Gov. Rick Scott has accelerated the pace of signing death warrants in Florida by lining up three executions over the next few weeks, the most in such a brief period of time in more than two decades.

Scott and his chief legal adviser say they are doing nothing unusual. But legal experts who oppose the death penalty wonder whether other factors are at work — such as Scott’s desire to improve his standing with voters as he seeks re-election next year.

Not since 1989, when an unpopular Gov. Bob Martinez set a record by signing six death warrants in a single day, has a Florida governor been so eager to use the death penalty.

“In the past, governors wouldn’t do multiple warrants at a time. It was a much more orderly process than this,” said Martin McClain, an attorney who has defended many Florida Death Row inmates. “It appears that every 10 days, Gov. Scott is signing a death warrant.”

And:

The timing of death warrant signings, and which inmates are chosen, has long been shrouded in mystery in Florida, and has been a subject of consternation among lawyers who represent Death Row inmates. Inmates are allowed to appeal their convictions in both the state and federal courts, and every case undergoes an investigation by the Florida Parole Commission before the governor can sign a death warrant.

But in case after case, the Florida Supreme Court has rejected claims that the death penalty selection process is arbitrary or without standards, and the court has upheld the governor’s “unfettered discretion to select inmates for execution,” as it noted last week in the case of Elmer Carroll, condemned to die for the rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl in Apopka in 1990.

AP coverage is, "Gov. Scott steps up pace on signing death warrants," by Brendan Farrington.  It's via the Tallahassee Democrat.

Gov. Rick Scott is signing death warrants at a pace rarely seen in Florida since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

Scott already has signed five death warrants this year, including three in a recent span of less than four weeks.

“I go through them and when people have exhausted their appeals and when they’re finished with their clemency process, then I continue to move the process along,” Scott said.

But death-penalty opponents see the surge in death warrants signed as upsetting.

“He’s clearing out death row,” said the Rev. Phil Egitto, a Roman Catholic priest from Daytona Beach who organizes protests at each execution. “It’s very, very crazy. It’s very unusual. It is my understanding that Gov. Scott wants to be hard on crime, but I don’t think this is the answer.”

So far only one of the five condemned men has been executed — Larry Eugene Mann was put to death by lethal injection last month for kidnapping and murdering 10-year-old Elisa Vera Nelson on Nov. 4, 1980. Still, there are five active warrants. Scott signed John Errol Ferguson’s death warrant last year, but the execution has been delayed as his lawyers seek appeals. Florida law states that once a warrant is signed, it remains in full effect even if the initial execution date passes.

If the sentences are carried out this year for each of the active warrants, it would guarantee at least the most executions in Florida in one year since six people were executed in 2000, Gov. Jeb Bush’s second year in office.

David A. Love of  Witness to Innocence writes, "Florida's Timely Justice Act Is Neither Timely Nor Justice," for Huffington Post.

George Orwell himself could not have come up with a more deviously named piece of legislation than Florida's ill-advised Timely Justice Act. In the world of doublespeak, it conveys the image of efficiency, effectiveness and fairness, while doing exactly the opposite. Surely, its sponsors wanted to misrepresent and mislead, confuse and obfuscate, and change the subject. Here's why:

The bill -- passed by the Florida legislature and now awaiting the signature of Governor Rick Scott -- would expedite the death penalty process in the Sunshine state. This bill would radically change the death penalty process by taking the power of issuing execution warrants out of the hands of the governor, in favor of an automatic timetable to determine which death row prisoner is next scheduled for execution. The Act would require the governor to sign an execution warrant within 30 days of review by the State Supreme Court. And the state of Florida would be compelled to execute the defendant within 180 days of the warrant.

Supporters say that death penalty appeals take too long, perhaps as long as 20 years, and point to this reality as proof the system is broken.

However, by placing death row prisoners on a fast track to execution, the Timely Justice Act will only increase the risk of executing the innocent. Florida has distinguished itself as the state with the highest number of prisoners exonerated from death row -- 24 out of the 142 individuals exonerated nationwide since 1973.

Earlier coverage of the Florida legislation begins at the link.

Give the Death Penalty the Chair

That's the title of a Nebraska editorial column in the North Platte Telegraph written by Peter Rogers, the Telegraph's Publisher.

It happens about this time every year: the Nebraska Legislature debates the wisdom of eliminating the death penalty. (Or not: the bill Tuesday was subject to filibuster and cannot return before the end of the session.)

It has been effectively rendered ineffective anyway - the death penalty, not the Legislature, although that could be discussed - but for purposes that are not all that mysterious to most of us, members of the Legislature make this annual attempt to mandate its removal as law.

Editorially we have supported eliminating the death sentence. It tends to raise eyebrows amongst conservatives and liberals alike. Conservatives generally applaud our positions and liberals tend to not applaud our positions. Our death penalty position runs contrary to those conservative leanings.

But frankly, it is difficult to understand how anyone who adamantly opposes abortion can accept killing an adult. I understand the revulsion of aborting an innocent. And the rationalization of executing a convicted murderer - an eye for an eye, so to speak.

But the fact remains that to honor life, we need to honor all life. It is doubtful the death penalty acts as a great deterrent to crime. It is debatable what it does to us as a society.

Earlier coverage of the Nebraska repeal legislation begins at the link.

Colorado News

"Gov. Hickenlooper boxed in on Nathan Dunlap," is the latest from Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll.

We are used to impassioned rhetoric by those who oppose the death penalty. But George Brauchler, district attorney for the 18th Judicial District that includes Arapahoe County, and Matt Maillaro, his senior chief deputy who co-signed the letter to the governor, have no trouble mustering indignation of their own against those who would spare Nathan Dunlap, whose execution has been set for the week of Aug. 18.

Brauchler and Maillaro's 32-page rebuttal to Dunlap's plea for clemency is a tour de force of controlled but heated — and occasionally sarcastic — argument. And nowhere are they more effective than on racial bias.

I say that as someone who in February argued that the governor should commute Dunlap's sentence to life in prison without parole, which is what his attorneys officially requested this month. The death penalty in Colorado is rarely pursued and even more rarely achieved (exactly one execution since 1967), giving it a random, peculiar quality that mocks our commitment to equality before the law.

But racist is another matter.

And:

Hickenlooper could of course base his commutation on the the theory that "Mr. Dunlap was not cold or cruel," as his lawyers argue. "He was sick. He was a teenager suffering from bipolar disorder and psychosis, in the grip of his first full-blown manic episode" — and the jury never knew it. Brauchler and Maillaro pour scorn on that claim, too, and maybe the governor can determine which side's experts are more credible.

And if not? Then our broken death-penalty system — the one the governor intervened to save — will stagger into action and execute someone for only the second time in 46 years.

Earlier coverage of Nathan Dunlap's case begins at the link.

Leonard Pitts on the Duane Buck Case

"Texas case exposes racial bias in death penalty for Duane Buck," is the title of Leonard Pitts's latest syndicated column.  It's via his home paper, the Miami Herald.  Here's the beginning:

If the state of Texas executes Duane Buck, it’ll be because he is black.

Well, mainly it will be because in 1995, he shot his ex-girlfriend, Debra Gardner, and her friend, Kenneth Butler, to death at Gardner’s Houston home, and also wounded his own stepsister, Phyllis Taylor. But it will also be because he’s black.

In Texas, they have this rule: a jury contemplating the death penalty must evaluate the likelihood a defendant poses a future danger to the community. Jurors in Buck’s trial were told he poses said danger because he is a black man.

Mind you, this came from a defense witness, whose ultimate finding was that Buck himself represented little danger. But, said psychologist Dr. Walter Quijano, “It’s a sad commentary that minorities, Hispanics and black people, are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.”

When asked by the prosecutor whether “the race factor, black, increases the future dangerousness,” Quijano answered, “Yes.”

So Buck sits on death row awaiting an appeals court ruling on his bid for a new sentencing hearing. Not a new trial, you understand. No one disputes his guilt — or the monstrousness of his crime. But about the sentence, there is plenty dispute, enough that his surviving victim and Linda Geffen, a prosecutor who helped convict him, both think he should get a new hearing.

Earlier coverage of Duane Buck's case begins at the link.

Florida Opinion Roundup

Today's Gainsville Sun and Lakeland Ledger in Florida publish the same editorial on the recent law passed by the Florida State Legislature.  In the Sun it's, "Fast but flawed."  In the Ledger it carries the heading, "Sooner Executions: Death Penalty Injustice."

For all its faults, the death penalty retains strong support among the public and politicians. The Florida Senate confirmed this reality this week when it easily approved a bill aimed at shortening the long road to execution, sending it to Gov. Rick Scott.

We can surely understand the Legislature's desire to make the process more time-efficient and reduce the seemingly endless delays that dog the system. But in their push to accelerate executions, lawmakers are bypassing larger flaws in the death penalty.

And:

The potential to execute the innocent casts a long moral shadow over the death penalty. But it is troubling for other reasons, too. Statistics indicate clear racial disparities in sentencing. Research indicates the death penalty has virtually no deterrent effect. It does not bring back the lives lost to crime.

Most pragmatically, death-penalty cases can cost 10 times more than life-term cases. The incremental expense of pursuing the death penalty runs into the billions of dollars nationally, some experts estimate. The public bears that cost.

It's past time for a change in priorities. Execution should be reserved for worst-of-the-worst cases where guilt is certain, the physical evidence ironclad and the killer irredeemable. Many cases simply do not meet those criteria.

The Legislature wants justice to be efficient and timely. But accuracy and fairness must come first.

"Florida speeds up the death penalty process," is by Chan Lowe in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

The Florida Legislature has passed a bill called the “Timely Justice Act,” and has sent it up to Gov. Scott for his signature. This piece of legislation is designed to address the frustrations of law-and-order hawks who believe that the death penalty appeals process is too time-consuming and expensive. It would curtail certain appeals, impose deadlines on filing others, and would force the governor to sign death warrants within a certain time limit.

Two things come to mind when I see this: First, Thomas Jefferson’s quotation, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” One must draw from this that he also believed the opposite to be true, that ignorant people cannot be trusted. Unfortunately, the latter sounds like much of our current electorate.

And:

An informed voter will know that Florida is one of the leading states when it comes to death row exonerations due to exculpatory evidence, trial procedural issues, or whatever. The informed voter (as a citizen of the State and therefore complicit in the execution) wouldn’t want his legislator playing so fast and loose with the death penalty if there were a decent chance it was being wrongly applied. He would be willing to give the convict every opportunity to clear himself, rather than risk a wrongful execution.

The other thing that comes to mind is the bloodthirstiness of a Legislature that has gone to such pains (pains endured by many of the women of this state) to prove itself “pro-life.”  One would imagine that a Legislature so captivated by the concept of the Sanctity of Life would be falling all over itself to abolish the death penalty, not facilitate it.

Earlier coverage of the Florida death penalty legislation begins at the link.

Conservatives and Death Penalty

That's the title of an editorial in today's Lincoln Journal Star on Nebraska's repeal legislation.

Perhaps some readers were startled by a reference in a George Will column (LJS, April 14) to “the conservative case against the death penalty.”

Yes, it’s true.

Some conservatives have turned against the death penalty, and there’s evidence that tide is growing stronger.

In fact, at the renowned Conservative Political Action Conference this year there was even a booth for Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty.

Nebraskans who oppose the penalty should take note. In a red state like Nebraska, it’s the conservative arguments that hold the most potential to change the minds of state senators.

And:

Republicans in the Legislature should take note. They can vote for repeal of the death penalty without turning in their conservative credentials.

Earlier coverage of the Nebraska repeal legislation begins at the link.  Also available, more on conservative opposition to capital punishment.

George Will on the Central Park Five Exoneration

Washington Post syndicated columnist George F. Will writes, "‘Central Park Five’: Recalling a gross injustice."

From Tom Paine’s “Common Sense” to Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” to Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” American history is replete with examples of printed words accelerating social justice. Still, from Mathew Brady’s 1862 photo exhibit of “The Dead of Antietam” to the televised fire hoses and police dogs in Birmingham, Ala., in 1963 to the cameras that brought Vietnam into American living rooms, graphic journalism has exercised unique power to open minds and hence shape history. It may do so Tuesday evening when PBS broadcasts “The Central Park Five,” a meticulous narrative of a gross miscarriage of justice.

There were abundant dystopian aspects of New York City in the 1980s, when crime, crack and AIDS produced a perfect storm of anxiety about the fraying social fabric. This was the context — a city on edge — when on April 19, 1989, a 28-year-old white woman who worked on Wall Street went for a jog after dark in Central Park. She became a victim of what was immediately called “wilding,” a word probably unknown by the four blacks and one Hispanic, ages 14 to 16, who were arrested and charged with raping her and beating her nearly to death.

And:

Journalism, like almost every other profession relevant to this case, did not earn any honors. Until now. The only solace to be derived from this sad story is that it now is a story memorably told. A society’s justice system can improve as a result of lurches into officially administered injustice. The dialectic of injustice, then revulsion, then reform often requires the presentation of sympathetic victims to a large audience, which “The Central Park Five” does.

Finally, this recounting of a multifaceted but, fortunately, not fatal failure of the criminal justice system buttresses the conservative case against the death penalty: Its finality leaves no room for rectifying mistakes, but it is a government program, so . . .

More on Ken Burns' documentary, "Justice and the Central Park Five," at the PBS website.  It airs Tuesday evening, April 16. Check your local schedule for the time in your market.

Related posts are in the documentary index.

Jacquielynn Floyd on Texas' Death Penalty Machine

Dallas Morning News Columnist Jacquielynn Floyd writes, "After nearly 500 Texas executions, we have to keep questioning death penalty."

We’ll hear a lot in the weeks to come about the nation’s “busiest death chamber” on Texas death row. We’re all drawn to milestones, and the state is approaching a big one.

Sometime next month, Texas will execute its 500th inmate in the three decades since it reinstated the death penalty and ushered in the modern era of capital punishment.

Because of delays and appeals, the scheduled execution lineup changes frequently.

The current list maintained by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice indicates that No. 500 will be a 33-year-old named Robert Pruett. He was already serving a life sentence for a Harris County murder when he was convicted of fatally stabbing a prison guard with a sharpened steel bar.

There is little to separate Pruett from the sad parade of vicious screwups, drifters and sociopaths who have preceded him. That is, apart from his comparative youth — he was 16 when he was certified to stand trial as an adult on the original murder beef — and the fact that, based on his self-serving prison musings published online, he’s an unusually lucid writer.

Whether it’s Pruett or some other inmate, No. 500 will inevitably become a symbol for the emotionally and politically vehement debate over capital punishment.

TDCJ's list of scheduled executions, which are set by state district courts, is at its website.

 

What's Next for California

"California's dormant death penalty system faces another legal test," is the title of Howard Mintz' report in the Silicon Valley Mercury News.

Now more than seven years since the last execution in California, the state this week will try again to revive its dormant death penalty system in an appeals court considering the latest legal tangle over San Quentin's lethal injection procedures.

In a hearing Tuesday, the 1st District Court of Appeal will review a Marin County judge's 2011 order stopping executions because prison officials failed to comply with administrative rules in revising California's three-drug execution method. The Brown administration appealed the ruling, likely assuring the state will not execute anyone this year on its 734-inmate death row.

Even as the appeal proceeds, prison officials continue to craft a new execution procedure that would rely on a single drug to put condemned killers to death, similar to methods other states such as Arizona, Washington and Ohio set up to short-circuit challenges to the three-drug procedures. A prison spokeswoman said last week there is no timetable for adopting a single-drug method.

But California appears a long way from resolving a morass of state and federal legal battles over lethal injection.

Switching to the single-drug approach would likely require a new round of administrative hearings, which could take a year or more. Resolution of the legal battle in the 1st District would only pave the way for a return to the federal courts, which first put executions on hold in 2006. And states across the country, including California, are facing fresh problems over a shortage of drugs used in executions, and questions over whether they've obtained them legally from overseas manufacturers.

Syndicated columnist Tim Rutten writes, "California on track to stop killing its own."  It's via the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.

Last November, California came surprisingly close to becoming the sixth state in the past five years to abolish the death penalty, when voters rejected a proposition on the question, 52.7 percent to 47.3 percent. That result represented a nearly 19 percent decline in support for executions from 1976, when 71 percent of the state's voters approved a referendum re-establishing capital punishment. Nationally, in fact, both the number of death sentences imposed and the number of executions carried out has declined steadily since their high point in 1999 and reached new lows in each of the past four years.

Some of this reluctance to engage in legal killing comes, of course, from moral scruple. Many others have followed the sobering number of wrongful convictions revealed by new forensic technologies such as DNA identification, and concluded that no process as clearly fallible as our criminal justice system ought to be empowered to impose an irrevocable sanction, like death. Others have become acquainted with the racial disparities that continue to characterize death sentences across the country and concluded that capital punishment's tendency to erode constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law simply aren't eradicable.

Others have come to agree with former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who in 2008 wrote that three decades of service on the court had lead him to conclude that his vote to reinstate executions was a mistake. "I have relied on my own experience," Stevens wrote, "in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty represents the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes." A criminal punishment with "such negligible returns to the State is patently excessive and cruel," he concluded.

Earlier coverage from California begins at the link; you can also jump directly to California lethal injection issues.

Vengeance, Not Justice

That's the title of Richard Cohen's latest syndicated column.  It's via his home paper, the Washington Post.

When it comes to the death penalty, the only thing the United States can do is plead the insanity defense. The rest of the advanced world has moved on, but America resolutely remains among the top five executioners — behind China, Iran and Iraq, and just ahead of Pakistan. In Colorado, prosecutors are seeking the death of James Holmes, the clearly insane young man who dyed his hair a vivid orange, allegedly killed 12 people at a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises” and made no effort to escape. “Justice is death,” declared the prosecutor. The Taliban, I tell you, are among us.

That utterance came from the Arapahoe County district attorney, George Brauchler, who said he decided to go for the max after talking to 60 family members of those murdered. Presumably and understandably, they all favored the death penalty — and I might, too, if someone I loved was murdered. But this is the crime, as heinous as it might be, of a crazy person. Holmes’s execution will not deter anyone else — although sensible gun control might — and so his death, if and when it comes, will amount to vengeance. That’s understandable, but it is not justice.

And:

We did not know what to do about Holmes before his crime and we don’t know what to do with him now. The orange is gone from his hair and he looks, more or less, normal. But he is a deranged young man; since we never knew how to treat him, we will now try to kill him. This may seem barbaric, but rest assured: “Justice is death,” the D.A. said. In the United States — as well as, say, China — we have an abundance of justice.

Today's Silicon Valley Mercury News publishes the editorial, "DA should have accepted Aurora suspect James Holmes' guilty plea."

The way the death penalty is applied in the United States makes no sense, and there is no clearer evidence of this than the decision last week to seek it against James Holmes, the man accused of murdering 12 people and injuring 58 others in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater last summer.

Holmes is guilty. He was arrested outside the theater with a stash of weapons, and his attorneys recently wrote in court papers that he would agree to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence, without the possibility of parole.

It's an offer the district attorney of Arapahoe County, George Brauchler, should have taken. Instead, the people of Aurora, along with hundreds of surviving victims and family members, will face decades of uncertainty and legal battles. They will pay millions of their tax dollars in court costs that could instead help treat the mentally ill and provide assistance to crime victims.

The death penalty in this country is immoral, costly and arbitrary. It has to end. Until it does, authorities must use common sense, taking into account emotional and financial costs as they decide how to apply it.

Earlier coverage of the James Holmes case begins at the link.

Next in Maryland

"After death-penalty repeal, O’Malley faces decision on condemned inmates," is by John Wagner for the Washington Post.

With last month’s vote to repeal the death penalty, Maryland lawmakers handed Gov. Martin O’Malley a long-sought legislative victory — and a question that he has refused to answer: What is he going to do about the five prisoners on death row?

The new law won’t apply to them, and O’Malley (D) is facing a fresh push from his allies in the legislative fight to commute the five sentences to life in prison without the possibility of parole, the harshest penalty that will remain on the books.

Since taking office in 2007, O’Malley, a practicing Catholic, has pressed for repeal of capital punishment with as much passion — and apparent disregard for the political risks — as any issue.

In high-profile testimony to the legislature this year, he said the death penalty is at odds with “our values as a people” and argued it wastes resources that could be spent on other crime-fighting strategies.

“There is no way to reverse our ‘mistake’ if we should execute an innocent person,” he said.

His reluctance to use his commutation powers, and perhaps leave the fate of death-row inmates to a successor, has become a mystery in Annapolis, where the General Assembly wraps up its 90-day session Monday.

O’Malley could have commuted the five sentences anytime since taking office. But with passage of the repeal bill, many are wondering, why not go ahead and do that now if abolishing capital punishment is such a priority?

“What should happen is the sentences should be commuted,” said Jane Henderson, executive director of Maryland Citizens Against State Executions. “He has the power to do that, and he should. It would save a lot of time and energy and angst.”

The Staunton News Leader publishes a column, "Why I'm against the death penalty," by Mike Radoui.

By practicing state-sponsored killing, we belong to a notorious fraternity of nations that includes the likes of China, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Fully 140 nations have long since abolished the death penalty including every developed nation. Do we want to keep company with other advanced democratic nations or with the rogues of the world?The death penalty is on the wrong side of history.

Do we want to continue to follow the sirens song of revenge thereby escalating the cycle of violence or do we want to live and act according to the standards set forth by the family of civilized nations and our heartfelt religious beliefs?

Earlier coverage of the Maryland repeal legislation begins at the link.

Continued Commentary on James Holmes & the Death Penalty

"Perhaps life in prison is worse than the death penalty," is Meredith C. Carroll's column in today's Denver Post.

Violent, scary and suspenseful movies aren't my thing. It's not so much the aggression and gore that get my pulse racing to a miserable degree so much as it's the moments immediately preceding them. The anticipation of ghastly things to come always guts me more than actual guts.

Despite the fact that I am soundly opposed to the death penalty, I was nevertheless remarkably satisfied on Monday when it was revealed as the punishment being sought against accused Aurora theater shooter James Holmes.

When Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler announced steadily, "It is my determination and my intention that, in this case, for James Eagan Holmes, justice is death," I felt relief wash over me. While I don't actually believe Holmes will end up dying as a result of lethal injection or some other legally fatal means, the thought of him dreading the ultimate sentence seems wickedly appropriate and makes my lips form into an evil smile similar to the one he offered in his first mug shot as well as each of his subsequent police photos.

Philadelphia Daily News columnist Christine M. Flowers writes, "A death penalty, properly applied, helps make society make sense."

WHENEVER the death penalty is debated, you are sure to hear opponents talking about the horrible possibility of an innocent person being killed. While I'd quibble with their numbers (there have been relatively few documented instances of wrongful executions), I'd agree that there is nothing more horrific, unjust or inhuman than a guiltless individual being forced to have his life taken from him.

That reason alone should motivate each state legislature to seek a moratorium where it appears that the system doesn't afford the necessary levels of due process and equal access to competent legal representation. Arbitrary punishments are never acceptable, even though retribution is not a dirty word. After all, in a society that demands the separation of church and state, the Christian ideal of love thy murderous neighbor has no place in the civic sphere. To me, and many who work in the criminal-justice system, the death penalty is a legitimate part of the social contract.

That's why I took great pleasure in the announcement this week that prosecutors in Colorado were going to seek the death penalty for James Holmes, the man who went on a deadly rampage in an Aurora theater last summer and murdered 12 people. Of course, whenever the government tries to execute one of its citizens a serpentine process of controls and protections is triggered, so it's unlikely that Holmes will have a needle in his arm in the near future.

Earlier coverage of the Holmes case begins at the link.

The Holmes Case & the Death Penalty

The decision by a Colorado prosecutor to seek the death penalty against James Holmes is cause for continuing commentary.

Andrew Cohen posts, "In Aurora Shooting Case, a Public Pushback Against the Death Penalty," at the Atlantic.

To give you a sense of how far the public debate over capital punishment has moved toward rationality over the past few decades you need only read Tuesday's house editorial in The Denver Post about a Colorado prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty in the Aurora theater shooting case. "Justice is death," the prosecutor had dramatically announced Monday, telling the world the punishment he will seek against James Holmes, the young man accused of killing 24 people and wounding scores more at a "Batman" movie on July 20, 2012.

And:

The Post wasn't alone in its vocal challenge to the prosecutor's choice. In the southwest corner of the state, the editorial writers at The Durango Herald, not exactly known as a citadel of love for criminal defendants, also made the case against spending millions of dollars in taxpayer money to fight for a death penalty against Holmes. On Monday, the Herald's house editorial focused upon the opportunity costs of pushing for a death sentence where the defendant has signaled a willingness to accept responsibility and punishment for the crime.

Chicago Tribune editorial board member Steve Chapman writes, "The Illusory Value of the Death Penalty."  It's also available at TownHall.com and Reason.com.

After deciding to pursue the execution of the man charged with fatally shooting 12 people in a Colorado movie theater last summer, the prosecutor declared that "for James Egan Holmes, justice is death." By that definition, he might have added, justice is also highly unlikely.

Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler might have resolved this case quickly, simply and inexpensively. Holmes' lawyers say their client would be willing to plead guilty for a sentence of life without parole. But the prosecutor declined.

Not much should be made of this announcement, since he has plenty of time and many reasons to change his mind. Arizona prosecutors had no apparent qualms about a plea bargain with Jared Loughner, who agreed to spend the rest of his life behind bars for killing six people and wounding 13 others in Tucson.

Rep. Gabby Giffords, who was shot in the head, and her husband approved the deal. The Wall Street Journal reported that "victims and their families largely welcomed" it.

It's not hard to see why. A plea bargain may deprive them of the satisfaction of seeing the killer pay the ultimate price, but it avoids years of uncertainty and frustration. If we know anything about the death penalty in this country, it's that there is nothing swift or sure about it.

"The Death Penalty Spectacle," is by Lewis and Clark Law Professor Tung Yin.

Now that local prosecutors in Colorado have rejected the offer by alleged Aurora mass shooter James Holmes to plead guilty in exchange for avoiding the death penalty, we can once again ask whether it's worth it to incur the extra cost involved with capital punishment, compared to life imprisonment.

One study by a retired federal judge (a Reagan appointee, if that matters to you) argues that California has spent over $4 billion since 1978 because of the death penalty, or about $308 million per actual execution. Other estimates are quite lower, but still on the order of $2 million or more per death row inmate, compared to simply locking that person up for life.

Even if one has no moral qualms about capital punishment, and no concerns about executing an innocent (i.e., wrongly convicted) person, the extra costs must give pause, especially given the current fiscal crises that numerous states are facing.

"Judicial system needs to work to expedite proces," is the Yuma Sun editorial.

Prosecutors in Colorado announced this week that they are seeking the death penalty for James Holmes, the suspect in the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shootings.

The attack last July in Aurora, Colo., left 12 dead and wounded 70, who were either shot or hurt while trying to leave the theater.

The judge in the case, William Sylvester, notes that it could take years for the case to reach a final conclusion, which is a major problem with our judicial system.

Often in cases such as this, where the death penalty is on the table, trials drag on for some time, which is followed by a lengthy appeals process.

The accused deserves the right to a fair trial. Every last little point should be reviewed to make sure that justice is served fairly. And as the Sixth Amendment notes, defendants have the right to a speedy trial.

However, the victims and their families also deserve a speedy trial and closure – which is hard to achieve, regardless of the final outcome, when the process drags on for years.

Earlier commentary on the Holmes case, and the decision by the district attorney to seek death, begins at the link.

Column Roundup - Opinion from Delaware, Nebraska

Delaware's Cape Gazette Column publishes Dan Flood's column, "More than most, death penalty issue crosses party lines."

When Rep. Darryl Scott of Dover told me a couple of months ago that the death penalty might be repealed this session, I wasn’t sure it was possible.

Now the state Senate has passed the bill, 11-10, and on Thursday it moved to the House Judiciary Committee. The close vote, obviously, indicates the bill isn’t a sure thing, especially since Gov. Jack Markell has yet to say he would sign it.

In a puzzling stance, the governor has said only that he has an “open mind” on death penalty repeal. I can understand people being either for or against the death penalty, but it’s hard to imagine an intelligent, thinking man like the governor not having formed an opinion.

And:

An interesting aspect of the issue is how it crosses party lines. Though the bill is more generally favored among Democrats, Republican senators Gary Simpson of Milford, a bill sponsor, and Ernie Lopez of Lewes voted in favor of repeal. Democrats Bruce Ennis of Smyrna and Bethany Hall-Long of Middletown voted against. Another top Democrat, Attorney General Beau Biden, has indicated he still supports the death penalty, and in past cases he has sought the death penalty.

The McCook Daily Gazette publishes, "State senator seeks input on death penalty," by State Sen. Mark R. Christensen.

The Legislature has started all-day debate on priority bills. One of the priority bills that may come up for debate again this session, is Legislative Bill 543, introduced by Sen. Chambers.

LB543, would repeal the death penalty in Nebraska and replace it with life without parole.

It would be wrong if I did not tell you that from my point of view there seems to be a wind of change blowing in the Legislature, regarding the death penalty in Nebraska. That is why I am asking for your feedback to find out where District 44 stands on the issue. The District has been strongly been in favor of keeping it in the past, but I would like to know if there have been any changes.

Many people are taking a practical approach to the issue, looking at how much it costs to litigate a death penalty case, how long it takes from sentencing to execution, the difficulty for the state to obtain the drugs for our method of lethal injection, and the last time we actually executed someone in Nebraska (1994), and concluding it is time to repeal.

Earlier coverage of repeal legislation in Delaware and Nebraska begins at the links.

An Update on the Norfolk Four

Adam Liptak's latest Sidebar column in today's New York Times is, "Out of Prison? For Some, That Might Mean Out of Luck."  Here's the beginning:

Eric C. Wilson is no longer behind bars. But he is not free.

Mr. Wilson is one of the sailors known as the Norfolk Four, and there is every reason to think he is innocent of the rape charge that sent him to prison for more than seven years. But the conviction stands, and that means he must register as a sex offender.

He wants to clear his name, and last week the Supreme Court indicated interest in his case. All Mr. Wilson asks for is a hearing on his challenge to his conviction. But lower courts have slammed the door on him, reasoning that it is too late to consider a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because he is no longer in custody.

Mr. Wilson is working as an electrician in Texas. He was composed and polite when we spoke on Friday evening, though he sounded weary of talking about his lot. He would rather, he said, get ready for the Easter weekend. He had family coming in.

But it takes time to tick off all the ways in which the effects of his conviction will linger for the rest of his life. There is the stigma, of course. He must report to the police in person every year, keep them posted about changes in his life and check in with local authorities if he travels.

Then there are the blows that really sting. He is not eligible for jobs on many government sites. He wanted to go to Niagara Falls for his honeymoon but could not get a passport to cross to the Canadian side. He cannot adopt his young stepson.

Earlier coverage of the Norfolk Four case begins at the link.

Looking Back at the Future

New Jersey's Times of Trenton columnist George Amick writes, "Sen. Shirley Turner recalls effort to end death penalty in N.J. as other states follow suit."  It's a must-read.  Here's the beginning:

Five years ago, when then-Gov. Jon Corzine’s signature made New Jersey the first state since the 1960s to abolish the death penalty legislatively, supporters of the repeal predicted that it would encourage similar actions elsewhere in the nation.

They were right. New Mexico followed suit in 2009, Illinois in 2011, and Connecticut in 2012. Two weeks ago, the Maryland Legislature completed action on a measure to ban capital punishment for future crimes. When Gov. Martin O’Malley signs it into law, as he has pledged to do, Maryland will join 17 other states that have ended executions.

Similar campaigns reportedly are making progress in Delaware, Colorado, New Hampshire, Kansas and Nebraska. And many states with the death penalty still on the books are using it more sparingly. “State after state is deciding that (it) is simply not worth the risks and costs to retain,” says Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.

The effort here to replace state-imposed death with life in prison without parole was long and difficult, recalled one of its leaders, state Sen. Shirley Turner (D-Lawrence). But she’s proud of the outcome.

“It’s one of the most important accomplishments I’ve had during my tenure in the Legislature,” she told me. “We brought New Jersey out of the Dark Ages. It was just barbaric to think that for the state to lower itself to the level of a common criminal, a murderer, constitutes justice.”

The reformers were also strongly motivated by the awareness that an innocent person could be put to death — the epitome of the irreversible mistake.

Earlier coverage of New Jersey's landmark repeal of capital punishment is at the link.  Related posts are in the abolition category index.

Colorado House Judiciary Committee to Hear Repeal Bill Today

More information on Colorado House Bill 1264 is available at the Colorado General Assembly website.  The Committee meets at 1:30 pm, MDT.

"Colo. lawmakers debate death penalty repeal," is the AP report, via KKCO-TV.

Abolishing the death penalty in Colorado will get an initial vote in the state House as debate on the emotional issue begins in the Legislature.

The House Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on the bill Tuesday.

There are three men on Colorado's death row, but the bill would not affect them if it becomes law because it can't apply to current cases. That means the case of the Aurora theater shooting suspect will also not be affected by the proposal.

One Colorado lawmaker is proposing a countermeasure to put the repeal question to voters.

"Rep. Fields introduces death penalty proposal, competing measure up Tuesday," is the Denver Post report written by Kurtis Lee.

The debate over Colorado’s death penalty is at the forefront this week at the state Capitol, and the issue has Democratic lawmakers divided.

On Monday afternoon, Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, introduced a measure to have voters decide in 2014 whether to repeal the death penalty. Last Friday, two House Democrats, Reps. Claire Levy of Boulder, and Jovan Melton of Aurora, introduced a bill to allow lawmakers to repeal capital punishment. It will be heard Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee.

“The citizens should weigh-in on this,” said Fields. “I don’t personally believe this is up to lawmakers to decide.”

Her son, Javad Marshall-Fields, and his fiancée, Vivian Wolfe, were gunned down while driving in Aurora in 2005. The two were set to testify in a pending murder case. Sir Mario Owens and Robert Ray are both on Colorado’s death row for their involvement in the murders.

The article notes that Colorado's last execution was in 1997.

"Death penalty repeal effort up for first hearing Tuesday," is by Eli Stokols for KDVR-TV.

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear House Bill 1264 at 1:30 Tuesday.

FOX31 Denver was first to report that Democrats were introducing the bill last Friday, just as the most controversial gun control measures received their final votes and headed to Gov. John Hickenlooper’s desk.

Reps. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, and Jovan Melton, D-Aurora, are the prime sponsors of the bill.

Some Republicans are likely to support the legislation, mostly for religious reasons, FOX31 Denver has confirmed.

“For me, it’s religious conviction. I’m a practicing Catholic and I understand what the Church teaches on the issue,” said Rep. Kevin Priola, R-Henderson. “Secondly, if you look at statistics, it’s arbitrary and capricious and it’s time we look at repealing it.

“It costs about a million dollars a year and it tends to be used mostly on the minority population.”

"State lawmakers to consider death penalty repeal," by Andy Koen at KOAA-TV.

State lawmakers have introduced a bill that would repeal the death penalty in Colorado. House Bill 1264 would replace all current death penalty sentences to life without parole. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to take up the bill later this week.

State Senator Lucia Guzman, (D) Denver, sponsored the bill in the Senate. She says the punishment is unevenly applied from courtroom to courtroom.

"The decisions that are made by DA's across the state vary a great deal," Guzman said.

Furthermore, she believes the lengthy and expensive appeals process have made the death sentence unnecessary.

"It's not fair to the families; they're not able to bring closure in that sense," Guzman said.

However, State Representative Rhonda Fields, (D) Aurora, disagrees. Two of the three men currently on death row, Robert Ray and Sir Mario Owens, were convicted of murdering her son in 2005 to keep him from testifying at a murder trial.

"Lawmakers plan to discuss death penalty," by Gina Esposito at KJCT-TV.

Colorado lawmakers are deciding whether or not to repeal the death penalty. The bill has failed to pass the house in the past, but there are indications that could change.

There are currently three men on death row and James Holmes' name could be added to that list for his alleged role in the Aurora Theater Massacre.

"Long wait on death row turns convicted killers into celebrities," is the Coloradoan column written by Erin Stephenson.

The Colorado Legislature is poised for the debate again. A group of Democrats last week proposed a bill to repeal capital punishment in Colorado; and although Democrats are the majority in both houses of the Legislature, there is no guarantee that they will all line up behind the bill or that Gov. John Hickenlooper will sign it should it pass.

In fact, one notable House Democrat, Rep. Rhonda Fields of Aurora, opposes the repeal and has said publicly that she thinks voters should decide the issue.

Fields’ son, Javad Marshall-Fields, and his fiancee, Vivian Wolfe, both of them CSU graduates, were gunned down on an Aurora street in 2005, just days before they were scheduled to testify in a murder trial. Their murderers, who I am choosing not to name, also sit on death row.

I respect Fields’ stance on this issue, but I also see lots of reasons why Colorado should join the 17 states that have already abolished capital punishment: the huge cost involved in endless legal proceedings and appeals; the reality of false convictions and judicial errors or misconduct; the disproportionate number of people of color who await execution; the way it sanctions and perpetuates violence; the way the long delay between the crime and the execution undermines any deterrence factor; the way it violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment; the way it erodes our humanity and our moral authority.

Earlier coverage of the Colorado repeal legislation begins at the link.

Gideon at 50

There is some excellent news coverage and commentary on today's 50th Anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright.  I hope that everyone can take some time today to reflect on this landmark ruling and the continuing struggle to fulfill the Supreme Court's promise of providing legal counsel to those who cannot afford an attorney.

Anthony Lewis' classic reporting Gideon's Trumpet began its life as an article in the New Yorker in 1964.  It was somewhat expanded and published as a book later the same year,  It has been in print ever since; an extraordinary accomplishment.

An excellent place to begin is the Constitution Project.  It has released a video today, "Defending Gideon."

"Serious problems persist in indigent legal defense," is the AP report filed by Mark Sherman.  It's also available via Huffington Post.

It is not the happiest of birthdays for the landmark Supreme Court decision that, a half-century ago, guaranteed a lawyer for criminal defendants who are too poor to afford one.

A unanimous high court issued its decision in Gideon v. Wainwright on March 18, 1963, declaring that states have an obligation to provide defendants with "the guiding hand of counsel" to ensure a fair trial for the accused.

But in many states today, taxpayer-funded public defenders face crushing caseloads, the quality of legal representation varies from county to county and people stand before judges having seen a lawyer only briefly, if at all.

"There is no denying that much, much needs to be done," Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday at a Justice Department event to commemorate the anniversary.

Clarence Earl Gideon had been in and out of jail in his nearly 51 years when he was arrested on suspicion of stealing wine and some money from vending machines at a Panama City, Fla., pool hall in 1961. Gideon asked the judge for a lawyer before his trial, but was turned down. At the time, Florida only provided lawyers for indigent defendants in capital cases.

CNN posts, "'Gideon' at 50 and the right to counsel: Their words," by Bill Mears.

"Violating the right to a lawyer," is the Los Angeles Times OpEd written by Stephen B. Bright and Sia Sanneh.  Bright is an attorney with the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta; Sanneh, the Equal Justice Initiative in Alabama.

Guilty pleas account for about 95% of all criminal convictions. In many courts, poor people are processed through the courts without lawyers or moments after speaking for a few minutes with lawyers they just met and will never see again. This is called "meet 'em and plead 'em" or "McJustice."

Fifty years ago this week, one of the Supreme Court's most celebrated cases, Gideon vs. Wainwright, established the right of criminal defendants to have a lawyer. The cases above are stark examples of how that right is violated every day across the nation.

Andrew Cohen has written a three-part series of columns at the Atlantic.

• So You Want to Learn More About the Gideon Case?
• How Americans Lost the Right to Counsel, 50 Years After 'Gideon'
• Eric Holder: A 'State of Crisis' for the Right to Counsel

Miami Herald Syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts writes, "Right to counsel? It’s stacked against the poor."

“Make me wanna holler, way they do my life.” — Marvin Gaye, “Inner City Blues”

Karen Houppert has written a book of nightmares.

Houppert, a veteran reporter for, among others, The Washington Post and The New York Times, is the author of Chasing Gideon: the Elusive Quest for Poor People’s Justice, which comes out this week coincident with the anniversary of a legal milestone. It was 50 years ago Monday that the case of Gideon v. Wainwright was decided.

Clarence Earl Gideon, 51, was arrested in Panama City, Fla., in 1961 for burglary. When his case came to trial, Gideon, who was indigent, asked the court to provide him an attorney. The court refused and Gideon, a four time loser and eighth grade dropout, had to represent himself. He was found guilty and given five years.

But though he was no scholar, Gideon knew something was wrong with this picture. He wrote a letter — in pencil and with a dropout’s creative spelling and grammar — to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case and appointed counsel to represent him. The decision it handed down affirmed the Sixth Amendment promise that every criminal defendant — even an indigent one — shall have “the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Related posts are in the indigent defense index.

Developments in North Carolina

At the Charlotte Observer O-pinion site, editorial board member Fannie Flono writes, "Time to rev up N.C.'s executions? No."

It's time to juice up the needle. No more slacking off on sending the N.C. death-row inmates to the death chamber for their lethal injection.

That's the thinking behind a new bill introduced Wednesday by New Hanover Republican senator Thom Goolsby. Goolsby's Senate Bill 306 would repeal the 2009 N.C. Racial Justice Act, a law state Republicans already gutted last year. The changes drastically reduced the ability of judges to use general statistics and data to decide whether a death row inmate was given the death penalty because of his or her race. Goolsby gave his support for that revamped bill lawmakers approved, saying then that he didn't "trust statisticians or people who come in after the fact to find some way to get coldblooded killers off of death row."

But that wasn't good enough and now he's calling for the law's total revocation. His bill also calls for doctors, nurses and pharmacists to participate in executions without fear of punishment from state licensing boards, something the courts have already declared permissible. And it also requires a somewhat ghoulish death watch by lawmakers with mandated updates to the General Assembly on the status of post-conviction death penalty cases, and on the training of executioners.

And:

Instead of trying to restart the state killing industry, North Carolina should join those states abandoning it. It's too often unfairly administered even when race is not a factor.

"Bill seeks to streamline NC execution process," is the AP report filed by Michael Biesecker.  It's via the San Francisco Chronicle.

Legislation introduced Wednesday aims at streamlining the execution process in North Carolina.

The measure by Sen. Thom Goolsby, R-New Hanover, seeks to make several changes to laws governing the administration and appeal of capital punishment. It also includes doing away with the state's Racial Justice Act.

The 2009 law allows those sent to death row to seek having their sentences commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole if they can convince a judge racial prejudice played a role in their conviction.

Flanked by prosecutors from across the state, Goolsby decried that none of the 152 inmates on North Carolina's death row have been executed since 2006 due to various state and federal legal appeals.

WRAL-TV reports, "Bill seeks to put death penalty back on track."  It's by Mark Binker.

Sen. Thom Goolsby, R-New Hanover, has filed a bill he said will end North Carolina's de facto moratorium on the death penalty. Among other measures, it would wipe away the last vestiges of the Racial Justice Act, a measure that allows death row inmates to challenge their sentences based on statistical evidence.

And:

The measure also:

• Codifies court rulings that allow doctors, nurses and other health professionals to participate in executions without sanction from the North Carolina Medical Board or other licensing bodies.
• Outlines the time line the attorney general and Division of Adult Correction has to follow once an inmate has exhausted his or her appeals.
• Provides ongoing training to execution teams.
• Requires regular reports on the status of death row cases to the General Assembly.

It's unclear how much more quickly executions would happen if Goolsby's bill passes.

"Families of Fayetteville-area murder victims support bill to repeal Racial Justice Act," is the Fayetteville Observer report by Paul Woolverton.

The families of two Fayetteville-area murder victims stood in support of legislation filed Wednesday to repeal North Carolina's Racial Justice Act and end the state's unofficial moratorium on executions.

The Racial Justice Act of 2009 and 2012 provides condemned inmates an opportunity to escape death row if they have evidence that racism was a factor in their prosecutions and convictions. It was a response to concerns of institutional racism in the criminal justice system.

Independently from the Racial Justice Act, all executions in the state were halted in January 2007 by court challenges questioning the legality and constitutionality of North Carolina's execution practices.

"The beginning of the end of that moratorium starts today," said state Sen. Thom Goolsby, a Wilmington Republican and criminal defense lawyer, during a news conference to announce his legislation.

And:

The state is still in litigation over the constitutionality of its execution procedures, whether they violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, said David Weiss, a lawyer with the Center for Death Penalty Litigation. Goolsby's bill would have not have an effect on that case, Weiss said, and until it's resolved, executions will remain on hold in North Carolina.

He thinks it will take at least a year.

The matter is pending before the N.C. Court of Appeals, and from there, it's expected to be heard by the N.C. Supreme Court, Weiss said.

"GOP bill would repeal Racial Justice Act once and for all," is from Raleigh's News & Observer.

SB306, filed by Sen. Thom Goolsby, a Wilmington Republican, would repeal the RJA in its entirety. Goolsby announced the bill at a news conference attended by district attorneys from around the state, and relatives of murder victims.

The bill would apparently not bring an end to the claims that have already been filed under the Racial Justice Act, however.

Goolsby said the bill would "restart the death penalty in North Carolina to ensure justice for the more than 100 families whose loved ones were taken brutally from them."

Tye Hunter, director of the Center for Death Penalty Litigation, in an interview noted that Republican legislators last session insisted they weren’t repealing the Racial Justice Act. “Now the mask is off,” Hunter said.

NC Policy Watch posts, "A return to executions?"  It's by Sarah Ovaska.

North Carolina hasn’t had an execution since 2006, and state Sen. Thom Goolsby wants to change that.

Goolsby, a Wilmington Republican, filed a bill today that seeks to repeal what’s left of the Racial Justice Act and restart executions in North Carolina.

North Carolina’s death row has 152 people on it, and the numbers of people sentenced to death has lessened in recent years. No one was sentenced to death by a North Carolina jury last year, though three people were in 2011. The longest resident of death row, Wayne Laws, has been awaiting execution since 1985.

Earlier coverage from North Carolina begins at the link. You can also jump directly to earlier news of the state's Racial Justice Act.

As always with news from North Carolina, thanks to Gerda Stein for distributing.

More on Gideon

"The Right to Counsel: Badly Battered at 50," is Lincoln Caplan's New York Times Sunday Observer editorial column.  Here's an extended excerpt from the beginning of this must-read:

A half-century ago, the Supreme Court ruled that anyone too poor to hire a lawyer must be provided one free in any criminal case involving a felony charge. The holding in Gideon v. Wainwright enlarged the Constitution’s safeguards of liberty and equality, finding the right to counsel “fundamental.” The goal was “fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law.”

This principle has been expanded to cover other circumstances as well: misdemeanor cases where the defendant could be jailed, a defendant’s first appeal from a conviction and proceedings against a juvenile for delinquency.

While the constitutional commitment is generally met in federal courts, it is a different story in state courts, which handle about 95 percent of America’s criminal cases. This matters because, by well-informed estimates, at least 80 percent of state criminal defendants cannot afford to pay for lawyers and have to depend on court-appointed counsel.

Even the best-run state programs lack enough money to provide competent lawyers for all indigent defendants who need them. Florida set up public defender offices when Gideon was decided, and the Miami office was a standout. But as demand has outpaced financing, caseloads for Miami defenders have grown to 500 felonies a year, though the American Bar Association guidelines say caseloads should not exceed 150 felonies.

Only 24 states have statewide public defender systems. Others flout their constitutional obligations by pushing the problem onto cash-strapped counties or local judicial districts.

Related posts are in the indigent defense index.

An Update From Colorado

Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll writes, "Let Hick grant clemency."  Here's an extended excerpt:

Imagine this unlikely scenario: Our supremely secular Colorado governor receives unsolicited moral advice from a Catholic prelate — and takes it seriously.

But it happened, according to John Hickenlooper's recent account on Colorado Public Radio. When Archbishop Charles Chaput left town 18 months ago for Philadelphia, he invited the governor to breakfast, where they spent a "significant amount of time" talking about the death penalty.

When Hickenlooper told Chaput he'd always been "sort of an eye for an eye person," Chaput retorted that "there's no language like that anywhere in the New Testament," adding that "to a large extent, Catholic theology is based upon forgiveness, and that only God has a right to make that decision."

"Just keep looking inside yourself," was Chaput's parting advice. "Just keep thinking about it, keep talking about it, and [clarity on the issue] will come to you."

Clarity from the governor may be needed sooner rather than later now that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of Nathan Dunlap, who sits on death row for the 1993 murder of four at an Aurora Chuck E. Cheese. And while you can never count out a good defense team, Dunlap's time is running out. Arapahoe County prosecutors last week said they'd consult with the attorney general and then file a motion asking the district court to "lift the current stay of execution, issue a warrant and set a week for the execution."

But Hickenlooper can stop that execution and, when the time comes, should.

He should commute Dunlap's sentence to life in prison without parole even if he hasn't fully arrived at Chaput's view of the death penalty. It should be enough for the governor that Dunlap's execution would be singularly absurd, from almost any standpoint you care to examine.

Colorado may not officially have abolished the death penalty — yet — but it may as well have.

Clarity from the governor may be needed sooner rather than later now that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of Nathan Dunlap, who sits on death row for the 1993 murder of four at an Aurora Chuck E. Cheese. And while you can never count out a good defense team, Dunlap's time is running out. Arapahoe County prosecutors last week said they'd consult with the attorney general and then file a motion asking the district court to "lift the current stay of execution, issue a warrant and set a week for the execution."

But Hickenlooper can stop that execution and, when the time comes, should.

He should commute Dunlap's sentence to life in prison without parole even if he hasn't fully arrived at Chaput's view of the death penalty. It should be enough for the governor that Dunlap's execution would be singularly absurd, from almost any standpoint you care to examine.

Colorado may not officially have abolished the death penalty — yet — but it may as well have.

"Colorado Death Penalty Called Unconstitutional By Attorneys, Scholars," is by Scot Kersgaard for the Colorado Independent.  It's via Huffington Post.

Colorado’s death penalty is not only massively expensive, critics say it is also unconstitutional because it is so randomly sought.

A study released last year by DU Law Professors Justin Marceau and Sam Kamin showed that from 1999 to 2010, 92 percent of 544 Colorado murders had at least one of the aggravating factors that need to be present for a defendant to be eligible for death, yet the death penalty was sought in only five of those cases — less than 1 percent.

The study was commissioned by Edward Montour’s legal defense team, and thus paid for by the state. Montour, already serving life without parole, is fighting to stay off of death row for a murder committed in prison.

One of his attorneys, David Lane, argues that while the Supreme Court has instructed states to narrow the field of who qualifies for the death penalty, Colorado has done the opposite, creating so many aggravating factors that death could be sought in just about every murder committed in Colorado. With 92 percent of Colorado murder cases being eligible for the death penalty, but with death being sought so rarely in the state, Lane says, “The only check is prosecutorial discretion.”

He notes that the only Colorado death filings recently have come from the 18th Judicial District of Douglas and Arapahoe counties where he says prosecutors “are in love with the death penalty.” With only one judicial district ever seeking the death penalty, Lane says the death penalty is pursued randomly in Colorado, thus making it unconstitutional.

Earlier coverage from Colorado begins at the link.

News Coverage of Maryland Repeal Bill Hearing

"Archbishop Lori, O'Malley among parade of witnesses urging death penalty repeal," is by Timothy B. Wheeler and Michael Dresser in today's Baltimore Sun.

Sensing a real chance to abolish the death penalty in Maryland after years of trying, opponents of capital punishment brought a parade of religious, political and civil rights leaders to Annapolis Thursday to urge lawmakers to do away with the ultimate sanction.

Roman Catholic Archbishop William E. Lori, testifying before a legislative committee for the first time since taking the helm of the Archdiocese of Baltimore last year, said he had come to Annapolis to throw the church's support behind the repeal effort.

"While those who have done terrible harm to others deserve punishment," he said, the church opposes the death penalty because it considers even the lives of criminals sacred — and because of "what it does to all of us as a society."

The Washington Post reports, "Maryland governor appeals to lawmakers to end death penalty," by John Wagner.

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) pressed lawmakers to abolish the death penalty at a pair of charged hearings on Thursday, invoking morality and fairness while arguing that capital punishment is at odds with “our values as a people.”

Prosecutors and others countered with sometimes graphic detail from some of the state’s most gruesome rapes and murders, saying that executions are a vital law enforcement tool.

“Are we really going to walk away from the death penalty for individuals who commit the most heinous of acts?” Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger asked, recalling a murderer who taunted his victims’ families during his sentencing hearing.

The legislation, which would replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole, is among the most high-profile issues facing the legislature during its 90-day session. With O’Malley’s backing, it has also gained momentum recently in a General Assembly that has balked at previous repeal efforts.

AP coverage is, "Gov. urges death penalty repeal," written by Michelle Janaye Nealy.  It's via the via Cumberland Times-News.

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley on Thursday urged lawmakers to abolish the death penalty this year, with repeal efforts appearing to be on stronger ground than when he last tried in 2009.

The Democratic governor denounced capital punishment during a Senate committee hearing, calling it inaccurate, costly, racially biased and ineffective in deterring violent criminals. O’Malley, who has made the ban on capital punishment a top legislative priority this session, urged lawmakers to support a measure that makes life without the possibility of parole the state’s most severe punishment.

“The death penalty is expensive, and the overwhelming evidence tells us that it does not work,” O’Malley told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “In 2011, the average murder rate in states where death is a penalty was 4.9 for every 100,000 people. In states without it, the murder rate was lower, at 4.1 per the top 100,000 people.”

"O'Malley urges House and Senate panels to repeal death penalty," by Alex Jackson in the Annapolis Capital Gazette.

The governor kicked off the testimony during two hearings on his legislation (Senate Bill 276 and House Bill 295). About 40 people signed up to testify Thursday for each of the hearings in the Senate Judicial Proceedings and the House Judiciary committees.

“Freedom, justice, the dignity of every individual, equal rights before the law — these are the principles that define our character,” O’Malley said. “The death penalty is inconsistent with these principles.”

O’Malley’s legislation would affect only future cases. Under it, life without parole would become the highest level of punishment.

The legislation would also require the governor to allocate $500,000 of savings from the repeal to the Maryland Victims of Crime Fund, to meet the needs of murder victims’ families.

The Frederick News-Post reports, "Local woman testifies on death penalty," By Bethany Rodgers.

Wearing a red tulip that identified her as a relative of a murder victim, New Market resident Vicki Schieber came before Maryland lawmakers Thursday to say the death penalty brings no peace to families like hers.

Her daughter, Shannon, was brutally murdered in Philadelphia in 1998. Years later, when police charged a man with the killing, Vicki Schieber and her husband decided they did not want him on death row.

Schieber testified before the Maryland House Judiciary Committee that she has taken her story to 22 states as she argues for ending capital punishment. Her experience has shown that the death penalty often delivers distress rather than solace to victims' families.

"I have seen what happens to them when they wait 10, 15, 20 years," she said.

Sitting beside Schieber was Kirk Bloodsworth, who was released from Maryland's death row after DNA exonerated him in 1993. Both urged committee members to end capital punishment in the state.

"O’Malley pleads case for Maryland death penalty repeal," is by Holly Nunn for the Gaithersburg Gazette.

Advocates for and against the bill filled the hearing room Thursday, and many were sent to an overflow room to listen to the testimony.

In 2009, the governor sponsored a similar repeal bill, but it eventually was amended to keep capital punishment but require DNA evidence, a video of the crime or a videotaped confession.

Capital cases cost about $1.9 million to prosecute, while non-capital murder cases cost the state $650,000 on average, according to state legislative analysts.

A state analysis estimated that the repeal will save about $800,000 annually.

The Gaithersburg Gazette's columnist Barry Rascovar writes, "Death penalty repeal is vexing issue."

Death. It’s one of the marquee topics of the current General Assembly session. Abolishing the death penalty is near the top of the liberal social agenda this year — the equivalent of last year’s crusade to legalize same-sex marriage. A great deal of moralizing and hand-wringing were on display in Annapolis this week, as advocates continued their determined drive to ban the state from putting any criminal to death.

Unless you base your attitude on the Old Testament’s an eye-for-an-eye directive, the death penalty is out of place in the ethereal arena of ethics and religious teachings. It is wrong to kill another. Period. It’s what every parent teaches his or her children. Religious leaders call it a mortal sin.

African-American ministers and the NAACP have joined Annapolis advocates in large numbers this year. There’s a racist overtone to the large number of blacks put to death in evangelical, Southern states that is hard to refute. Such a bandwagon is ideal for Gov. Martin O’Malley, who is in national campaign mode this session. He’s a convert to the abolish the death penalty movement, but converts often are the most ardent.

Earlier coverage from Maryland begins at the link.

A Growing Momentum

"The death penalty is not what it used to be," is Wesley Pruden's commentary in today's Washington Times.  He's the paper's editor emeritus.

The leader of the modern movement to abolish death row is a man who spent nearly a decade waiting for execution for a crime he did not commit. Kirk Noble Bloodworth — his very name is something that Charles Dickens might have bestowed on one of his characters — was convicted on flimsy evidence of raping and killing a 9-year-old girl. He was eventually cleared by DNA evidence, but not before the state fiercely resisted him at every step of the way. Since he walked free, he has campaigned to abolish the death penalty in every state where it is still prescribed.

Mr. Bloodworth, once a Marine, was arrested when a neighbor saw a police sketch of the man suspected of the crime and thought it looked like him. She called the cops, who were under great public pressure to find a killer, and they arrested Mr. Bloodworth. A quick trial followed, and he was soon on death row.

Mr. Bloodworth does not appear to be bitter over his ordeal. “Nobody knew what DNA was,” he told The New York Times the other day, as he campaigned in support of Maryland abolition, “it was sort of shaman science, a ‘get out of jail free’ card.” But challenging judicial bungling is no board game; the courts have no monopoly on justice.

And:

Several years ago, a governor of Illinois commuted the death sentences of every prisoner on death row when he discovered, through DNA analysis, innocent men awaiting execution. When I wrote in praise of the governor’s courage, I was inundated with angry letters. One man wrote that he agreed that an innocent man might rarely be executed, but he thought it “an acceptable price to pay.” I offered to forward his letter to the governor, as a volunteer to pay the acceptable price if the governor ever needed one. He was not amused.

Kirk Bloodsworth also appeared on the MSNBC program Jansing & Co.  "Maryland moves closer to abolishing death penalty," is the post by Bryan Weakland.

Maryland could be just weeks away from abolishing the death penalty. Several state lawmakers are expressing optimism they can repeal capital punishment. Hearings in the state House and Senate are scheduled for February 14th.

“I think people are finding out that the death penalty does not work, whether it’s Maryland or any of these other places that have abandoned the practice,” said Kirk Noble Bloodsworth on Jansing & Co., an advocate for abolishing the death penalty.

And:

“One good thing about Maryland is we have appropriation within the bill that the savings from the death penalty would go to the victims crime fund,” said Bloodsworth. “It’s one of the only packages that’s ever been put together like this. It would really help people.”

Earlier coverage from Maryland begins at the link; also available, more on Kirk Bloodsworth.

Commentary From Arkansas

Today's Baxter Bulletin publishes Steve Barnes' column, "Will Beebe remarks spark capitol punishment action?"

Gov. Beebe’s declaration, a few days ago, that he would sign a bill abolishing the death penalty in Arkansas in the (highly improbable) event such legislation reached his desk caused a bit of confusion. At a meeting of the Political Animals club last week, Mr. Beebe said he had been confronted four times with the “awesome” question of life or death for a condemned killer.

It turns out Mr. Beebe’s miscounted. According to his staff, not four inmates, but eight. And not four, or eight, death warrants to consider, but an even dozen; the legal machinery had restarted the process in the cases of four prisoners whose sentences initially had been stayed by a judge, then returned to the governor before additional appeals again made the question of final executive action moot. The back-and-forth of those four inmates, one of his aides suggested, had led the chief executive to unintentionally understate, in pure numbers, a burden of office.

And:

With the governor’s disavowal of any intent to pursue abolition of the death penalty, and legislative interest in the subject of capital punishment all but restricted to preserving it, that would be the end of the discussion — except it won’t be. Simply by making public his distaste for state-sponsored killing, Mr. Beebe put a little new fire in the bellies of those who abhor it.

“Magnificent,” was the judgment of a long-time opponent of the death penalty who was present for the governor’s comment but who declined to be identified by name. “I knew he felt that way in his heart but never thought I’d hear him say it.”

Bob Sells, a retired Little Rock advertising executive and a prominent opponent of capital punishment, wondered if Mr. Beebe’s “evolved” disdain of the death sentence might prompt one or more hardy legislators to undertake repeal.

“Now that (the governor) has made a statement,” Sells told me, “I wonder if there’s anybody in the House or Senate with the guts to take it on.”

Earlier coverage from Arkansas begins at the link; you can also go directly to Gov. Beebe's remarks.

Adam Liptak's Latest Sidebar Column

"When Death Row Lawyers Stumble, Clients Take the Fall," is Adam Liptak's Sidebar column for tomorrow's print edition of the New York Times.  Here's the beginning:

Twice in recent years, the Supreme Court rebuked the federal appeals court in Atlanta for its rigid attitude toward filing deadlines in capital cases. The appeals court does not seem to be listening.

A few days after Christmas, a divided three-judge panel of the court ruled that Ronald B. Smith, a death row inmate in Alabama, could not pursue a challenge to his conviction and sentence because he had not “properly filed” a document by a certain deadline.

As it happens, there is no dispute that the document was filed on time. But it was not “properly filed,” the majority said, because Mr. Smith’s lawyer did not at the same time pay the $154 filing fee or file a motion to establish something also not in dispute — that his client was indigent.

Nor did the majority place much weight on the fact that the lawyer himself was on probation for public intoxication and addicted to crystal methamphetamine while he was being less than punctilious. In the months that followed, the lawyer would be charged with drug possession, declare bankruptcy and commit suicide.

Mr. Smith is almost surely guilty of murdering a convenience store clerk in 1994 in Huntsville, Ala. But it is not clear that he deserves to die for his crime.

His jury, by a vote of seven to five, determined that the murder did not warrant the death penalty, recommending instead that Mr. Smith be sentenced to life in prison.

But the Alabama capital justice system has many idiosyncrasies. One of them is that it allows judges to override such recommendations. The judge rejected the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Mr. Smith to death.

Only two other states, Delaware and Florida, allow such overrides. But it has been decades since anyone was sentenced to death in either state after a jury recommended life.

Earlier coverage from Alabama begins at the link; also available, more on Alabama's judicial override and the Alabama case of Maples v. Thomas.

More Calls for Review of Florida's Death Penalty

"Florida's death penalty needs fresh look," is the Tampa Bay Tribune editorial.

Five states have repealed the death penalty in the last five years, with Connecticut being the latest to do so in 2012. But as other states have become disenchanted with the ultimate punishment in light of so many wrongful convictions, Florida has moved in the opposite direction. Last year was the second straight that this state ranked first in the nation in new death sentences. There is no political will to follow the enlightened path of abolition, but Florida should analyze why it's such an outlier. One likely reason is that the state doesn't require a unanimous jury recommendation for a death sentence, and that should be corrected.

Florida sentenced 22 people to death last year. Compare that to the more populous states of California, which sentenced 14 inmates, and Texas, the state with the highest number of executions, which put only nine new inmates on death row last year, according to a report by the Death Penalty Information Center. The count raises Florida's death row to 408 inmates. But even as the state adds to death row, it is finding problems with the legal process that led to those convictions and sentences. Florida also leads the nation in the number of inmates who have had their death sentences reversed. Out of 142 such cases, Florida accounts for 24 exonerations, acquittals or charges subsequently dropped, according to the center. Some of these were people shown to be innocent of the crime. Frank Lee Smith, for instance, was exonerated posthumously. The real perpetrator was identified after Smith died from cancer after he spent the last 14 years of his life on death row.

For years, Raoul Cantero has been urging the state Legislature to require a unanimous jury recommendation for death sentences. Cantero, a former Florida Supreme Court justice who was appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush, saw how haphazardly the death penalty is applied and how that can lead to potentially fatal errors.

Today's Hernando Today publishes the column, "Florida needs to debate the death penalty," written by Rhonda Swan.

It defies logic that taking life honors life.

For the second year in a row, Florida has sent more convicted killers to death row than any other state.

And acting Palm Beach County State Attorney Peter Antonacci would like to send more. His office is now seeking the death penalty for all first-degree murder cases.

There were 22 new death penalty cases this year in Palm Beach County.

"You have a dead human being," Antonacci told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. He said that by not seeking the death penalty, "we have cheapened the value of human life."

There are many ways we cheapen the value of human life. Sexism, racism, ageism, discrimination against gays, the disabled, atheists and others with different or no religious views are but a few examples.

A political and economic system that allows millions to go without food, shelter and health care is another.

"Legislator wants to abolish capital punishment," is by Bill Cotterell for Florida Current.

An attorney-law professor who opposes capital punishment for pragmatic fiscal reasons, as well as legal and moral grounds,  reintroduced her bill Friday to abolish the death penalty in Florida.

Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda, D-Tallahassee, said she's not just making a symbolic gesture.

"The more people we can get educated about the death penalty, I think they will realize that opposition is mostly political posturing, rather than good policy," she told The Florida Current. "I actually believe we can show people that it's not a good way to spend public money."

Rehwinkel Vasilinda, a Tallahassee Community College law instructor starting her third legislative term, introduces the bill every year without so much as a committee hearing. Just how tough a tactical battle she's facing was illustrated in 2011, she said, when she offered her bill on the House floor as an amendment to another criminal-justice proposal.

WFOR-TV posts, "Florida Democrat Files Bill To Kill State’s Death Penalty."

It’s illegal in 17 states, and a new bill by a House Democrat would make it illegal in Florida.

A measure (HB 4005) to end the death penalty in Florida was filed Friday by Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda, D-Tallahassee, the News Service of Florida reports.

Rehwinkel Vasilinda said in a statement that the death penalty is not cost-effective and doesn’t deter crime.

“When you analyze the numbers, state-sponsored execution is not the correct answer,” said Rehwinkel Vasilinda, who said the state spends more than $50 million a year on death penalty cases.

Rep. Vasilinda's news release announcing the legislation is available in Adobe .pdf format.

Florda's Capitol News Service posts, "Unanimous Death Sentences." 

Tampa cop killer Humberto Delgado arrived on death row last year after his jury recommended he be put to death by an 8 to 4 vote. In December, William Davis’ jury split 7-5 even though he had asked them for death. Neither man would have received death in any of the other 32 states that have the death penalty.

That’s because thirty-one other states require all members of the jury to vote for death. The 32nd, Alabama,  requires at least 10 of the 12 jurors to say someone should die. Sheila Hopkins of the Florida Catholic Conference, says it is time for Florida to join the rest of the nation. “You know I think people should be very concerned and disturbed that potentially people who can be innocent would be given a death sentence”, says Hopkins.

Earlier coverage from Florida begins at the link.

State Repeal Roundup

We have repeal items from three states today, Connecticut, Kentucky, and Maryland.

In Kentucky, AP reports, "Death Penalty Opponents Ask Governor for Support."  It's via WBKO-TV.

Activists have delivered more than 1,500 postcards to Gov. Steve Beshear asking that he sign no more death warrants and that he work to abolish the death penalty.

Kaye Gallagher, coordinator of the Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, delivered the postcards from across the state to Beshear's office late Monday.

Each of the cards said three decades of experience shows the death penalty is "a risky, arbitrary, unfair, ineffective and costly distraction from justice."

And:

Kentucky has executed three people since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976, two by lethal injection and one in the electric chair.

Columnist Susan Campell writes, "Connecticut should not stop part-way on abolishing the death penalty," in the Register Citizen of Litchfield County.

Here in the Land of Steady Habits, change comes one toe in the water at a time. First, we had marriage lite, or civil unions, and when the sky didn’t fall, we went all in for marriage equality.

Similarly, when the state decided to abolish capital punishment — as legislators did in April — they did so, but only partly. The death penalty was abolished for future cases, but it is still an option for 11 men waiting on death row. Some of those men are in court claiming the death penalty is applied capriciously, and prejudicially.

They remain under the threat of lethal injection in part because of the lobbying efforts of Dr. William Petit, the lone survivor of a 2007 home invasion that took the lives of a mother and her two daughters, and left the doctor for dead.

He didn’t die, and he’s taken his grief and started a family foundation that aims to do good. He’s also lobbied hard to retain the death penalty, so that the two men tried and convicted for the destruction of his family will — eventually, perhaps — die at the hand of the state.

I do not question Dr. Petit’s grief or his motivation.

I do not believe, however, that a grieving husband and father should set public policy. The state appeared poised to abolish capital punishment in 2011, until Dr. Petit made an impassioned plea that convinced even the likes of the now-retired Sen. Edith Prague — who’d originally been poised to vote to repeal — to back away and leave the death penalty in place.

"Why Martin O'Malley Needs to Lead Maryland to Death Penalty Abolition," is Brian Evans' Huffington Post essay.  He's with Amnesty International.

Opposing the death penalty is not the political third rail it used to be (or at least was considered to be). It has become a mainstream choice. Especially now, and especially in a state like Maryland, with its tiny death row and no death sentences since 2004.

For Maryland's political leadership, choosing to repeal its moribund capital punishment law shouldn't be a hard vote. The public prefers life without parole. Governor Martin O'Malley has been not only an admitted but an avowed abolitionist since he assumed office in 2007, and he was re-elected in 2010 by double digits. This past year he demonstrated his state's readiness for groundbreaking lawmaking with passage of both marriage equality and the DREAM Act. In fact, death penalty abolition is less groundbreaking than either of these, as four states have legislatively abolished the death penalty since O'Malley has been Maryland's Governor.

Sadly, his state is not one of them.

He can and should rectify this in 2013.

Earlier coverage from Connecticut, Kentucky, and Maryland begins at the links.  Related posts are in the abolition index.

Remembering Another Date That Will 'Live in Infamy'

That's the title of Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist Bob Ray Sanders' latest, regarding the 1982 lethal injection execution of Charlie Brooks.

For many in this country, Friday was a day to reflect on a horrific event that happened 71 years ago: the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.

But for one Fort Worth family, Dec. 7 will "live in infamy" for another reason: It marks the day one of their own made history by becoming the first person put to death by lethal injection and the first person in Texas to be executed following an 18-year hiatus for capital punishment in the United States.

Charlie Brooks Jr. was executed in Huntsville on Dec. 7, 1982, having been convicted of shooting to death a Fort Worth used car company employee six years earlier.

His family, friends and opponents of the death penalty held a memorial service Friday on the 30th anniversary of his death at the Riverside Community Center, not far from where Brooks and his co-defendant grew up.

And:

Charlie Brooks' case underscores the arbitrariness and capriciousness of capital punishment. He and co-defendant Woodie Loudres were sentenced to death, but Loudres' sentence was overturned because of jury-selection problems.

Loudres then pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was sentenced to 40 years in prison. Loudres has served his time and is now active in a church and in the Riverside community.

Hours after Brooks' execution, Jack Strickland, who had been lead prosecutor in the case, told ABC's Good Morning America: "It may well be, as horrible as it is to contemplate, that the state of Texas executed the wrong man at 12:09 a.m."

Charlie Brooks' name is at the top of the state's list of executed individuals since 1982. There are 491 other names that follow.

Earlier coverage of the anniversary of Charlie Brooks' execution begins at the link.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/08/4470905/remembering-another-date-that.html#storylink=cpy

Florida Tries to Execute the 'Prince of God'

That's the title of Andrew Cohen's latest post at the Atlantic.  It's subtitled, "State officials say John Ferguson is faking his mental illness. The law says the state can't execute an incompetent man. Something's gotta give."  Here's the opening:

Florida Governor Rick Scott wanted, finally, to get rid of John Ferguson, but he wanted to appear fair in doing so. The convicted multiple murderer had been on the Sunshine State's death row for decades -- for 34 years, for a generation -- but questions lingered about his mental competency. As far back as 1971, in fact, six years before Ferguson first killed, the state's own psychiatrists had diagnosed him as suffering from "a major mental disorder" that rendered him "psychotic and incompetent." Forty years later, he was hardly better. 

So after Governor Scott set Ferguson's execution date for October 16th, and defense attorneys duly alerted officials to their client's diminished mental state, the governor appointed three psychiatrists to a "commission" to evaluate Ferguson, to determine whether he was sane enough to be lawfully executed by the state. The psychiatrists, who had never before seen or treated Ferguson, were ordered to move quickly -- to examine the prisoner on October 1st and issue their report on October 2nd. Here's how the defense describes what happened next:

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the competency and mental illness category indexes. I added the compentency category index in April.  Earlier posts dealing with competency to be executed are available under the Scott Panetti index.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  Coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  More on the U.S. Supreme Court 2007 ruling in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Column Roundup

"George Allen case raises question: How do things go wrong?" is Bill McClellan's latest St. Louis Post-Dispatch column.

After spending almost 30 years in prison for the rape and murder of Mary Bell, George Allen was set free Wednesday.

Technically, he has not been declared innocent. Instead, Cole County Judge Daniel Green voided Allen’s convictions for murder, rape, sodomy and first-degree burglary because St. Louis police failed to disclose important evidence to the prosecution that was favorable to Allen. The prosecution would have had to share that evidence with the defense.

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce had the opportunity to refile the charges, but she opted not to, citing the fact that two key witnesses had died. One of them was Herb Riley, the homicide sergeant who took Allen’s confession.

But technicalities aside, Allen and his supporters feel he has been exonerated. I would not argue with them. And if we accept their argument that he was wrongly convicted, we’re left with a question — how did it happen?

"Pennsylvania should lose the death penalty," is Anne McGraw Reeves' column for the Harrisburg Patriot-News.

When it comes to Pennsylvania’s cruel and bogus capital punishment law, we need to use it or lose it.

I say we lose it. Soon.

The recent last-minute stay of execution for convicted murderer Hubert Michael clearly illustrates the ridiculousness of the system we use to punish the state’s worst criminals.

Pennsylvania has not executed a single person in 13 years. More than 200 people sit on death row, dying from illness or old age rather than their sentence.

The death penalty drives up costs for taxpayers in legal fees, housing and execution preparation. Morally, it’s reprehensible and discriminatory. And crime statistics easily debunk arguments that the death penalty deters murder, rape, kidnapping and other heinous acts.

But the worst aspect of our death penalty centers not on guilt, but on innocence. The current system heaps further suffering on the family and friends of the victim. The law that is supposed to bring closure and comfort torments them instead, conjuring up painful memories and emotions every time a death warrant is signed.

Earlier coverge of the Hubert Michael case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the column category index.

North Carolina Roundup

"Death penalty an option that's lived too long," is the title of Steve Ford's editorial column from the Sunday edition of the Raleigh News & Observer.  He's the editorial page editor.

These are the murderers, 155 of them, declared by juries to have committed deeds so foul that no punishment short of losing their own lives will suffice. So they languish in their miserably monotonous routines until finally comes the hour of their doom.

Unless, that is, an appeal brings a sentence converted to life in prison without parole, perhaps even a new trial in which the state again would be forced to prove the defendant’s guilt or let him go.

Or unless, as happens to be the case in North Carolina, the death penalty itself falls into disuse – to the point where, as The N&O’s Anne Blythe reported the other day, no executions have occurred for the past six years and where, in 2012, no one has been or will be sent to death row at all.

To me, this is progress. One way to gauge that progress involves a case that has stuck in my mind ever since I wrote about it in 1995.

Phillip Lee Ingle was 31 that September when he was given a lethal injection in the weirdly shaped little room that is the Central Prison death chamber.

He had been found guilty and duly sentenced by juries in Rutherford and Gaston counties in the fatal beatings of two elderly couples in separate incidents. One problem: The man appears to have been sick in the head.

And:

First-degree murder these days is likely to bring a sentence that didn’t used to be available – life in prison without parole. It would make good sense if Gov. Beverly Perdue, before she leaves office in a few weeks, were to commute the sentences of those 155 prisoners now on death row. They, too, would be locked up for the rest of their lives.

Such a move would acknowledge shifts in public opinion and a greater sensitivity to the justice system’s imperfections. It would spare public resources while affirming the principle that violent criminals must pay heavily. And it would bring honor to Perdue for having stood against a punishment that will be a blight on the state’s justice system so long as it remains an option.

The Southern Pines Pilot publishes the OpEd, "Is the Death Penalty Conservative?"  It's by Robert M. Levy, the Moore County Republican Party chair.

My reverence for life is as unshakable as any conservative who "believes with perfect faith" that life begins at conception.

But what about death?

How can I fight for the sanctity of life while I condone the premature death of even the most evil among us?

While I may be part of a small minority in our Republican Party, I, too, "believe with perfect faith" that there is a blanket of life which ought to surround all human beings from conception to a natural conclusion. This means that just as I oppose the killing of the unborn, I must also oppose the killing of those already born when society takes revenge in the form of a death penalty.

Yet, as a conservative and constitutional originalist, I do not base my opposition to death upon religion alone. It would be just as wrong to establish my religious beliefs as the "law of the land" as it would be to forbid the free exercise of those whose religion differs from mine.

No, my opposition to death is based on more practical conservative principles.

I believe in law and order. The most heinous crimes deserve the toughest penalties. And the death penalty is not nearly as punishing as a life condemned to a cramped concrete cell 20 hours per day.

Earlier coverage from North Carolina begins at the link.

A Texas Prosecutor Faces Justice

That's the title of Joe Nocera's OpEd column in today's New York Times.

In just about a month from now, Texas will witness a rare event: a former prosecutor is going to be held to account for alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

He is Ken Anderson, who for nearly 17 years was the district attorney in Williamson County, a fast-growing suburb of Austin. (In 2002, Gov. Rick Perry made him a district judge.) As Pamela Colloff writes, in a brilliant two-part series in Texas Monthly, Anderson was the kind of prosecutor who “routinely asked for, and won, harsh sentences and fought to keep offenders in prison long after they became eligible for parole.”

One of Anderson’s most high-profile prosecutions was of a man named Michael Morton. In 1987, Anderson prosecuted him for a heinous crime: His wife, Christine, was bludgeoned to death. Morton was then in his early 30s, with a 3-year-old son and a job at Safeway. He had never been in trouble. Yet the Williamson County sheriff, Jim Boutwell, from whom Anderson took his cues, was convinced that Morton had committed the crime.

Evidence that could be used against him — such as a plaintive note Morton wrote to his wife after she fell asleep when he was hoping to have sex — was highlighted. Evidence that suggested his innocence — most importantly, a blood-stained bandana discovered near Morton’s house — was ignored. Worst of all, Anderson’s office hid from the defense some crucial evidence that would undoubtedly have caused the jury to find Morton not guilty. By the time Morton was sentenced — to life — only his parents and a single co-worker believed he was innocent.

But he was. 

And:

What makes the Morton case unusual is that, thanks to the Innocence Project’s re-investigation, Ken Anderson will soon go before a Texas Court of Inquiry. If the court believes that Anderson’s alleged misconduct rises to the level of a crime, it could refer the matter to a grand jury. But the Court of Inquiry exists only in Texas, and is almost never used even there.

In truth, Anderson isn’t the only Williamson County prosecutor who faced consequences as a result of the Morton case. His successor, John Bradley, was the one who had fought for years against the DNA testing of the bandana. Seven months after Morton was set free, Bradley, who had always been a shoo-in for re-election as district attorney, was resoundingly defeated.

Pamela Colloff's, "The Innocent Man, Part 1," and "The Innocent Man, Part 2," are available at Texas Monthly.

Earlier coverage of Michael Morton's exoneration and the Court of Inquiry begins at the link.

Colloff also wrote a Texas Monthly article, "Innocence Lost," that called critical attention to Anthony Graves' case before his capital exoneration.  After his exoneration she wrote, "Innocence Found."

Federal District Judge Issues Stay in John Ferguson Case

"John Errol Ferguson Case: Daniel T.K. Hurley, U.S. District Judge, Grants Stay Of Execution," is the AP report, via Huffington Post.  It's also available from the Washington Post.

A federal judge on Saturday granted a stay of execution for a convicted mass killer in Florida who is mentally ill and was scheduled to be put to death on Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley granted the motion for a stay in the case of John Errol Ferguson, who was to be executed Tuesday after 34 years on Florida’s death row.

“The issues raised merit full, reflective consideration,” the court said.

The court will hear three hours of arguments on Ferguson’s habeas corpus petition on Friday, according to his attorneys.

They contend that the Florida Supreme Court, in determining that Ferguson could be executed, relied on an outdated definition of competency that conflicts with a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Ferguson’s attorneys maintain he is insane and that the Constitution prohibits the state from executing him.

"Court halts execution of John Ferguson," is the Miami Herald report.

A federal court on Saturday put the execution of John Ferguson on hold and scheduled arguments for Friday on whether he is, as he contends, insane.

Ferguson, convicted of killing eight people in a 1970s murder spree, had been scheduled to be put to death Tuesday.

Saturday’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley in Miami came just three days after the state Supreme Court upheld a lower-court ruling that Ferguson was sane and eligible to be executed.

Ferguson’s lawyers said that he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and labors under the delusion that he is the “Prince of God.”

Ferguson's attorney Chris Handman issued this statement on the ruling:

“We are pleased that Judge Hurley has stayed the execution of Mr. Ferguson and has concluded that the important constitutional issues raised by Mr. Ferguson’s habeas petition merit full consideration.  In order for the state to execute him, Mr. Ferguson must have a rational understanding of the reason for, and effect of, his execution.  A man who thinks he is the immortal Prince of God and who believes he is incarcerated because of a Communist plot quite clearly has no rational understanding of the effect of his looming execution and the reason for it.”

Ferguson’s filing in the Miami federal court followed the Florida Supreme Court’s determination that Ferguson is competent and may be executed.  In his habeas petition, Mr. Ferguson seeks to prevent his execution on the grounds that he is currently insane and that the Eighth Amendment therefore prohibits the State from killing him."

Tampa Bay Times columnist John Romano writes, "Insanity infects both the mass killer and the justice system."

What price are you willing to pay for justice?

Would you sacrifice compassion? A small slice of morality?

Would you defy a landmark provision within the U.S. Constitution? If you're unsure, consider this:

The state of Florida was scheduled to execute John Errol Ferguson on Tuesday but a federal judge granted an emergency stay on Saturday.

Ferguson, 64, was convicted of eight murders in South Florida in 1978, admitted to two more while in jail, and evidence suggests he also is responsible for the death of a St. Petersburg couple in 1977.

So, no, empathy does not run deep for the man.

The issue, however, is whether Ferguson is sane enough to be put to death.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the competency and mental illness category indexes. I added the compentency category index in April.  Earlier posts dealing with competency to be executed are available under the Scott Panetti index.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  Coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  More on the U.S. Supreme Court 2007 ruling in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

More Coverage on the Florida Case of John Ferguson

"Nothing good about execution of mentally ill man," is the title of Fred Grimm's Miami Herald column.

Like I said, there’s nothing positive to be said about John Errol Ferguson. He was a horror. His execution, scheduled for Thursday, might even bring a perverse notion of justice for two of his accomplices in the Carol City massacre. They’re long gone. Marvin Francois went to the electric chair in 1985. And Beauford James White, who never fired a shot that day, was electrocuted two years later.

But the righteous sense of retribution that’s supposed to come with killing a killer might go lacking in Ferguson’s case, given that the guy they’re strapping onto the death gurney thinks the Florida Department of Corrections is only preparing him for heavenly ascension, and that he’ll soon be heading back our way as the “Prince of God,” the very heir apparent to the creator (with whom he has had many intimate conversations) on a heavenly mission to bust up a big communist plot.

Ferguson is crazy. He’s delusional. He’s a paranoid schizophrenic. He lacks what his lawyer calls “rational appreciation of the death penalty.” Even for fervent advocates of capital punishment, that’s got to take a bit of the fun out of execution day.

His madness was not some recent, feigned malady, contrived during his 34 years on death row to keep him out of the death chamber. Court records document that Ferguson was diagnosed back in 1965 with “visual hallucinations.” After a series of felony arrests, and a gunshot wound to the head, he was trucked off to state mental institutions in 1971, where a psychiatrist decided he was a paranoid schizophrenic with “severely damaged ability to distinguish right from wrong.” Another doctor that year recommended a long commitment in a mental hospital rather than bother with a criminal trial, given that Ferguson suffered “from a major mental disorder which prevents him from aiding counsel.”

In 1973, he had “deteriorated to a psychotic state.” In 1974, he was found “grossly psychotic.” And yet another doctor said Ferguson “did not know right from wrong nor the nature and consequences of his acts.” And in 1975, a court-appointed doctor echoed that finding, adding “The degree of irrationality coupled with a rather impulsive, explosive and aggressive nature makes him a rather dangerous person both to himself and to others.” Another declared Ferguson a “paranoidally disturbed person with many somatic delusions and many ideas of a rather bizarre and persecutory nature.”

And finally a diagnosis in 1975 came with a warning that reads, in retrospect, like prophecy. “He has a long-standing, severe illness which will most likely require long-term inpatient hospitalization. This man is dangerous and cannot be released under any circumstances.

Yet, in an act of bureaucratic insanity, less than a year later Ferguson was released from state custody, this diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who was delusional and impulsive and explosive and aggressive and dangerous

The Guardian posts, "Florida inmate found fit to be executed despite history of mental illness," by Ed Pilkington, reporting from New York.

David Glant, a judge with Florida's eighth circuit, has found that John Ferguson, 64, can be given lethal injections next Thursday despite a US supreme court injunction that prohibits executions of the insane. In his concluding remarks, the judge agrees with the prisoner's defence lawyers that Ferguson is a paranoid schizophrenic who genuinely believes he is "Prince of God".

The judge accepts that the prisoner has a "long history of mental illness" and finds there is no evidence to support the prosecution contention, made over several years, that Ferguson was pretending to be mentally ill in order to avoid execution. Yet he goes on to conclude that "there is no evidence that his mental illness interferes, in any way, with his 'rational understanding' of the fact of his pending execution and the reason for it".

Astoundingly, the judge goes on to say that the prisoner's "grandiose delusion" of himself as being akin to Jesus at the point of his resurrection is in fact "relatively normal Christian belief". He writes: "There is no evidence that Ferguson's belief as to his role in the world and what may happen to him in the afterlife is so significantly different from beliefs other Christians may hold so as to consider it a sign of insanity."

Ferguson's legal team has appealed the ruling to the Florida supreme court and an initial hearing is likely to be held on Monday. Pending a final appeal to the US supreme court, the highest judicial panel in the land, the prisoner he will face execution by 4pm on Thursday.

"This is a guy with long-standing mental health issues that stretch over four decades, with 30 different doctors having diagnosed him as a paranoid schizophrenic, including Florida state and court-appointed doctors. And yet he is sane enough to be executed?" said Ben Lewis, one of Ferguson's defence lawyers.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.

California Roundup

The Wall Street Journal reports, "Costs Test Backing For Death Penalty," by Ashby Jones and Steve Eder.

Opponents of the death penalty are finding some unlikely allies: tough-on-crime types concerned about its cost.

Some longtime supporters of the death penalty now think the punishment should be scrapped, even as they continue to see it as a just option in heinous crimes and as an effective deterrent. They are questioning whether the occasional execution is worth the taxpayer money spent on lengthy appeals and costly lawyers for inmates, especially at a time when state budgets are strained.

This consideration is particularly keen in California, where a referendum to abolish the death penalty will appear on the ballot in November. Politicians in more conservative states also are taking another look at capital punishment, on cost grounds.

"I was a supporter and believer in the death penalty, but I've begun to see that this system doesn't work and it isn't functional," said Gil Garcetti, a Democrat who served for eight years as district attorney in Los Angeles County, which is responsible for roughly one-third of California's 727 death-row inmates. "It costs an obscene amount of money."

Bloomberg Businessweek reports, "California Death Penalty Foes Focus on Cost of Executions," by Michael B. Marois.

Advocates of a ballot measure to ban the death penalty in California are focusing their effort on a financial argument rather than just a moral one: that capital punishment has become too costly for the deficit-ridden state.

The state with the most prisoners on death row spent $4 billion since 1978 prosecuting capital cases, confining the condemned and fighting court appeals, executing just 13 in the period while 900 were convicted, according to a study in the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review cited by proponents including the American Civil Liberties Union.

Polls show voters are split on Proposition 34, which would abolish the death penalty and change the maximum criminal punishment to life without parole. The measure on next month’s ballot would also apply retroactively, meaning those already on death row would have their sentences commuted to life. California would join 17 states that abolished the death penalty since 2007, including New York, New Jersey and Illinois.

"Jerry Brown sidesteps death penalty discussion as California voters face choice," by David Siders in the Sacramento Bee.

The Democratic governor has declined to say how he will vote on the death penalty or other ballot measures, and he is not expected to do so before Election Day. He said is focused solely on his own initiative to raise the state sales tax and income taxes on California's highest earners.

Brown's careful distance from abolishing the death penalty, a cause he once championed, reflects the caution of a governor who has grown more sensitive to the limitations and political hazards of his office than when he was governor before, from 1975 to 1983.

"He's definitely more pragmatic on a lot of things," said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego. "The standard Democratic playbook now is being tough on crime … . I think it's wise for him just to take a pass."

Byron Williams, Oakland Tribune columnist, writes, "Proposition 34 makes great sense for California," via the Contra Costa Times.

Passage of Proposition 34 on the November ballot would not only replace implementation of the death penalty in California with a sentence of life in prison without parole, it would also end emotionally charged fictitious campaign arguments.

The emotional arguments on capital punishment have a long shelf life and have withstood the fierce onslaught of rational discourse and facts for decades.

"Death penalty delays built into system," is by Bob Egelko for the San Francisco Chronicle.

If there's one thing on which supporters and opponents of California's death penalty agree, it's that inmates spend too much time on Death Row.

When Clarence Ray Allen was put to death in January 2006, the last execution conducted in the state, more than 23 years had lapsed since he had been sentenced to death for ordering three murders from prison.

Michael Morales is probably the first in line among a dozen prisoners to have exhausted all appeals except a challenge to California's lethal injection procedures. He has been on Death Row since 1983, when he was convicted and sentenced to death for raping and murdering a Lodi teenager two years earlier.

The average wait is about 25 years, the longest in the nation and nearly twice the national average. Since executions resumed in California in 1992 after a 25-year halt, 57 condemned inmates have died of illness, 21 have committed suicide, and 13 have been put to death by the state.

Earlier coverage from California begins at the link; also available, more on Prop. 34 at SAFE Caliornia.

More From Philadelphia

Andrew Cohen posts, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Execution," at the Atlantic.

Twenty-six years after the fact, too late but just in time, a measure of justice finally found Terry Williams on Friday when a Pennsylvania judge, a former prosecutor, stayed his October 3 execution and vacated a death sentence that had been unfairly imposed upon him in 1986. No reasonable review of Williams' case -- no evaluation of the evidence, no respect for his trial jurors or the victim's widow, no fealty to the Sixth Amendment's fair trial guarantees -- can sustain, in law or fact, the imposition of capital punishment here.

And yet today, seeking to defend an indefensible verdict, unapologetic about the misconduct of his predecessor, impervious to the dynamics of child sex abuse cases, tone-deaf to local politics and morality in the Age of Sandusky, unrepentant about misstatements to the state's parole board, Williams' prosecutor pushes on. I have been covering capital cases like this for 15 years and I can rarely remember an instance where a district attorney fought so willfully for so long for the right to do an injustice. It's a risible offense.

And:

Instead of accepting Judge Sarmina's reasoned judgment, instead of acknowledging that defendants like Williams are entitled to a meaningful remedy when the state cheats at trial, instead of preparing for a new sentencing hearing which would include all the relevant evidence, Williams' current prosecutor doubled down.

Late Friday, Seth Williams (obviously no relation) issued a statement that beggars belief. In Seth Williams' world, the prosecutor who cheated in 1986 in a capital case has been "unfairly victimized." In this world, he is obliged to "preserve the integrity of the jury's verdict and sentence" even though nearly half of that jury has walked away from its work. What "integrity" is left to protect about an inaccurate sentence? Seth Williams didn't say. But he was sure to tell the world that he doesn't want to make a villain out of the victim, Amos Norwood, the child sex predator.

None of this excuses what Terry Williams did. But it sure explains it, doesn't it? And isn't that the essence of what the sentencing phase of a capital trial should be about? Terry Williams is not getting away with anything, he's not cheating anyone, and that's never been the point of this round of appeals. If he is not executed, he will spend the rest of his life in prison, which is the sentence he almost certainly would have gotten in 1986 had prosecutors played by the rules, had jurors been given all the relevant evidence, and had a capital defendant been given adequate counsel.

But even this is not good enough for prosecutor Williams. He immediately appealed Judge Sarmina's ruling. Want to know why more and more Americans are skeptical of the death penalty, why the constitutional guarantees of due process and fair trials so often go unmet? It's because of cases like this one, where prosecutors cheat at trial and where their successors, decades later, cannot then admit, to themselves or the world, that such behavior undercuts confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the criminal justice system.

"Lawyers ask state's chief justice to step down from death row case," is the AP filing, via WITF-FM.

Lawyers for a death-row inmate facing a possible execution Wednesday want Pennsylvania's chief justice to step down from the case.

Lawyers for Terrance "Terry" Williams argue that Chief Justice Ronald Castille should recuse himself because Castille supervised Williams' death-penalty case when he was Philadelphia's district attorney.

WHYY-FM posts, "Terrance Williams safe for now, but D.A. falls short of 'zealous, ethical and effective' standards," by Aja Beech, a board member of Pennsylvanians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

Williams is one of over 200 people on Pennsylvania's death row and almost half of those people have come from Philadelphia. Of the 95 people on death row that have come from Philadelphia courts, approximately 18 of those cases were tried and sentenced to death in a period from 1983 until 1987, according to an execution list maintained by the state. (See document below.) This four-year period has come under great scrutiny because of issues such as the McMahon tapes, an instructional video made in 1986 by senior prosecutor at the time in the Philadelphia district attorney's office Jack McMahon on excluding "young blacks" from juries.

The verdict in the Williams hearing confirmed that the original prosecutor willfully withheld and suppressed important information relevant to the initial Williams case in the late 1980s, continuing the tragic saga of justice deferred in Philadelphia.

And:

Something is wrong with the capital punishment system in Pennsylvania, and our state is finally starting to see this. There are some in state government working to fix this problem, such as Senators Daylin Leach and Stewart Greenleaf, who on behalf of the bipartisan task force and advisory committee studying the death penalty in Pennsylvania, released a letter requesting "no execution be carried out in the Commonwealth" until the study is completed in December 2013. That we may be sure we are doing the right thing by proceeding with state executions; can we not wait a year until we are sure it is within the law and ethics of our state to do so?

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins at the link.

Update From Philadelphia

Judge Sarmina's order staying Terry Williams' execution and vacating the death sentence is available in Adobe .pdf format.

Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky writes,"State has dirty hands in Terrance Williams case," for today's paper.

Judge Sarmina, a former city prosecutor who is no dewy-eyed sap, believes that's what happened.

I am for the death penalty, but only when we are certain the accused committed coldblooded murder. Another stipulation is that the prosecution must play by the rules. The D.A.'s role is to secure justice, not just convictions.

There is, at least, strong suspicion that the D.A.'s office broke the rules. If so, sadly, that wouldn't be a first. It happens more often than we would like.

If you believe in justice, you can't allow prosecutors to put their thumbs on the scales. Some of you are thinking the defense does that all the time, and you are right. But the defense represents an individual; the D.A. represents the state - you and me.

The Philadelphia Inquirer posts, "What next?" by Joseph Slobodzian.

Monday and Tuesday could see a burst of last-minute legal activity as Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court decides whether to affirm or reverse Friday’s ruling staying Wednesday’s scheduled execution of condemned Philadelphia killer Terrance Williams.

Legally, as of now Williams’ death sentence for the 1984 murder of Amos Norwood, 56, is on hold. But that could change in an instant if the state’s high court reverses the stay by Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina.

The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office filed the emergency motion with the Supreme Court hours after Sarmina’s ruling but since then, according to the court’s website, nothing: no orders for the filing of legal briefs, scheduling of a hearing, response of any kind.

That may not be unusual and District Attorney Seth Williams said Friday that he does not believe it likely that the court will act on his emergency motion before Terry Williams’ death warrant expires at midnight Wednesday.

According to Janet Kelley, a spokeswoman for Gov. Corbett, if the warrant expires the governor is required to sign a new warrant within 30 days from when Sarmina’s stay is lifted. A new execution date would then have to be set within 60 days of the signing of the new warrant, Kelley said.

Any action by the state Supreme Court before Wednesday will trigger appeals by one side or the other to the federal court system or even to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Judge in Terrance Williams case a "terrier" for the truth," is by Donald Gilliland for the Harrisburg Patriot-News.

When attorneys speak Judge Teresa Sarmina's name, they tend to do so in the respectful tone of the previously wounded.

The diminutive but ferociously intelligent Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge has a courtroom demeanor reminiscent of Martin Shaw's Judge John Deed on the BBC, alternately humorous and severe, prone to sparring with attorneys over the nuance of case law and - with a keen ear for the unsaid - taking over the examination of witnesses herself.

Sarmina is known as a terrier: once she gets her teeth into something, she doesn't let it go.

What she usually shakes out is the truth - or something closer to it than would have been presented to her otherwise.

But the habit exasperates attorneys on both sides of the bench. 

This week Sarmina granted a stay of execution for Williams after a last-minute appeal that stretched into three days. Her ruling - which excoriated the prosecution in the case as both unconstitutional and unethical - dropped like a boulder into the pond of current and former state prosecutors, prompting the likes of Ed Rendell to spring to the former prosecutor's defense.

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams accused Sarmina - without speaking her name - of unfairly victimizing former prosecutor Andrea Foulkes and "offering brutal murderers what they don't deserve."

The circling wagons of political reputation aside, the evidence was clear - and much of it had been unearthed and entered into evidence by Sarmina herself.

And:

In the end it was clear that multiple witness interviews had been "sanitized" of references to Norwood's predilection for boys before being handed over to the defense. Critical information - including full details of the prosecution's plea bargain deal with their main witness - had been withheld.

And most importantly, it was clear that Foulkes presented a skewed and misleading portrait of the victim to the jury when they sat down to consider the death sentence.

"Evidence has plainly been suppressed," said Sarmina, who  noted that Foulkes' tendency of "playing fast and loose" inclined her "toward a finding that the suppression was closer to willful" rather than inadvertent.

Sarmina said Foulkes engaged in "gamesmanship" and "had no problem disregarding her ethical obligations" in an attempt to win.

"Judge calls off execution of death-row inmate," by Mensah M. Dean in the Philadelphia Daily News.

CITING GROSS prosecutorial misconduct and evidence suppression, a Philadelphia judge on Friday vacated the Oct. 3 execution sentence of Terrance Williams and ordered that he be granted a new penalty hearing.

The ruling by Common Pleas Judge M. Teresa Sarmina indefinitely halted an execution decades in the making.

Williams' first-degree-murder conviction is unchanged by the ruling, meaning that the jury at his new penalty hearing will determine if he should be sentenced to death or spend the rest of his life in prison without parole.

And:

The defense argued that former Assistant District Attorney Andrea Foulkes, who prosecuted Williams in 1986, kept that evidence from the trial defense attorney and jury and instead presented Norwood as a kindly, sympathetic figure who merely had offered Williams a ride home.

Sarmina agreed with the defense, noting the two boxes of evidence turned over just this week from homicide detectives that, she said, corroborated the defense claims against Norwood and Herbert Hamilton, 50. Williams, at 17, had a sex-for-money, abusive relationship with Hamilton and murdered him five months before killing Norwood.

Additional coverage includes:

"Execution Halted for Killer Claiming Abuse by Victim," by Jon Hurdle in the New York Times.

The updated AP report is, "Judge Halts Execution of Terrance Williams," by Maryclaire Dale, via WCAU-TV.

"Terry Williams, Facing Death for Killing Alleged Abuser, Granted Stay of Execution," by John Rudolf at Huffington Post.

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.  The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

Williams' Commentary

"Williams v. Williams," is Lincoln Kaplan's post at the New York Times Taking Note blog.

Pennsylvania is scheduled to execute Terrance Williams next Wednesday, Oct. 3, the first time in 50 years that it will put someone to death who is still fighting his sentence.

Philadelphia’s District Attorney, Seth Williams, could ask for a stay and a fuller review of evidence. Instead, he’s crusading in favor of the death penalty, even writing an op-ed for The Philadelphia Inquirer called “Making the case for Williams’ execution.”

Terrance Williams’ life is on the line, and so is Seth Williams’ reputation.

"Death penalty morally wrong," is the Philadelphia Inquirer OpEd by Jonathan Zimmerman.  He teaches history at New York University.  Here's the beginning of this must-read:

Terrance Williams was sexually abused by the two men he killed, according to his lawyers. He was poorly represented at his trial, where jurors never heard about these circumstances. And the widow of one of his victims wants Williams' death sentence commuted.

But those aren't the strongest arguments for sparing the life of Terrance Williams, who is scheduled to be executed on Oct. 3. The best reason is the simplest: Capital punishment is inherently wrong, no matter the circumstances. And Philadelphians should understand that better than anybody else.

That's because the movement to abolish the death penalty in America began right here, in the City of Brotherly Love. On March 9, 1787 - just a few months before the drafting of the Constitution - Philadelphia physician and patriot Benjamin Rush delivered a stinging rebuke to capital punishment at a lecture in the home of another famous local patriot, Benjamin Franklin.

Part of Rush's argument would be familiar to us today: The death penalty won't deter the most vicious criminals. But his real concern - repeated until his own death in 1813 - was the effect of capital punishment on the rest of us.

At its root, Rush wrote, the death penalty "lessens the horror of taking away human life." Conducted in public, executions often devolved into drunken revelries of mirth and revenge.

Worst of all, the death penalty allowed human beings to determine life and death. Rush wasn't worried about whether capital cases were correctly decided, which is the issue that dominates our debate today. Instead, he insisted, the decision wasn't ours to make.

"'Vengeance is mine,' said the Lord," Rush declared, quoting Scripture. "A religion which commands us to forgive, and even to do good to, our enemies, can never authorize the punishment of murder by death."

Spearheaded by Rush, the movement against capital punishment scored some impressive early victories. In 1786, the year before his lecture at Franklin's home, Pennsylvania became the first state to abolish the death penalty for robbery, burglary, and sodomy - all capital crimes at the time.

"Public support for the death penalty 'is not what it used to be,' expert says," is Robert J. Vickers' Harrisburg Patriot-News column.

Though most Americans still favor the death penalty, public support for executions has dropped in the past few years.
    
Recent disclosures indicating death row convictions were made erroneously have caused many citizens to be more reticent about putting a convicted killer to death.
    
“The death penalty is not what it used to be in terms of public opinion,” said Frank Baumgartner, an expert on capital punishment at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the former head of political science at Penn State.
    
“People are not as certain about all these cases,” he said. “A majority of Americans still are happy to see an execution go forward, it’s not as many as a while ago because of the problems of innocence.”
    
A Gallup poll in 2011 shows 61 percent of Americans surveyed favor the death penalty, a solid majority to be sure. But that figure represented a 39-year low.
    
In Pennsylvania, the issue is murkier.
    
Only three convicts have been put to death since the punishment was reinstated in 1976.
    
Terrance Williams could become the first person executed in Pennsylvania in 13 years. Williams faces the death penalty for killing a Philadelphia man in 1984. His attorneys argue that Williams should be spared because the victim sexually abused him for years.
    
“Pennsylvania has not been an execution state traditionally,” said Robb Austin, a former Democratic state legislator now working as a Republican media consultant. “It has not been an issue in the public domain. I don’t think it would rise to the level of a campaign issue.”

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins with the preceding post.

Today's California Roundup; Additional Editorial Support

The Ventura County Star says in its editorial, "Yes on Prop. 34; death penalty in state is broken."

Proposition 34 on the Nov. 6 ballot would repeal the death penalty in California and replace it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

The Star recommends a yes vote.

The policy change would save the state and counties more than $1 billion during the next 10 years, and the savings would be larger in the future, according to the state's independent, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst.

On an annual basis, the savings would start at around $100 million in each of the first few years and grow to roughly $130 million a year, the Legislative Analyst estimated. Also, Proposition 34 would provide a total of $100 million over the next four years for law enforcement agencies to investigate homicide and rape cases.

For the initiative to pass, it must be approved by a majority of voters. Californians on each side of the death-penalty debate hold strong opinions and understandably so.

The Star has traditionally opposed capital punishment believing that it is unevenly administered and disproportionately applied to minorities. DNA evidence, which has resulted in death-row inmates being exonerated, also proves that mistakes can be made.

"Summary of our endorsements on state propositions," is the Contra Costa Times editorial.

Proposition 34: Repeal of death penalty. We recommend yes.

California's death penalty is archaic, unfairly applied and fiscally insane.

We think voters should make California the 18th state to repeal the death penalty in favor of life in prison with no chance of parole.

The Los Angeles Times reports, "Former death penalty supporters now working against it."  It's written by Maura Dolan.

Donald Heller wrote the 1978 ballot measure that expanded California's death penalty. Ronald Briggs, whose father spearheaded the campaign, worked to achieve its passage. Jeanne Woodford, a career corrections official, presided over four executions.

The lawyer, El Dorado County supervisor and retired San Quentin Prison warden now want California's death penalty abolished, contending the state no longer can afford a system that has cost an estimated $4 billion since 1978 and executed 13 prisoners.

"We started with six people on death row in 1978, and we never thought that there would one day be 729," said Briggs, a conservative Republican. "We never conceived of an appellate process that is decades long."

Backing Proposition 34, which would make life without possibility of parole the state's toughest punishment, the three have joined with retired Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti to try to dismantle a system in which each has played a role.

Death penalty supporters concede the system is not working but argue that cost estimates are inflated and that changes in law and court rulings could speed up the process. Mend it, don't end it, the opponents of Proposition 34 argue.

They insist that executions could resume if the state were to move quickly to adopt a one-drug method of lethal injection.

And:

Whatever the outcome, the debate over Proposition 34 has shown that forces once solidly behind capital punishment are now splintered, in part because of the system's costs and the relatively few executions.

Heller said he began speaking out against capital punishment after coming to believe that California had executed a "factually innocent" inmate. Even before that 1998 execution, Heller was having doubts, he said. He had become a defense lawyer and saw attorneys he considered "marginal" assigned to represent capital defendants.

The Times article is the basis for two posts, "Costs and Lack of Closure Cause Onetime Death Penalty Supporters to Switch Sides," by Molly McDonough at the ABA Journal; "Author Of Ballot Initiative That Legalized The Death Penalty In California Endorses Initiative To End Death Sentences," by Ian Millhiser at Think Progrss.

"Change in death penalty weighed," the Scripps Howard News Service filing, via Klamath Falls (OR) News & Herald.

California has the nation’s largest Death Row, with more than 720 inmates, and doubts persist about the guilt of a California inmate who was put to death in 1998. And five men sentenced to death under current state law were later cleared of the murder charges that put them on Death Row.

Those cases illustrate “how easily someone who did not commit the murder could have been executed,” said John Cotsirilos, lawyer for Lee Farmer, who was freed in 1999 after 17 years in prison.

Farmer’s conviction for murdering a teenager during a 1982 burglary was based largely on a description by the dying victim. His death sentence was overturned in 1989 when the state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the prosecutowr had wrongly told jurors they could disregard their feelings about whether he should live or die, because voters had approved the death penalty.

Resentenced to life without parole by another jury, Farmer won a new trial in 1997 based on newly disclosed evidence that an accomplice had admitted killing the teenager in a separate burglary, and was acquitted.

Farmer’s case is far from unique, Cotsirilos said, because convictions are often based on human observations that may convince a jury but can’t be scientifically verified.

"Keep the death penalty," is Debra J. Saunders' latest column for the San Francisco Chronicle.

Without the death penalty, it is doubtful that Jared Lee Loughner would have pleaded guilty to a 2011 shooting in Tucson during which he killed six and wounded then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Given his history of mental illness, it's not clear Loughner would have been found guilty.

Even when it doesn't work, the death penalty works.

California prosecutors and California juries do not reach the death penalty lightly. Sacramento Deputy District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert estimates that death-row inmates represent less than 2 percent of those convicted for murder.

At least with the death penalty on the books, there's a good chance that some of the worst offenders will agree to a sentence of life without parole in order to avoid lethal injection.

Earlier coverage from California begins at the link; also available, more on Prop. 34 at SAFE Caliornia.

Pennsylvania Editorials, Columns Call for Relief in Terry Williams' Case

"Abused to death? A killer who was molested should not be executed," is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial.

If the death penalty is going to survive in an era when public attitudes on capital punishment have become less supportive, its proponents must choose their cases carefully. Terrance Williams will never be the poster child for state-run execution.

On Monday, the state Board of Pardons rejected a bid for clemency -- and a sentence of life in prison without parole -- for the convicted murderer. On Oct. 3, unless a court intervenes or Gov. Tom Corbett relents, he will become the first Pennsylvania inmate to be executed since 1999. Indeed, the state hasn't executed an inmate who has contested his sentence since 1962.

Williams was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery and conspiracy in the death of Amos Norwood in Philadelphia in 1986. Now 46, he is said to be remorseful for his crimes, but that alone wouldn't argue against his date with the executioner. Something else dreadful complicates his case.

He claims that he was raped as a youth by several men, including the man he was charged with killing and another man he killed earlier. He also was beaten by his mother and stepfather. Prosecutors take the position that he did not mention this at the time and he has every incentive to make it up. But a clinical psychologist testified that piecemeal revelations of past sex abuse are typical.

"Fatal flaw: Pardons board needs to make change on death penalty cases," is the Harrisburg Patriot-News editorial.

Whatever one thinks about the death penalty, the case of Terrance Williams illustrates a critical flaw in the justice system.

It involves the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons. The majority of the pardons board agreed that Williams shouldn’t be executed. But Williams might be put to death anyway.

Williams might become the first person to be put to death in Pennsylvania in 13 years. He is slated to be executed on Oct. 3.

He’s out of appeals, but a Philadelphia judge is holding an emergency hearing to consider facts in the case. The hearing continues Monday.

And:

Right now four of five pardons board members could agree that a defendant’s life should be spared, but under the current system, the death sentence would go forward.

The Legislature should change the law to require the entire board to agree on execution.

At the least, if the majority opposes death, the board should be able to recommend that to the governor, who would make the final call.

Such a change wouldn’t signal a weaker approach to crime. It would simply ensure that someone doesn’t stay on death row if most of the pardons board thinks a defendant’s life should be spared.

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Karen Heller writes, "Brutal crimes, but the right sentence is life."

As a child, Terrance Williams endured constant physical abuse and was sexually assaulted by both his victims, his defense argues, important evidence that was never presented at trial more than a quarter century ago. His legal representation was so shoddy and inept that he received the death penalty though he was barely an adult when he committed the crime.

Clemency is now supported by five former jurors, more than 360,000 petitioners, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput, and the widow of one of the victims.

And:

Marc Bookman of the Atlantic Center for Capital Representation says: "The death penalty is a failed government program. We're spending very little in the beginning but a lot during the appeals process at the end, when the truth is it should be reversed."

True enough. On Thursday, I sat in Judge M. Teresa Sarmina's courtroom, which was packed with top attorneys for both sides, an Olympics of death-row hearings. The original prosecutor was grilled for seven hours about whether evidence that Williams had been raped by victim Otis Norwood was withheld in the original 1986 trial.

Without the death penalty, only life in prison without parole, no one would be there debating an ancient murder case. Instead, the hearing continues Monday with Williams' codefendant.

If Sarmina is unconvinced the evidence merits an emergency stay, defense lawyers will surely appeal.

Meanwhile, Williams remains scheduled to be executed in 10 days.

"Why must we go through this again? The death penalty deters no one, is morally dubious and costs a bundle," is the title of Sally Kalson's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette column.

Here we go again, arguing over a death penalty case when life without parole would punish the offender just as surely and afford society just as much protection.

Equally important, it would eliminate the time and expense of a death row appeal, not to mention the moral quagmire of executing someone whose childhood was shaped by beatings and sexual abuse.

The subject this time is Terrance Williams, 46, of Philadelphia. In 1984, at age 18, he beat 54-year-old Amos Norwood to death. The jury convicted him of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death.

The jurors were never told that Williams had been sexually abused for years by the victim, and by a teacher, as well as by an older boy who first raped him when he was 6.

Five of the jurors later signed statements that they would have voted for life in prison without parole if they had known all the facts.

And:

All the evidence shows that the death penalty is more trouble than it's worth, and that includes the impending lethal injection of Terrance Williams. It's past time for the law to catch up to reality.

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins at the link.  In the next post, I'll have news coverage previewing today's hearing.

Philadelphia Court Hearing Today for Terry Williams

KYW-AM/FM/TV posts, "Death Row Inmate’s Last Chance," by Cherri Gregg.

A Philadelphia judge is expected to hear new evidence today in a hearing that could mean a stay of execution for convicted killer Terry Williams.

Earlier this week, a clemency board in Harrisburg refused to grant clemency to Williams. If Williams is unsuccessful today, he will be executed on October 3rd.

And:

Federal defender Shawn Nolan says they will present new evidence about what prosecutors knew at trial.

“The jurors have now come forward and said if they had known that evidence, they wouldn’t have voted for death. And we are arguing that that should have been disclosed to the defense, it should have been disclosed to the jury.”

Nolan says co-defendant Marc Draper will take the stand. He came forward in January saying he told the police and DA about the abuse. Andrea Folkles, the DA who prosecuted the case, will also testify.

"Attorneys to ask Pennsylvania judge to call off killer's execution, citing sex abuse," by Dominique Debucquoy-Dodley at CNN.

Attorneys are set to ask a Pennsylvania judge Thursday to call off the execution of a death row inmate, arguing prosecutors withheld evidence that he was sexually abused by the man he later beat to death with a tire iron.

Terrance Williams, 46, is scheduled to be executed on October 3 for the 1984 slaying of Amos Norwood.

Defense attorneys argue that the jurors who convicted Williams more than 25 years ago were told that it was a robbery-homicide case and never learned of the alleged sexual abuse.

A sworn statement from the case's primary witness -- who is serving a life sentence for his involvement in the murder -- supports that allegation.

Marc Draper has said the prosecution at the time pushed him not to disclose that Williams was routinely sexually abused by Norwood, and that the abuse was Williams' primary motive to kill Norwood. He is expected to testify Thursday.

The sexual abuse allegedly began when Williams was 6 years old, according to his attorneys.

"Several jurors now say they would have voted for life in prison without the possibility of parole instead of death if they had known this important information," Williams' attorneys said in a statement last month after his execution date was set.

And:

Since the execution date was set, there have been a number of high-profile supporters calling for clemency in the case, including Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly. More than 360,000 people have signed an online petition asking authorities to spare Williams' life. Norwood's widow has also asked for the execution to be called off.

But Norwood's daughter wants the execution to go forward, the Philadelphia district attorney's office said Monday.

The state's Board of Pardons on Monday failed to reach the unanimous agreement required to recommend clemency. Three members of the five-person panel voted in favor of asking Corbett to consider granting clemency. But two other board members voted against the petition.

Andrew Cohen posts, "In Pennsylvania, a Clemency Catch-22," at the Atlantic.

In the Alice-in-Wonderland world that is the Pennsylvania justice system, a man who won his clemency hearing Monday is scheduled to be executed anyway in two weeks. Terrance Williams -- a man raped throughout his childhood until he finally murdered his adult rapists; a man whose life before prison and redemptive life in custody caused even his victim's wife to lobby on his behalf; a man whose jurors tried 25 years after his trial to rescue him -- received three of five clemency votes Monday following a 90-minute hearing before the state Pardons Board. He won the day, 3-2, and yet he's still scheduled for lethal injection on October 3.

This is so because Pennsylvania law requires a unanimous clemency vote in capital cases, even where, as here, the condemned prisoner seeks no release from custody but rather life in prison without parole. It's been this way since 1997. The two dissenting votes -- two more death sentences for a man whose 1986 trial was incomplete and inaccurate -- came from the state's lieutenant governor, Jim Cawley, and Harris Gubernick, a longtime prison official. Voting in favor of clemency were state Attorney General Linda Kelly, "victim representative" Louise B. Williams, and Dr. Russell A. Walsh, a psychologist.

There was no written ruling that accompanied the vote. There was no official explanation or justification from the state Pardons Board to help us understand how dooming Williams serves the interests of justice. There was no press conference or email blast. But, really, what could the dissenters have said? That they blew off the wishes of Mamie Norwood, the victim's wife, who says today that Williams is "worthy of forgiveness" after all these years? It was her husband, Amos Norwood, who reportedly preyed on Williams, savagely raping him over and over again until Williams brutally murdered him in 1984.

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins at the link.  Andrew Cohen's earlier column on the case is also available.

Advocates for Terry Williams have posted an online petition calling for clemency.

San Francisco Chronicle Backs Prop. 34

Today's San Francisco Chronicle publishes the editorial, "Yes on Prop. 34, death penalty repeal."

California's death penalty has not satisfied anyone since it was reinstated 35 years ago. Those who are morally opposed to capital punishment decry the 13 lives taken by the state. Those who believe the death penalty brings justice and closure are frustrated that the average time between sentence and execution is 25 years.

"I have concluded that it is dysfunctional and cannot be fixed," said Gil Garcetti, former Los Angeles district attorney who supports capital punishment but argues that the way it is imposed in California is "a colossal waste of money."

Garcetti has become a leading spokesperson for Proposition 34, which would reduce the maximum penalty for murder to life without the possibility of parole.

Taxpayers have spent about $4 billion in expenses related to California's capital cases since its reinstatement - working out to more than $300 million for each execution, according to a 2011 analysis by federal judge Arthur Alarcón and Loyola Law School professor Paula M. Mitchell. They called the state's death-penalty system "a debacle" - with its costs expected to reach $9 billion by 2030.

Donald Heller, an attorney who authored a 1978 ballot initiative that greatly expanded the definition of capital crimes, has become a prominent advocate for repealing the death penalty. Heller said he wrote the measure to meet constitutional muster - which it did - without analyzing its fiscal impact.

KPBS-TV reports, "Supporters Of Prop 34 Say Death Penalty Is Broken And Can’t Be Fixed."  It's by Tom Fudge.

People who support and oppose the death penalty seem to agree on one thing. Capital punishment in California is dysfunctional and brings little in the way of justice to victim’s families.

But they disagree on whether it can or should be fixed.

The debate over the death penalty took center stage in Sacramento yesterday as supporters and opponents debated Proposition 34, which would repeal the death penalty in California. A joint State Senate/Assembly committee heard testimony from opponents and supporters of the proposition, which will be on the November ballot.

The death penalty has been the law in California since being reinstated in 1978. Brian Brown, with the office of state legislative analyst, told the joint committee that since 1978 about 900 people have been condemned to death in the state. But only 14 have actually been executed.

Gil Garcetti, the former Los Angeles District Attorney, called the California death penalty an expensive farce.

"The system is broken,” he said. “It's dysfunctional and, underlying this, it cannot be fixed."

"Death penalty debate fuels emotional divide," by Timm Herdt in the Ventura County Star.

Speaking at a legislative hearing on Proposition 34, the Nov. 6 ballot measure that asks Californians to abolish the death penalty, representatives of the state sheriffs' and district attorneys' associations argued Tuesday that state taxpayers should double down on a system that costs $130 million a year.

Proponents say that cost is excessive to support a system that former Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti described as "broken, dysfunctional and cannot be fixed." Since the death penalty was reinstituted in California in 1978, it has resulted in 13 executions, while 89 condemned inmates have died in prison from other causes and the population of death row has swollen to 729.

"We have spent more than $4 billion on the death penalty to date," said Jeanne Woodford, the former San Quentin warden who now is executive director of Death Penalty Focus, a group that opposes capital punishment. "Ultimately, we are sacrificing true public safety measures to fund the death penalty that is so broken. The money to prevent violence is not there — it's on death row."

Proposition 34 asks voters to replace a sentence of death with a one of life in prison without possibility of parole as the most severe punishment that can be levied on those convicted of first-degree murder that includes special circumstances, such as the killing of a police officer or one that is carried out for financial gain. It also would require that those currently serving a death sentence be resentenced to life without possibility of parole.

Tuesday's hearing, which state law requires lawmakers to hold to examine every ballot initiative, featured emotional testimony on both sides of the issue from families of murder victims.

The Marin Independent Journal columnist Dick Spotswood writes, "Time for Californians to end death penalty 'charade'."

CALIFORNIANS face a conundrum when it comes to felons sentenced to death for capital crimes. The death penalty remains on the books, but no one is ever executed.

In November's election, voters face Proposition 34, an initiative to abolish the death penalty and replace it with a sentence of life in prison without parole.

For practical, if not moral reasons, it's time for voters to end the charade and abolish capital punishment.

Of the Golden State's 58 counties, Marin has the most intimate relationship with the gas chamber. Due to an anomaly in California's constitution, all executions must take place at San Quentin.

Earlier coverage of Prop. 34, the SAFE California ballot initiative, begins at the link.  More on Prop. 34 at SAFE Caliornia.

Judge Arthur L. Alarcón and law professor Paula M. Mitchell's latest Loyola Los Angeles Law Review article is, "Costs of Capital Punishment in California: Will Voters Choose Reform this November?"  It's available in Adobe .pdf format at the link.  You can also view the abstract.

Last year, Judge Alarcon and Mitchell wrote, "Executing the Will of the Voters: A Roadmap to Mend or End the California Legislature's Multi-Billion-Dollar Death Penalty Debacle," also for the Loyola Los Angeles Law Review.  Coverage of the earlier Alarcon-Mitchell law review article is at the link.

Today's California Prop. 34 Roundup

The Sunday Sacramento Bee published Editorial page editor Stuart Leavenworth's "Why we changed stand on death penalty."

Yet there have been times when The Bee has stopped and taken a U-turn, reversing a longstanding editorial position. One of the biggest came last week, when we ended the editorial board's long-standing support for California's death penalty.

We didn't make this change lightly. It came after years of debate and discussion that preceded the current makeup of the editorial board. It came after many months of research and meetings with legal scholars and groups on both sides of the death penalty debate.

The position we took – that the death penalty is unworkable and unfixable in California – was crafted with several considerations in mind. We wanted to respect those Californians – and previous members of the editorial board – who believe that executions are a just punishment for convicted murderers who commit the most horrible of crimes.

But we also wanted to make a forceful argument that there is no way in California to carry out that punishment swiftly, equitably and in accordance with our laws and constitution. As we stated in the first installment of our editorials, "The death penalty in California has become an illusion, and we need to end the fiction – the sooner the better."

The SacBee also published four other views, "Responses from experts: Should death penalty be scrapped?."  It includes, "YES: Jesus taught us to forgive, not to exact vengeance," by Kathi McShane; "NO: Capital punishment needs to be mended, not ended," by Kent Scheidegger; "YES: For victims, human costs of this legal beast are too high," by Ron Briggs, and; "NO: We must act based on one of our seminal values: Justice," by Rod Pacheco.

The San Diego Union-Tribune has pro-con OpEds, "Capital Punishment Doesn't Equal Justice, " by Lawrence M. Hinman, and "Killers Should Stay on Death Row," by Bonnie M. Dumanis.

Today's San Francisco Chronicle reports, "Death penalty ban seeks to answer doubts," by Bob Egelko.

It's the nightmare of capital punishment, for supporters and opponents alike - an innocent person condemned to death and executed.

As Californians prepare to vote in November on Proposition 34, which would reduce all death sentences to life in prison without parole, both sides on the issue agree that the state has never executed a prisoner who was later proved to be innocent.

Still, doubts persist about the guilt of an inmate who was put to death in 1998. And five men sentenced to death under current California law were later cleared of the murder charges that put them on Death Row.

Those five cases illustrate "how easily someone who did not commit the murder could have been executed," said John Cotsirilos, lawyer for Lee Farmer, who was freed in 1999 after 17 years in prison.

And:

California has the nation's largest Death Row, with more than 720 inmates. Of the 13 who have been put to death since 1992, when executions resumed after a 25-year halt, little doubt was ever raised about the guilt of 12 of them. But one man, Thomas Thompson, was executed for a killing he may not have committed.

Thompson was convicted of raping and fatally stabbing Ginger Fleischli in 1981 in the Laguna Beach (Orange County) apartment he shared with Fleischli's ex-boyfriend, David Leitch.

Both men were tried separately. The prosecutor in Thompson's trial argued that Thompson had been alone with Fleischli and had the sole motive for killing her. Later, at Leitch's trial, the same prosecutor argued that Leitch had been there and had ordered Thompson to kill Fleischli.

Leitch was convicted of second-degree murder. At a 1995 parole hearing, he said he had seen Thompson and Fleischli having apparently consensual sex that night. If jurors had heard that testimony and believed it, they could not have convicted Thompson of the capital charge of rape-murder, and because rape was the alleged motive for Fleischli's murder, they might have cleared him altogether.

Jurors also weren't told that two inmates who said Thompson had admitted the murder were informants with questionable records.

The Orange County Register reports, "O.C.'s 'hanging judge' dies at 87."  It's by Larry Welborn.

He was Orange County's highest-profile, toughest and most quotable judge, and he sentenced more killers – nine – to death than any other local jurist.

In retirement, he came out against the death penalty, not for humane reasons but as a waste of taxpayer money.

Former Superior Court Judge Donald McCartin, 87, died Saturday near his retirement home in Bass Lake in Madera County.

His judicial career, colorful demeanor and critical assessment of the justice system were the subjects of a 2005 book titled "Perfect Justice," written by local true-crime author Don Lasseter and published by Seven Locks Press. It was subtitled, "a legendary judge's passionate defense of the ultimate criminal penalty."

Earlier coverage of Judge McCartin and his eventual opposition to capital punishment at the link.

Earlier coverage from California, including earlier SacBee editorials, begins at the link.  More on Prop. 34 at SAFE Caliornia.

Death Penalty in a State of Confusion

That's the title of an editorial published in the Sunday edition of the Durham Herald-Sun in North Carolina.

Stanley Peele, a columnist for The Herald-Sun and Chapel Hill Herald, wrote a three-part series on the death penalty that appeared in The Herald-Sun this week. He highlights a number of concerns with how the death penalty is implemented, and what the state of death row is today in North Carolina.

Death row is in limbo in North Carolina, thanks to a number of factors that have combined to result, in essence, in a moratorium on the death penalty in our state, in all but name.

No inmate has been put to death since Aug. 18, 2006, though 155 inmates remain on death row.

It is a relief that death row has ground to a halt. A system as rife with inconsistencies and potential unfairness as this one should not be used to deal out the ultimate punishment.

Peele, a judge who serves in an emergency capacity throughout the state, makes a number of compelling points in his series.

Defendants are more likely to get a death sentence in Wake County, which has 10 death row inmates, than Durham County, which has none.

About 149 cases stand to be litigated under the Racial Justice Act, a law that allows statistics to be used in order to show bias, and if bias is shown, a sentence would be reduced from death to life without parole. Those cases, Peele writes, may take years in some instances to decide. The Racial Justice Act was used in a case this year to reduce a sentence to life, although since that case it has been weakened by an amendment passed in July.

The state may be unable to find medical assistance to perform executions, with both the American Medical Association and North Carolina Medical Board opposed to having doctors attend. (North Carolina’s method of execution is lethal injection).

"Death sentences more likely in some counties than others," is the first of Stanley Peele's three-article series.

In North Carolina there were no executions between 1961 and 1984. Since then, we have had six years in which there were no executions, nine years in which there were one or two executions, five years with three executions, three years with four executions, and one year in which there were five executions.

There has been a marked drop in the number of death penalties imposed in North Carolina. In 1995, 34 prisoners were sent to death row. By 2007, the number dropped to seven; and starting with 2007, an average of 2.6 prisoners per year have gone to death row.

On Feb. 18, 2011, the death sentence of Isaac Jackson Stroud, of Durham, was commuted to life in prison without parole. The reason for this commutation was Stroud’s diminished mental state at the time of the murder. It is alleged that he could not understand why he was sentenced to death.

As a result, there are no prisoners from Durham County on death row.

It also means there are now eight counties in the central-northern part of the state that have no prisoners on death row. Those counties are Lee, Chatham, Orange, Durham, Person Granville, Vance, Warren and Franklin.

It is noteworthy that Wake County, which adjoins Durham and Orange Counties, has 10 prisoners on death row, the second-highest in the state. The county with the most people on death row is Forsyth with 13. Other counties with high numbers are: Cumberland with nine, Buncombe with eight, Randolph with eight and both Johnston and Gaston with seven. Fifty-six counties have prisoners on death row, and most of them have one or two prisoners there. Forty four counties have no death row prisoners.

Defendants have been more likely to get a death sentence in certain counties than others.

"Examining the death row population is complex," is the second article in the series.

There are 155 people on death row in North Carolina.

There have been no executions in North Carolina since Aug. 18, 2006. Is there a sensible way to deal with those on death row? Should they be kept there indefinitely?

Would it make sense to reduce the number of people on death row? And if this is done, how would it be done? One can say that this problem is so difficult that it nears impossibility. An attempt to rank them by the degree of cruelty or callousness of the offense for which they are on death row would be a grisly task, for the juries found all of them to be cruel and callous. Here are some possibilities:

The three-article series concludes with, "N.C. death penalty law remains in limbo."

There is a deadly war being fought. First, there are those who believe in the death penalty. Second, there are those who do not. Third, you have those in the middle. Some are undecided.

There are some legislators and judges who do not believe in the death penalty, but who cannot express their opinions. Legislators cannot express their opinion because they think to do so would be political suicide. Judges cannot do so because they are sworn to uphold the law.

There is a further complication. It is one thing to believe in the death penalty. Yet the closer a prisoner comes to an execution date, the more there is a tendency to be open to finding reasons to stay the execution.

The prospect of an actual execution weighs heavily upon us all.

Some judges may agree with the Michigan State University study citing bias in North Carolina death row cases, and other judges may disagree. If this happens, then we will have some prisoners who will be removed from death row and some who will not. This will mean our handling of death row cases will be unbalanced.

Earlier coverage from North Carolina begins at the link.  Thanks to Gerda Stein for distributing.

Related posts are in the geographic disparity and race indexes.

Andrew Cohen on the Williams Case

"A Plea for Mercy for a Murderer in Pennsylvania," is Andrew Cohen's post this morning at the Atlantic.  Here's the beginning:

On Monday afternoon, before the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons in Harrisburg, lawyers for a man named Terrance Williams will attempt to convince state officials that his life should be spared-- that instead of being executed by lethal injection on October 3rd Williams (shown at left) should instead be permitted to spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole. Despite the deadly violence of Williams' crime, despite no questions about his guilt, it's an unusually compelling clemency request-- and because of its timing, in the midst of two local sex abuse scandals, a vivid test of the nature of Pennsylvania's clemency process itself.

Williams' lawyers will make their case to five officials who will then make a recommendation to Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, who signed Williams' death warrant on August 8th. The vote of the Board of Pardons must be unanimous in Williams' favor and, even then, under state law, Gov. Corbett is free to disregard it and push on with the execution. It would be the first contested execution in the state in nearly half a century (three executions between now and then occurred when the defendants in the cases all agreed to waive their appeals). And it's clear that the governor will be a tough sell.

This is so despite the fact that the widow of Williams' victim now believes that his sentence should be commuted to life. It is so despite the fact that eight former judges -- federal and state -- now believe his trial was unjust. It is so despite the pleas of 28 former prosecutors -- federal, state and local -- who have gone on the record saying that justice would be served by clemency. It is so despite the fact that five of Williams' trial jurors have come forward and declared, under oath, that they never would have recommended a death sentence for him had they known of material facts his defense attorneys did not introduce at trial.

At its core, clemency is an act of mercy, an official acknowledgment that justice will be best served in a particular instance by the granting of relief to someone who is not, technically speaking, entitled to it. There are many legitimate legal reasons why Williams ought to be given a new trial-- just yesterday a state judge agreed to hear more about the new evidence in the case-- but clemency is not about law. It's about equity. It's about the power of the state to put to right an unjust result. Below are some of the facts that were not introduced at Williams' long-ago murder trial. Judge for yourself whether he deserves to die at the hands of the state.

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins with the preceding post.

Today's California Roundup & Sac Bee Editorial

Today's Sacramento Bee editorial, "End the death penalty: Yes on Proposition 34," is the final one of this week's series of editorials in support of Prop. 34.  The Sunday SacBee will feature reader feedback.

On the November ballot, California voters will be presented with Proposition 34, which would end the state's death penalty and instead require mandatory life sentences, without parole, for condemned inmates.

Voters should approve Prop. 34, for all the reasons we've laid out in editorials this week.

The death penalty in California is a farce. It isn't being carried out with any consistency or equal application across counties. Proponents have spent decades trying to speed up executions, including creating a Habeas Corpus Resource Center in 1998.

Even so, California has executed only 13 condemned murderers since 1992, when executions resumed after the reinstatement of the death penalty. During that time, 84 inmates have died on death row, leaving 729 awaiting an execution that, for most them, is sure to never come.

Even if California could somehow speed up executions, there is no evidence nationally that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to violent crime. There is evidence, however, that judges and juries have occasionally convicted the wrong person of a capital crime, resulting in an innocent person being sent to death row and even executed.

And:

If California were to implement life sentences with no possibility of parole, high-profile murderers such as Ramirez and Rhoades would no longer get the attention they crave and often receive on San Quentin's death row.

They'd live out their lonely days behind bars and die in relative obscurity. That would be a just end, and one that we all could count on.

The Tribune of San Luis Obispo publishes Phil Dirkx's column, "Death penalty does no good for California."

Zeke carried four pairs of new cowboy boots. His buddy, Zack, said, “Zeke you must stop buying boots. You keep buying new ones, but you haven’t worn boots for 20 years. They hurt your bunions.”

“I know,” said Zeke, “but buying them makes me feel good.”

“You better stop feeling,” said Zack, “and start thinking.”

Zack would probably also say we Californians better stop feeling good about capital punishment and start thinking about voting “yes” on Prop. 34.

If we pass Prop. 34 in November, it will abolish capital punishment and replace it with life without parole. It will require convicted murderers to work in prison to pay victim-restitution fines. And it will provide four years of grants to police and prosecutors to hasten the solving of murders and rapes.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates ending capital punishment will save $100 million per year at first, and $130 million per year in later years.

Most Californians used to feel good about capital punishment. In 1978, they voted to reinstate the death penalty. Since then, about 900 people have been sentenced to death in California.

And:

Many people say capital punishment provides “justice,” by which some people mean vengeance. No legitimate government should ever kill a person in cold blood. Calling it “capital punishment” doesn’t justify it.

Let me catch up with California commentary and news from yesterday.  The latest Los Angeles Times Capitol Journal Column is, "It's time to dump California's death penalty by passing Prop. 34," by George Skelton.

Officially, Proposition 34 is about whether to abolish the death penalty and replace it with life in prison. But that's not the pertinent question.

The death penalty already effectively has been abolished in California. Capital punishment exists only in fantasyland. Condemned killers essentially have been living out their natural lives behind bars.

The relevant question is whether we should keep pouring tax money down a rat hole, feeding a broken system that shows no signs of ever being fixed.

California has executed only 13 people in the last 34 years, and none since 2006. A study last year found that the state had spent $4 billion to administer capital punishment since 1978. That's about $308 million per execution.

So for me, Prop. 34 is not about the merits of capital punishment. It's about whether we should keep paying extravagantly for something we're not getting.

The November ballot measure is relatively simple compared to most other initiatives. It would repeal California's death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

It would apply retroactively to the 729 convicted killers already sentenced to death. They and future murderers would be tossed into the general prison population and treated like other convicts — double-bunked and required to work.

There are also news reports.  "Prop. 34: High Price of Death," by Nick Welsh in the Santa Barbara Independent.

Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce Dudley, took a broader view in regarding Prop. 34’s political resonance. “We have an anti–death penalty governor and an anti–death penalty attorney. The Innocence Project is finding cases where people have been improperly convicted,” she said. “At a time when our prisons are overflowing, state and local governments are seriously strapped for cash.”

More than anything, cost is driving the push behind Prop. 34. “It’s not the morality of the thing; it’s not that innocent people may be getting executed,” said Gerald Uelmen, a law professor at Santa Clara University and one of the experts hitting the campaign trail on behalf of Prop. 34. “People are reacting to how much money we’re spending.” According to Uelmen, who headed the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (created by former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger), it costs $100,000 a year to lock someone up in Death Row, where inmates are sequestered in single cells and kept under constant surveillance and suicide watch. By contrast, he said, it costs $38,000 a year to lock someone up in a maximum security prison.

Uelmen said his commission closely scrutinized the occupants of California’s Death Row to see if any innocent people had been wrongly convicted. No one who was factually innocent, he said, was found. But many, he said, had been sentenced to die without advice of competent ​— ​or adequate ​— ​legal counsel. “We found that the state could save $137 million a year by eliminating the death penalty,” he said. “Or we could spend $100 million more to fix it.” By “fixing it,” Uelmen said it would take California’s condemned inmates, on average, 15 years to be executed as opposed to the 30 years Uelmen said it now takes. (Fifteen years, he said, is the national average.)

Although the statewide district attorneys association is campaigning against Prop. 34, Dudley said she’s taking no position. She calls the state’s death penalty system “dysfunctional,” noting that there have been no executions since 2006 because California’s three-chemical killer cocktail protocol has been in limbo pending legal challenges. Until that changes, Dudley said, she has no interest in pursuing the death penalty.

New Times San Luis Obispo posts, "Debating death," by Matt Fountain.

Jeanne Woodford recalls with a furled brow and a slight grimace the four occasions she witnessed California’s harshest penalty carried out in front of her.

As warden of California’s only prison with a death row and an operational execution chamber, Woodford saw firsthand at San Quentin State Prison what she calls the waste of both human life and of valuable resources sorely needed in the ever-strapped criminal justice system.

“After an execution, you come to realize that you didn’t do anything to improve public safety. You just didn’t,” Woodford told New Times.

Speaking before a crowd of nearly 100 people on a Saturday night at San Luis Obispo Mission de Tolosa, Woodford was campaigning in support of Proposition 34—the initiative that asks voters to repeal the death penalty in California.

“I have observed victims’ families [following an execution], and you can just tell—it just didn’t provide the answers that people had been promising them,” Woodford said. “It’s very difficult to describe, but you would leave feeling, ‘What good did we do?’ It didn’t help anyone, didn’t improve public safety, and nobody’s better off because of it.”

Think Progress highlights the latest Alarcon-Mitchell law review article in its post, "Study: Death Penalty Will Cost California Up To $7.7 Billion By 2050," by Nicole Flatow.

California’s prison system is severely overcrowded and expensive, but incarceration for those sentenced to life without parole is not the state’s most costly form of punishment. With a state initiative to eliminate capital punishment on the ballot this November, an updated study by a law professor and a federal appeals court judge projects that California’s death penalty system would cost taxpayers between $5.4 and $7.7 billion more between now and 2050 than if those in death row were sentenced to life in prison without parole.

During that time, the study projects, about 740 more inmates will be added to death row and 14 executions will be carried out, while more than 500 of those prisoners will die from suicide or natural causes before the state executes them. Compared to life without parole — the state’s second-most-severe punishment — the costs of the death penalty system include higher incarceration costs due to security and other requirements, and astronomical litigation costs — both for individual appeals and for lethal injection litigation.

Ninth Circuit Senior Judge Arthur L. Alarcón and Loyola Law School Los Angeles adjunct professor Paula M. Mitchell explain in the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review.

Judge Arthur L. Alarcón and law professor Paula M. Mitchell's latest Loyola Los Angeles Law Review article is, "Costs of Capital Punishment in California: Will Voters Choose Reform this November?"  It's available in Adobe .pdf format at the link.  You can also view the abstract.

Last year, Judge Alarcon and Mitchell wrote, "Executing the Will of the Voters: A Roadmap to Mend or End the California Legislature's Multi-Billion-Dollar Death Penalty Debacle," also for the Loyola Los Angeles Law Review.  Coverage of the earlier Alarcon-Mitchell law review article is at the link.

Earlier coverage from California, with the previous SacBee editorial, begins at the link.  More on Prop. 34 at SAFE Caliornia.

Today's California Update

"Former San Quentin warden hits the campaign trail to abolish death penalty," is Richard Halstead's report in today's Marin Independent Journal.

A former warden at San Quentin State Prison is playing a leading role in the campaign for Proposition 34, which would abolish the death penalty in California.

In a meeting Tuesday with the Marin Independent Journal's editorial board, former warden Jeanne Woodford and other supporters of the Nov. 6 ballot initiative highlighted the millions of dollars they say would be saved by eliminating capital punishment.

Woodford, who served as warden at San Quentin from 1999 to 2004, cited a study released in 2011 by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Arthur Alarcon that showed the death penalty had cost California $4 billion since its reinstatement in 1978 and would cost another $5 billion by 2030.

At the same time, 46 percent of the homicides in California go unsolved, as do 56 percent of rape cases, Woodford said.

"Really the best use of our resources is to move that money into solving those kinds of crimes," she said. In 2011, Woodford became executive director of Death Penalty Focus, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to educating the public about the death penalty and its alternatives.

And:

Former San Quentin warden Jeanne Woodford will speak as part of the Mill Valley Library's "First Friday" lecture series in a program set for 7 to 9 p.m. Friday at the library, 375 Throckmorton Ave. in Mill Valley. The event, in the library's main reading room, is free of charge.

Modesto Bee columnist Marcos Breton writes, "Saving money is weak argument for abolishing death penalty."

If you're going to argue against the death penalty, then argue against the death penalty.

Call it cruel and unusual. Argue that God – and not governments – should decide life and death. Cast doubt on it as a deterrent to violent crime or expand on the words of former President Jimmy Carter.

"Perhaps the strongest argument against the death penalty is extreme bias against the poor, minorities or those with diminished mental capacity," Carter wrote in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in April.

But to argue against the death penalty by stating it's too expensive for California is intellectually dishonest and disrespectful to the victims of the state's most heinous criminals.

Yet that is what proponents of Proposition 34 are doing. The November ballot initiative seeks to repeal California's death penalty law and allow death row inmates to be resentenced to life without parole.

Earlier coverage of Prop. 34, the SAFE California ballot initiative, begins at the link; more at, SAFE Caliornia.

The Supreme Court Death Clerk

Adam Liptak's Sidebar column in today's New York Times is titled, "Reprieve May Be Last-Minute, but Justices’ Preparation Never Is."  Here's the beginning:

John Balentine was an hour away from being put to death in Texas last month when the Supreme Court granted him a stay of execution.

The unseemly and unsettling spectacle of a last-minute legal scramble in the shadow of the ultimate deadline, with the condemned inmate waiting for word of his fate just outside the death chamber, may suggest that the Supreme Court does not render considered justice when it is asked to halt an execution.

But it tries. Indeed, the court goes to extraordinary lengths to get ready, and its point person is a staff lawyer named Danny Bickell.

“Cases where there is an execution date,” he said with a sigh, “that’s where I come in.”

Mr. Bickell’s formal title is emergency applications clerk, but capital defense lawyers have an informal title for him, too. They call him the death clerk.

In remarks at a conference of lawyers specializing in federal death penalty work at a hotel here last month, Mr. Bickell provided a rare inside look at the Supreme Court’s oversight of the machinery of death in the United States.

It starts with a weekly update.

“Every Monday morning,” Mr. Bickell said, “I put out a list to the court of all the executions that are scheduled in the country in the next six or seven weeks, and that gets distributed to all of the justices.”

The Supreme Court clerk’s office is famously helpful to lawyers who have questions about the court’s rules and procedures, but in capital cases it goes further.

“As the date approaches,” Mr. Bickell said, referring to impending executions, “I will be in touch with the attorney general’s office. I will be in touch with you, if you are representing the inmate, and with the lower courts, trying to figure out what is pending below and what is likely to make its way up to the Supreme Court.

“Once we make contact about 10 days or two weeks before the scheduled execution, I will start asking you to forward me everything that you file in the lower courts. Once you forward it to me, I forward it on to the law clerks and to the justices so that they can begin reviewing the case.”

By the time Mr. Balentine’s stay application reached the court, then, the justices were up to speed on the issues presented in his case, which concerned how claims of incompetent legal work at a capital trial should be presented.

Under the Supreme Court’s rules, Mr. Balentine’s plea that his execution be stayed was addressed to Justice Antonin Scalia, who oversees the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

But individual justices almost never rule by themselves on requests to halt executions. “I would say 99.9 percent of the time the circuit justice is going to refer the application to the full court, and all nine justices are going to act on the application,” Mr. Bickell said.

Earlier coverage of John Balentine's case begins at the link.

You can also read more of Adam Liptak's Sidebar columns at the Times website.

We Cannot Be Sloppy With Death Sentences

That's the title of Leslie Linthicum's Upfront column in today's Albuquerque Journal.

Any mention of death row inmates going to court on appeal – for example, my column a few weeks ago about the argument that in a state that now outlaws the death penalty it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment – is bound to stir up a predictable response: Cry me a river, you bleeding hearts. Let ‘em hang.

The appeals process after a death sentence is lengthy and automatic, and for good reason. At the end of it, we should be sure the guy getting the lethal injection in the name of all of us committed the crime and that the death sentence was the result of a fair trial.

But it ties up lawyers and courts for years, often decades, and involves technical details and arcane arguments. And that leads to another predictable response: These guys will argue any technicality to save their skin.

But consider for a minute Timothy Allen, who is in his 17th year on New Mexico’s figurative “death row.”

He has been in appeal for a very long time, and these are some of the arguments – far from technicalities -he is claiming:

Before Allen was convicted of murder and sent to death row, his lawyers had no idea their client had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and treated for it, or that he had reported hearing voices in his head for years telling him to rape a girl, or that he told people he killed because voices in his head commanded him to.

His three-lawyer defense team was disorganized and inexperienced – and that’s by their own admission. His current legal team is arguing that the mistakes of his lawyers shouldn’t cost Allen his life.

And:

All those issues are part of Allen’s habeas corpus case in District Court in San Juan County. Prosecutors in an initial response to the claims rebutted the core of the argument – that Allen’s legal team deprived him of a fair trial. That process will continue, with lawyers on either side arguing the evidence for and against the claims and a judge will ultimately decide whether Allen was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial.

That will all take more lawyers, more appeals further up the court chain and more time. If you believe in the Constitution and want to make sure we get it right before we take a life, it’s time well spent.

Earlier coverage from New Mexico begins with Linthicum's death penalty column published earlier this month.  Thanks to Jim Ellis for circulating.