The StandDown Texas Project

Paula Cooper's Path

"Ind. woman sentenced to death at 16 to leave prison," is by Tim Evans of the Indianapolis Star and Gannett News. Here's the beginning:

Paula Cooper was 16 when she was sentenced to death for killing an elderly Bible study teacher.

That made the Gary, Ind., teen the youngest person ever in the state to face the death penalty. At the time in 1986, she also was the youngest Death Row inmate in the United States.

To many, Cooper was a monster beyond rehabilitation. But others saw her as a victim of an abusive childhood and racist criminal justice system.

A legal challenge and international campaign to overturn her death sentence, which included an appeal from Pope John Paul II, saved Cooper's life.

The Indiana Supreme Court commuted the death sentence in 1989 and sent her to prison for 60 years. For the past 24 years, she has lived in relative obscurity.

On Monday, Cooper will try to put all of that behind her when she walks out of the Rockville Correctional Facility.

It will be the 43-year-old's first taste of freedom since her arrest in 1985.

Cooper was 15 when she was charged with murder in the grisly stabbing of 78-year-old Ruth Pelke during a robbery. Three other co-defendants - also teenage girls at the time - went to prison but have been released.

"Paula Cooper Released: Ind. Woman Sentenced To Die At 16 To Walk Free," is the AP report by Charles Wilson, via Huffington Post.

Cooper's sister, Rhonda Labroi, said she hopes people will see Paula as more than a killer. After getting in trouble 23 times during her time in prison, Paula Cooper turned to education, earning a bachelor's degree in 2001.

"She was just a child at the time that happened, and now she is an adult and people should wait and see and give her a chance," Labroi said. "Give her an opportunity. Maybe she'll do some wonderful things for children who are growing up and aren't so fortunate, like she was.

"There are second chances," she said. "It seems like God has given her another chance. I think if people give her a second chance, she'll do fine."

Bill Pelke, Ruth's grandson, is a leader in the death penalty abolition movement and the founder of the Journey of Hope.

An Update From Ohio

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports, "Task force urges state panel be created to evaluate death penalty prosecutions," by Robert Higgs.

A state task force is recommending that Ohio create a panel under the state attorney general that would review potential death penalty cases before prosecutors could take them to trial.

Under current Ohio law, the power to decide when to pursue the death penalty rests in the hands of individual county prosecutors.

But the recommendation by the Joint Task Force to Review the Administration of Ohio's Death Penalty would give the new panel authority to disapprove death penalty charges.

The recommendation is an attempt to address disparities in death penalty prosecutions in Ohio, said Ohio Public Defender Timothy Young, who chaired a subcommittee that drafted the recommendation.

And:

Once a prosecutor made a decision, the panel -- made up of staff from the attorney general’s office and former county prosecutors appointed by the governor -- would review that decision.

It would look at the circumstances of the case, giving particular consideration to the races of those charged and the victims, said Jo Ellen Cline, government relations counsel to the Ohio Supreme Court and the court’s liaison to the joint task force.

“It would be a significant change in how things operate now,” Cline said.

The task force’s recommendation has a long way to go before it could become reality. It likely will be late in the year before the task force finishes its work, and some recommendations, including this one, would require legislative action to change state law.

Given that, not all of the details on how the panel would work, or if a prosecutor would have some recourse if opposed to the panel’s decision, are not nailed down. That specificity would likely come from the General Assembly, Cline said.

Earlier coverage of the Ohio task force begins at the link.  More information is at the Joint Task Force to Review the Administration of Ohio's Death Penalty website.

Colorado Roundup - Polling, Holmes Case

"What poll means for death penalty," is the title of a Denver Post editorial.

Interestingly, 57 percent of Coloradans said they did not think the death penalty deters murders.

Another revealing statistic: 53 percent said they thought the death penalty was applied fairly in Colorado, despite a mountain of evidence that its use in death-penalty eligible cases is quite arbitrary.

How informed are Coloradans about the death penalty debate? Forty-four percent said they had heard or read "a little" about the debate while 26 percent said they had heard or read "nothing at all."

Only 30 percent said they had heard or read "a lot" on the subject.

Of those Coloradans who did support abolishing the death penalty, the top reason was listed as, "No one has the right to take a life/It's murder." The second most-cited reason was, "Fear of executing an innocent person/Irreversible."

Those seem like pretty good reasons for opposing the death penalty — and there are many more — although apparently they don't resonate with most Coloradans.

We hope the conversation continues and that the governor leads it, polling aside.

Also in today's Post, the news article, "James Holmes' attorneys suggest they might withdraw his insanity plea," by John Ingold.

Attorneys for Aurora movie theater shooting suspect James Holmes have suggested they might withdraw his insanity plea if his upcoming independent psychiatric evaluation doesn't go their way.

This month, Holmes formally pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, prompting the judge to order him to undergo a mental-health evaluation at a state hospital in Pueblo.

Earlier coverage of the Colorado public opinion polling, James Holmes case, and the Nathan Dunlap reprieve begins at the links.

Let the Racial Justice Act Stand

That's the title of an editorial in the News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina.

Sen. Thom Goolsby, a New Hanover County Republican, successfully pushed through a bill to repeal North Carolina’s Racial Justice Act. He said that the original legislation was “poorly written.”

But the truth is the law was written with impressive clarity, starting with the title. It is a law about race and justice. Those two words were not often aligned in the Old South, especially in state laws. That was what made the RJA a monument to the New South and a credit to the state that has on many fronts led the South forward.

And:

The bill to repeal the Racial Justice Act succeeded because prosecutors resented having their motives questioned, and they wanted the threat of death to pressure suspects into plea bargains. They weren’t acting as ministers of justice. They were acting as administers of convictions.

The governor has the opportunity to show he’s willing to change his mind in light of the facts. This bill offers the first serious test of where he wants to lead North Carolina. Will it be forward or backward?

"Red State Resurgence Greenlights Executions," is by Martin Clancy at Huffington Post.  He's the co-author of the recently published, Murder at the Supreme Court: Lethal Crimes and Landmark Cases.

Supporters of the Racial Justice Act saw it as a historic measure that addressed a long history of injustice. As the Winston-Salem Journal noted in an editorial, some examples were blatant: a black defendant who got the death penalty in Stanly County being referred to in trial testimonyz as a "nigger from Wadesboro"; a juror in a Randolph County case who said after the trial in which he voted for death for the black defendant that "blacks do not care as much about living as whites do."

A study by Michigan State University researchers determined that over the two decades preceding passage of the Racial Justice Act, North Carolina prosecutors rejected twice as many blacks as potential jurors than they did whites; the rejection rate was even higher in cases where the defendant was black.

"Repealing this law in the face of clear evidence that it is still much needed in our court rooms comes perilously close to institutionalized discrimination in our justice system," said the Wilmington Star-News.

Republicans now wield more political cloat in North Carolina than they have for generations. They captured control of the legislature in 2010 for the first time in a century, then broadened their majority while also capturing the governorship in 2012.

The Racial Justice Act was one of the issues prompting weekly demonstrations against Republican efforts to roll back fiscal and social measures put in place by their predecessors. Dubbed "Moral Mondays," the six weeks of demonstrations at the state Capitol have so far resulted in over 380 arrests.

But neither the editorials nor the protests have deterred the powerful Republican majorities in both houses of the General Assembly. They not only repealed the Racial Justice Act, but also conferred legal protection on medical professionals who might assist in executions. Doctors, nurses and technicians would not be liable to regulators or ethics boards for their participation in administering lethal injections. So much for the Hippocratic oath to "do no harm."

Earlier coverage from North Carolina begins at the link; also available, more on Murder at the Supreme Court.

Former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Now Opposes Death Penalty

"Former Justice Stratton says she’s now opposed to death penalty," is by  Alan Johnson in today's Columbus Dispatch.

In nearly three terms on the Ohio Supreme Court, former Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton sided with the majority most of the time when convicted murderers were put to death.

From 1996 through the end of last year, spanning the time Stratton was a justice on the court, Ohio executed 49 men by lethal injection.

But nearly six months after leaving the court, the Republican, now an attorney in private practice in Columbus, has changed her views.

Stratton yesterday told members of an Ohio Supreme Court task force reviewing administration of the death penalty that she didn’t have a strong feeling about capital punishment while serving on the court.

“I have evolved to where I don’t think the death penalty is effective,” she said in an interview. “I don’t have a moral inhibition ... Overall, it’s just not the best way to deal with it on a number of different levels.”

Stratton said she has long opposed executions involving mentally ill defendants, but she now opposes capital punishment in general because she doesn’t see it as a deterrent and victims’ families don’t gain the finality they seek when the murderer is put to death.

"Former Ohio Supreme Court justice now opposes death penalty, saying it doesn't deter crime," is the AP report, via the Daily Journal.

Stratton, now an attorney in private practice in Columbus, spoke Thursday to a state Supreme Court task force analyzing the effectiveness of Ohio's capital punishment law. The committee has examined racial bias in death penalty cases, ways to improve the legal representation of capital defendants and other topics. But it isn't debating whether the state should have the death penalty.

The former justice was asked to speak to the panel about her concerns with capital punishment in cases of mentally ill defendants.

Stratton told the panel she didn't have a strong overall opinion about the death penalty when she served on the court from 1996 through late last year. The state put 49 men to death by lethal injection during that time, the newspaper reported.

It's not uncommon for sitting judges to change their mind on the death penalty, and Stratton isn't the first Republican jurist in Ohio to have a change of heart on the issue.

Justice Paul Pfeifer, who helped write Ohio's death penalty law three decades ago when he was a young state senator, has argued for its end since early 2011 and called for the state to stop using capital punishment.

Also from AP, "Ohio death penalty task force continues work," via the Martins Ferry Times Leader.

The committee that convened Thursday in Columbus has examined everything from racial bias in death penalty cases to ways to improve the legal representation of capital defendants.

Chairman James Brogan, a retired appeals court judge, has said he expects two reports from the committee, one from a majority backing recommendations, the other from a minority of members with different views.

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor convened the task force while making it clear it won't debate whether the state should have the death penalty.

The group includes judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and academic experts.

Earlier coverage of the Ohio task force begins at the link.  The Joint Task Force to Review the Administration of Ohio's Death Penalty website has additional information and future meeting dates.

More on Justice Pfeifer's break with capital punishment is also available.

Court: Texas Inmate's Decades-Old Sentence Invalid

That's the title of an AP report by Michael Graczyk, via WBAY-TV.  It's also available through Huffington Post as, "Jerry Hartfield, Texas Inmate, Has Life Sentence For Murder Deemed Invalid By Court of Criminal Appeals."

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruling in Hartfield v. Thaler is available in Adobe .pdf format.

Here's an extended excerpt from the AP report:

The life sentence given to a Texas man who has remained in prison for 33 years since being pulled off of death row isn't valid, Texas' highest criminal court said Wednesday, possibly paving the way for a new trial or the inmate's release.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said once it overturned Jerry Hartfield's murder conviction in 1980 for the killing of a bus station worker four years earlier, there was no longer a death sentence for then-Gov. Mark White to commute.

The opinion was given in response to a rare formal request by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to confirm the validity of its ruling overturning Hartfield's conviction, in light of the governor's 1983 commutation. The New Orleans-based federal court made the request, which upheld a lower state court's ruling that the sentence was invalid.

"The status of the judgment of conviction is that (Hartfield) is under no conviction or sentence," Judge Lawrence Meyers wrote in a decision supported by the court's other eight judges. "Because there was no longer a death sentence to commute, the governor's order had no effect."

Hartfield, now 57, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1976 robbery and killing of a Southeast Texas bus station employee. The criminal appeals court overturned his murder conviction, ruling that a potential juror improperly was dismissed after expressing reservations about the death penalty.

White commuted Hartfield's sentence in 1983 at the recommendation of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and he has remained in prison since then, unaware until a few years ago that his case was in legal limbo. Court documents in his case described him as an illiterate 5th-grade dropout with in IQ of 51, although Hartfield says he's learned to read and write while in prison.

In its failed appeal to the 5th Circuit, the state argued that Hartfield's life sentence should stand because he missed a one-year window in which to appeal aspects of his case.

Earlier coverage of Jerry Hartfield's case begins at the link.

More California Commentary

The Los Angeles Times publishes the column, "Manson and 'Night Stalker' murderers and California justice," by Patt Morrison.

The death penalty is much more expensive in California than life in prison without parole -- about $184 million a year more. A three-year study found that each execution costs the state nearly a third of a billion dollars. Billion, with a “b.”

Death penalty economics, compounded with concerns about the possible factual innocence of death row inmates, explains the mend-it-or-end-it reasoning that has shifted attitudes in California, although not enough to push the anti-death penalty measure over the 50% mark last November. And Ramirez is the gruesome poster boy for death penalty supporters, who argue that if ever anyone deserved to be executed, it was the Night Stalker.

Two days before Ramirez died, a former death row inmate named Leslie Van Houten had her 20th parole hearing. She was turned down, again.

Had TV cameras been allowed into the hearing, they would have shown Van Houten as gray-haired and wrinkled and looking older than her 63 years. She was a 19-year-old follower of Charles Manson when she and her cohorts murdered Leno and Rosemary LaBianca in their Los Feliz home in August 1969.

Earlier coverage from California begins at the link.

Duane Buck Case Featured on HuffPost Live Today

The Duane Buck case will be featured on Huffington Post Live today at 1:00 pm CDT (2:00 pm EDT).  NAACP LDF attorney Christina Swarns and former Texas Governor Mark White will discuss the case.

LDF has also released a new video on the case.  Here's more from the news release:

Today, the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. released a new video highlighting the racial discrimination in the Texas death penalty system and the shocking case of death-sentenced prisoner, Duane Buck.  Mr. Buck was sentenced to death in Harris County (Houston), Texas, after his trial prosecutor elicited testimony from a psychologist indicating that Mr. Buck was more likely to be dangerous because he is Black. The video was produced by award-winning documentary filmmakers Emily Kunstler and Sarah Kunstler.

The video is “A Broken Promise in Texas: Race, the Death Penalty and the Duane Buck Case.”

“A Broken Promise in Texas” contains powerful, never-before-seen interviews with Texas civil rights leaders, elected politicians, the surviving victim in the Buck case, one of Mr. Buck’s trial prosecutors and Mr. Buck’s family members, among others, calling for a new, fair sentencing hearing.  The video’s release comes at a critical juncture, as Mr. Buck may soon be at risk of execution:  the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is currently considering Mr. Buck’s appeal for a new sentencing hearing free of racial bias and the Court is expected to rule in the coming weeks.
 
"Everyone who sees this powerful video will come away from it with the alarming realization that if Duane Buck can be sentenced to death - and possibly executed -- based on racial stereotypes, then our criminal justice system is broken not just for Mr. Buck, but for all of us," said Christina Swarns, Mr. Buck's attorney and Director of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.'s Criminal Justice Project.  "A properly functioning criminal justice system does not condone the flagrant exploitation of racial fears and stereotypes to secure a death sentence.  It cannot countenance a racially biased and unfair execution."
 
Former Texas Governor Mark White, who oversaw the executions of 19 individuals, narrates the video and urges citizens to take action: “It’s unfair to have someone on death row if they are not supposed to be there … Don’t wait until it is too late … Join me and more than 100 civil rights leaders, clergy, former prosecutors, and judges in calling for a new and fair sentencing hearing for Mr. Buck. Tell Texas to keep its promise.” 
 
Over 50,000 people from Texas and around the country have signed a petition calling on Texas officials to grant Mr. Buck a new sentencing hearing. The newly released video exposes the injustice of Duane Buck’s case and encourages support for the petition for a new, fair sentencing.

As the video shows, at Mr. Buck’s 1997 capital sentencing hearing in Harris County, the trial prosecutor elicited testimony from a psychologist that Mr. Buck posed a future danger because he is black. The prosecutor relied on this testimony in arguing in favor of a death sentence. The jury then found Mr. Buck would be a future danger and sentenced him to death. 
 
Three years after Mr. Buck’s capital trial, in 2000, then-Texas Attorney General (now U.S. Senator) John Cornyn identified seven cases, including Mr. Buck’s, in which the State of Texas impermissibly relied on testimony linking race and dangerousness to secure a death sentence. The Attorney General promised to support new sentencing hearings for the seven identified defendants and kept its promise as to six of them. But Texas reneged on its promise to Mr. Buck and is now aggressively pursuing his execution.
 
“It is virtually unprecedented for a state official to confess error in a capital case. And in this situation, [the Attorney General] confessed error in six capital cases,” said Kathryn Kase, Executive Director of Texas Defender Service, in the video. 
 
Mr. Buck’s life was saved by the U.S. Supreme Court before his September 2011 scheduled execution. Two U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed that Mr. Buck’s death sentence requires review because “our criminal justice system should not tolerate” a death sentence “marred by racial overtones.”
 
“When we apply the death penalty and we seek criminal sentences, we have to do so in a color-blind manner. Allowing this kind of racial testimony in any capital sentence proceeding undermines the entire justice process,” said Kate Black, Mr. Buck’s attorney, in the video. 

Earlier coverage of Duane Buck's case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the race category index.

The Latest From California

"Even Richard Ramirez dodged California's death penalty," is the Los Angeles Daily News editorial.  It's available as, "California's death penalty is dead," in the Reporter.

Richard Ramirez is dead. The serial killer dubbed the Night Stalker was the face of evil for many Southern Californians. And he was the face of something else -- the futility of this state's system of capital punishment.

Ramirez was 25 when he was captured in 1985. He was 53 when he died Friday morning at San Quentin State Prison. So he lived most of his life with the death penalty hanging over him but never getting even that sterile version of the satanic horror he perpetrated on 13 murder victims.

And:

The system itself was on Death Row last November when California voters considered Proposition 34, which would have ended the death penalty in the state and converted the sentences of Death Row inmates to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The argument, a good one, was that it was costing the state more than $100 million a year on legal battles and Death Row incarceration.

Yet since the state resumed executions in 1992, only 13 condemned convicts have actually been put to death, while more than 700 others continue to sit in prison; as of last fall, 84 Death Row inmates had died of natural causes.

Voters defeated Proposition 34, and the death penalty survived -- though, in name only.

"Initiative supporters want to bring California death penalty back to life," is by Neil Nisperos of Inland Newspapers.  It's via the Contra Costa Times.

Frustrated by a recent appeals court ruling that invalidates the state's lethal injection procedures, supporters of the death penalty in California plan to launch a campaign to bring the suspended system back to life.

Death penalty supporters hope to circumvent legal challenges to executions through a new initiative that would put in place a single-drug injection procedure for inmates condemned to death, such as the infamous Night Stalker serial killer Richard Ramirez, who died Friday of natural causes.

Advocates of the single-injection protocol seek to avoid supply and legal issues related to the triple-drug protocol used prior to a 2006 moratorium on the death penalty. The ballot initiative would also reform the appellate process to ensure executions for Death Row inmates who have exhausted all appeals and where questions of guilt don't exist.

The proposed initiative would be carried by a coalition of law enforcement, district attorneys, and death penalty proponents who opposed Proposition 34 in the 2012 statewide election. That measure, defeated by 52 percent of voters, would have abolished the death penalty and replaced it with life in prison without parole.

Earlier coverage from California begins at the link.

RJA Editorial Roundup

The New York Times publishes the editorial, "Racial Injustice in North Carolina."

The North Carolina Legislature repealed the state’s Racial Justice Act this week, and the Republican governor, Pat McCrory, is expected to sign the bill. But the state cannot erase the detailed and irrefutable proof of ugly racial bias that led a state trial judge to resentence four death row inmates to life without parole because of this statute.

Passed in 2009, the law made North Carolina the first state in the country to give death row inmates the chance to have their sentences changed if they proved that state prosecutors significantly discriminated on the basis of race — for example, in selecting jurors. Judge Gregory Weeks tried one case on its own and three others together; in 2012, he found the bias of prosecutors intentional in all four cases.

And:

Despite the repeal of the Racial Justice Act, there are still about 150 other cases pending under the act. It is unclear whether these cases must be allowed to go forward under the State Constitution.

The number of death sentences issued in the state declined from 33 in 1993 to 1 so far this year, and North Carolina has executed no one since 2006 — indicators that there is no need for this option to be part of the criminal justice system. The persistence of racial bias in death penalty prosecutions makes abolishing capital punishment even more urgent.

"The Racial Injustice Act," is the Wilmington Star News editorial.

The Racial Justice Act is dead – at least it will be if Gov. Pat McCrory signs its repeal or, as he did with another controversial bill, simply lets the repeal become law. Technically, the repeal – thrown in as an aside to a bill to speed up the executions of death-row inmates – still has another vote to go on Tuesday, when the Senate takes a vote on language reconciling the House and Senate versions. But that is just a formality.

Senate Bill 306, sponsored by Sen. Thom Goolsby, R-New Han­over, eliminates a tool that in only a handful of cases has shown how prosecutors used discretionary challenges to exclude qualified black jurors at a much higher rate than white jurors. It allowed inmates to prove their case – the burden was on them – by using statistics showing a pattern of bias in the justice system as well as the facts in their own case. If they won, the best they could do was life in prison with no parole.

Credible studies and decades of history tell us that the justice system in North Carolina is far from colorblind. The Racial Justice Act was an effort to ensure that sentences were imposed and carried out based only on the facts of the crime, not the race of the defendant or the victim.

The Greensboro News-Record publishes the editorial, "The execution hurry."

The legislation gives license to a physician, nurse or pharmacist to actually administer a lethal injection, contradicting the ethical standards of their professions. It’s an extraordinary step by a legislature to assert its judgment regarding medical matters over that of medical organizations themselves, but that’s exactly what this does.

It infuriates Dr. Charles van der Horst, a professor at the UNC School of Medicine in Chapel Hill and an ardent opponent of capital punishment. He suggests the politicians carry out executions themselves.

“Why do they need doctors, nurses and pharmacists, who want to help people, not kill them?” he asked.

He added that physicians who do participate should be ostracized within the profession — and he’ll lead the effort.

When this bill arrives on his desk, McCrory should consider two questions.

Does he want to side with the legislature against the positions of the American Medical Association and N.C. Medical Board?

And, does he really want to break Easley’s record and become North Carolina’s leading execution governor of modern times?

He should say no on both counts and veto the bill. It is not worthy of our state.

Earlier coverage of the North Carolina legislation begins at the link.

Oklahoma Commutation Recommendation Moves to Governor

AP posts, "Clemency recommended for Okla. death row inmate," by Tim Talley.  It's via the San Francisco Chronicle.

The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board recommended clemency Thursday for a death row inmate scheduled to be executed this month for the rape and murder of his girlfriend's mother.

The five-member board voted 4-1 to recommend that the death sentence of Brian Darrell Davis be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The recommendation now goes to Gov. Mary Fallin for approval or rejection.

Members of Davis' family wept and hugged each other when the board's decision was made.

"A weight lifted off of all of us," said his mother, Yvonne Davis. "Brian does deserve a second chance."

Family members and Davis' defense attorney, Jack Fisher, said they will urge Fallin to grant the recommendation. Davis is scheduled to be executed June 25, but Fallin has the authority to grant two 30-day reprieves in order to study the recommendation and meet with prosecution and defense attorneys, officials said.

And:

The board recommended clemency after Davis took responsibility for the victim's death and apologized. Board member Richard Dugger cast the sole vote against clemency.

"I would like to give my apologies to the Sanford family," Davis told the board during a video teleconference from the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester. "I would like to apologize for putting my family through this. I'm very apologetic for what happened."

Related posts are in the clemency index.

North Carolina House Casts Final Vote to Repeal RJA

Today's New York Times reports, "North Carolina Repeals Law Allowing Racial Bias Claim in Death Penalty Challenges."  It's by Kim Severson.

After one more perfunctory pass through the State Senate, which already passed a version of the measure, the bill repealing the act will head to Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican elected last year who has said he will sign it.

A section of the law rescinding the act will now prevent doctors, nurses and other health care professionals from being punished by regulatory boards if they assist in executions. The state medical board in 2007 said it would penalize medical professionals who participated, a policy the State Supreme Court later said was beyond the board’s authority.

The floor debate over the Racial Justice Act began a day after 151 people were arrested in Raleigh as opposition grows to a newly conservative government in a state that has long been considered centrist.

Preserving the act, which was passed when there was a Democrat in the governor’s office and the legislature was not as heavily controlled by Republicans, was among dozens of issues brought up by protesters who have been gathering every Monday since April.

Monday’s protest, organized by the N.A.A.C.P., drew more than a thousand people. Since the protests began, about 300 people have been arrested on trespassing charges and other charges related to acts of civil disobedience.

"N.C. House approves repeal of Racial Justice Act," is the AP filing by Chris Kardish.  It's via the Rocky Mount Telegram.

The N.C. House passed a bill Wednesday clearing the way for executions to resume in the state.

The Republican-controlled House voted mostly along party lines to fully repeal a law that allows convicted murderers to reduce a death sentence to life in prison if they can prove that race played a major role in their cases. The 2009 law had already been weakened last year by Republicans, who successfully pushed to restrict the use of statistics to prove bias and require other forms of evidence.

The House gave initial approval Tuesday after an hour and a half of debate. The Senate already passed the bill but has to approve some minor changes added by the House.

The measure also protects medical professionals who assist in an execution from disciplinary action.

The Yadkin Ripple publishes an OpEd, "Death of Racial (In)justice Act," by Senator Thom Goolsby, leader of the RJA repeal effort.

The prosecutor is a racist and the first-degree, cold-blooded killer is a victim.” This two-part statement is the claim of every legal appeal under the ill-conceived Racial Justice Act (RJA).

Written by death penalty opponents and passed in 2009, RJA has accomplished its desired effect: it has created a de facto moratorium on the death penalty in North Carolina. The poorly written law allows every murderer on death row, regardless of color or ethnicity, to appeal his sentence. Of the 152 inmates on death row, all but four have used RJA to forestall their executions.

Earlier coverage from North Carolina begins at the link.

North Carolina RJA Close to Being Pushed Off Cliff

The News & Observer of Raleigh reports, "NC House vote moves Racial Justice Act closer to repeal."  It's by Lynn Bonner.

The legislature took another step Tuesday toward wiping out a signature law that allows convicted killers to be spared the death penalty if they can show court decisions tainted by racial bias.

The 77-40 vote in the state House was largely along party lines, with one Democrat joining all Republicans to repeal the law called the Racial Justice Act. The preliminary vote – the House will likely take another vote Wednesday – came after more than an hour of debate.

And:

The 2009 law allowed people sentenced to death to use statistical evidence to show that race played a significant part in their trial or in the prosecutor’s decision to seek the death penalty. Successful challengers have their death sentences commuted to life in prison.

Last year, the legislature weakened the law by narrowing the use of statistics. The bill moving through the legislature this year would erase the law. The bill would also prevent regulatory boards from penalizing doctors, nurses and other health care professionals from assisting in executions. In 2007, the N.C. Medical Board said it would punish doctors that participated in executions. State law requires that a doctor be present. The N.C. Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that the board had exceeded its authority.

When the bill passes the House, it must go back to the Senate for a vote of agreement before it’s sent to Gov. Pat McCrory.

The Winston-Salem Journal carries the AP report by Chris Kardish, with Journal staffer John Hinton, "House gives tentative OK to end of Racial Justice Act.

North Carolina legislators gave initial approval Tuesday to a measure that would clear the way for executions to resume in the state.

The Republican-controlled House voted Tuesday to fully repeal a 4-year-old law that allows convicted murderers to get a death sentence reduced to life in prison if they can prove that race played a major role in their cases.

The bill passed 77-40, but Democrats objected to a final vote.

A final vote in the House is likely today.

And:

“No one wants actual racial discrimination, but we also don’t want race to be used as a pretext to stop the death penalty,” Stam said.

He and other Republicans asserted repeatedly — as they have in the past — that the law is a way for Democrats with moral objections to capital punishment to put a de-facto freeze on its practice.

Democrats, particularly African-American members of the caucus, bristled at the suggestion.

Rep. Mickey Michaux, D-Durham, said the claims come from people who can’t fully appreciate racial prejudice, and a life sentence is no reprieve from punishment.

"North Carolina lawmakers want to repeal bias law, restart executions," is by Colleen Jenkins for Reuters, via the Hartford Courant.

Democratic legislators urged their colleagues on Tuesday not to abandon a law they said had helped expose intentional discrimination in cases where inmates had otherwise exhausted their appeals. They said the law was designed to root out prejudice from trials, not to stop the death penalty.

"We remain imprisoned by the past as long as we continue to deny its existence," said Representative Rick Glazier, a Democrat.

Progressive Pulse posts, "Advocates blast repeal of Racial Justice Act," by Rob Schofield.  Here's the beginning:

The good folks at the ACLU-NC issued this statement late yesterday regarding the House’s passage of SB 306 – the bill to repeal the Racial Justice Act:

“The Racial Justice Act has made it possible to shine a light on widespread and indisputable evidence of racial bias in North Carolina’s death penalty system that needs to be addressed,” said ACLU-NC Policy Director Sarah Preston. “It would be beyond tragic if North Carolina turns its back on that evidence and haphazardly rushes to restart executions, knowing full well that our capital punishment process is plagued by racial bias and other flaws that might very well lead to the execution of innocent people. Even those who support the death penalty should agree that capital sentences must be handed down impartially and with respect for due process, yet this bill makes it harder, if not impossible, to achieve that goal.”

Earlier coverage from North Carolina begins at the link.

RJA Update

"Racial Justice Act could meet its end this afternoon," is by Sarah Brown for the Daily Tar Heel.

Proven racial bias might no longer be enough to spare death-row inmates from the death penalty, if the N.C. House of Representatives votes to repeal a controversial state law this afternoon.

The Racial Justice Act — passed in 2009 with bipartisan support — permits convicted killers to use claims of racial discrimination to have their death-row sentences converted to life in prison without parole.

But many state legislators have said they believe the law creates more problems than it solves.

The Senate approved a bill in April that would repeal the act, and the same bill was voted favorably out of a House judiciary committee last week.

Jennifer Marsh, a UNC law professor, said the Racial Justice Act was the first of its kind in the United States to allow the use of county and state statistics as evidence that race was a significant factor in a judgment.

“It was amazingly groundbreaking, in its original form,” Marsh said.

A 2011 Michigan State University School of Law study — which looked at death row cases in North Carolina from 1990 to 2009 — found that defendants whose victims were white were more likely to receive the death penalty.

“This (law) was important in saying, we are going to look at our past and how the justice system works and make sure that it’s free of racial discrimination,” Marsh said.

N.C. Republicans voted last year to repeal the provision allowing statistics to be the sole indicator of racial bias.

Earlier coverage from North Carolina begins at the link.

What Was All the Fuss About?

That's the title of a Baltimore Sun editorial, subtitled, "Death penalty repeal and gun control measures fail to stir sufficient opposition from Maryland voters to put either on the ballot next year."

So what was all this about a voter referendum or two?

Opponents of a pair of controversial measures backed by Gov. Martin O'Malley and approved this year by the Maryland General Assembly — a repeal of the death penalty and landmark gun control legislation — claimed the local populace was outraged by both. So certain was this that many fully expected them to be brought to referendum and defeated by voters in 2014.

The petition drive to bring the death penalty repeal to referendum was even championed by Western Maryland Del. Neil Parrott who was instrumental in bringing three laws to referendum last year through use of a web site that made the signature-gathering process easier. With those kinds of resources, it should have been a snap to put the matter before Maryland's voters.

And:

In the six weeks since the legislature went home, opponents weren't able to muster enough interest in either issue to generate 18,500 signatures of registered voters — or about a summer weekend's worth of tourists at Fort McHenry or half an Orioles home game. Where was the outrage? Where was the voter anger? Where was this "silent majority" of people seeking to oust those who dared approve these laws?

Here's an idea. Most people weren't outraged because, as polls have indicated, most prefer life without parole to the death penalty, and changes to gun laws that make it more difficult for a Sandy Hook massacre to happen here and for criminals to buy guns through "straw purchases" are overwhelmingly popular. And perhaps those who opposed those measures did not hold such strong convictions that they thought signing a petition, let alone volunteering for a petition drive, was worthwhile.

There is also additional news coverage of the referendum petition failure.  Maryland Gazette.net posts, "Petition drives to overturn Md. death-penalty repeal and gun laws both fail," by Daniel Leaderman.

"Petition Drive To Halt Death Penalty Repeal In Maryland Fails," by Ian Millhiser for Think Progress.

"Petition drive to overturn Maryland gun-control law fails, official says," by John Wagner at the Washington Post.

Earlier coverage from Maryland begins at the link.

Pennsylvania Roundup

Today's Allentown Morning Call publishes the OpEd, "Pennsylvania should abolish the death penalty.  It's by Karen N. Berry, Judith A. Dexter, Alwyn Eades, and Sarah Snider; Amnesty International members.

Are you in favor of the death penalty? Why? Many people say we need it because the death penalty deters crime, but that is not true. In 2012, the National Research Council evaluated statistical studies only to conclude "that the studies do not provide evidence for or against the proposition that the death penalty affects homicide rates."

So if it does not deter crime, if it doesn't make us safer, why do we have the death penalty and why are we asking now? We ask now because the Pennsylvania Senate has created a task force to study the death penalty and to recommend changes to our judicial system.

In March, Maryland's legislature voted out the death penalty, substituting life in prison without the possibility of parole. Gov. Martin O'Malley cited both costs and deterrence after the vote. "Capital punishment is expensive and the overwhelming evidence tells us that it does not work as a deterrent," he said. Thus Maryland joined 17 other states to abolish the death penalty, and its world did not collapse.

We believe that if citizens of Pennsylvania knew the facts about capital punishment — that it does not deter crime and that it costs more than keeping offenders in jail for the rest of their lives — they would join us in opposing the death penalty. They would no longer wish to be part of the list of countries that actively use the death penalty; China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, North Korea are the only countries that use the death penalty at a rate comparable with the USA. Is our moral sense at the level of these countries?

Related posts are in the abolition and OpEd category index.

Also from Pennsylvania, there is a new federal death sentence.  "Jury: Death penalty for dealer," is the AP report, via the Cherry Hill Courier-Post.

A federal jury on Friday recommended the death penalty for a drug dealer convicted of murdering 12 people, including four children and two women who were relatives of an informant and were killed in a firebombing.

Kaboni Savage, 38, already was serving 30 years in prison for a drug trafficking conviction.

Jurors took less than two days to unanimously return 13 death sentences against Savage — one for each of the 12 murders and one for retaliating against witnesses.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Benjamin Todd Jealous on Capital Punishment

"How the death penalty will end: first Maryland, then the nation," is the title of Benjamin Todd Jealous' Baltimore Sun OpEd.  He is president of the NAACP. Here's the beginning:

The death penalty debate in Maryland is finally over. This spring's decision by the General Assembly to replace the death penalty with life without parole was cemented last week, when right-wing activists failed to muster enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot. We, the people of Maryland, have sent a clear and firm message: capital punishment belongs in our past, not our future.

In doing so, we have joined New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Illinois and Connecticut as the sixth state in six years and 18th in the nation to abolish the death penalty. We have brought America one state closer to joining the rest of the Western world in putting capital punishment behind us once and for all.

The question in front of us is a simple one: where do we go from here? The answer is both clear and urgent. We must abolish the death penalty in America, and we must shift law enforcement resources toward proven crime-prevention strategies like community-oriented policing and more police on the streets.

That is why the NAACP and our allies will stay focused on abolishing the death penalty in America as a whole. Our strategy is clear: We will outlaw it in a majority of states, and then we will go to the United States Supreme Court and make the argument that the punishment is not only cruel by its very nature but also unusual because most states have passed laws against it.

Earlier coverage of Maryland's repeal of the death penalty begins at the link.

Hickenlooper's Conundrum: State Needs to Reconsider the Death Penalty

That's the title of an editorial in the Boulder Daily Camera.

Gov. John Hickenlooper, by all accounts, weighed the decision of whether the state should execute murderer Nathan Dunlap very carefully. His decision to grant him a temporary reprieve surprised almost everyone.

Dunlap will not be executed while Hickenlooper is governor.

We acknowledge that Hickenlooper faced a terrible conundrum. He had to make a decision that would anger so many people, and one that could make him seem callous to the victims' families. He could make a decision that might make him the last Colorado governor in history responsible for executing someone.

People who favor the death penalty claimed he was overly political, and "chickened" out of the "tough" decision -- the one that could have scheduled Dunlap's execution by the state in August.

In truth he made the most politically brave decision at all: He made a decision that was unpopular with pretty much everyone.

"No credible evidence on whether death penalty deters, experts say," is the Denver Post news report by Michael Booth.

Go ahead and stake out your opinion on whether a state's death-penalty law will deter future murderers.

But don't pretend that opinion is based on any remotely credible evidence, according to a consensus of criminologists, economists and other academics who have reviewed deterrence studies from both sides and officially declared them useless.

The National Academy of Sciences picked apart decades of deterrence research last year and recommended "that these studies not be used to inform deliberations" on capital punishment. In a blunt report, the academy's National Research Council noted it had made a similar survey 30 years before and was "disappointed" to learn each study since was equally futile.

Such pessimism, and accompanying admonitions to move on to other death-penalty topics, has not stopped statisticians from attempting proofs and rejections of deterrence.

The Death Penalty Information Center points to higher murder rates in states that have the death penalty as proof the sentencing threat does not deter crime. The gap grew in the 1990s, these opponents of executions say, to the point where death- penalty states currently have 35 percent more murders per capita than those who have abolished it.

If deterrence worked, how could Texas, which executes a dozen inmates a year, have a higher murder rate than Colorado, which has executed one murderer in more than four decades?

Boulder Rabbi Joshua Rose writes, "Death penalty -- No value in ending a life," in the Daily Camera.

As a matter of religious conscience I oppose the execution of Nathan Dunlap ("Nathan Dunlap granted temporary reprieve," May 22) and I agree with the governor's decision to stay the execution.

I am one of numerous Colorado religious leaders who urged Gov. John Hickenlooper to commute Dunlap's death sentence to life with no possibility of parole. Many of us from across the religious spectrum who often agree about very little spoke together on this issue because we believe that society cannot affirm the value of life by extinguishing a life.

My own religious tradition views the death penalty as a great moral danger. In addition, the brutal violence of the death penalty does nothing to improve our communities. Dunlap is being held accountable for his awful crime, but in a way that upholds our own humanity.

Earlier coverage of Nathan Dunlap's case begins at the link.  The James Holmes case is also active in Colorado.

North Carolina Editorial Roundup

Today's Winston-Salem Journal publishes the editorial, "The Racial Justice Act: GOP leaders should not kill it."

The groundbreaking Racial Justice Act, which is crucial to curb racial bias in death penalty cases, could essentially be erased by the state House this week. The GOP leaders who control the House should put the brakes on this train.

At a press conference earlier this month, Jonathan Megerian, a Randolph County defense lawyer and a Republican, said, “I cannot imagine a worse time to be rushing people into the execution chamber.”

Senate Bill 306, which would kill the RJA, has already cleared the Senate.

The RJA was pushed through in 2009 by legislators Larry Womble and Earline Parmon of Winston-Salem. Study after study has shown that the imposition of capital punishment in North Carolina often comes with racial bias. In extreme cases, it’s all too obvious: a black defendant who got the death penalty in Stanly County being referred to in trial testimony as a "nigger from Wadesboro." A juror in a Randolph County case who said after the trial in which he voted for death for the black defendant that "blacks do not care as much about living as whites do."

"A law undone," is the Raleigh News & Observer editorial.

State Sen. Thom Goolsby of Wilmington could hardly contain his glee as his bill to repeal North Carolina’s Racial Justice Act of 2009 neared passage in the state House, the final step in doing away with the RJA. He sent out a triumphant-sounding email to constituents on Friday happily noting that his repeal will be effective once the state House passes it next week, almost a certainty. The state Senate already agreed to repeal.

And:

Goolsby’s arguments in favor of repeal, not that he needs to make them with the GOP in overwhelming charge of the legislature and in possession of the governor’s office, include one that the families of the victims of those on death row deserve “justice.” But in that context, the word is interchangeable with “revenge.”

And revenge is not the purpose of the justice system. It may be an understandable emotion that some families of victims feel, of course. And the public, even the members of the public who oppose the death penalty, can sympathize with and comprehend the feelings of those families.

But the justice system is supposed to provide a fair trial, routes to appeal and competent counsel. It also is supposed to safeguard against prejudice in jury selection, racial prejudice in specific, such as the exclusion of jurors of one race or another. That such prejudice in the past has existed in the South is generally not disputed. And while it’s hoped that those times and those problems have passed, the chances of perfection in the justice system are about as great as the chances for perfection in anything.

"Racial Justice Act should stay," is the High Point Enterprise editorial.

Republicans in the Legislature have railed against the Racial Justice Act since first enacted by a Democrat-controlled General Assembly. They specifically targeted language that allowed death row inmates to have their sentences reduced to life in prison if they showed race factored into trial or sentencing proceedings. Many opposed the heavy weight the 2009 law gave to statistical analysis that purported to show racism. The Enterprise also editorialized against that.

But last year, a Republican majority Legislature revised the Racial Justice Act and rewrote the language that gave exaggerated weight to statistical evidence. The Enterprise supported the points in the revised act, which now also states: “Statistical evidence alone is insufficient to establish that race was a significant factor under this article.” Former Gov. Beverly Perdue vetoed last year’s legislation, but the GOP majority overrode that veto, and rightly so. Last year, the Legislature fixed what was wrong with the N.C. Racial Justice Act.

But now, that GOP majority wants to totally eliminate the N.C. Racial Justice Act from state law. Republicans say defendants have protections against race-based decisions in other statutes. Maybe so. But high-profile cases in recent years in North Carolina and elsewhere have shown that more specific language and avenues for review of cases where race might have played a role are necessary. Today’s Racial Justice Act does that, setting reasonable, rational procedures. It should remain a part of state law.

Earlier coverage from North Carolina begins at the link.

Maryland Referendum Petition Fails - Updated

WJZ-TV posts, "Petition To Put Death Penalty Repeal On The 2014 Ballot Fails," by Pat Warren.

Opponents  of the death penalty repeal needed 18,500 signatures by May 31 to get the measure on the November 2014 ballot. They managed to get 15,000.

The petition drive was led by Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger and MDPetitions.com.

Shellenberger and MDPetitions.com leader Neil Parrott announced Friday afternoon that the drive to put death penalty on the ballot has failed.

Update:  The Baltimore Sun posts, "Efforts to restore capital punishment fall short," by Erin Cox.

The group hoping to put Maryland's new death penalty repeal law before voters in 2014 faced a midnight deadline tonight to give 18,579 valid signatures to election officials — the first hurdle in collecting more than 55,000 signatures to send a law to referendum.

The Maryland legislature voted this year to remove the death penalty from the books, replacing it with life without parole as the ultimate sentence in the state. When Gov. Martin O'Malley signed the law, Maryland became the sixth state in as many years to outlaw the death penalty.

A coalition of prosecutors and the voter advocacy group MdPetitions.com launched the unsuccessful effort to let voters decide whether to keep the death penalty. Friday's announcement means nothing stands in the way of the repeal taking effect in October.

Earlier coverage from Maryland begins at the link.

Maryland Death Penalty Supporters Lagging in Petition Signatures

The Associated Press reports, "MD Death Penalty Supporters to Make Announcement."  It's by Don Rush, via Delmarva Public Radio.

The Baltimore County state’s attorney is joining a state lawmaker at an announcement related to Maryland’s recent repeal of the death penalty.

Scott Shellenberger is scheduled to join Del. Neil Parrott at an event Friday afternoon in front of the Frederick County Board of Elections.

The officials have not said what they’ll announce, though both have been critical of the death penalty repeal.

"Petition on death penalty repeal lacking enough signatures," is by Erin Cox for the Baltimore Sun.

Activists who worked to repeal the death penalty anxiously awaited news Friday that their efforts would not be overturned by a successful petition drive. 

"It sounds like they're going to announce that they don't have the signatures," said Jane Henderson, executive director of Maryland Citizens Against State Executions. "We're happy with that scenario. Democracy's already been served. ... I'm excitedly waiting to see if, come midnight, I'm out of a job." 

Despite a flurry of last-minute signature-gathering, proponents of capital punishment may abandon their efforts to put the death penalty to a referendum vote in 2014.

In the past few weeks, the group pushing the petition was far behind its goals to meet Friday's midnight deadline to turn in 18,579 signatures to election officials, said Frederick County State's Attorney J. Charles Smith III.

A formal announcement on the group's plans has been scheduled for Friday afternoon in Frederick. The time was moved to 2 p.m. 

“We're still counting, and we're still collecting,” said Republican Del. Neil Parrott, chairman of the mdpetitions.com group leading the effort to put death penalty repeal before voters. “When we announced this, we knew it was going to be a long shot. We’re still trying to see what we can do.”

"Drive to overturn death penalty repeal in trouble, lawmaker acknowledges," by John Wagner in the Washignton Post.

One of the supporters of a petition drive to overturn Maryland’s death penalty repeal acknowledged Thursday that the effort has run into trouble.

“I’m concerned we’re not going to make it,” said Sen. James Brochin (D-Baltimore County). “It’s been hard to know where to go for signatures.”

His comments came the day before the deadline for repeal opponents to turn in an initial batch of signatures that would allow the drive to continue.

A successful effort by MDPetitions.com, the group leading the petition drive, would halt the death penalty repeal law pending a statewide vote in November 2014.

The group has until midnight Friday to turn in 18,579 valid signatures to Maryland’s secretary of state. If the group succeeds, it will be given another month to produce an additional 37,157 signatures of registered voters.

Earlier coverage of Maryland's repeal of the death penalty begins at the link.

Military Plea Agreement Would Waive Death

The Associated Press posts, "Lawyer: Soldier to plead guilty in Afghan massacre," by Gene Johnson.

Staff Sgt. Robert Bales was "crazed" and "broken" when he slipped away from his remote southern Afghanistan outpost and attacked mud-walled compounds in two slumbering villages nearby.

Next week, Bales will recount what happened next - the slaughter of 16 villagers in one of the worst atrocities of the Afghanistan war. He'll give specific details in open court as he pleads guilty to the massacre to avoid being put to death.

His attorney, John Henry Browne, told The Associated Press that although his client's state of mind should be considered in sentencing, it didn't rise to the level of a legal insanity defense.

Browne said Bales was "crazed" and "broken" the night of the attack.

He said his client, who was on his fourth combat deployment, was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and a traumatic brain injury. He continued to blame the Army for sending him back to war in the first place.

"He's broken, and we broke him," Browne said.

The outcome of the case carries high stakes. The Army had been trying to have Bales executed, and Afghan villagers have demanded it.

And:

Any plea deal must be approved by the judge as well as the commanding general at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, where Bales is being held. A plea hearing is set for June 5, said Lt. Col. Gary Dangerfield, an Army spokesman. He said he could not immediately provide other details.

"The judge will be asking questions of Sgt. Bales about what he did, what he remembers and his state of mind," said Browne, who told the AP the commanding general has already approved the deal. "The deal that has been worked out ... is they take the death penalty off the table, and he pleads as charged, pretty much."

A sentencing-phase trial set for September will determine whether Bales is sentenced to life in prison with or without the possibility of parole.

"U.S. soldier accused of killing Afghans in deal to avoid execution - lawyer," is the Reuters report by Eric M. Johnson, via the Chicago Tribune.

A U.S. soldier accused of killing 16 Afghan civilians in two rampages from his Army post last year has reached a plea deal with prosecutors to avoid the death penalty, one of his lawyers said on Wednesday.

Robert Bales, a decorated veteran of four combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, is accused of gunning down villagers, mostly women and children, in attacks on their family compounds in Kandahar province in March 2012.

Lawyer Emma Scanlan said in an email that Bales would plead guilty to premeditated murder charges and would then go before a military jury for sentencing to determine whether a life sentence for his crimes would include the possibility of parole.

"There will be a jury for the sentencing phase beginning in August," Scanlan said.

Related posts are in the military category index.

North Carolina Update

"Racial Justice Act: Death penalty measure advances in N.C. House," is the AP report by Chris Kardish.  It's via the Fayetteville Observer.

A North Carolina House panel endorsed a bill Wednesday that repeals a procedure for condemned inmates to challenge death sentences on racial grounds, sending the measure to the full House for final passage.

The bill is intended to restart executions in the state by ending the Racial Justice Act, which was passed four years ago when Democrats controlled state government. The act allows a judge to reduce a death sentence to life in prison if race is found to be a significant factor in the case.

It was weakened last legislative session by new Republican majorities. The state hasn't carried out an execution since 2006 because of various legal appeals.

The bill also protects medical professionals from disciplinary action from licensing boards for assisting in an execution, but the provision repealing the Racial Justice Act has generated the most attention, drawing debate from district attorneys on both sides of the issue, the families of murder victims and religious leaders.

The bill already passed the Senate. Republicans control both chambers of the General Assembly and the governor's mansion.

The bill originally allowed inmates to cite statistics in their appeals, but Republicans repealed that provision last session. A Cumberland County judge reduced the sentences of four convicted murderers on racial grounds last year, ruling on three of the cases after the rollback of the act.

Earlier coverage from North Carolina begins at the link.

Colorado Judge Rules State's Insanity Defense Laws Constitutional

The Denver Post reports, "James Holmes trial: Judge clears insanity plea's constitutionality," by John Ingold.

Colorado's laws for insanity pleas do not violate the U.S. Constitution, the judge in the Aurora movie theater shooting murder case has ruled.

The judge's order clears up the last disputed issues around a tendered insanity plea for theater shooting suspect James Holmes. Judge Carlos Samour, who issued Wednesday's ruling, is expected to decide at a hearing on Friday whether to accept Holmes' insanity plea.

Attorneys for Holmes argued that the state's laws on insanity pleas violated Holmes' rights against self-incrimination.

The laws require defendants pleading not guilty by reason of insanity to cooperate in a court-ordered independent psychiatric evaluation. If defendants do not cooperate, they will be barred from calling any mental-health experts of their own to testify on their behalf at trial — or at a death-penalty sentencing hearing.

Holmes' attorneys said the laws amounted to a compulsion to confess. They also said the law hurts Holmes' rights to due process because evidence of noncooperation could be used against him. "[I]t is well settled and fundamental that a defendant may not be penalized for the exercise of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent," Holmes' attorneys wrote in a motion earlier this year.

"James Holmes' Insanity Challenge Rejected: Judge Upholds Colorado Laws As Constitutional," is Dan Elliott's AP filing, via Huffington Post.

Colorado's laws on insanity pleas and the death penalty are constitutional, a judge ruled Wednesday, rejecting a key argument by lawyers for the defendant in the deadly movie theater shootings.

Attorneys for James Holmes contended the laws could work in combination to potentially cripple the insanity defense if the case ever gets to a jury. They wanted Judge Carlos A. Samour Jr. to address their concerns before Holmes formally enters a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Wednesday's ruling could clear the way for Samour to accept Holmes' insanity plea at a hearing scheduled for Friday. But the defense could ask the state Supreme Court to overturn the ruling, further delaying the case.

And:

In his ruling, Samour said the law's restrictions on presenting mitigating evidence about a defendant's mental state are not as broad as the defense claimed.

Samour also said he would require state doctors to get Samour's permission to use a narcoanalytic interview, noting that prosecutors have already agreed to such an arrangement.

Holmes needs court permission to change his plea because a judge entered a standard not guilty plea on his behalf in March. Samour is likely to approve the change, but Holmes would first have to agree to the conditions, including the requirement that he cooperate during the mental evaluation.

"Theater-Shooting Suspect Loses Death Penalty Law Challenge," is by Joel Rosenblatt for Bloomberg News.

Samour ruled the Colorado death penalty law is constitutional “on its face” without applying it to Holmes’s case in particular, Steinhauser said. Lawyers for Holmes may appeal the ruling or wait to see if the alleged flaws in the law end up applying to their client and challenge it later, she said.

Public defenders representing Holmes objected on due process grounds to a provision of Colorado law blocking him from calling witnesses at any sentencing hearing to present evidence about his mental condition if he doesn’t cooperate with court-appointed psychiatrists. Under state law, psychiatrists can require Holmes to submit to interviews under the influence of a so-called truth serum, according to Steinhauser.

The judge who previously handled the case, William Sylvester, ruled that prosecutors may require Holmes to submit to a “narcoanalytic interview” under the influence of “medically appropriate” drugs. Such drugs can enable a person to recall something they’re having difficulty remembering.

Earlier coverage of the James Holmes case begins at the link.  The Nathan Dunlap case is also active in Colorado.

An OpEd on Maryland Repeal

The Frederick News Post publishes the OpEd, "Maryland's death penalty decision," by Karl Bickel.

As a former death penalty proponent, I applaud the actions of our lawmakers in Annapolis during their recent session for repealing the death penalty. I still believe there are people who are such a danger to society and have committed such heinous crimes as to deserve the death penalty. Over the years, in a professional capacity, I have met such people. However, it is not that simple.

The problem is you cannot fix mistakes, and there have been many mistakes, many who had been sentenced to die and only later found to be innocent of the crimes that put them on death row. Criminal justice system fallibility and the finality of an execution are at the heart of the problem. Once a person has been wrongly executed, there is nothing that can be done to make it right.

And:

During a recent trip to Oklahoma, to interview an incarcerated serial killer (a story for another time), I spoke with a retired Oklahoma City homicide detective who had been involved in several high-profile cases, some of which were featured in Mark Fuhrman’s book “Death and Justice.” He said that having been involved in a high-profile case that resulted in a wrongful conviction, he now knows how easy it is to give undue weight to evidence that was too good to be true, evidence that should have raised suspicion.

Though we all may not agree with them, there are many legitimate objections to the death penalty, ranging from religious beliefs to the inconsistencies in its application. Mine is simple. You can’t fix a mistake, and there are too many mistakes.

Earlier coverage of Maryland's repeal of the death peanlty begins at the link.

Kansas City Star Editorial Calls for Repeal

"End the death penalty in Kansas and Missouri," is the title of the Kansas City Star editorial.

Earlier this month Maryland did away with the death penalty, which now is banned in 18 states and the District of Columbia.

Sadly, Missouri and Kansas are not among the states whose lawmakers have understood what an unjust and costly system capital punishment is. Measures to abolish or even temporarily halt the death penalty have gone nowhere over the years in both legislatures.

So it’s time for citizens and enlightened lawmakers to plan ways to make this matter of life and death a top priority in these two states for the next legislative sessions.

And:

There’s a compelling argument that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. What’s incontestable is that by permitting the death penalty the United States is keeping company with such countries as Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Uganda. By contrast, all 47 members of the Council of Europe have either established a moratorium on the death penalty or abolished it altogether.

Surely it’s time for the U.S. to join the abolition movement. Kansas and Missouri should follow Maryland’s recent example and become the 19th and 20th states to adopt a sane and civilized approach to this matter.

Earlier coverage from Kansas and Missouri, at the links.  Related posts are in the abolition and editorial category indexes.

Colorado News & Commentary Coverage

"Death penalty debate focuses on Colo. governor's view of flawed system," is by Karen Augé in today's Denver Post.

As an obviously distraught Gov. John Hickenlooper explained his decision to spare the life of convicted killer Nathan Dunlap, he called the state's death-penalty system imperfect and flawed.

"If the state of Colorado is going to undertake the responsibility of executing a human being, the system must operate flawlessly. Colorado's system for capital punishment is not flawless," he wrote in his executive order Wednesday.

After hearing a firestorm of commentary from all sides, Hickenlooper said Thursday none of his own choices were flawless, either.

"There's no perfect decision here," he said, while traveling outside of the metro area.

People need to learn as he did, Hickenlooper said, that the death penalty is meted out unfairly, that it has no deterrent effect on crime, and that even victims' families don't find closure after the punishment.The search for a perfection was just one facet of the announcement that death-penalty supporters and the governor's political opponents pounced on.

Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll writes, "Gov. Hickenlooper settles nothing on Dunlap, death penalty."

Hickenlooper told 7News' Mike Landess that he supported repeal of the death penalty but meanwhile insisted it "ought to be raised with the people of Colorado and not just their elected representatives." If the people demonstrate "they are moving away from [the death penalty], like the citizens of many states, then that's the only time it will change."

Really? So those of us who oppose the death penalty must wait for a public clamor for repeal even though we have a governor who considers it immoral and describes state law as deeply flawed — not to mention a majority in the legislature who may well agree?

How will we know when the clamor is underway? What will be the signs?

And:

He says people aren't aware of the death penalty's inequities, aren't aware that deterrence is a myth disproven by social science, aren't aware that innocent people have been sentenced to die in other states. The geologist in him strides forth and suggests that facts will prevail and consensus gain ground in a debate whose judgments are fundamentally, and inevitably, personal and moral.

I'm glad Hickenlooper didn't let the despicable Dunlap die in August. Yet this was a year when the governor probably could have settled everything regarding Colorado's almost-never-used death penalty and instead he has settled nothing, not even Dunlap's fate. He chose an off ramp to limbo and then hit the brakes so the rest of us can finish our "conversation" — you know, the one that's been going on in this country since all of us were kids.

"Executive clemency is an essential part of Colorado’s legal process," is a Denver Post OpEd written by H. Patrick Furman, a clinical professor of law, emeritus, at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

As Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper weighs whether to commute the death sentence of Nathan Dunlap to life in prison without the possibility of parole, there has been some discussion about the nature of executive clemency itself.

Specifically, there have been suggestions that the governor’s commutation power is either a) unusual or b) represents an attack on the jury’s verdict. As a law professor who teaches students about the criminal justice process, I think it’s important for the public to be clear that neither argument is accurate. Executive clemency is an essential and routinely used part of our justice system.

The governor has had the power to commute sentences since Colorado became a state. The power is set out in Article IV, Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution. The power to commute sentences exists in every state, although some states give the power to a commutation board or other authority. In the federal system, the U. S. Constitution grants the president the power to grant reprieves and pardons. It is a power that exists throughout our nation and it is a power that, far from being unusual, is exercised regularly.

Here in Colorado, Gov. Bill Ritter, a career prosecutor, issued some 29 pardons and commutations. His predecessor, Bill Owens, a relatively conservative Republican, granted 14 pardons and commutations during his time in office. Again, executive clemency is not unusual.

Westword posts, "Nathan Dunlap or number 89148: Was Hickenlooper right not to use killer's name?"  It's by Melanie Asmar.

When Governor John Hickenlooper announced yesterday that he's offering a reprieve to Nathan Dunlap, who was convicted in 1996 of killing four people at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant, he never uttered Dunlap's name. Instead, he chose to call him "offender number 89148," reasoning that he'd already gotten enough notoriety for his terrible acts.

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

Andrew Cohen on the Big Question in Colorado

"Time's Up: Colorado's Governor Needs to Pick a Death Penalty Position," is Andrew Cohen's latest post at the Atlantic.

In late March, the Democrats who control the Colorado House of Representatives thought they were on the verge of repealing the state's death penalty law, used sparingly but not without controversy since the Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976. "I have the votes in the House to pass the bill and it's not just partisan, it's bipartisan," said the repeal bill's co-sponsor, Representative Claire Levy (D-Boulder). But in a private meeting that week with lawmakers, Governor John Hickenlooper, his local chops high, his national stature growing, voiced doubt about the bill.

"He did not say, 'I will definitively, undoubtedly with no question veto this,'" Rep. Dan Pabon (D-Denver) told the Denver Post. "But he did say that is something he is bouncing around. He used the 'v' word." The "v-word" from the governor was enough to block the measure. "I think had the governor not signaled so strongly that he wouldn't sign the bill, I think we would have had those votes," Rep. Levy said. "We would have repealed the death penalty in Colorado, and I think we could all stand up proud and strong and know that we did the right thing."

Without even a public threat of a veto, Gov. Hickenlooper had imposed his will on the issue. And everyone in Colorado seems to have a theory about why. He didn't want the repeal effort to cloud the legislature's frenetic work on gun safety. He believes in capital punishment more than he has let on. He was saving his fellow Democrats from scorn in the next election. He genuinely thinks the issue should be resolved by a popular vote, which would almost certainly ensure that capital punishment stays a part of the state's sentencing scheme.

Whatever the case, the time for private vetoes and backroom maneuvering is over. The time has come for Gov. Hickenlooper to make a very public choice between life and death -- and, in so doing, to shape the contours of a debate that has sounded furiously all over Colorado for the past few months. In the next few weeks, perhaps even in the next few days, the governor will have to decide whether Nathan Dunlap, one of the state's most notorious murderers, lives or dies. And this time there will be no legislature to hide behind.

Earlier coverage of Nathan Dunlap's case begins with the previous post.

Supreme Court Rejects a Florida Ring Challenge

The Palm Beach Post reports, "U.S. Supreme Court rejects Florida death penalty challenge."

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a case that tested the constitutionality of part of Florida’s system for imposing the death penalty. The 1991 case, Evans v. Crews, stemmed from a customary practice in Florida of judges holding hearings and making factual findings on aggravating and mitigating factors to help determine whether to impose death sentences.

A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision, known as Ring v. Arizona, held that juries, not judges, must determine the existence of aggravating factors in death-penalty cases. As a result, a U.S. District judge in 2011 found that Florida’s death-penalty sentencing process was unconstitutional. But that ruling was overturned by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Earlier coverage from Florida begins at the link; more on Ring, via Oyez.

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.

The Kansas Death Penalty Has Cobwebs

That's the title of a lengthy report by Dave Helling for the Kansas City Star.

It may be weeks before Kansans know if prosecutors will seek the death penalty for Kyle Flack, accused of killing four people in Franklin County this spring.

It will take far longer — 10 years or more — before anyone in the state is actually put to death for a crime.

And that time gap, advocates on both sides of the death penalty debate say, suggests the state remains deeply uneasy about the punishment — an ambivalence that muddies its value.

“When a law isn’t applied, it isn’t really a law,” said David Muhlhausen, a death penalty supporter and expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Capital punishment opponents aren’t eager to speed up executions, of course. But they say the state’s lengthy death penalty procedure is costing taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees and other expenses without significantly improving public safety.

“Constituents have said to me, ‘We have a theoretical death penalty, but we don’t carry it out in practice,’” said Mary Sloan, executive director of the Kansas Coalition Against the Death Penalty.

“So if we’re not going to carry it out in practice, why do we pay all that cost?”

No one has been put to death in Kansas since 1965.

“Kansas is 10 years and $20 million away from its first execution,” predicted lawyer and capital punishment opponent Sean O’Brien of Kansas City.

Earlier coverage from Kansas 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.

Sentencing Deal in High Visibility Pennsylvania Case

"Abortion doc set for last court hearing amid deal," is the AP report by Maryclaire Dale, via the San Francisco Chronicle.

A Philadelphia abortion doctor convicted of killing three babies born alive at his clinic will be formally sentenced in the death of one of the babies Wednesday, along with the overdose death of a patient and hundreds of abortion law violations.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell has decided not to appeal the first-degree murder conviction handed down Monday for killing three babies. Instead, the 72-year-old physician will accept several terms of life without parole and avoid a potential death sentence.

Gosnell assured a judge Tuesday that he was making the deal freely, and was then sentenced in the deaths of the first two babies. He offered the same odd, bemused smile that has become his trademark in court.

The Philadelphia Inquirer report is, "Gosnell won't appeal; gets life, not death," by Joseph A. Slobodzian.

Cordial, smiling - and acknowledging he will never get out of prison - West Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell on Tuesday agreed to waive his appeal rights to escape the chance of death by lethal injection.

Gosnell, 72, dressed in a mustard-yellow prison jumpsuit, entered the courtroom shortly before 4 p.m., the same courtroom where a day earlier he was found guilty by a Common Pleas Court jury of murdering three babies born alive during illegal late-term abortions.

Gosnell did not speak about his decision except to answer the judge's questions about understanding what he was doing.

"Are you satisfied with your attorney's representation?" Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart asked. Gosnell turned to face defense attorney Jack McMahon, smiled broadly, and replied, "I am very satisfied with your representation."

Assistant District Attorney Edward Cameron then called out asking if Gosnell were taking psychiatric medication or under treatment for mental illness, adding, "No offense."

"No offense taken," Gosnell replied. "No, I'm not."

Minehart immediately sentenced Gosnell to two consecutive life prison terms without parole on two of the first-degree murder counts.

"Doctor Avoids Death Penalty in Murders at His Clinic," by Trip Gabriel for the New York Times.

Prosecutors had said from the start of the trial that they would seek the death penalty because of the “aggravated” circumstances of the crimes Dr. Gosnell was charged with: murder of more than one person and the young age of the victims.

But the district attorney’s willingness to compromise on a life-without-parole sentence seemed a calculation about the difficulty of persuading the same 12 jurors to agree on capital punishment after they spent 10 days sifting evidence and acquitted Dr. Gosnell on one first-degree murder charge. Before deliberations began, the judge dismissed charges in three other pregnancy terminations.

The trial included graphic testimony that galvanized debate over abortion far beyond the downtown Philadelphia courthouse.

"Deal spares abortion doctor death penalty," by Brady Dennis and Sandhya Somashekhar in the Washington Post.

Gosnell had been expected to undergo a post-trial “penalty phase” next week, in which a jury would weigh whether to impose the death penalty or life in prison. Gosnell’s attorney, Jack McMahon, said in an interview Tuesday that such a proceeding probably would have involved having Gosnell’s wife and children testifying on his behalf and that the ­72-year-old doctor did not want to subject them to public scrutiny.

“He just didn’t want to do that. They’ve gone through a lot,” McMahon said. “That was the motivating factor here.”

Repeal Effort Shows Strength

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

The fact that a majority of state senators seems to favor repeal of the death penalty shows they took the time to study the issue thoroughly and weigh the arguments objectively and honestly.

The majority support also buoys hopes that Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha ultimately will succeed in his long battle.

It’s too bad the repeal attempt met its demise because of legislative rules without an actual vote on the merits of the bill.

Such a vote would have provided clarity on where Nebraska stands in the midst of the national trend to eliminate the death penalty. In the past six years, six states have taken that step, choosing to make life in prison without parole the maximum penalty for first- degree murder.

Two votes this week showed the level of support for repeal. A test vote Monday drew 26 votes in favor of the measure. (Technically, senators voted against a motion to kill the bill.)

Another show of support came Tuesday in a 28-21 vote to cut off debate. However, 33 votes were necessary.

And:

All those arguments add up to such a powerful case that it’s not really surprising repeal of the death penalty drew majority support this year. Eventually, that majority will prevail.

"Nebraska's Dubious Achievement Award: The Filibuster," is by J.L. Schmidt of the Nebraska Press Association.  It's via the Beatrice Daily Sun.  It offers some background on the Nebraska Legislature, but does not deal directly with the repeal bill.

Sixty percent of the allotted time for the legislative session has elapsed and lawmakers are talking about talking too much.

Veteran lawmaker Ernie Chambers has launched three filibusters (talking an issue to death) and promised others. Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh of Omaha recently burned 45 minutes of time explaining to his colleagues why they need to get the lead out – and then apologized for taking that much time. Speaker of the Legislature Greg Adams of York adjusted the daily schedule to include early to late evening floor debate much sooner than speakers have in the past.

As of the end of Day 55 (April 5) of the 90-day session, lawmakers had passed and the governor signed 72 bills. Another 36 have been killed, seven withdrawn. Seven measures are awaiting the third and final round before approval.

Senators, committees and the Speaker have tabbed 104 bills as priorities. In regular years, those priority measures would have been the fodder for the rest of the session which must also see the drafting and approval of a two-year budget document.

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

Nebraska Repeal Legislation Filibustered

The Lincoln Journal Star posts, "Death penalty bill dead for the year," by Kevin O'Hanlon.

A bill to abolish Nebraska's death penalty perished for the year Tuesday when supporters were unable to muster enough votes to end a filibuster against it.

After eight hours of first-round debate over two days, supporters of the bill (LB543) needed 33 votes to end the filibuster. The vote was 28 to 21.

But it was the first time since 1979 that a majority of the 49 lawmakers were willing to vote for abolishing the death penalty.

The bill, by Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, would have changed the death penalty to life in prison without the possibility of parole. It was his 37th attempt to do so.

The most ardent death penalty opponent in the Legislature, Chambers was re-elected to his North Omaha seat in November after sitting out four years because of term limits. Each year from 1973 to 2008, he introduced a bill to abolish the death penalty. In 1979, his bill passed but was vetoed by then-Gov. Charles Thone.

LB543 will carry over to next year's session, but likely will not be brought back to the floor unless supporters can prove they have 33 votes.

Omaha Sen. Beau McCoy, a staunch ally of Republican Gov. Dave Heineman, and Sens. Mark Christensen of Imperial, John Nelson of Omaha and Scott Lautenbaugh of Omaha were among those leading the filibuster.

Nebraskans for Alernatives to the Death Penalty has issued the statement, "Filibuster on repeal bill just delaying the inevitable demise of the death penalty."  Here's the full text:

As the Nebraska Legislature continued debate on Senator Ernie Chambers bill, LB 543 to replace the death penalty with life without parole, opponents of repeal mounted a filibuster in an attempt to stop a vote from being taken. The debate lasted all day Monday and an additional 3 hours on Tuesday until a cloture motion was called and defeated by a 28-21 vote, needing 33 to pass. It is unlikely the bill will be placed on the agenda again this session.

“The death penalty in Nebraska has been a colossal failure, and the lawmakers and citizens of our state now recognize the inevitable demise of this broken system,” said Stacy Anderson, Executive Director of Nebraskans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. “Today’s filibuster is a desperate, last ditch effort to ignore the writing on the wall and delay the end of this failed public policy. But it is just delay, because the death penalty is coming to an end in our state and everyone knows it.”

This stall tactic comes less than two weeks after Maryland became the sixth state in six years – and the 18th overall – to end its death penalty. Nationally and across Nebraska, support for repeal has been growing across the political and ideological spectrum. In the last month alone several editorials and op-eds, including some in Nebraska, have recognized the growing support for repeal among conservatives.

 “During the debate many conservative and democratic legislators alike hammered the point that the death penalty is arbitrary and unfair, costs too much, risks executing an innocent person, and fails the families of victims, who are forced to endure years of trials and unwanted media attention.”

Senator Colby Coash of Lincoln, a member of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, was pleased to see so many of his conservative colleagues speak in support the repeal bill. “Last week when we debated the budget, we promised we’d cut government programs that do not work,” he said. “The death penalty is just that – a failed, bloated government program that does not serve the people of Nebraska, and it deserves to be voted on by the full legislature.”

Nebraska officials have been scrambling to find ways to carry out an execution since 2008, when the State Supreme Court overturned the use of the electric chair. Repeated legal challenges, scandals over Nebraska’s potentially illegal purchase of foreign lethal injection drugs, and drug recalls and expirations, have left the state with no way to carry out an execution in the near term.

“It’s ludicrous that in our unstable economy, our state has spent five years essentially chasing its tail and getting no where,” said Anderson. “This waste and inefficiency is characteristic of the entire death penalty. It’s time for the lawmakers of our state to say enough is enough and take this to a vote.”

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

Nebraska Repeal Bill May Be Stuck

"Bill abolishing the death penalty could be in peril," is the Lincoln Journal Star report by Kevin O'Hanlon.

For the first time in 34 years, a majority of Nebraska lawmakers seems to support abolishing the state's death penalty.

But a bill they considered Monday to do so appears to be going nowhere since a "test vote" showed there probably is not enough support to stop a filibuster.

Lawmakers began debate on the bill (LB543) by Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha to change the death penalty to life in prison without the possibility of parole -- Chambers' 37th attempt to do so.

Custom dictates first-round debate on a bill can last as long as eight hours. At that point, it takes 33 of the 49 senators' votes to end debate and move to a vote.

But after Omaha Sen. Beau McCoy launched a filibuster against the measure, Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha decided to float a trial balloon by filing a motion to kill the bill and then asking for a vote to gauge support.

A vote against killing the bill was, in essence, a vote in support of abolishing the death penalty. The tally was 18 for killing the bill and 26 against -- more than the 25 needed to advance the bill to second-round debate but not the 33 needed to end the filibuster or even the 30 required to override an expected veto by Gov. Dave Heineman.

Lawmakers will reach the eight-hour limit Tuesday. Speaker Greg Adams usually will not bring a bill back for further debate at that point unless supporters can prove they have the 33 votes to end the filibuster.

The Omaha World-Herald reports, "Push to end death penalty in Nebraska probably will fall short," by Paul Hammel and Joe Duggan.

The Nebraska Legislature has shifted on the death penalty, but perhaps not far enough to end capital punishment this year.

A test vote during floor debate Monday suggested that Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha may have 26 votes, one more than necessary, to pass his bill repealing the death penalty. But he will need 33 votes to end a filibuster by those who want to keep capital punishment on the books.

If death penalty supporters successfully extend debate, they can ensure that the bill doesn't come up for a vote this session. It was a strategy decried by Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha, who supports repealing the death penalty.

“These are the bills that define us as an institution, as a people,” he said. “Please give us an up or down vote.”

Omaha Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh, one of the Legislature's staunchest death penalty supporters, said he is unconvinced by arguments that capital punishment doesn't deter crime or that it's fraught with racial disparity. “I won't apologize for doing everything I can within the rules to prevent the repeal,” he said.

Opponents of capital punishment were not giving up the fight as the bill headed into a second day of debate today. If they manage to pass the repeal bill, however, they likely would face the governor's veto. They would then need at least 30 votes for an override.

Still, lawmakers who oppose the death penalty were pleased when a motion to kill the bill failed by a vote of 26 to 18. As recently as 2009, only 13 senators voted in favor of abolishing executions.

Legislative Bill 543 would make life in prison without the possibility of parole the state's harshest penalty for murder.

Nebraska is one of 32 states that have the death penalty. Three men have been executed since capital punishment was reinstated in 1973.

"Nebraska death-penalty repeal could be in jeopardy," is the Associated Press coverage, via the Fremont Tribune.

A proposal to abolish the death penalty in Nebraska appeared to be in jeopardy on Monday, despite a majority of lawmakers who signaled a willingness to end capital punishment in the state.

Supporters of the repeal initiated a "test vote" on a procedural motion to kill the legislation, to publicly gauge their support in the 49-member Legislature. The vote showed that 26 senators supported repealing the death penalty, but lawmakers would need at least 30 votes to override the veto of Republican Gov. Dave Heineman, who supports the death penalty, and 33 votes to force an end to debate.

Five lawmakers didn't participate in the test, while the remaining 18 voted to keep the death penalty in place after roughly four hours of emotional debate. Lawmakers adjourned Monday evening without reaching a vote.

The repeal measure was introduced by longtime Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, who has fought for nearly four decades to end capital punishment.

"People who support the death penalty from a distance don't know what a grotesque ceremony it is," Chambers said.

Chambers has proposed repealing the death-penalty each year between 1973 and 2008, when he was forced to sit out for four years because of new term limits. He was re-elected in 2012. His death penalty bill passed out of the Legislature once, in 1979, but was vetoed by then-Gov. Charles Thone.

The debate didn't fall neatly on party lines in the officially nonpartisan Legislature, which is dominated by Republicans.

Many Republicans who previously opposed the death penalty argued that efforts to carry out an execution have only led to expensive legal appeals. Some argued that even with the death penalty, Nebraska would never again follow through with an execution because of legal problems with sodium thiopental, a lethal-injection drug.

"I've been very pro-death penalty for most of my life, but I've come to the conclusion that it does not work," said Sen. Galen Hadley, of Kearney.

Another Republican, Sen. Colby Coash of Lincoln, said the death penalty has kept constant news attention on the killers and served as a constant, painful reminder for their victims' families.

Also from AP, "Lawmakers advance Neb. wrongful-conviction payout," by Grant Schulte.  It's via the San Francisco Chronicle.

A man who spent nearly 14 years in a Nebraska prison after he was wrongly convicted of murdering his wife came one step closer Friday to a $500,000 settlement that will pay for his dream home.

Lawmakers gave first-round approval to a $450,000 payment for Darrel Parker, more than four decades after a federal appeals court overturned his conviction on grounds that his confession to police was coerced.

The State Claims Board has already approved $50,000 in compensation, but lawmakers are required to approve the rest. Reached by phone earlier this week, the 81-year-old said the money would help cover the final payments on a house that he shares with his current wife in Moline, Ill.

And:

Nebraska passed its 2009 wrongful convictions law in an effort to compensate the so-called "Beatrice 6" and others wrongly imprisoned in Nebraska. Six people were convicted in the 1985 rape and murder of 68-year-old Helen Wilson, of Beatrice. They spent a combined total of more than 90 years in prison, until DNA evidence exonerated them all in 2008.

Some later brokered settlements with the state over their convictions, including at least one for the maximum $500,000.

Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha said Friday that he plans to introduce a bill next year that would eliminate the $500,000 cap on compensation for prison inmates who are wrongly convicted.

You can watch today's continued floor debate via NET, Nebraska's PBS and NPR stations.

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

Denver Post Editorial Calls for Commutation in Dunlap Case

"Sympathy for Nathan Dunlap? No. Clemency? Yes.," is the Denver Post editorial.

Hickenlooper ought to grant the petition, but not because Dunlap is a miscast character caught in bad circumstances, no matter how hard his lawyers have worked hard to portray him in a sympathetic light.

He should spare Dunlap's life and relegate him to spend the rest of his days in prison because the death penalty is fundamentally wrong, and its application in Colorado is arbitrary.

Recently, two law professors at University of Denver studied the outcome of murder cases in Colorado. They examined 544 first-degree cases from 1999 to 2010 and found the death penalty was a punishment option in 92 percent of cases. However, prosecutors pursued the death penalty at trial in only 1 percent of cases.

And:

As recently as December, Hickenlooper expressed mixed feelings about the death penalty. "I wrestle with this, right now, on a pretty much daily basis," he said at the time.

We hope the governor concludes the arbitrary nature of the death penalty in Colorado is a strong enough argument to grant Dunlap clemency. The sporadic taking of life in the name of the state is not justice.

The Boulder Daily Camera publishes an OpEd, "Faith directs us to support clemency for Nathan Dunlap," written by Rabbi Joseph Black and the Rev. Jim Ryan.

For us, as men of God and leaders of our congregations of Colorado faithful, it is deeply troubling that our state may move forward with the execution of Nathan Dunlap. Our calling to serve God involves a responsibility to seek justice, and we must be especially mindful of our role in supporting the poor and the weak, while advocating for fairness for all. Despite his terrible crime and the suffering he caused, we pray that Mr. Dunlap will receive executive clemency and will serve his life in prison without the possibility of parole.

While our faith compels us to reject violence in all forms, we find the death penalty, an act of violence that is premeditated and carried out in our names, particularly abhorrent. We would be remiss in our spiritual commitment if we did not speak out about our belief that Mr. Dunlap's life should be spared.

And:

Our moral responsibility to our congregations and to all our fellow citizens is to strive to live in accordance with our own inner holiness. We work to make our society civilized, just, and merciful. We cannot condone or accept the execution of any person in our names. Such an execution would coarsen us and corrode our civic morality. As men of faith, we are commanded to speak out when we see injustice in our world. Because of this spiritual commitment, we respectfully ask Governor Hickenlooper to commute Nathan Dunlap's sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole. We strongly believe this is the merciful, moral, and just action, which is in accordance with the teachings of our faiths.

KUSA-TV posts, "Family of Chuck E. Cheese killer Nathan Dunlap pleads for clemency," by Will Ripley.

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper will be reviewing a stack of documents in the Nathan Dunlap case.

Dunlap killed four people at an Aurora Chuck E. Cheese on Dec. 14, 1993 and is set to be executed the week of Aug. 18.

Dunlap's petition for clemency includes never-before-seen interviews with his family.

Dunlap's defense team is trying to make case that years of psychological and sexual abuse led to his mental illness.

"Nathan Dunlap clemency appeal blasted by Arapahoe District Attorney," is by Karen Augé at the Denver Post.

In an impassioned, at times angry, rebuttal to Nathan Dunlap's petition for clemency, Arapahoe District Attorney George Brauchler calls on the governor to "take the courageous step" and reject the condemned killer's appeal.

The appeal, which asserted that Dunlap suffers from severe mental illness and is remorseful, offered no new evidence for saving Dunlap's life, Brauchler wrote in a 32-page response delivered Friday afternoon.

"He took the lives of four Colorado citizens, and justice requires he now pays with his own," Brauchler wrote.

The Boulder Daily Camera posts the AP report, "DA: Colorado governor shouldn't grant clemency to Nathan Dunlap."

The district attorney of the office that prosecuted a death-row inmate who killed four employees at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant in 1993 is among those asking Gov. John Hickenlooper to take the "courageous step" of rejecting his clemency petition.

Nathan Dunlap's lawyers are seeking clemency while also fighting in court to try to spare him from execution for the Aurora slayings, which happened during a robbery. They say their client had undiagnosed bipolar disorder at the time.

Several letters to Hickenlooper that were released Friday say Dunlap's death sentence should be carried out. They were from Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler and Senior Chief Deputy District Attorney Matt Maillaro; the jury foreman in a separate Colorado death penalty case; and state Rep. Rhonda Fields.

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

Racism in a Texas Death Case

That's the title of a New York Times editorial on the case of Duane Buck.  It appeared in the Saturday edition.

In the annals of racism in the Texas criminal justice system, seven death penalty cases are in a class by themselves. In 2000, after the Supreme Court ordered a new sentencing hearing in one of them, Senator John Cornyn, who was then the state attorney general, called for new sentencing hearings in the other cases for the same reason: because race was improperly and explicitly considered as a factor in determining the sentence.

Duane Buck, who was convicted of two murders, is the only one among the defendants who was not granted a new sentencing hearing. His post-conviction lawyers have uncovered a lot of mitigating evidence that his trial counsel did not present to the jury that sentenced him to death. He is seeking life without parole and is awaiting a decision on this matter by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Texas has long fought his request for resentencing because it insists that Mr. Buck is responsible for introducing race into his case.

And:

The racial bias in this case reflects a wide and disturbing pattern in death penalty prosecutions in Harris County, Tex., where Mr. Buck was tried. A recent study found that from 1992 to 1999 the county prosecutor was three times as likely to seek the death penalty for blacks in murder cases as they were for whites, and juries were twice as likely to impose capital punishment. The Buck case is yet more evidence that capital punishment should be abolished.

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

Nebraska Repeal Bill on the Legislative Floor Today

You can watch the floor debate on Sen. Ernie Chambers' bill to repeal Nebraska's death penalty via NET, Nebraska's PBS and NPR stations.

The Omaha World-Herald reports, "New faces may turn tide on capital punishment," by Paul Hammel.

The most ardent supporter of capital punishment has left the Nebraska Legislature.

The harshest critic is back.

And some newly elected state senators oppose the death penalty, unlike the folks they replaced.

As lawmakers gird for an emotional debate Monday on a death penalty bill, supporters voice hopes that a repeal could happen this year. They say some unlikely conservatives may join their cause due to the higher legal and emotional costs of prosecuting such cases.

“This may be the first time in a long time that we have enough senators to repeal it,” said State Sen. Sara Howard of Omaha, who was elected in November.

“I'm optimistic, in a freshman way,” she said.

That might be overly optimistic.

Gov. Dave Heineman still supports the death penalty and would likely veto any move to repeal it.

And a leading proponent of capital punishment, Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh of Omaha, indicated Friday he would likely mount a filibuster to thwart any repeal attempt.

Halting a filibuster requires a supermajority of senators, 33 of the 49 lawmakers, a high bar even for less emotional issues.

“I'll do whatever it takes to stop it,” Lautenbaugh said.

That death penalty opponents envision a majority of senators, 25, will support an end to capital punishment represents a dramatic shift at the State Capitol. The last time capital punishment came to a formal vote, in 2009, only 13 senators voted in support of repeal.

But things have changed since then.

"Report: Death penalty is costly, inefficient," is by Kevin O'Hanlon for the Lincoln Journal Star.

As Nebraska lawmakers prepare to debate whether to abolish the death penalty, a new report says the state has spent an exorbitant amount of time and money on capital punishment -- with few results.

"The average delay for appeals more than doubles for death sentences: 13.3 years versus 5.8 years for life sentences," attorney and longtime death penalty opponent Alan Peterson said in a report given to lawmakers Friday. "The number of appeals for death cases averages 7.76, and the number of appeals for life sentences averages only 1.64 filings."

And:

Lawmakers will begin debate Monday on a bill (LB543) by Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha to change the death penalty to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Chambers, the most ardent death penalty opponent in the Legislature, was re-elected to his North Omaha seat in November after sitting out four years because of term limits. Each year from 1973 to 2008, he introduced a bill to abolish the death penalty. In 1979, his bill passed but was vetoed by then-Gov. Charles Thone.

Last week, Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland signed a law making that state the sixth in as many years to abolish the death penalty and the 18th overall to abandon capital punishment.

And some observers sense this could be the year Nebraska lawmakers follow suit.

NTV posts, "Senators to Debate Ending Death Penalty," by Steve White.

Political interest runs high Monday, as Nebraska law makers debate life and death -- and whether or not to end the death penalty, and instead give killers life in prison without parole.

The proposal from Sen. Ernie Chambers is nothing new, in fact, he has introduced similar legislation every year he's been in office for decades.

But many of those proposals failed to get out of committee. This proposal surprised many when it advanced from committee on a 7-0 vote.

Sen. Les Seiler of Hastings voted to advance the bill. Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial did not vote, a sign he opposes the measure to do away with the death penalty.

The bill has the support of Catholics and Methodists plus Nebraskans for Peace and the ACLU.

In addition, a number of conservative lawmakers have shown support for the measure.

"Lawmakers prepare to debate LB 543," is the KHAS-TV report by Lauren Conley.

Nebraska is one of 32 states that have the death penalty.

Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers has fought this for years.

Chambers introduced LB 543 back in March. The bill would eliminate the death penalty in the state, life in prison would be the alternate charge.

Lawmakers are set to debate the bill Monday.

Today's Lincoln Journal Star publishes the OpEd, "Why I support repeal of death penalty," by Sen Colby Coash.

My stance on the use of the death penalty has gone through changes. I found it easy to have a pro-death penalty stance until faced with the option of having a voice in the policy.

Before my policymaking role, I had never given much consideration to the matter. It seemed reasonable. It felt right to be on the side of justice for the victim. An "eye for an eye" had a nice ring to it. The phrase appealed to my sense of justice.

That sense of justice, however, changed when I began to meet the relatives of actual victims.

More than my experiences as a senator, however, one event changed my heart, mind and my outlook on capital punishment. On Sept. 3, 1994, as a college freshman, I took a short trip to the Nebraska Penitentiary to bear witness in the parking lot of the execution of Willie Otey.

I can only describe what I saw there as ugly.

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

Washington Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Barred Death Penalty

"High court reviews exclusion of death penalty in 2007 Carnation killings," is by Sara Jean Green for the Seattle Times.

A King County judge overstepped his bounds when he ruled that prosecutors can’t seek the death penalty against the two people accused of killing a family of six on Christmas Eve 2007 in Carnation, the state Supreme Court was told Thursday.

King County Senior Deputy Prosecutor James Whisman argued that under the state’s death-penalty statute, “discretion is placed with the prosecutor” to decide whether to seek capital punishment.

But in ruling out the death penalty, Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell wasn’t privy to all of the information King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg considered in deciding to seek the death penalty, Whisman said.

“The court ruled the prosecutor can’t consider the strength of the evidence ... but he wasn’t clear on what he meant by ‘strength of the evidence,’ ” Whisman told the nine-member panel. Ramsdell did not have access to mitigation information on both defendants that was submitted by their defense attorneys, and the judge had previously denied a defense motion to compel Satterberg to spell out “which factors in the mitigation package he found persuasive and which ones” he didn’t, Whisman said.

But defense attorney Kathryn Ross, who represented defendants Michele Anderson and her former boyfriend, Joseph McEnroe, before the Supreme Court, said Satterberg’s decision to seek the death penalty was based only on the evidence and not on the mitigation evidence submitted by the defense. Ross argued that the state’s death-penalty statute is unique in that prosecutors are directed to impose it only if there isn’t sufficient evidence of mitigating factors to merit leniency.

“I guess that’s why we’re here — to decide how to read that statute. Is mitigation the only thing they consider” in deciding to seek the death penalty, said Chief Justice Barbara Madsen.

And:

Ramsdell ruled that while Satterberg properly considered the “facts and circumstances” of the crimes, the prosecutor erroneously considered the strength of the state’s evidence against Anderson and McEnroe in deciding whether to seek the death penalty.

He said the prosecutor should only have weighed whether there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant leniency if convicted — which in the case of aggravated first-degree murder means life in prison without the possibility of release, instead of death.

Under state law, mitigating factors in potential death-penalty cases can include evidence of an extreme mental disturbance or impairment. Leniency also can be merited if a suspect acted under duress or domination of another person.

Lubbock Avalanche-Journal Series

The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal has published a series of articles under the heading, "Ultimate Punishment: The Death Penalty in Lubbock and the South Plains."  The series is written by Walt Nett.  There are infographics at the link.

"Four local inmates, linked by one three-digit number, waiting on Death Row."

They are four men from Lubbock, connected by a single three-digit number, who may think more than most people about how long they have to live.

The number Joe Garza Jr., Rosendo Rodriguez III, Vernon Ross and Michael Yowell have in common is 999 — the first three digits of a Texas death row inmate’s identification number since mid-1991.

"Movement apparent in local death penalty cases; Pace of verdicts slowing statewide."

Execution by lethal injection, the punishment Texas law allows a jury to recommend to deal with “the worst of the worst,” has quietly re-entered the South Plains legal environs.

It’s back, nearly five years after Lubbock County prosecutors last tried a death penalty case and four years after the last execution of a capital murder defendant from the South Plains.

It’s also arriving when fewer prosecutors across the state are asking jurors to recommend a death sentence, and more death penalty juries are choosing to sentence convicted capital murderers to life without possibility of parole.

"Courts granted relief for 7 men once condemned."

Since Texas resumed executions in 1982 — six years after the death penalty law was reinstated in the state — seven men won back a portion of their lives through successful appeals.

All had killed; none contested the verdict on appeal.

Instead, each successful appeal turned on some aspect of Texas’ capital murder law, and whether it had been applied properly during the punishment portion of their trials.

Six were commuted as a result of decisions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, including three who said prosecutors had insufficient evidence for the jury to determine if the defendant would be a continuing threat to society.

The seventh commutation — also the most recent — arose from a spectacular “inadequate representation” ruling in U.S. District Court in Lubbock with a bizarre element.

Rather than going back for new punishment trials, six defendants accepted prosecutors’ offers of life in prison, while the seventh received a 55-year sentence.

North Carolina Legislation on Mental Illness

WRAL-TV reports, "House to vote on execution ban for mentally disabled," by Laura Leslie.

State House lawmakers are expected to vote next week on a bill that would let judges take the death penalty off the table for capital defendants with severe mental disability.

The measure, House Bill 722, won approval from the House Judiciary B subcommittee Wednesday evening. It sets up a very specific definition for "severe mental disability" involving a history of problems, an inability to understand the the wrongness of the crime, or to exercise rational judgment.

The accused would have to present "clear and convincing evidence" of the disability, and could not use the defense for a crime committed under voluntary intoxication, even if habitual.

A judge would be allowed to decide at a pre-trial hearing whether a defendant meets the criteria. If the judge agreed, the death penalty couldn't be sought, but the defendant wouldn't be able to raise the insanity defense at trial.  

The measure also provides for retroactive application through Motions for Appropriate Relief for those already on death row. 

Sponsor Rep. Paul Stam, R-Wake, said the issue of executing the mentally disabled is "nothing new," quoting 18th century legal scholar William Blackstone: "A madman shall be punished by his madness alone."

"You don't deter crime by punishing those that everybody knows can't be deterred - the people who are clearly mentally disabled or deficient," he said in committee.

In 2010, North Carolina legislators considered similar legislation; more at the link.

Related posts are in the mental illness and state legislation index.  Notable posts include:

• The Cautionary Instruction
• Rethinking How the Law Deals with Mentally Ill Criminals
• Double Tragedies
• The Criminally Mentally Ill
• Mental Illness, the Death Penalty, and the Florida ABA Assessment

'Why Are You Defending a Murderer?'

That's the title of Andrew Cohen's latest post at the Atlantic.  It's subtitled, "The Willie Manning case raises some profound questions about capital punishment in America -- how it's perceived, and how it's covered."  It's another Cohen must-read:

Before the Willie Manning case moves off your radar screen again, before the media circus moves on to another capital case and another flurry of last-minute appeals, I want to address a few themes that inevitably come up when a condemned prisoner, a convicted murderer, is given any measure of relief from the courts. These issues directly track the questions now raised in the Manning case -- the state's failure to test DNA, questions about the scientific evidence that was introduced at trial, the credibility of key witnesses, the impact of race on jury selection -- but they apply more broadly to other capital cases.

1. Why are you defending a murderer? Anyone who writes about capital cases, anyone who criticizes prosecutors or judges for failing to protect the due-process rights of death-row inmates, almost immediately faces this question from readers. The answer is simple, and I'll answer it for myself alone: I am not defending a murderer. I am instead pushing the men and women in public office who run our justice systems to do better and do right by a rule of law. You can push for the latter without embracing the former. Another way to put it is: I do not focus in my writing on whether a death row inmate "deserves" to live or die. That's not up to me. I try to focus instead on whether the government (which operates in my name) has lived up to its constitutional obligations.

And:

5. The larger view. As I have written before, there is coming soon in the law a reckoning on capital punishment in America. Either there is going to be more fairness and accuracy in death penalty cases, either prosecutors and lower court judges are going to do more to protect the rights of capital defendants, or the United States Supreme Court is again going to preclude it as a sentencing option. The Court is one vote away from such a remedy, and if that happens it will be largely because of cases like the Manning case. It's not just about the law and the facts of these particular cases. It's not just about standards of appellate review. It's about the attitudes of the men and women whose job it is to implement the law.

CounterPunch posts, "Just Test the DNA."  It's by Alyssa Rohricht.

On Tuesday afternoon in Mississippi, Willie Jerome Manning was granted a last-minute stay of execution by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, just hours before his lethal injection was scheduled to go through.

Manning, an African-American man, was convicted of murdering Jon Steckler and Tiffany Miller, two white college students, in 1992. The case can be read as a manual for anti-death penalty advocates: racial bias in the original trial, false testimony from snitches, and even faulty science.

The stay comes after prosecutors and state courts refused Manning’s request for new DNA testing that could possibly prove his innocence, which he has maintained from the beginning. Since his trial, the FBI has come forward and admitted that the original analysis it performed on the evidence, such as testing hair samples found at the scene, contained numerous errors and it “exceeded the limits of the science and was, therefore, invalid.” What’s more, the FBI has offered to perform the new DNA testing itself. The FBI and the Department of Justice have also reviewed the ballistic evidence in the case and found that to be invalid as well.

Earlier coverage of Willie Manning's case begins at the link.

In Maryland

"Maryland death penalty supporters plan referendum petition drive to overturn repeal," is by Brian Witte for AP.  It's via the Washington Post.

Maryland death penalty supporters launched a petition drive Friday aimed at overturning the state’s newly signed repeal of capital punishment, while opponents vowed to campaign hard if the matter lands on the ballot next year.

Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger joined Del. Neil Parrott, R-Washington, and Sen. James Brochin, D-Baltimore County, to urge voters to sign a petition to put the question on the ballot in November 2014.

And:

Death penalty supporters will need to get 55,736 valid signatures by June 30 to put the matter on the ballot. They will need 18,579 by May 31 to proceed with the drive.

Parrott, who is chairman of MDPetitions.com, helped petition laws to the ballot in last year’s election for the first time in 20 years. They included a same-sex marriage measure, a bill allowing in-state tuition for some students who are not in the country legally and a measure redrawing the state’s congressional districts. All three were upheld by voters.

MDPetitions.com has made it easier to trigger a referendum because of an online tool that enables residents to conform information they need to include with signatures as it is required by the Maryland State Board of Elections. That has reduced the number of signatures that previously would have been thrown out.

Parrott said MDPetitions.com will not participate in petition drives relating to other statewide measures this year in order to focus on the death penalty.

WBAL-AM posts, "Death Penalty Supporters Will Move Forward With A Referendum," by Robert Lang.

Maryland death penalty supporters say they are planning a petition drive that is aimed at overturning the state's newly signed death penalty repeal.

Republican Delegate  Neil Parrott and Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger, a Democrat, announced the petition drive for a referendum Friday, a day after Gov. Martin O'Malley signed the repeal measure into law.

Parrott, a Washington County Republican, is chairman of MDPetitions.com. He has already submitted petition language to the Maryland State Board of Elections to be sure that the language is legally sufficient.

They would need to get 55,736 signatures to petition the measure to referendum in November 2014. They would need to get one-third of those signatures by midnight May 31 to qualify to move forward.

Leaders of the NAACP and Maryland Citizens Against State Executions say they will fight this effort.  Both groups believe a majority of Maryland voters will agree to let the repeal of the death penalty stand.

Earlier coverage from Maryland 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.

Movement on the Death Penalty

That's the title of an editorial in today's New York Times.

On Thursday, Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland signed a law making life without parole the state’s maximum sentence, repealing the death penalty after more than 300 years. Maryland is the sixth state in six years, and the 18th in the country, to abolish capital punishment.

States have been rejecting capital punishment for good and powerful reasons. The death penalty is expensive to pursue, unnecessary as a means of retribution and has no benefit in deterring violent crime. Moreover, states have sentenced to death people who were proved innocent. And the penalty has been imposed by both the federal and state governments in arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory manners — in a word, unconstitutionally.

And:

But, in too many states, support for capital punishment continues to overwhelm good sense. The Florida Legislature this week passed a bill that requires the governor to sign a death warrant within 30 days of a review of a capital conviction by the State Supreme Court, and the state to execute the defendant within 180 days of the warrant. This rush-to-execute bill irresponsibly ignores the fact that since 1973, when the state reinstituted the death penalty, one death row inmate has been exonerated for every three executed. .

Meanwhile, Arkansas announced plans to use phenobarbital in executions, even though that barbiturate has not been used for a lethal injection in the United States and its efficacy has yet to be demonstrated. And the Georgia Legislature passed a bill making secret much of the information involved in the state’s lethal injections, which would stymie legal challenges. Over all, however, a consensus is building that the death penalty should go, a trend that should be encouraged. Execution is an indefensible, archaic tool of vengeance.

 Related posts are in the editorial category index.

Maryland Repeal Signed Into Law

"O'Malley signs death penalty repeal," is by Michael Dresser for the Baltimore Sun. There is video at the link.

Surrounded by religious leaders, civil rights activists and others who have fought for years to stop executions in Maryland, Gov. Martin O'Malley signed legislation Thursday repealing the state's death penalty.

Unless the law is overturned in a referendum, Maryland will become the 18th state to end capital punishment, leaving life without parole as the maximum penalty for any crime.

"We have a responsibility to stop doing those things that are wasteful and ineffective," O'Malley, a Democrat, said before putting pen to paper.

The bill, which passed both houses of the General Assembly with votes to spare in March, fulfills a goal O'Malley set early in his administration.

Death penalty repeal was one of more than 200 bills the governor signed Thursday. Among them were measures legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes and allowing people in the country illegally to obtain a state driver's license.

But it was the abolition of the death penalty after more than 300 years on the books in Maryland that took center stage. Hundreds of repeal supporters lined up to have their pictures taken with O'Malley, House Speaker Michael E. Busch and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller. It took six photos — each with dozens of advocates — to accommodate all who wanted their moment in state history.

The first two ceremonial pens went to Sen. Lisa A. Gladden and Del. Sandy Rosenberg, Baltimore Democrats who have long pushed to end capital punishment. The third pen went to NAACP President Ben Jealous, who had urged O'Malley to try again for repeal this year after falling short in 2009.

"O’Malley signs death penalty repeal, medical marijuana bill and other measures," by John Wagner and Aaron C. Davis for the Washington Post.

Maryland became the sixth state in as many years to abolish capital punishment when Gov. Martin O’Malley signed legislation Thursday repealing the death penalty.

The new law could face a challenge at the ballot box next year, however. A group that has led successful petition drives in the past said it would announce Friday whether it will move forward with an expected bid to put the issue to voters in November 2014.

The bill was the first to get the governor’s signature during a ceremony that included 265 other measures passed during the extraordinarily busy 90-day legislative session that ended last month.

And:

Del. Neil C. Parrott (R-Washington), chairman of the group, would not confirm its intentions Thursday. But he and Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger (D), a death penalty supporter who was vocal during the legislative battle, plan to appear at an announcement being staged at Camden Yards in Baltimore.

Jane Henderson, executive director of Maryland Citizens Against State Executions, said she was surprised by the possibility of a petition drive, and she questioned whether the group will have the funding and organization to run a ballot measure campaign next year.

“I would think it would be a challenge for them,” she said.

AP posts, "Governor signs repeal of death penalty in Md.," via the Annapolis Capital Gazette.

Opponents of capital punishment marked a milestone Thursday as Maryland became the first state south of the Mason-Dixon line to abolish the death penalty.

The passage was a significant victory for Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Roman Catholic who opposes capital punishment and is considering seeking the 2016 presidential nomination. Death penalty opponents said the governor helped maintain the national momentum of repeal efforts by making Maryland the sixth state in as many years to abolish capital punishment.

"I don't know exactly what the timing is, but over the longer arc of history I think you'll see more and more states repeal the death penalty," O'Malley said in a brief interview after the bill signing. "It's wasteful. It's ineffective. It doesn't work to reduce violent crime."

NAACP President and CEO Ben Jealous, who worked to get the repeal bill passed, noted the significance of a Democratic governor south of the Mason-Dixon line with presidential aspirations leading an effort to ban capital punishment. Jealous noted that in 1992, then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton left the presidential campaign trail to oversee the execution of a man who had killed a police officer, a move widely viewed as an effort to shed the Democratic Party's image as soft on crime.

"Our governor has also just redefined what it means to have a political future in this country," Jealous said. "You know, it was just 20 years ago that a young governor with possibilities below the Mason-Dixon stopped during his presidential campaign" to oversee an execution.

Maryland is the 18th state to abolish the death penalty. Neighboring Delaware also made a push to repeal it this year, but the bill has stalled.

Diane Rust-Tierney, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, said Maryland is keeping the momentum going for other states to follow.

"It doesn't always happen overnight," Rust-Tierney said. "The more people study it, the more people understand it. This was a seven-year effort here in Maryland."

Reuters Posts, "Maryland becomes latest U.S. state to abolish death penalty," by Ian Simpson.  It's via the Chicago Tribune.

Maryland became the 18th U.S. state to abolish the death penalty on Thursday when Governor Martin O'Malley signed a bill outlawing capital punishment in the state.

O'Malley, a Democrat mentioned as a potential presidential candidate in 2016, had pledged to sign the bill, which the Democrat-controlled legislature passed in March. The law replaces capital punishment with a sentence of life without parole.

"With the legislation signed today, Maryland has effectively eliminated a policy that is proven not to work," O'Malley's office said in a statement.

The governor's office said the death penalty does not deter crime, cannot be administered without racial bias and costs three times as much as life without parole. A mistake cannot be reversed if an innocent person is put to death, the statement added.

Five other states - Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico, New York and New Jersey - have repealed capital punishment since 2007, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

"That's six states in six years," said Richard Dieter, the Center's executive director.

Since Maryland reinstated the death penalty in 1978, 58 people have been sentenced to death in the state, but only five sentences have been carried out. Maryland has five men on death row, and its last execution took place in 2005.

"European Union Welcomes Abolition Of Death Penalty In Maryland," is at RTT News.

The European Union has warmly welcomed abolition of death penalty in the U.S. state of Maryland.

The abolition bill, signed by Governor Martin O'Malley on Thursday, makes Maryland the 18th U.S. state to scrap death penalty since the U.S. Supreme Court approved new capital laws in 1976.

EU High Representative Catherine Ashton in a statement congratulated the Governor, the Senate and the House of Delegates on the historic decision.

She said the "European Union strongly hopes that this decision will encourage other U.S. States to follow suit in joining the growing national and worldwide movement towards the abolition of the use of capital punishment."

"More than a third of U.S. states have now abolished the death penalty, and we urge the remaining 32 states, and the federal government, to follow suit," Amnesty International USA's Abolish the Death Penalty campaign director said in a statement.

Seven U.S. states - Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, Alabama and Florida - account for nearly three-quarters of the more than 1,000 executions nationwide since 1994.

Earlier coverage of Maryland's repeal of the death penalty begins at the link.

O'Malley to Sign Maryland Repeal Into Law

"O'Malley to sign death penalty repeal today," is by Michael Dresser for the Baltimore Sun.

Gov. Martin O'Malley will sign legislation Thursday morning abolishing capital punishment in Maryland -- a goal of his since he took office in 2007.

The governor's approval will make Maryland the 18th state to repeal the death penalty. A throng of capital punshment opponents -- representing such groups as the NAACP and the Catholic church -- is expected to turn out for the bill-signing ceremony at the State House in Annapolis.

Also, today, NPR's Diane Rehm Show will focus on the death penalty.  Check with your local NPR station for broadcast time in your area.

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is expected to sign a bill today that would abolish the death penalty. This makes Maryland the sixth state in the last six years to repeal capital punishment. New Mexico, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut have abolished capital punishment and other states, including Nebraska and Delaware have considered similar reforms. There is growing unease among lawmakers across the country that the risk of putting an innocent person to death remains too great. But many argue that the death penalty remains a worthwhile deterrent to violent crime.

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