The StandDown Texas Project

Federal Death Penalty Sought in Texas Case

"Death penalty sought for Texas postal worker slaying," is the AP report, via KTXS-TV.

Prosecutors say they'll seek the death penalty against a Southeast Texas man charged with fatally shooting his neighborhood postal carrier last year.

James Wayne Ham of Coldspring is accused of the May 2013 of Marie Youngblood. Ham was arrested three days after her body was found in her burned SUV in San Jacinto County, about 50 miles northeast of Houston.  She had been shot multiple times at close range with a rifle after delivering mail to Ham's home.

Houston's News 92FM posts, "US Seeks Death Penalty for Mail Carrier’s Accused Killer," by Brandon De Hoyos.

The United States will seek the death penalty for a man accused in the 2013 murder of a postal worker, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said Monday.

James Wayne Ham, 37, allegedly killed a mail carrier on or about May 17, 2013, as she was working to deliver the mail.

U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson said the mail carrier’s son called 911 after he heard two gunshots as he was speaking to his mother via cell phone.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

No Federal Death Prosecution in Brooklyn Case

"No death penalty in suspected Brooklyn gang killing," is the AP report, via the Brooklyn Daily Eagle.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says his office will not pursue the death penalty against three suspected gang members accused of a gruesome murder in Brooklyn.

The three suspected gang members, Christian John, Shaquan Jones, both 31, and Marvin Johnson, 30, were charged with murder in the 2006 death of Earle Obermuller.

And:

Holder's decision was sent Thursday to a federal judge in Brooklyn trying the case. It's slated to begin Oct. 22.

All death-penalty-eligible cases are reviewed by the attorney general. The reasons for the decision are kept confidential.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Boston Marathon Bombing Trial Will Not Move; Trial to Start in 2015

 The Boston Globe reports, "Judge denies Tsarnaev request for change of venue," by Milton J. Valencia.

A federal judge refused Wednesday to relocate the case of suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to another state, scheduling a death penalty trial at the federal courthouse located only a few miles from where the bombs exploded on April 15, 2013 and shattered a New England tradition.

US District Court Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. agreed, however, to postpone the trial to Jan. 5 of next year, two months after the scheduled Nov. 3 date, meaning the trial could be playing out during the two-year anniversary of the terrorist attack.

O’Toole acknowledged in a 10-page decision Wednesday that the case has attracted significant, ongoing media attention, but said the defense team failed to show that the hype would prejudice a fair, impartial jury.

"Marathon Bombings Trial Will Remain in Boston," is the New York Times report by Katharine Q. Seelye.

The trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, accused in the Boston Marathon bombings, will take place in Boston but will be delayed two months and is to start in January.

Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. of Federal District Court on Wednesday denied a defense request to move the trial outside Boston, saying that the region was big enough to find 12 jurors who could be impartial.

 Earlier coverage of the Boston case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

AG Eric Holder Announces Plan to Step Down

NPR reports, "Eric Holder To Step Down As Attorney General," by Carrie Johnson.

 Eric Holder Jr., the nation's first black U.S. attorney general, is preparing to announce his resignation Thursday after a tumultuous tenure marked by civil rights advances, national security threats, reforms to the criminal justice system and 5 1/2 years of fights with Republicans in Congress.

Two sources familiar with the decision tell NPR that Holder, 63, intends to leave the Justice Department as soon as his successor is confirmed, a process that could run through 2014 and even into next year. A former U.S. government official says Holder has been increasingly "adamant" about his desire to leave soon for fear that he otherwise could be locked in to stay for much of the rest of President Obama's second term.

"White House: Holder resigning as Attorney General," is the AP coverage filed by Nedra Pickler and Jim Kuhnhenn.

The White House said that President Barack Obama would announce Holder's departure later Thursday and that Holder planned to remain at the Justice Department until his successor was in place. White House officials said Obama had not made a final decision on a replacement for Holder, who was one of the most progressive voices in his Cabinet.

Advisers to Obama and Holder said the attorney general had been planning his departure with the president for some time. Some possible candidates who have been discussed among administration officials include Solicitor General Don Verrilli, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a former Rhode Island attorney general.

"Eric Holder to Announce Resignation, Officials Say," is the National Law Journal post bBy Mike Scarcella of Legal Times.

Holder has long said he did not intend to serve the entirety of President Barack Obama's second term in the White House. Holder in 2012 said "it's been an interesting and tough four years" and that he would ask himself "Do I think that there are things that I still want to do. Do I have gas left in the tank?" NPR first reported the news of Holder's resignation.

Holder said he intends to remain at his post until a successor is named, according to published reports. NPR said Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. could be picked to replace Holder, who joined the Justice Department from Covington & Burling. The Justice Department in July published a long list of accomplishments under Holder's leadership.

Federal Prosecutors to Appeal Vermont Ruling

Today's Burlington Free Press reports, "Feds want death penalty restored in Fell case," by Sam Hemingway.

The U.S. attorney for Vermont will appeal the decision by federal Judge William K. Sessions III to order a new trial in the death-penalty case of Donald Fell.

In a one-sentence statement filed Monday afternoon, U.S. Attorney Tristram Coffin and Assistant U.S. Attorney William Darrow notified the court that the government will contest the ruling with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

No details on the basis for the appeal were provided. The government had until this week to signal to the court whether prosecutors would accept Sessions' ruling or challenge it.

"Federal prosecutors to appeal new trial order in Vermont death penalty case," is AP coverage, via the Greenfield Daily Reporter.

Federal prosecutors said Monday they would appeal a judge's decision granting a new trial to a man on death row for murder because one of the jurors in the trial visited the crime scene and discussed the case outside of court.

The two paragraph notice to appeal the July decision by U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions III to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York was filed Monday.

And:

Vermont does not have a death penalty, but Fell was convicted and sentenced to death in 2005 under federal law for the kidnapping and death of Terry King, 53, the North Clarendon woman who was abducted as she arrived for work at a Rutland supermarket. King was later killed in New York.

Earlier coverage of Donald Fell's case begins a the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

In Iowa

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruling in USA v. Johnson is available in Adobe .pdf format.

"Appeals court broadens scope of death penalty retrial for Iowa woman who killed 5 in 1993," is the AP report filed by Ryan J. Floey, via the Daily Journal.  Here's an extended excerpt from the beginning:

The death penalty retrial for an Iowa woman convicted of helping kill five people in 1993 will be broader than the trial judge wanted, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.

Jurors will first decide whether Johnson is eligible for the death penalty, and, if so, whether that punishment should be imposed in each death, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. The retrial is scheduled for March.

The 2-1 ruling is a victory for federal prosecutors because it allows them to present evidence that would have been excluded in the narrower retrial previously ordered by U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett.

Johnson was sentenced to death in 2005 for her role in the execution-style slayings of three adults and two children in northern Iowa in 1993, becoming the first woman to land on federal death row in decades. Prosecutors say she helped her boyfriend, methamphetamine kingpin Dustin Honken, carry out the killings to thwart a federal investigation into their drug enterprise. Honken was convicted separately and is on death row.

Johnson remains convicted and imprisoned. But Bennett ordered her a new sentencing hearing in 2012, saying that her defense was inadequate during that phase of the trial. In particular, the judge said her attorneys failed to present evidence about Johnson's mental state that may have convinced jurors to spare her life.

Earlier coverage of Angela Johnson's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty and female category indexes.

Vermont Federal Death Sentence & Conviction Overturned

The Federal District Court ruling in USA v. Fell is available, via Scribd.

The Barre Montpelier Times Argus publishes the editorial, "A bedrock principle."

The decision by U.S. District Judge William Sessions to overturn the 2005 conviction of Donald Fell for the murder of Terry King, of North Clarendon, was a bitter disappointment for the victim’s family. But misconduct by one of the jurors who had sentenced Fell to death left Sessions with no alternative.

Everyone deserves a fair trial by an impartial jury. That is a bedrock principle embedded in the Constitution. Unless the courts adhere to fundamental principles of fairness, even in cases of the most heinous crimes, then democracy is undermined.

"Vermont Judge Vacates Death Penalty Conviction," is by Mark Hamblett of New York Law Journal.

The conviction and death penalty sentence of Donald Fell for the 2000 abduction and murder of a Vermont woman was vacated Friday because of juror misconduct.

U.S. District Judge William Sessions in Vermont said Fell, convicted in 2005 in the abduction of Teresca King in a Rutland supermarket parking lot on Nov. 27, 2000 and her murder three days later, will get a new trial because a rogue juror, Juror 143, visited crime scenes during the trial and then repeatedly lied about it, and therefore violated "the 'fundamental integrity' of Fell's trial."

"For Fell, the integrity of the trial was a matter of life or death," Sessions said.

The reversal was the result of years of work by a legal team led by Lewis Liman, a partner with Clearly Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, who worked the case pro bono. The defense filed under 28 U.S.C. §2255 for a writ of habeas corpus in 2010.

Sessions held four days of hearings, including on Aug. 15 2013 when he heard testimony from Juror 143 and a second juror. A third juror under suspicion appeared on Sept. 27, 2013. Liman amended the petition on October 22, 2013 to add new factual allegations against the jurors.

Sessions also heard from Juror 143's former girlfriend who implicated him and he also heard arguments from Liman that both the trial and the death penalty verdict were irredeemably tainted. By March of this year, Liman's motion had expanded to 400 pages and included about 20 claims for relief.

The Burlington Free Press reports, "Judge orders new trial in Fell case," by Sam Hemingway.

According to court documents filed by Fell's lawyers over the past two years, Juror 143 secretly traveled to Rutland during the trial to look at the crime scenes, told a third party about what he saw and shared his observations with the jury panel.

Those observations included conclusions by Juror 143 about the neighborhood where Fell lived and the parking lot where King was abducted that were not part of the evidence presented in court.

"There is no question that Juror 143 was exposed to prejudicial information that was never introduced at trial nor subjected to the judicial safeguards of cross-examination, confrontation, and counsel." Sessions wrote. "For Fell, the integrity of his trial was a matter of life and death."

Compounding the misconduct, Juror 143 failed to tell the court at any time what he had done, and then lied under oath last August when questioned about his conduct during a court hearing before Sessions, the judge said in his ruling.

Earlier coverage of the Fell case is at the links.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Partial Costs for Hawaiian DP Trial

"$4.3M in public money spent to defend former Hawaii-based soldier who avoid death penalty," is the AP report, via the Greenfield Daily Reporter.

It cost more than $4.3 million to defend a former Hawaii-based soldier who faced the death penalty for the murder of his 5-year-old daughter.

A jury last week was unable to agree on Naeem Williams' sentence, allowing him to avoid execution and receive life in prison without the possibility of release.

And:

The information released says Williams' attorney fees and costs totaled nearly $2.9 million. Other expenses including expert witnesses, paralegals and investigators totaled about $1.4 million.

Juror expenses came out to nearly $209,000.

Earlier coverage of the Hawaiian trial begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

More on the Hawaiian Federal Verdict

KaLeo, The Voice of the University of Hawaii, publishes the editorial column, "Life sentences more effective than death penalty," by Kristen Paul Bonifacio.

On Friday, ex-soldier Naeem Williams was sentenced to life in prison for the 2005 killing of his 5-year-old daughter. He faced either the death penalty or life in prison. If the jury had decided to sentence Williams to death, it would have been the first such sentence in Hawai‘i’s history since statehood in 1959. 

His sentencing once again brings to light the heatedly debated argument about the death penalty as a form of punishment for murder and serious crimes. However, although Williams committed a horrific murder, the judge was correct in sentencing him to life in prison instead of ending his life.

A life in prison sentence is a better sentence for individuals who commit capital crimes. The death penalty is barbaric, but it’s ability to prevent similar heinous acts has been questioned by statistics that show it does not limit homicide rates.

"Hawaii juror favored death for ex-soldier, 8-4," is the AP report by Jennifer Sinco Kelleher, via West Hawaii Today.

It was the same jury that convicted Williams of murder in April that deliberated for about seven days before deciding they couldn’t agree on a sentence. An indication of their turmoil was their announcement that they had reached their verdict Thursday afternoon but wanted to wait until Friday morning to read it because some of them were “emotionally drained.”

The concept of sending someone to his death is unfamiliar in Hawaii, where capital punishment was abolished in 1957, before the islands became a state. But this jury had to make that decision because Williams’ crime occurred in military housing and he was tried in the federal court system, where the death penalty is available.

Earlier coverage of the Hawaiian federal verdict is at the link.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Life Sentence in Hawaii Federal Death Penalty Case

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser posts, "Jury rejects death penalty in Williams murder case."

A federal court jury in Honolulu Friday rejected the death penalty for former Schofield Barracks soldier Naeem J. Williams, choosing instead to sentence him to life in prison for killing his 5-year-old daughter Talia in 2005.

The case was the first capital murder case tried in the state of Hawaii.

The jury said it was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the death penalty.

The sentence was announced in U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright's court at a 9 a.m. hearing even though the jury reached their decision Thursday afternoon. The jury, which had deliberated on the death penalty for seven days, sent a note to Seabright Thursday saying the process has been "emotionally draining" and they wanted to delay the reading of the decision until Friday.

This is the same jury that found Williams, 34, guilty on April 24 of two capital offenses.

"Former soldier to get life after jury deadlocks," is the AP report filed by Jennifer Sinco Kelleher.

A former soldier convicted of killing his 5-year-old daughter will spend the rest of his life behind bars after a federal jury announced Friday it failed to agree on his sentence in the first death penalty trial in Hawaii since it became a state.

Jurors deliberated for about seven days before telling the judge they were deadlocked on Naeem Williams' sentence.

That means U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright will give Williams life in prison without the possibility of release. He will impose the sentence at a later hearing.

And:

Hawaii's territorial government abolished capital punishment in 1957. But Talia was killed on military property so Williams was tried in the federal system, which allows the death penalty.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

An Update From Boston

Today's Boston Globe reports, "Tsarnaev to seek change of venue for federal trial," by Travis Andersen.

Lawyers for accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev plan to request that his federal trial, currently slated for US District Court in Boston, be moved to another jurisdiction.

Tsarnaev’s attorneys disclosed their intention in court records Wednesday, and they asked that a June 18 deadline for filing their motion for a change of venue be extended to Aug. 3.

“The defense has now completed sufficient preliminary research to determine that a change of venue motion should be filed,” his lawyers wrote. The lawyers believe they need additional time for expert analysis on “venue research and media surrounding this case.”

The filing did not specify the defense’s preferred location for the highly anticipated November trial, nor did it say why the lawyers are seeking to move the proceedings. They could ask to move the trial out of Massachusetts or to another court in the Commonwealth.

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev To Ask Marathon Bombing Trial Be Moved Out Of Boston," is the AP report by Denise LaVoie, via HuffPost.

Lawyers for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev said Wednesday they will ask a judge to move his trial out of Boston, where there's been saturation media coverage of the terror attack that killed three people and injured more than 260.

In a court filing, Tsarnaev's lawyers said they intend to file a change of venue motion, but they asked for more time to analyze media coverage of the case before filing the request.

The defense asked the judge to extend the deadline to file the motion from June 18 to Aug 3.

Earlier coverage of the case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Tsarnaev Commentary

Syndicated Columnist Diane Dimond writes, "Execution unlikely for Tsarnaev."  It's via the Albuquerque Journal.

Another reason I doubt this young man will be condemned to execution has to do with the current public perception of capital punishment.

Nationally, the latest Gallup poll indicates that public support for the death penalty continues to decline. Only about 60 percent of Americans support the idea these days. But in the state of Massachusetts – where any Tsarnaev trial is likely to be held – a Boston Globe poll conducted statewide last fall revealed only 33 percent of residents wanted Tsarnaev to get the death penalty and 57 percent said he should be sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole.

It is a fact that federal prosecutors don’t like to bring a case to court that isn’t a slam dunk.

Another fact: It will be difficult to seat a death penalty qualified jury in a state like Massachusetts. Once a potential juror says he or she cannot vote for capital punishment, they are disqualified.

"No more killing, no more death," is Rev. Jared Cramer's OpEd in the Grand Haven Tribune in Michigan.

Tsarnaev’s alleged actions are indeed heinous. The murder, the violence, the terror with which this moment gripped Boston are all horrendous realities that cannot be ignored. However, killing Tsarnaev will not solve anything. It will not deter other would-be terrorists. It will not bring back those who have died. It will not even save the state money.

And, most importantly, for Christians, it will take away a reality that is fundamental to our faith — the opportunity for penitence and forgiveness.

There should be no more killing, no more death, added to this tragic event.

Earlier coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

In Massachusetts

"All five Democrats running for Mass. governor oppose death penalty for Tsarnaev," is by Aaron Blake in the Washington Post.  There is video at the link.

All five Democratic candidates for governor of Massachusetts said Thursday that they opposed the death penalty for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Asked at an afternoon debate whether he should face the prospect of execution, a couple of them said they opposed the death penalty. Asked to clarify whether it should be used even in the case of someone like Tsarnaev, all five said "no."

The candidates at the debate were state Attorney General Martha Coakley (the favorite), state Treasurer Steve Grossman, former Department of Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem, former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Don Berwick, and former Wellesley selectman Joe Avellone. Gov. Deval Patrick (D) is not seeking reelection.

"All Dem. candidates for Mass. gov. speak out against death penalty for Tsarnaev," is NECN coverage.

The candidates, Donald Berwick, Martha Coakley, Joseph Avellone, Juliette Kayyem and Steve Grossman voiced their opinions during a debate Wednesday night.
     
On Tuesday, Republican candidate Charlie Baker said he supports the decision to seek the death penalty.

Earlier coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing case begins at the link.

Reaction to the Boston Decision

Today's Boston Globe publishes the editorial, "Seeking death for Tsarnaev only delays Boston’s healing."

Nobody can ignore voices like Liz Norden’s. After two of her sons each lost a leg in the Boston Marathon bombing, the Stoneham resident urged federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty against the surviving suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. That’s just what the federal government did on Thursday, when, after months of deliberation, Attorney General Eric Holder authorized prosecutors to pursue a capital case against the 20-year-old Tsarnaev. He is accused of killing four and wounding dozens along with his older brother Tamerlan, who was killed in a shootout with police shortly after the April 15 attack.

The attorney general faced an excruciating call, and the Justice Department should be applauded for seeking the input of victims and their families before announcing its decision. Still, a life prison term would have been the proper punishment to seek. A death-penalty prosecution instead raises the likelihood that Tsarnaev’s trial will drag on much longer, keeping the city’s wounds raw, and that he’ll eventually get the martyrdom he apparently sought. It also ignores the consistent view of the Commonwealth, which has repeatedly rejected capital punishment, and of Boston, where polls show residents strongly opposed to putting Tsarnaev to death.

Those voices matter, too, and Holder should have listened to them.

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev deserves prison, not death penalty, if convicted," is the Newsday editorial.

It's easy to understand the decision to seek the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Federal officials allege that he and his brother coldbloodedly built, planted and detonated two pressure-cooker bombs that indiscriminately ended the lives of three people and injured 260 near the finish line of the iconic Boston Marathon.

Someone responsible for such wanton mass murder is not deserving of sympathy. But life in prison with no possibility of parole is a more fitting punishment, even for such heinous crimes. Little would be gained by putting him to death.

The Boston Herald says, "Death on the table."

The real surprise about yesterday’s decision to seek the death penalty against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the Boston Marathon bombing case is that it was made by this Justice Department and this attorney general from whom we have come to expect so little of either courage or common sense.

Perhaps Eric Holder simply feared the inevitable political backlash had he not given his permission to make this a capital case.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen writes, "Holder’s political cowardice in seeking the death penalty."

Amazingly enough, the decision by Holder was announced a week or so after he reiterated his personal opposition to the death penalty. How he’s reconciled his personal views with his public policies I cannot know — and, I bet, neither can he.

Was he following orders from the boss? That would only be President Obama, because that’s the only one he reports to.

Was he reluctant to overrule his subordinates, especially the U.S. attorney in Boston? They might have pushed for the death penalty. If so, he ought to reconsider why he is the AG and not them. He’s where the buck stops.

Or was he reluctant to stand up against charges that he is soft on terrorism?

WBUR-FM posts, "Reactions To Tsarnaev Death Penalty Decision," a roundup of officials' responses.

The Boston Globe reports, "Possibility of death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev provokes a range of reactions," by Patricia Wen, Maria Cramer, Sarah Schweitzer and Martin Finucane.

"In Boston, Mixed Reaction to Death Penalty Decision in Marathon Bombings Case," by Jennifer Preston and Ashley Southall at the New York Times.

"Boston Marathon victims have mixed emotions about death penalty for Tsarnaev," is by Denise LaVoie of Associated Press, via the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel.

Earlier coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing case begins at the link.

US to Seek Death in Boston Marathon Bombing Case

"US prosecutors seek execution of marathon suspect," is th breaking news from Associated Press.

Federal prosecutors on Thursday announced they will seek the death penalty against 20-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the Boston Marathon bombing, instantly raising the stakes in what could be one of the most wrenching trials the city has ever seen.

Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to press for Tsarnaev's execution was widely expected. The twin blasts killed three people and wounded more than 260 others, and 17 of the 30 federal charges against him - including using a weapon of mass destruction to kill - carry the possibility of the death penalty.

"The nature of the conduct at issue and the resultant harm compel this decision," Holder said in a statement.

Tsarnaev has pleaded not guilty. A trial date has not been set.

Earlier coverage of the case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Boston Bar Association Denounces Federal Death Prosecutions in State

"Boston Bar Association Opposes Death Penalty in Federal Cases," is the BBA news release.  The Bar Association Report is available in Adobe .pdf format.

Today's Boston Globe reports, "Boston lawyers’ group blasts death penalty," by Milton J. Valencia.

The Boston Bar Association, which represents more than 10,000 lawyers and some of the top firms in the state, released an internal study Tuesday strongly opposing the death penalty in federal cases, the organization’s most pronounced stand against federal capital punishment in its 250-year history.

The announcement was made as federal prosecutors consider whether to seek the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the suspected Boston Marathon bomber, and as prosecutors continue to seek capital punishment for admitted serial killer Gary Lee Sampson.

“Without equivocation, the death penalty has no place in the fair administration of justice and makes no sense on a practical level,” said Paul T. Dacier, the bar association’s president, who ordered a review of the organization’s stance on the death penalty in August. The review was also made to determine whether to speak out against federal capital punishment.

“Regardless of how heinous the crime, we stand strong against the death penalty in federal and state cases,” Dacier said.

"Podcast: Paul Dacier explains reasons for BBA’s opposition to death penalty," by David E. Frank is the post at Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.  There is audio at the link.

The Boston Bar Association announced today that, for the first time in its 250-year history, the organization is taking a stand against the death penalty in federal cases.

The announcement comes after a panel chaired by retired Superior Court Judge Margaret R. Hinkle and Foley Hoag partner Martin F. Murphy conducted a study on the issue, and just weeks before federal prosecutors are required to inform U.S District Court Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. whether they intend to seek the death penalty against accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

"Boston Bar takes stand against death penalty in federal cases," is by Mary Moore for the Boston Business Journal.

The Boston Bar's position comes as part of a report issued by a working group that President Paul Dacier convened last fall to review the group's 40-year-old death penalty stance. In addition to reviewing its existing death penalty position for state cases, the working group was charged also with considering whether the bar association should take a position on federal cases.

"Without equivocation, the death penalty has no place in the fair administration of justice, and makes no sense on a practical level," said Dacier.

And:

Retired Superior Court Judge Margaret Hinkle and Martin Murphy, a trial attorney and partner at Foley Hoag LLP, chaired the death penalty working group, which included five other members.

A decision whether to pursue the death penalty in the Boston Marathon bombing case has not yet been made.  A resentencing trial in another federal death penalty case is currently pending in Massachusetts.  Massachusetts has no state death penalty.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Federal Death Penalty Roundup

There is news involving two federal death penalty cases.

AP reports, "Condemned federal inmate says he won't seek clemency, wants to set execution date."  It's by Brett Barrouquere, via the Daily Journal.

A federal inmate on death row for killing a South Carolina woman after escaping from a Kentucky jail wants to bypass any attempt to save his own life and accept an execution date once it is set.

Chadrick Evan Fulks, 36, said he wants to free his lawyers to work for inmates "that do have a chance" of winning a reprieve or an appeal and not spend time and energy on him.

"I feel like I'm just a case # to them and they now have more important cases to work on now that I don't have a chance," Fulks wrote in an email to The Associated Press. "So, why continue on?"

And:

Attempts to reach Amy Donnella, the federal public defender handling Fulks' case, were unsuccessful over several weeks. Fulks appeals have each been turned away in the courts, with the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting a last bid from him Dec. 4.

Federal executions are on hold while the Justice Department writes new regulations for carrying out lethal injections in response to lawsuits brought by several inmates. The last federal execution took place in 2003, when Louis Jones was put to death by lethal injection for a kidnapping resulting in a death.

Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman Traci Billingsley declined to discuss Fulks or his case, but said the process of rewriting the execution protocol is being finalized.

Death row inmates who waive their appeals are referred to as volunteers.

In Massachusetts, the Boston Globe reports, "Gary Lee Sampson defense budget ordered," by Travis Andersen.

A federal judge in Boston has ordered lawyers for serial killer Gary Lee Sampson to file a budget proposal to prepare for his sentencing retrial, where he may again face a death penalty.

“The budget should include ‘the best preliminary estimate that can be made of the cost of all services [counsel, expert, investigative, and other]’ to prepare this case for retrial concerning sentencing, and may include particular amounts for discrete phases of preparation,” US District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf wrote in an order issued on Friday.

Wolf gave Sampson’s attorneys until noon on Jan. 9 to file a budget request for their work, which will be publicly funded. A lawyer for Sampson could not be reached for comment on the order, and defense attorneys had not filed a response as of Sunday evening.

The average cost of defending a federal capital trial is $620,932, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a research organization based in Washington, D.C.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

An Update On the Boston Marathon Bombing Case

"Death penalty for Boston bomber a complicated question," is by Kevin Johnson for USA Today.

The high-security wing at the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Ind., now represents an increasingly complicated backdrop for a decision Attorney General Eric Holder is set to make in the next several weeks on whether to pursue the death penalty in the federal government's prosecution of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

There is little argument about the strength of the case against Tsarnaev, charged with 30 criminal counts in connection with the blasts that killed three and wounded more than 260 others. There are photographs of Tsarnaev allegedly planting explosives at the site of one of the bombings. Yet the government's record in carrying out the death penalty is mixed at best, and there are conflicting views about whether the often-delayed penalty is an appropriate punishment if the 20-year-old defendant is convicted in the bombing case.

Since the federal death penalty was reinstated in 1988, only three offenders have been executed and none in the past 10 years.

Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh marked the first federal execution in nearly 40 years when he was put to death in 2001. But even the execution of McVeigh, whose conviction was swift and who had abandoned last-ditch appeals, was delayed when it was discovered that the government had failed to turn over documents to the bomber's defense attorneys.

In the case of Tsarnaev, there are other potentially complicating factors at play for the federal government in Massachusetts, a state long opposed to the death penalty.

"For Feds, Boston Cases Pose Death Penalty Question," is by Sheri Qualters at the National Law Journal.

Federal prosecutors in Massachusetts, where the death penalty was abolished nearly 30 years ago, face the rare prospect of two simultaneous capital cases for unrelated killings that happened more than a decade apart.

Prosecutors under the direction of U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz in Boston have a Jan. 31 deadline to announce whether the government will seek to execute Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, jailed for his alleged role in carrying out the attack at the Boston marathon in April.

In a separate matter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit this summer struck down the capital sentence for convicted killer Gary Lee Sampson, forcing prosecutors to decide whether to pursue the death penalty a second time. Sampson's case marked the first-ever federal death sentence in Massachusetts, where state-based capital punishment was banned in 1984.

U.S. Department of Justice rules give the attorney general the final say on whether to seek the death penalty in any federal case. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has not said whether prosecutors will seek death against Tsarnaev. Ortiz declined to comment.

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Boston Bombing Suspect, Has Life Or Death Resting In Attorney General," by Sebastian Murdock for Huffington Post.

He is accused of killing three people and injuring hundreds more in a bombing that shook Boston and the nation.

Now, the decision whether or not to pursue the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev may prove complicated in the weeks to come.

The decision lies with Attorney General Eric Holder, who is set to make a decision within the next several weeks. But Holder will have to consider how Americans want to see justice, and how viable the federal death penalty will be considering its slow and often unreliable past.

 AP reports, "Prison limits on Boston bombing suspect are eased," via the Boston Herald.

Federal prosecutors have eased limits on defense team visits to Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

In court documents filed Tuesday, prosecutors say the restrictions have been modified to allow several additional people to visit Tsarnaev to help prepare his defense and report back to lawyers on the team. They include a paralegal, a mental health consultant and a specialist who will help the defense prepare arguments against the death penalty.

The mental health consultant and the specialist will be allowed to meet with Tsarnaev without a lawyer accompanying them.

Tsarnaev's defense team had complained that special measures imposed on Tsarnaev impaired their ability to defend him.

Earlier coverage from Boston begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Penn State Law Prof Looks at Federal Death Prosecutions

"Death penalty scholar joins Penn State Law as visiting professor," is from Penn State News.  It's written by Noelle Mateer.

What happens when the federal government seeks the death penalty for crimes committed in a non-death penalty state? Professor Michael Mannheimer plans to find out.

He joined the Penn State Law faculty as a visitor from northern Kentucky this fall and focuses his teaching and research on the death penalty.

For instance, Mannheimer believes the federal government will seek the death penalty for the surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect. However, Massachusetts abolished its death penalty nearly 30 years ago.

The crux of the issue is Mannheimer’s true interest: states’ rights. Mannheimer explained that the authors of the Bill of Rights were Anti-Federalists — very pro-states’ rights. “It’s fascinating to me because we don’t think of it that way anymore,” he said. “My research delves into how we can interpret the Bill of Rights with that states’ rights spin.”

To start off, Mannheimer will study a 1937 federal death penalty case, U.S. vs. Chebatoris, in which the federal government imposed a death sentence on a bank robber in Michigan, a death penalty-free state. Despite the efforts of then-Gov. Frank Murphy, Chebatoris was hanged on July 8, 1938, the first person executed in Michigan in 108 years.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty and law school category indexes.

Federal Death Penalty Roundup

"Judge refuses to declare death penalty unconstitutional," is the Denver Post report by Tom McGhee.

U.S. Senior District Judge John Kane on Wednesday denied a motion by lawyers of a Florence inmate who faces the death penalty to declare the federal death penalty law unconstitutional.

Gary Watland's lawyers argued that the "sentencing scheme is so incomprehensible that it deprives the jury of the ability to make a reasoned and informed choice between life and death." Watland allegedly stabbed a fellow inmate to death.

The government presented testimony by an expert who challenged the results of studies presented by the defense. Among the studies was one by the Capital Jury Project that found jurors do not understand instructions on death penalty sentencing given by the judge. It also most jurors decide the outcome of the penalty phase of a trial when they should still be concentrating on the defendant's guilt or innocence.

AP coverage is, "Judge rejects death penalty motion," via the San Francisco Chronicle.

U.S. Senior District Judge John Kane has denied a motion from lawyers of a Florence inmate who faces the death penalty to declare the federal death penalty law unconstitutional.

"Death penalty proposal due on marathon suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev," is also from the Associated Press, via MassLive.

Federal prosecutors have refused to say whether they've recommended the death penalty for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (joh-HAHR' tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) as a deadline approaches for them to send their proposal to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Prosecutors from the office of Massachusetts' U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz have said in court they planned to send their recommendation to Holder by Oct. 31.

They would not reveal their recommendation as the Thursday deadline approached. A spokeswoman for Ortiz says the Department of Justice's death penalty process is strictly confidential.

Prosecutors have said they expect Holder — who has the ultimate say — to make his decision by the end of January.

Earlier coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

How the Death Penalty is Linked to Resources

That's the title of Jon Gould's must-read post at the Life of the Law blog.  Gould is at American University.

The Death Penalty Information Center recently released a report showing that a majority of executions in the United States since 1976 have been carried out by just 2 percent of the nation’s 3100+ counties. Among the ten most punitive counties, seven are in Texas.

Missing in DPIC’s report is an explanation for why such a small number of counties imposes such a large percentage of the nation’s death sentences. Perhaps more heinous crimes occur there. Maybe residents are more retributive; they elect prosecutors who seek the death penalty more often and fill juries that are more willing to choose the a death sentence over life in prison.  After all, we live in a federal, not national, legal system.  Different communities are allowed to express their will through varying sentences, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty does not offend the Constitution or Bill of Rights so long as it is limited to adults and is not applied discriminately on the basis of race.

But what if the federal death penalty shows geographic disparities, and what if those differences are linked to the resources made available to capital defendants? In 2010, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts released a report I co-authored showing significant geographic variation in the resources provided to defendants in federal capital cases. “Resources” here mean lawyer time, investigators, and other experts, including psychologists and mitigation specialists.  Although capital defendants received a median $465,000 for their defense at trial, the amounts varied by location.  In federal court in Connecticut, for example, the average defendant received $1.2 million (yes, that’s a lot of money, but capital cases are expensive—in fact, the prosecution costs more), whereas the federal court in Georgia provided only $132,000 in defense resources.  More troubling, those levels were linked to case outcomes. Defendants within the lowest third of case costs had twice the risk of a death sentence than others receiving greater defense support.

And:

If the Constitution is to mean anything, a federal defendant should have the same chance at a quality defense in one federal court as he does in another. Furthermore, the resources he receives at trial should not predict his sentence. The late David Baldus opened our eyes to disparate treatment in state capital sentences. Justice Powell said one of his greatest regrets was failing to recognize this pattern as a constitutional violation. Are today’s federal judges missing a constitutional problem right in their own house?

Earlier coverage of the DPIC report begins at the link.

The DPIC report is, "THE 2% DEATH PENALTY: How a Minority of Counties Produce Most Death Cases at Enormous Costs to All."  You can find the full report, executive summary, and news release at the links.

Related posts are in the geographic disparity and report category indexes.

Atkins Hearing in Tennessee Federal Death Penalty Case

"Defendant in death penalty case has court outburst," is AP coverage by Adrian Sainz, via the Houston Chronicle.

A former prison guard charged with killing two Tennessee postal workers was physically restrained and removed from the courtroom after an outburst during a federal hearing Monday.

Chastain Montgomery became upset during his mother's testimony in a court hearing in Memphis to determine whether he is eligible for the death penalty if convicted in the October 2010 shootings of Paula Robinson and Judy Spray during a robbery at a small-town post office.

Defense attorney Michael Scholl said Montgomery abruptly stood up and began to say something before he was grabbed by U.S. marshals and forced into a room adjacent to the courtroom. Montgomery was shackled at the hands and legs, and a marshal was sitting behind him, but he still managed to stand up from his chair behind the large desk he shares with defense attorneys.

Montgomery's mother Lois was taken to the witness room after the outburst, and Senior U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla stopped the hearing. McCalla later returned and told Montgomery that while he understood that watching his ill mother testify was difficult, a second incident could result in his exclusion from the hearing.

And:

A ruling by U.S. Senior District Judge Jon McCalla that Montgomery is intellectually disabled would be a major blow to the government's case.

Earlier Monday, psychologist Mark Siegert testified that intelligence tests taken by Montgomery over a 35-year span show he has mild intellectual disability.

Siegert studied a large number of documents compiled by other doctors who have examined Montgomery, including an IQ test given to him when he was 14 and another administered last year. Siegert also gave Montgomery a third IQ test this past May.

Montgomery's IQ on all three tests was below 70, considered the general threshold for an intellectually or mentally disabled person, Siegert said. Such low IQ test scores over a 35-year period is "tremendous evidence" that someone is intellectually disabled, he said.

An AP preview of the hearing was, "Hearing in federal death penalty case in Memphis," via the Jackson Sun.

A court hearing has begun over claims that a former Tennessee prison guard charged with killing two postal workers is mentally disabled and ineligible for the death penalty.

Federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Chastain Montgomery, charged in the fatal shootings of Paula Robinson and Judy Spray in October 2010.

And:

The hearing to address Montgomery's mental status started Monday morning in Memphis. In a court filing, defense attorneys say Montgomery had two IQ tests in which his score fell below 70.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty and mental retardation category indexes.

Related posts are in the mental retardation category index. As I often point out, mental retardation is now generally referred to as a developmental or intellectual disability. 

Because it has a specific meaning with respect to capital cases, I continue to use the older term on the website.  More on Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's 2002 ruling banning the execution of those with mental retardation, is via Oyez.

Boston Globe Editorial

The Sunday Boston Globe published the editorial, "Eric Holder shouldn't seek death for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev."

In the raw days after the Marathon bombing in April, Mayor Tom Menino spoke for many Bostonians when he raised the prospect of executing those who were responsible. Though normally a death penalty opponent, Menino said that the barbarity of the attackers, who killed four people and maimed dozens, might sway him.

Now, as surviving suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev faces trial, that question looms for federal prosecutors, who are in the midst of a lengthy process to decide by Oct. 31 whether to seek the 19-year-old’s death by lethal injection. It’s certainly understandable why many friends, family, and supporters of the victims hope prosecutors will seek the ultimate vengeance against the man they believe masterminded the bombing along with his older brother, Tamerlan. Still, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. should decide against it.

The death penalty is a deeply contentious issue, and individual viewpoints often spring from strongly held ethical and religious beliefs. To many, executions are never justified. Yet even ardent supporters of capital punishment should recognize that in this case, it would be a mistake for Holder to pursue the death penalty against Tsarnaev.

Go Local Worcester columnist Leonardo Angiulo writes, "Why We Don't Have The Death Penalty In Mass."  Angiulo is a Boston area lawyer.

As the prosecution of Boston Marathon Suspect Dzokhar Tsarnaev moves forward, federal prosecutors weigh the decision to seek the death penalty. If this defendant is ultimately found guilty for the atrocities of last April then there are likely many who believe capital punishment would be just. Some might even say that an execution would be too humane an end for such an inhuman actor. The nature of the act, the hideous intent and results, as well as the malicious ideology resulting in the bombings incur the deepest wrath from all of us.

That the United States Attorney General has the power to seek the death penalty and State Prosecutors do not is a direct result of thoughtful rulings by the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) of Massachusetts. Underlying the precedent are facts including historical observations, decades of effort by social justice groups and the cruel, crushing, finality of death sentences in a world otherwise devoid of clear endings.

If you really want to understand how the SJC came to their conclusion, it is essential that you do some research. A good place to start is the Massachusetts Trial Court Law Library online database, which organizes issues of law by topic. The page on the death penalty in Massachusetts provides links to several resources that are very thorough. In particular, the link to Alan Rogers' history of the death penalty from the Boston College website connects the present state of our law all the way back to activists in 1928 in a way that I wouldn't be able to here.

Earlier coverage from Boston begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Filing for Extension of Time in Boston

"Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect’s Lawyers Want More Time In Death Penalty Argument," is by Bob Salsberg of the Associated Press, via WBZ-TV.

Attorneys for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzokhar Tsarnaev are formally asking a federal judge for more time to prepare arguments as to why their client shouldn’t be subject to the death penalty.

In a brief filed Friday with the U.S. District Court in Boston, Tsarnaev’s lawyers say the current Oct. 24 deadline set by the government doesn’t allow for a “reasonable opportunity” to make their case.

And:

Federal prosecutors have said they plan to make a recommendation about whether to pursue the death penalty by the end of the month to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who will make the final decision.

Prosecutors said at a recent hearing that they believe the defense has had ample time to respond.

Earlier coverage of the Boston case begins at the link.

Additional Coverage of the Boston Pre-Trial Hearing

The Boston Globe posts, "Tsarnaev defense asks for more time to defend against death penalty recommendation," by Milton J. Valencia.

Massachusetts federal prosecutors say they will push forward with an Oct. 31 deadline to decide whether to seek the death penalty against suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, in spite of the defense team’s complaints that it is not getting enough time to prepare their arguments against the sentence.

US Attorney General Eric Holder will ultimately decide whether to pursue the death penalty against Tsarnaev, but he will base that decision in large part on input from US Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz of Massachusetts. Under the Justice Department’s death penalty case review procedures, when Massachusetts prosecutors send their recommendation to Washington, the file is also expected to include arguments from Tsarnaev’s team against the death penalty.

Lawyers from Ortiz’s office said during a federal court hearing today that they plan to make a recommendation by Oct. 31. They originally had set a deadline to hear from the defense team by August. An assistant US attorney said today that the defense had until Oct. 24 to submit its filing to them.

AP coverage is, "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Boston Bombing Suspect, Could Face Death Penalty, Attorney General Still Weighing Options," by Denise LaVoie.  It's via HuffPost.

Federal authorities plan to recommend whether to seek the death penalty against Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev by the end of next month and expect U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to decide early next year whether to pursue it, prosecutors said Monday.

But Tsarnaev's lawyers objected to the timetable and asked a judge for more time to make their case against the death penalty.

During a status conference in U.S. District Court, Tsarnaev's lawyers said they have not received key evidence from prosecutors yet – including interviews or grand jury testimony of Tsarnaev's family – and have not had enough time to submit a proposal arguing that Tsarnaev does not deserve the death penalty.

Assistant U.S. Attorney William Weinreb argued that the defense has had almost six months since the bombing. He said federal prosecutors plan to make a recommendation to Holder by Oct. 31. He will have the ultimate say on whether to seek the death penalty; his decision is expected by Jan. 31, Weinreb said.

"Accused Boston bomber will learn by January if U.S. will seek death," by Scott Malone for Reuters.

Defense attorney Judy Clarke, a death-penalty specialist, told the court she was concerned that the prosecutors planned to decide whether to seek execution before the defense had finished reviewing the evidence.

"It's pretty stunning to say they can make a decision based on what they know without any defense input," Clarke said. "They may have an erroneous story."

O'Toole also warned attorneys that he planned to review all requests to enter documents into the record under seal, which blocks them from public view.

"Before something can be filed under seal, there must be a motion to seal explaining the reason why the matter should be placed under seal ... and indicate when the matter might be unsealed," O'Toole said.

"Lawyers in Boston bombings case tangle over death penalty issues," is the Los Angeles Times report by Alana Semuels.

Federal prosecutors tangled in court Monday with defense lawyers for Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev over the government's timeline to make a decision on whether to seek the death penalty in the case. 

Both Tsarnaev’s defense attorneys and the U.S. District Attorney for Boston are required to submit information to U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. about whether the government should pursue a capital case against Tsarnaev.

Tsarnaev, 20, has pleaded not guilty to numerous charges, including using a weapon of mass destruction in the twin bombings that killed three and injured 260 at the finish line of the Boston Marathon on April 15.

At Monday’s status hearing, the defense said it needed more time to submit its argument against the death penalty. It also asked for the government to turn over interviews with Tsarnaev's family members as well as grand jury testimony, according to the Boston Herald. Defense lawyers also said that the government had redacted too much information from the documents.

Mass. Lawyers Weekly posts, "Agreeing to disagree on death in Tsarnaev," by David Frank.

Holder is expected to make his decision by Jan. 31, which likely will be announced in a written filing.

Tsarnaev did not appear in court for the proceeding. While all defendants have an absolute right to attend hearings, many waive their appearances. I don’t expect we’ll see Tsarnaev anytime soon. 

The parties return to court on Nov. 12.

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev lawyers seek govt. evidence," by Laurel J. Sweet for the Boston Herald.

Lawyers for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev yesterday asked a judge to require the government to turn over interviews with the accused terrorist’s family as well as grand jury testimony, arguing the evidence could be critical as both sides prepare to make their death penalty arguments to the Justice Department.

“The government has taken the position that, ‘Look, we know what we have and you don’t need to know about it,’ ” attorney Judy Clarke told U.S. District Court Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. “It’s of concern that the government thinks it can make a decision based on what they know without some defense input. They may have a completely erroneous story.”

Earlier coverage of the Boston Marathon Bombing case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

An Update From Boston

"Marathon bombing suspect's lawyers want more time," is the AP report.

Lawyers for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (joh-HAHR' tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) have asked a judge to order federal prosecutors to give them more time to make their case against the death penalty.

In court Monday, Tsarnaev's lawyers said they have not received key evidence from prosecutors yet and have not had enough time to submit a proposal arguing that Tsarnaev does not deserve the death penalty.

A prosecutor argued it's been almost six months since the marathon bombing, a "reasonable" amount of time for the defense to make its case. He said prosecutors plan to make their recommendation to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder by Oct. 31. Holder will have the ultimate say on whether to seek the death penalty.

An earlier AP report, filed before this morning's brief hearing was, "Death penalty protocol will be focus of Boston Marathon bomb hearing," via NECN.

Lawyers for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will ask a judge to discuss the timeline and procedure for prosecutors to decide whether to seek the death penalty.
    
A joint status report filed in court says the defense wants the court to address "the death penalty protocol" in federal court on Monday.
    
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will ultimately make the decision about whether to seek the federal death penalty, but the U.S. attorney's office in Boston will make a recommendation. Tsarnaev's attorneys also have the right to make the case against the death penalty.

Mass. Lawyers Weekly posts, "U.S. attorney’s decision on death penalty looming in Tsarnaev," by David Frank.

A Friday afternoon filing in the case of accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev indicates that U.S. Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz’s office is getting ready to make its recommendation on whether or not to seek the death penalty.

Tsarnaev has been charged with 30 crimes, 17 of which carry a maximum sentence of death. If the government seeks the death penalty, AUSA William D. Weinreb writes that 18 U.S.C. §3593(a) requires it to file a notice with the court “a reasonable time before the trial or before acceptance by the court of a plea of guilty.”

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who ultimately makes the decision on death, has established internal policies and procedures to guide the Department of Justice. To facilitate that decision, Ortiz must make a confidential submission of relevant information to him “as expeditiously as possible.”

If U.S. District Court Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. sets a deadline for the government to file a section 3593(a) notice, which Tsarnaev’s lawyers are asking him to do, then Ortiz must make the submission to Holder no fewer than 90 days before the deadline.

Weinreb adds that his office is required to give defense counsel a reasonable opportunity to provide input on the death-penalty authorization decision before that happens. But he said the defense’s request that O’Toole set deadlines for when the government must make certain internal decisions is improper.

“For the Court to decide what information the Attorney General must consider and when he must consider it in making the death-penalty authorization decision would violate the Separation of Powers doctrine,” he writes. “Whether to seek the death penalty in a given case is quintessentially a matter of prosecutorial discretion.”

Earlier coverage of the Boston Marathon Bombing case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

California Roundup

"Court overturns conviction, death penalty of Hector Ayala," is the AP report, via KGTV-TV.

A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction and death penalty of a man for three San Diego murders, saying he was denied a chance to argue the trial was tainted by racial prejudice.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ordered Hector Ayala freed unless prosecutors plan to retry him in a reasonable amount of time.

The killings occurred during a 1985 robbery. At trial, the prosecution excused all seven black and Hispanic jurors who might have served.

Ayala's counsel challenged those rejections but the judge found they were based on "race-neutral" reasons.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in Ayala v. Wong is available in Adobe .pdf format.  Related posts are in the race category index.

Batson challenges grow from the 1986 Supreme Court ruling in Batson v. Kentucky: more via Oyez. 

Additional Batson resources includes coverage of a 2011 University of Iowa College of Law symposium, Batson at 25, as well as an Equal Justice Initiative 2010 report on race and jury selection.

Also from California, "Calif. Guard's Killing Becoming Test Case," by Michael Doyle of MCT News Service.  It's via the San Diego Union-Tribune.

The 2008 killing of a prison guard in the Central Valley prison in Atwater has prompted the latest challenge to the federal death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment.

The sweeping legal challenge seems like a long shot, especially with a conservative majority controlling the U.S. Supreme Court. The challenge, however, elevates the slaying of California correctional officer Jose Rivera by two intoxicated prisoners into the realm of constitutional conflict, a place where justices often struggle.

“There’s some value to alerting the judge to these constitutional issues,” Richard C. Dieter, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said in an interview. “These broaden things, and get the court thinking about these other issues.”

And:

On Monday, defense attorneys for Joseph Cabrera Sablan asked a U.S. District Court judge to declare the federal death penalty in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Sablan and fellow inmate James Ninete Leon Guerrero are charged with first-degree murder in correctional officer Jose Rivera’s death. Sablan and Leon Guerrero have pleaded not guilty, although it’s really the potential punishment rather than the underlying crime they’re contesting.

“Persons convicted of the premeditated murders of (more than) 100 victims have received sentences less than death; contract killers with double-digit numbers of victims have received sentences less than death,” Sablan’s defense attorneys wrote. “To impose death in this case of an unpremeditated killing of a single man by two drunken inmates is arbitrary and capricious.”

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Earlier coverage from California begins at the link.

Boston Globe Polling

Today's Boston Globe reports, "In Globe poll, most favor life term for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev," by Brian MacQuarrie.  The full poll results are available in Adobe .pdf format.

By a wide margin, Boston residents favor life without parole instead of the death penalty for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev if he is convicted of the attack, a Boston Globe poll found.

The poll, conducted Sept. 5 through Sept. 12, showed that 57 percent of respondents support a life sentence for Tsarnaev, compared with 33 percent who favor the death penalty. Although capital punishment is barred in Massachusetts, Tsarnaev has been indicted on federal charges, including using weapons of mass destruction, that could bring the death penalty.

And:

Preference for life without parole extended across political leanings, although Democrats overwhelmingly supported that option, 61 to 28 percent, while Republicans narrowly backed a life sentence, 49 to 46 percent.

Life without parole was endorsed by men and women, across all education levels, and among white, black, and Hispanic respondents.

The results “don’t surprise me, frankly,” said Andrew Smith, director of the UNH Survey Center. “Massachusetts is a state that has opposed the death penalty for a long time. There’s a long history there. People are not going to change their long-held positions.”

Earlier coverage of the Boston Marathon Bombing case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the public opinion polling category index.

Federal Death Sentence for Ronell Wilson in New York

Today's New York Times reports, "For the Second Time, a Killer of Two Detectives Is Sentenced to Death," by Mosi Secret.

They sat in silent expectation on Tuesday afternoon, scores of people on the long wooden benches in the largest and most hallowed space in the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, all to witness the rare spectacle of a man, Ronell Wilson, being sentenced to death.

There were the police officers who had known the two undercover detectives killed by Mr. Wilson on Staten Island in 2003; members of Mr. Wilson’s family and the family of one of his victims; prosecutors and observers.

And then Mr. Wilson strode in, looking every bit like a man whose fate was sealed. He wore loosefitting jail clothes and cheap sneakers, eschewing the dress shirt and slacks that he wore during the five-week trial this summer, when his lawyers were arguing for his life. There would be no such arguments on Tuesday.

Earlier coverage of Ronell Wilson's case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Vermont Update In Fell Case

"3 jurors in Vt. death penalty case back in court," the AP, via the New England Cable News. 

Three members of a jury that sentenced a man to death for the killing of a Vermont supermarket worker are due back in court to answer allegations they engaged in misconduct in the 2005 federal trial of Donald Fell. 

Lawyers for Fell say the jurors either misled attorneys during the jury selection process about their backgrounds or engaged in questionable conduct while serving on the jury. A hearing has been set for Thursday at U.S. District Court in Burlington. 

Fell was sentenced to death in 2005 after being convicted of the 2000 killing of Theresa King, who was abducted when she arrived for work at a Rutland supermarket. 

Vermont does not have a death penalty, but Fell was tried, and sentenced to death, under federal law. 

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Vermont Reacts to Jacques Plea Agreement

"Plea Deal for Jacques Was the Right Call, Although a Difficult One," a Valley News editorial.

It is entirely understandable that many members of the Randolph-area community would react with outrage to the news late last week that accused murderer Michael Jacques will be allowed to plead guilty and serve a sentence of life without parole, while waiving his right to appeal.

If in fact the death penalty is ever justified, the moral depravity of the crime with which Jacques is charged — the kidnapping, rape and murder of his 12-year-old niece, Brooke Bennett, in 2008 — would surely call for its imposition in this case.

And, while it was not universal, that was the tenor of reaction staff writer Mark Davis encountered when he visited Randolph after the U.S. Justice Department announced its decision on Friday.

“I think he should get the death penalty for what he did,” Duane Litchfield told Davis, in comments that were representative. “It was quite an ordeal to put the family through. Why should he get to sit in prison? He took the rest of her life. Kind of a dirty way for him to get out of it. Yeah, it will be closure, but it isn’t really, because (the family) knows he’s sitting there, and we’re supporting him for the rest of his life. I feel they should string him up.”

Earlier coverage of the Jacques case begins at the link.

Pretrail Hearing in Michael Jacques Case in Vermont

"Judge sets date for pretrial hearing in Jacques case," by Sam Hemingway from the Burlington Free Press.

Judge William K. Sessions III has scheduled an Aug. 15 pretrial hearing in the death-penalty case of Michael Jacques, the East Randolph man charged with kidnapping and killing his 12-year-old niece, Brooke Bennett, in 2008.

The hearing, expected to address questions about how to pick an impartial jury in the high-profile case, comes 19 days before jury selection is scheduled to begin at U.S. District Court in Burlington.

Sessions has indicated that up to 5,000 Vermonters from the northern half of the state might be queried before the 12-person jury is picked.

Jury selection is expected take a month to complete, and the trial to follow is projected to last two months or more. He has pleaded not guilty and faces the death penalty if found guilty.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

From Vermont

"Prosecutors: Hearing on Fell juror conduct should be public," by Sam Hemingway of the Burlington Free Press.

Federal prosecutors say a hearing next week in the appeal of convicted killer Donald Fell should be conducted in open court, not in secret like his defense lawyers want.

At issue is whether three jurors held back information about themselves during Fell’s 2005 trial. Fell, 33, was convicted and given the death penalty for his involvement in the November 2000 drug- and alcohol-fueled kidnapping and murder of Terry King, a 53-year-old grandmother from North Clarendon. The federal prosecution was the first time in 50 years that a person was sentenced to death in Vermont.

In papers filed last week at U.S. District Court in Burlington, lawyers with the Vermont U.S. Attorney’s Office argued that the inquiry into the jurors’ behavior ought to be done in the open because it is a crucial part of an effort by Fell’s attorneys to seek a new trial or to have his sentence reduced.

“It would make little sense to require public scrutiny of criminal trials, but later permit the outcome of such trials to be vacated in secret collateral proceedings,” Assistant U.S. Attorney William Darrow and federal trial lawyer Jacobed Rodriguez-Coss wrote in a six-page memorandum.

Fell’s lawyers, in papers previously filed with the court, asked Judge William Sessions III to hold the hearing on the jurors’ conduct in secret, arguing that doing so would allow the three jurors to speak more freely about the allegations against them.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Life Sentences in Federal Death Penalty Trial of Somali Pirates

"US jury sentences Somali pirates to life," is the breaking news from AFP.

Three convicted Somali pirates avoided the death penalty Friday when a US jury sentenced them to life in prison for the high-seas murder of four Americans in the Indian Ocean.

Federal prosecutors had sought the death penalty for Ahmed Muse Salad, Abukar Osman Beyle and Shani Nurani Shiekh Abrar for the February 2011 shooting deaths aboard a 58-foot (17.7-meter) yacht.

The boat's owners Scott Adam, 70, and Jean Adam, 66, both retirees from the Los Angeles suburb of Marina del Rey, had set off from New Zealand to fulfill a lifelong dream of sailing around the world.

And:

After two days of deliberation in Norfolk, Virginia -- home to the US Navy's Atlantic fleet -- the jury of seven women and five men on Friday returned a sentence of life imprisonment, court sources said.

Salad's lawyer Michael Nachmanoff told AFP the jurors were unanimous in their decision.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Federal Plea Agreement in Pleau Case

The Providence Journal reports, "Death sentence avoided as Jason Pleau’s pleads guilty in 2010 killing of gas-station manager," by Mike Stanton.

The saga of Jason Wayne Pleau, the accused killer whose case drew a governor and the U.S. attorney general into the national debate on the death penalty, has reached a resolution that could see his life spared, in return for spending the rest of it behind bars.

In a plea agreement filed in federal court Friday, Pleau, who faced the death penalty, agreed to plead guilty to charges in connection with his fatal shooting of David D. Main, a Woonsocket gas station manager, during a bank robbery in September 2010.

Pleau agreed to accept a life sentence in prison, with no release.

In return, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a decision by federal prosecutors not to seek the death penalty.

Pleau, who is being held at the federal Donald D. Wyatt Detention Facility in Central Falls, is expected to appear in federal court July 31 to enter his plea before U.S. District Judge William E. Smith.

“Obviously, we’re all grateful that Jason Pleau isn’t facing the prospect of a death sentence,” said his lawyer, Robert B. Mann.

Pleau’s case attracted national attention when Governor Chafee, an opponent of the death penalty, refused to turn Pleau over to federal custody.

Chafee issued a statement following Friday’s announcement by federal prosecutors.

“My thoughts are with Mr. Main’s family. The case today has reached a conclusion, and Mr. Main’s family can begin the long healing process. A life sentence is the appropriate punishment for this brutal crime and respects Rhode Island’s long-standing opposition to the death penalty.”

AP coverage is, "RI man in capital punishment battle agrees to plead guilty to avoid death penalty," by Michelle R. Smith, via the Tribune.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee fought unsuccessfully to keep Pleau out of federal custody because of the threat of capital punishment. Chafee said the state had rejected the use of the death penalty and that it was an issue of state's rights. The National Governor's Association, attorneys general from seven states, the conservative Cato Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union and others filed court papers supporting his position.

But an appeals court ruled last year the state must surrender Pleau to federal officials, and the U.S. Supreme Court in January declined to take up Chafee's appeal of that ruling.

Earlier coverage of the state-federal dispute involving Rhode Island begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty index.

An Update From Boston

"Tsarnaev legal team asks to add lawyer," is by Travis Andersen for the Boston Globe.

Lawyers for accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are again seeking to have renowned death penalty lawyer David I. Bruck appointed to the defense team in the case.

Judy Clarke, another high-profile capital defense lawyer appointed to the Tsarnaev case, filed a motion to add Bruck to the team on Monday, noting that the Virginia-based lawyer has specialized in death penalty cases for more than three decades.

A judge appointed Clarke April 29 but denied a request to add Bruck, while leaving open the possibility of appointing him in the future, pending new developments, court records show.

Clarke said Tsarnaev now faces dozens of allegations for which he could be executed, while he faced only two capital offense charges in April.

And:

Attorney General Eric Holder will have the final say on whether to seek the death penalty, and a spokesman said Monday that no timetable has been set for when he will decide.

"Defense for accused Boston Marathon bomber seeks additional lawyer," is the Reuters post by Scott Malone.

The ethnic Chechen and naturalized U.S. citizen last week pleaded not guilty to all 30 counts in his first public appearance since his April 19 arrest.

His lawyers, who include top Boston public defender Miriam Conrad and death-penalty expert Judith Clarke, argued in a motion filed on Monday that the sheer scale of the case -- in which authorities reviewed thousands of images taken at the crowded race finish and interviewed witnesses in the United States and abroad -- make the help necessary.

"Counsel expect that the amount of discovery that this investigation will produce will be truly massive," attorneys for the suspect wrote. "Even were this not a potentially capital case, the magnitude of the task confronting Mr. Tsarnaev's attorneys would be daunting."

Bruck, who serves as a law professor and director of the Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse at the Washington and Lee University School of law, has specialized in death penalty defenses for more the three decades.

Earlier coverage of the Boston bombing case begins at the link.

From Vermont

"Prosecutors seek juror interviews in death penalty case," is by Brent Curtis of the Rutland Herald.  It's via the Montpelier Times Argus.

Prosecutors are asking a federal judge to order the turnover of defense interviews with jurors who sat on the death penalty case against convicted murderer Donald Fell.

Judge William Sessions, who presided over the 2006 trial in the killing of Terry King of North Clarendon, decided in May to further consider a wide range of complaints contained in Fell’s latest appeal.

Fell’s arguments, laid forth in a 350-page filing, range from ineffective counsel and prosecutorial misconduct to contentions of misconduct on the part of a number of jurors.

It’s the interviews that defense attorneys conducted with jurors that the U.S. attorney’s office is seeking to obtain in a motion filed in federal court last week.

In a seven-page filing, prosecutors say defense attorneys have ignored their requests to turn over the interviews in advance of an August hearing on the appeals.

AP coverage is, "US seeks juror interviews that are part of death penalty appeal," via the Republic.

Among the arguments attorney for Donald Fell are using as part of their effort to block his execution for the 2000 killing of a North Clarendon woman is that there was misconduct by some of the jurors.

Fell's attorneys contend there was misconduct from three of the jurors, including one who visited the crime scene on his own and another who didn't disclose she had been a victim of a crime.

The Rutland Herald reports prosecutors say they're in the dark about the circumstances that led the defense to request authorization to interview the jurors.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

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.

Continuing Coverage of Boston Bombing Case

There are new profiles of attorney Judy Clarke, recently appointed as an attorney for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

"Newsmaker: Death penalty lawyer Clarke 'humanizes' client and jury," is by Joseph Ax for ReutersLegal.

When death penalty expert Judy Clarke joined the defense team for the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, she spent months trying to establish a rapport so she could convince him to accept a plea deal that would spare him capital punishment.

Though she and his other lawyers angered Kaczynski when they sought to introduce evidence of his mental illness, he eventually pleaded guilty in 1998 and received a life sentence.

"I think she has a real gift," David Kaczynski, his brother said on Tuesday, a day after Clarke was assigned to the defense team for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. "Even if it's the smallest sliver of common ground, Judy's going to be able to find that. There's no doubt in my mind that Judy saw my brother's humanity despite the terrible things he'd done."

Tsarnaev, 19, is accused of setting off explosives April 15 near the finish line with his older brother, Tamerlan, killing 3 and injuring 264. He was arrested April 19 after a massive manhunt that left his brother dead following a police shootout.

And:

Colleagues said Clarke is known for her meticulous research into the lives of her clients to find possible mitigating factors, and that she possesses a sharp sense of humor and a folksy style that belies her intense, no-nonsense preparation.

"She humanizes the client. But more importantly, she humanizes the jury, the lawyers, the judges," said Gerald Goldstein, a defense lawyer who has known Clarke for 30 years. "Judy's brilliant at making people reconsider their values ... to reconsider our place in making life or death decisions."

The Daily Beast posts, "Judy Clarke, the Defense Lawyer Appointed to Defend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev," by Michael Daly.

The 60-year-old woman, who has been called the most low-profile high-profile lawyer of all time, will pair that insight with her formidable legal knowledge and courtroom mastery in an effort to save him from the executioner, just as she did some of the most reviled killers in recent history.

“In addition to being a brilliant lawyer in terms of knowing the law and persuading a jury, perhaps her most impressive quality is her ability to connect and understand individuals that the rest of the world despises,” says her friend and fellow defense attorney Laurie Shanks. “She is really able not only to gain their trust but to make their actions understandable to others.”

Shanks notes: “It’s easy to look at someone who’s done something really horrible and see a monster. It is very difficult to look at monsters like that and see a human, and Judy is able to do that. You look at Jared Loughner and say, ‘Oh my God, that guy’s crazy,’ look at Susan Smith, ‘How despicable!’ You look at the guy in Boston, ‘How could you kill an 8-year-old?’ To be able to look at them and see their humanity is really a very unusual ability and unique ... not that she condones or expects others to condone their actions.”

In young Tsarnaev’s case, that promises to be in some ways harder and in some easier than in other cases. His actions cannot be as easily ascribed to mental illness as with Loughner, but he was apparently following the lead of his older brother and not acting on his own initiative, as were Rudolph and Kaczynski. Clarke no doubt will note that the victim in the carjacking recalls that when Tamerlan Tsarnaev spoke of the marathon bombing, he spoke in the first person, saying, “I did that.”

Clarke will most likely seek to avoid a trial and negotiate a plea. She has quoted a fellow defense attorney as once advising her, “The first step to losing a capital case is picking a jury.”

"Most want death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev if he is convicted of Boston bombing," is by Jon Cohen for the Washington Post.  He's the director of polling for Capital Insight, the independent polling group of Washington Post Media.  There is an infographic available, also.

A large majority of Americans support the death penalty for the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing should he be convicted in federal court, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Overall, 70 percent of those surveyed say they support the death penalty for 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. While most Democrats and Republicans alike say they would support the death penalty for Tsarnaev, there are deep racial divisions on the matter, reflecting a common gap in public views of the death penalty itself.

And:

Majority support for the federal approach crosses party lines, with 80 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of independents and 72 percent of Republicans saying they back a civilian trial. However, Democrats are by far the most apt to support it “strongly.” Democrats are also the least likely to strongly support the use of the death penalty, although most of them do support it, at least somewhat.

The bigger divide on the death penalty is between whites and African Americans. While 75 percent of whites say they would back the use of the death penalty were Tsarnaev convicted, the support among African Americans barely goes past the midpoint: 52 percent of African Americans would support the death penalty, and 43 percent would oppose it.

Hispanics also are less likely than whites to support the death penalty in this instance: 62 percent would support it; 35 percent would oppose it.

The large gap between whites and blacks has probably more to do with the death penalty itself than this particular case. In a recent Washington Post Maryland poll, 63 percent of whites and only 37 percent of African Americans said they favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder.

"The Atlantic Wire posts, "Americans Support the Death Penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev — If It Gets That Far," on the polling.  It's by Philip Bump and features infographics.

Americans seem very willing to have Tsarnaev treated as a criminal, not as some exceptional circumstance warranting extreme measures. The Post/ABC poll also suggests that America is satisfied with how the prosecution of Tsarnaev has proceeded. An even larger percentage supports trying the terror suspect in federal court, as opposed to using a military tribunal. Since Tsarnaev is a citizen, a tribunal wasn't a legal option, despite calls from Sen. Lindsey Graham that he be tried in that way. Even conservatives strongly disagreed with that idea.

"Feds May Rule Out Death Penalty to Make Tsarnaev Talk," is the New York Magazine post by Margaret Hartmann.

Federal agents were reportedly able to question Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for two days before he was read his Miranda rights and stopped talking, but they still want more information from him, and might be willing to make a deal to get it. Two government sources tell CNN that talks have been underway for the past few days to have Tsarnaev continue speaking with investigators in return for prosecutors agreeing not to seek the death penalty.

The sources stressed that talks between prosecutors and Tsarnaev's lawyers are still in the very early stages, and any deal would be a long way off. It's normal for the two sides to begin communicating at this point, and a Justice Department official denied that they're working out a deal.

There are also new developments in the case, noted in two AP filings: "Police: 3 more in custody in Boston bombings," by Rodrique Ngowi; and, "Lawyer: 2 arrested anew are suspect's friends," by Michelle R. Smith and Denise Lavoie.

Earlier coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing case begins at the link.

Updated Coverage From Boston

MSNBC posts, "Sentence the Boston bomber to meaninglessness, by University of St. Thomas Law School Professor Mark Osler.  He's a former federal prosecutor.

Understandably, there are already calls for the execution of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is now charged with the bombings of the Boston Marathon. He is alleged to have planned and executed the horrific bombings with his brother, Tamerlan, who died in a subsequent shootout with police.

Tsarnaev undoubtedly deserves the most severe sentence available if he is found guilty (and it is hard to imagine another outcome). However, that sentence, for this defendant, is not execution. From everything we know about Tsarnaev, his principal fear is not death. After all, he walked the streets with a ticking time bomb strapped to his back, engaged the police in a shootout, and likely tried to kill himself as he was being captured. None of these actions are consistent with a man who bears a deep fear of death.

Rather, what someone like Tsarnaev probably fears most is meaninglessness.

Osler is a regular contributor at HuffPost.

"Will Prosecutors in the Boston Marathon Bombing Case Seek the Death Penalty?" is by Matt Vasilogambros for National Journal.

Federal officials will likely seek the death penalty for the surviving suspect of the Boston Marathon bombings, potentially making him the first terrorist to be executed since Timothy McVeigh nearly 12 years ago.

For a man who is suspected of killing three people, including an 8-year-old boy, and with plans to carry out further attacks in New York City, the death penalty only seems justified, some former prosecutors say.

This will be a textbook example of when the death penalty is used against federal terrorism suspects, said former Clinton Justice Department official Beth Wilkinson, one of Washington's most promiment attorneys and the woman who successfully argued for the execution of McVeigh for carrying out the Oklahom City bombing in 1995. 

And:

One of the biggest differences between this case and the one against McVeigh, Wilkinson said, is that it seems Tsarnaev is cooperating and talking with officials, whereas the Oklahoma City bomber exercised his right to remain silent through the entire trial. 

Not all former Justice Department officials think prosecutors should take this route. Joseph DiGenova, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan to be the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said he would try to get Tsarnaev to plead guilty and avoid execution.

“If I was a prosecutor, I would want to get a deal so that he tells us everything we need to know in exchange taking the death penalty off the table and getting a full acceptance of responsibility,” he said.

"Boston suspect's defense team gets major boost," is the AP report by Denise Lavoie.  It's via Huffington Post.

The defense team representing the Boston Marathon bombing suspect got a major boost Monday with the addition of Judy Clarke, a San Diego lawyer who has won life sentences instead of the death penalty for several high-profile clients, including the Unabomber and the gunman in the rampage that injured former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Clarke's appointment was approved Monday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler.

The judge denied, at least for now, a request from Miriam Conrad, the public defender of 19-year-old suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, to appoint a second death penalty lawyer, David Bruck, a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law.

And:

Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said the decision to put Clarke on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's defense team shows "they are going to litigate hard against the death penalty."

"They are not going to put on a jihadi defense," he said. "The client wants to live, and he wants to avoid the death penalty. They are not going to say, `I want to die, I want to join my brother.' "

The order appointing Clarke is available in Adobe .pdf format, via Politico.

Additional coverage of the appointment includes:

"Death penalty expert is appointed to Tsarnaev defense team," by Martin Finucane for the Boston Globe.

"Olympics Bomb Lawyer Chosen to Defend Suspect in Boston Bombing," by Erik Larson for Bloomberg News.  It's via the San Francisco Chronicle.

ReutersLegal posts, "Death penalty expert Clarke joins defense of Boston bomb suspect," by Terry Baynes.

Earlier coverage of the Boston Marathon boming case begins at the link.

Last Friday, Clarke gave the keynote address at the Loyola Law School Los Angeles, Fidler Institute on Criminal Justice's annual symposium.  AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch covered Clarke's speech.  The report is via ABC News.

The names of her past clients — Susan Smith, Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski and most recently, Tucson shooter Jared Loughner — run like a list of the most reviled in American criminal history. But she did not say whether she would add to that list the latest name in the news: The suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing.

Clarke was reticent throughout her keynote speech and declined to take questions from the audience. Instead, she talked about how she had been "sucked into the black hole, the vortex" of death penalty cases 18 years ago when she represented Smith, who drowned her two children.

"I got a dose of understanding human behavior and I learned what the death penalty does to us," she said. "I don't think it's a secret that I oppose the death penalty. "

She saved Smith's life and later would do the same for Kaczynski, Loughner and the Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph. All received life sentences instead of death.

Before an audience of lawyers, judges and law students at Loyola Law School's annual Fidler Institute, Clarke shared her approach in handling death penalty cases.

"The first clear way death cases are different is the clients," said Clarke, now a visiting professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law in Virginia. "Most have suffered from serious severe trauma, unbelievable trauma. We know that from brain research. Many suffer from severe cognitive development issues that affect the core of their being."

Latest Developments in Boston Marathon Bombing Case

The Associated Press posts, "Lawyers defend Boston bomb suspect amid furloughs," by Michelle R. Smith.  It's via the San Francisco Chronicle.

The lawyers defending Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are dealing with federal budget cuts that will force them to take three unpaid weeks off even as they prepare to defend one of the most complicated criminal cases in the nation.

The office of federal defender Miriam Conrad in Boston was appointed to represent Tsarnaev, who is charged with using a weapon of mass destruction to kill in the April 15 bombings. Her office must complete 15 days of furloughs between April and the end of September because of cuts of around 10 percent. Conrad has also asked that two death penalty lawyers be appointed.

Other federal defenders interviewed Wednesday said the defense could cost millions of dollars, given the amount of evidence to examine, the huge amount of federal resources being expended and the possibility that the government will pursue the death penalty.

And:

Conrad is extraordinary lawyer, said Michael Nachmanoff, a federal public defender in Virginia. But he said every conceivable law enforcement resource will be thrown at the case, while Conrad tries to manage cuts.

"Bomb Suspect Has Chance to Avoid Execution by Cooperating," is the title of extensive reporting by Erik Larson, Patricia Hurtado and Janelle Lawrence for Bloomberg Businessweek.  Here's the beginning:

The best chance for 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to avoid execution for the deadly Boston Marathon bombing may be to cooperate fully with investigators, or convince a jury he was “brainwashed” by his older brother.

U.S. authorities said Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev detonated two homemade bombs near the race’s finish line April 15, killing three people and injuring more than 200. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died after a shootout with police. Dzhokhar, captured hiding in a boat in a Watertown backyard, was charged with two capital counts, including use of a weapon of mass destruction.

His lawyers will probably blame his involvement on the “overpowering influence” of his 26-year-old brother, said Harvey Silverglate, a civil liberties and defense attorney. Tamerlan Tsarnaev “appears to have been an embittered and dangerous character, and it is well known that older siblings can often have tremendous power over younger siblings.”

"Balancing State and Federal Roles in Boston Bomber Case," is by Maggie Clark at Stateline.

Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev faces federal charges that carry the death penalty, a punishment that does not exist in Massachusetts since the state repealed it in the 1980s.

So far, no Massachusetts authorities have publicly objected to a potential death sentence, but the case does raise federalism questions, said Doug Berman, a law professor at the Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University and the editor of the blog, Sentencing Law and Policy.

There is an understanding that federal authorities should be cautious before pursuing the death penalty in a non-death penalty state, said Berman. “But it’s well established that the federal government and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are separate sovereigns and each side has the right to vindicate its interest,” he said.

Tsarnaev was charged by a federal court, but he could still face charges in state court for a number of state crimes, including the murder of MIT security officer Sean Collier, kidnapping and carjacking of a man from a convenience store in the Boston suburb of Allston, and other serious state crimes.

ReutersLegal posts, "Prosecutors face tough call on death penalty in Boston case," by Jessica Dye.

While local prosecutors will make a recommendation, and defense attorneys will weigh in, the ultimate decision will land on the desk of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and his deputies at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.

Such decisions carry political consequences, particularly in high-profile cases, legal experts said.

Michael Chertoff, former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, said the Justice Department will be cautious and "make a decision based on the appropriate factors, not on what people on the sidelines are getting on TV and urging them to do."

Earlier coverage of the case begins at the link.

Boston & Massachusetts Roundup

"Should the Boston Bomber Face Execution?" is the latest from David Protess at Huffington Post.  He's the President of the Chicago Innocence Project.

"Throw the book at him," demanded Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. "I would be shocked if it's not a death penalty case," said Michael Sullivan, a former Massachusetts U.S. attorney. "Death penalty the only justice for bomber," headlined Howie Carr's column in the Boston Herald.

Understandable sentiments in light of the carnage last week when four were killed, more than 170 wounded and a major city paralyzed by domestic terrorism. And, not surprisingly, the Justice Department charged Tsarnaev yesterday with using a weapon of mass destruction, an offense that carries a maximum penalty of death.

But is capital punishment the answer?

In many cases, even law enforcement concedes it is not. Since the federal death penalty was restored in 1988, almost half of the 454 defendants charged with death-eligible crimes were allowed to cop pleas rather than face trial and possible execution, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. For example, the feds cut a deal with Jared Loughner, the Arizona gunman who shot then-U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others. The deal will keep him behind bars for seven lifetimes. Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph will similarly live -- while never breathing free air again -- after pleading guilty to murderous rampages.

Each of these cases involved mitigating factors against a death sentence. Several factors that might similarly spare the alleged Boston bomber are his age (19), spotless criminal record and the likelihood that he was influenced heavily by his older brother, Tamerlan, who was killed in a shootout with police.

At the San Francisco Chronicle Crime blog, Bob Egelko posts, "Death penalty: States say no but feds say yes."

Eighteen states, including Massachusetts, have abolished the death penalty. But that hasn’t stopped federal prosecutors from filing capital charges in many of those states under a wide-ranging federal death penalty law, and it wouldn’t prevent them from seeking a death sentence against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the accused Boston Marathon bomber.

According to records compiled by a defense group, the Justice Department has sought the death penalty nearly 100 times since 1988 in states that don’t have their own death penalty laws. They’ve won death verdicts only about 10 percent of the time, and more than half of those sentences have been overturned on appeal.

The Boston Globe reports, "Saving suspect from death penalty will be defense focus."  It's written by Milton J. Valencia.

Even before considering the evidence in the case, defense lawyers for the accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzokhar A. Tsarnaev will have to devise a legal strategy with a clear priority — to save Tsarnaev from the death penalty, according to legal observers, who described a lengthy, complex process in federal capital cases.

“There’s no easy way to defend a case like this,” said Allison Burroughs, a lawyer in the Boston law firm Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP, and a former federal prosecutor.

Tsarnaev, 19, faces the possibility of the death sentence for two charges related to the two Marathon blasts: using a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death, and malicious destruction of property by means of an explosive resulting in death. Attorney General Eric Holder will decide whether to seek the death penalty.

"Bomb Suspect Tsarnaev Seeks Death Penalty Lawyers for Defense," is by Lindsay Fortado & Janelle Lawrence at Bloomberg News.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombing suspect, asked a court to appoint two lawyers with experience in death penalty cases to help with his defense.

Tsarnaev’s lawyer, Miriam Conrad, said in a filing in federal court in Boston that two lawyers who have defended capital prosecutions should be appointed, “given the magnitude of this case.”

Conrad cited the case against Jared Loughner, the gunman who killed six people and injured 13, including former Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was allowed to hire two attorneys with experience in death penalty matters to assist the public defender. Loughner pleaded guilty to the 2011 rampage and is serving life in prison.

There has also been legislative activity in Massachusetts in the wake of the bombings.  "Mass. lawmakers shelve death penalty bill," is the AP report by Bob Salsberg, via the San Francisco Chronicle.

State lawmakers debated but ultimately shelved a proposal to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts on Tuesday, after the deadly Boston Marathon bombings and violent manhunt led some legislators to call for bringing back capital punishment in some cases.

Massachusetts abolished the death penalty in 1984, and the state last executed someone in 1947.

"House lawmakers derail death penalty bid, send it to study," by Gary J. Remal of the Boston Herald.

Democratic House leaders today derailed a bipartisan bid to reinstate the death penalty led by a Democratic legislator who represents the hometown of the MIT cop authorities say was killed by the accused Boston marathon bombers and backed by a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.

Rep. James R. Miceli of Wilmington, where MIT Police officer Sean Collier grew up, introduced the bill this month as an amendment to the state budget before the marathon bombings. State Rep. Daniel Winslow, R-Norfolk, who is seeking the Republican nomination for Secretary of State John Kerry’s former U.S. Senate seat, said he originally drafted the model death-penalty law at the request of then-Gov. Mitt Romney when Winslow was Romney’s chief legal counsel in 2004-2005.

And:

Members of the Democratic House leadership objected to the death-penalty measure being attached to the budget and House members instead supported an amendment by Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty to study the cost of bringing back capital punishment, which Winslow said effectively killed the death-penalty legislation.

Earlier coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Reflections on Boston

ReutersLegal Posts, "Prosecutors face tough call on death penalty in Boston case."  It's by Jessica Dye.

Federal prosecutors may seek the death penalty for the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, legal experts said on Sunday, though they cautioned that much will hinge on what emerges in the weeks ahead about him and his role in the attacks.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, is in custody and in serious condition at a Boston hospital. Authorities are preparing to file charges against him in a case that has riveted national attention and that presents legal and political challenges.

Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, are suspected of setting off bombs at the crowded finish line of the marathon on Monday, killing three people and injuring 176. Tamerlan died early Friday after a shootout with police.

On television talk shows on Sunday, two Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Schumer of New York, advocated for federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty.

The decision on whether to do that or not could take weeks, experts said, as both prosecutors and defense attorneys present factors in favor of and against it.

"Just because it's a notorious case, doesn't mean they'll end up seeking the death penalty," said Peter Quijano, a criminal defense lawyer in New York City with extensive experience in capital cases.

"Boston Bombing’s Brutality No Guarantee of Death Penalty," is by Patricia Hurtado and David McLaughlin for Bloomberg News.

Federal death penalty prosecutions, unlike many state cases, require a rigorous vetting at the highest levels of the Justice Department -- a months-long process that often results in a decision to seek only a life sentence.

Any cases that include potential capital punishment crimes will be reviewed by local federal prosecutors and eventually by the U.S. attorney general and his deputies. They also hear from defense lawyers before making the final determination to seek death, said Morris Fodeman, a former federal prosecutor who persuaded a Brooklyn, New York, jury to vote to execute Ronell Wilson, a New York man convicted of killing a New York City police detective.

Additionally, all death penalty cases require a second trial, a so-called penalty phase, where jurors are asked to decide on whether a convicted defendant deserves life in prison or death, by weighing mitigating and aggravating factors.

On April 19, Boston U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz declined to say after the capture of Tsarnaev whether she would seek the death penalty, alluding to the complex process by which U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder makes the final decision.

Another factor in such a decision is often whether a defendant decides to plead guilty rather than force a trial.

There is also:

"Boston bombing suspect could face death penalty," by Kevin McCoy and Brad Heath at USA Today.

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Capture Reignites Death Penalty Debate," by Rebekah Metzler for US News & World Report.

"Boston Bomb Case Merits Death Penalty, Senators Say," by Alan Zibel for the Wall Street Journal Washington Wire.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Case Roundup - News from Colorado, Montana, U.S. Government

There is news in cases involving Colorado, Montana, and the federal death penalty.

The Denver Post reports, "Judge to decide Nathan Dunlap's execution date in May," by John Ingold.

Nathan Dunlap, who murdered four people in an Aurora Chuck E. Cheese restaurant 20 years ago, could be executed in August, after a judge on Friday set a hearing to determine a new reckoning date for the killer.

Judge William Sylvester scheduled a hearing for May 1 to designate a week during which Dunlap will be executed. Under state law, the final date of the execution is selected by the head of the Department of Corrections.

The law says judges must set the execution week between 91 and 126 days out from the day of the hearing at which they set it. If Sylvester were to designate a week at the May 1 hearing, that means Dunlap could be executed some time between July 31 and Sept. 3.

Sylvester's order came after a federal judge's decision earlier this week to lift a stay of execution he had imposed while Dunlap appealed his death sentence in federal court. That appeal ended in February, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.

"Montana prosecutors won't seek death penalty in killing of Illinois man kidnapped from hotel," is the AP report filed by Matthew Brown.  It's via the Republic.

Montana prosecutors will not seek the death penalty against the defendant charged with killing an Illinois man who was kidnapped from a Billings hotel, Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito said Monday.

Simon Jacobson, 28, is charged with deliberate homicide and other crimes in the January death of Dejuan Laster, 29.

Authorities allege that Jacobson and an accomplice posed as FBI agents to kidnap Laster and his girlfriend from the Extended Stay America hotel during a robbery. Jacobson later admitted to shooting Laster and hiding his body in a culvert in a rural area of Yellowstone County, investigators said.

Jacobson was being held on $1 million bail after pleading not guilty.

Ronald Smith and William Jay Gollehon are the only two inmates currently awaiting execution in Montana.

In comparing Jacobson's alleged actions against those other cases, Twito said Jacobson had only one aggravating factor — the kidnapping — that would merit a death sentence under Montana law, versus multiple aggravating factors in the others.

"It was the assessment of this office that a sentence of death would not likely be imposed," Twito said.

The Billings Gazette reports, "Twito: No death penalty in Laster murder case," by Greg Tuttle.

Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito announced Monday that he will not seek the death penalty for the Billings man accused of kidnapping and killing Dejuan Laster.

And:

Under state law, the death penalty can be sought only under certain circumstances, including cases that involve aggravating factors such as multiple victims or aggravated kidnapping.

The aggravating kidnapping charge against Jacobson sparked Twito's review of whether his office should seek the most severe punishment.

Twito said Monday he had consulted with Laster's family about his decision. He said they had been "very open" during his review.

"I believe that they trust the decision that's been made here today," Twito said when asked about the family's response to his decision.

Twito said he also reviewed the cases of the only two inmates currently on Montana's death row, Ronald Smith and William Gollehan. Both the men had multiple aggravating factors, Twito said.

Smith was convicted and sentenced to die for killing two men in 1982. Gollehon received the death sentence for his role in the death of five inmates during a 1991 riot at Montana State Prison. 

It became clear, Twito said, "that a sentence of death would not be imposed (against Jacobson) during the sentencing phase."

In a potential federal death penalty case, the New York Post reports, "US Justice Department will not see death penalty for Colombo crime family consigliere."  It's by Mitchel Maddux.

The US Justice Department won't seek the death penalty for a Colombo crime family consigliere accused of sanctioning the 1997 murder of NYPD Officer Officer Ralph Dols.

US Attorney General Eric Holder issued the course-reversing directive -- made public today -- without citing a rationale for his shift.

Now Colombo wiseguy Joel "Joe Waverly" Cacace, 72, will face a maximum penalty of life in prison if he's convicted at his upcoming mob murder trial in Brooklyn federal court.

Cacace is already serving a 20-year sentence for other mob crimes that has him scheduled to be released in June 2020, according to prison records.

Back in Feb. 2011, Holder authorized Brooklyn prosecutors to pursue the death penalty for Cacace, who's charged with ordering the carefully planned Aug. 25, 1997 hit on the off-duty officer in Brooklyn.

"Attorney General Eric Holder: no death penalty in mob murder trial," is the New York Daily News report by John Marzulli.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder ordered prosecutors in Brooklyn to withdraw its intention for the ultimate punishment against former acting boss Joel (Joe Waverly) Cacace, who is still awaiting trial in the case.

Last year two of Cacace’s underlings, Thomas (Tommy Shots) Gioeli and alleged shooter Dino Saracino, were cleared by a Brooklyn jury of the off-duty cop’s killing. Prosecutors contend that Cacace marked the cop for death because he had married the mobster’s ex-wife, Kim Kennaugh.

Earlier coverage of the Dunlap case in Colorado begins at the links.  The federal death penalty category index has more on federal prosecutions.

Puerto Rican Jury Rejects Another Federal Death Sentence

"Puerto Rican jury rejects death sentence in police killing," is the Reuters post, via the Chicago Tribune.

A Jamaican man was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of an undercover policeman in Puerto Rico after a jury rejected federal prosecutors' request to impose a death sentence.

Puerto Rico has not executed anyone since 1927, and it abolished the death penalty under the constitution it enacted in 1952. But because it is a U.S. territory, the death penalty can still be applied in capital cases brought under federal law.

On Thursday night, jurors failed to reach the unanimous verdict required to impose the death sentence, sparing the life of Lashaun Casey, 32. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of undercover police officer Jesus Lizardi during a 2005 drug deal in the coastal town of Luquillo. Local media said four jurors voted against capital punishment.

"Puerto Rico federal jury rejects death penalty for a sixth time," is the AP report, via the Montreal Gazette.

A jury in Puerto Rico has rejected the death penalty for a New York man convicted of carjacking and then killing an undercover police officer in the U.S. territory.

It is the sixth time that a Puerto Rico jury has rejected a federal death penalty case. Jurors said late Thursday that they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

And:

The U.S. territory's constitution prohibits the death penalty, but Casey was being tried in federal court.

The local government has requested that federal prosecutors stop seeking the death penalty in Puerto Rico.

Earlier coverage from Puerto Rico begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Resentencing in Federal Death Penalty Case

"Death Penalty Sentence Overturned," is the title of the news release, via Business Wire.  It's datelined Chicago.

Almost 16 years after being sentenced to death following his conviction in a federal criminal case, Darryl Johnson was resentenced on Tuesday to life imprisonment.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo remarked that the record of Johnson’s behavior over the past 16 years of incarceration shows that he is a changed man since his conviction and suggested the mandatory life sentence he was required to impose might well be too severe in light of Mr. Johnson’s demonstrated post-offense rehabilitation.

In 1997, Johnson was convicted of having been part of a large drug distribution conspiracy and having directed the murder of two gang members who he believed were cooperating with the government’s investigation of the Gangster Disciples street gang. Even though he was not the shooter, Johnson was sentenced to death for his involvement in those murders.

In December 2010, U.S. District Court Judge William Hibbler ruled that testimony at Johnson’s 1997 sentencing hearing from Bureau of Prisons Warden John Vanyur about Johnson’s supposed “future dangerousness” was false and misleading. Judge Hibbler concluded that had Warden Vanyur’s inaccurate testimony been corrected at the trial, Johnson would likely not have received the death penalty. Judge Hibbler vacated the death sentences and ordered a new sentencing for Johnson.

In fact, Johnson has been a model prisoner for the past 16 years. In an affidavit submitted by the government in response to a request by Judge Hibbler, a Bureau of Prisons Death Row Case Manager said that during his years in prison, Johnson has proven to be a well-adjusted, quiet and civil individual who has not caused problems for the prison staff. He has also maintained a close and loving relationship with his family throughout.

Terry Campbell, a partner at Cotsirilos, Tighe, Streicker, Poulos & Campbell who has represented Darryl Johnson since 1998, said, “In light of his record of conduct over the past 16 years, the government made the proper decision to not seek to re-impose the death penalty against Darryl Johnson, and I commend them for that decision. Darryl’s case is a lesson in how dangerous and unwise it is to allow juries to make irreversible, life-and-death decisions based on highly speculative guesswork – and in this case, entirely inaccurate guesswork – about what someone might do in the future.”

Felated posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

An Update From Rhode Island

AP reports, "Accused killer Pleau asks federal court to take death penalty off table," by Pamela Reinsel Cotter.  It's via the Providence Journal.

A Rhode Island man who faces a death sentence if he's convicted of killing a Woonsocket gas station manager is set to ask a federal judge to take the death penalty off the table.

Jason Pleau is charged with killing David Main in 2010. Prosecutors say Main was headed to make his station's daily bank deposit when Pleau approached him with a gun, told Main to give him the money and then fired several times as Main ran for the bank's door.

Pleau's lawyers are expected to make several arguments Wednesday before U.S. District Judge William Smith, including that the death penalty is unconstitutional.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee tried to keep Pleau out of federal custody, citing the state's rejection of capital punishment, but the U.S. Supreme Court turned down his appeal.

Earlier coverage of Jason Pleau's case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Puerto Rico Jury Rejects Federal Death Sentence for Fifth Time

Reuters posts, "Jury declines to impose death penalty in Puerto Rico murders."

A man convicted of killing eight people in a crowded bar in Puerto Rico was spared the death penalty and sentenced to life in prison on Saturday in only the fifth case in which prosecutors have sought capital punishment on the island.

The jury failed to reach a unanimous decision on a death sentence for Alexis Candelario Santana, 41, who was convicted by the same panel earlier this month for the so-called La Tombola killings of October 2009.

The death penalty is banned under Puerto Rico's constitution but applicable in certain federal cases. The island is U.S. territory and Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens.

And:

His case marked the fifth time federal prosecutors sought and failed to get the death penalty imposed in Puerto Rico.

"I express my most profound respect to the jury for the decision it has taken. With it they have sustained the conviction of the Puerto Rican people that capital punishment should not be applied under any circumstances," Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla said in a statement.

The governor said he has asked U.S. Attorney Eric Holder not to certify any other federal case in Puerto Rico for the death penalty.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.

Federal Death Sentence to Be Sought in Tennessee

The Memphis Commercial Appeal posts, "Feds to seek death penalty in murder of Henning postal workers," this afternoon.  It's written by Lawrence Buser.

Federal prosecutors said Friday they will seek the death penalty in the case against a former corrections worker charged with killing two postal workers in 2010 in Henning, Tenn.

U.S. Atty. Ed Stanton told U.S. Dist. Judge Jon McCalla in a hearing that prosecutors will ask a jury for the death penalty for defendant Chastain Montgomery if he is convicted as charged of killing the federal employees.

The legal and factual basis for seeking the death penalty is expected to be filed next week.

This would be the first federal death penalty case here in 10 years.

Montgomery, 48, whose attorneys are exploring a mental defense, told authorities he shot postal clerk Paula Robinson and that his son, Chastain Montgomery Jr., shot and killed letter carrier Judy Spray.

"Chastain Montgomery Faces Death Penalty In Alleged Murder Of 2 Tennessee Postal Workers," is the AP report by Adrian Sainz.  It's via Huffington Post.

A federal prosecutor told a judge Friday that he will pursue the death penalty against a former prison guard charged with killing two Tennessee postal workers.

The defendant, 48-year-old Chastain Montgomery, lowered his head but showed no other reaction when U.S. Attorney Edward Stanton announced the decision during a hearing before U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla.

Executions of federal inmates are rare. Only three men have been executed under the federal death penalty since 1963 – Juan Raul Garza and Timothy McVeigh in June 2001 and Louis Jones Jr. in March 2003.

Federal prosecutors in West Tennessee last sought the death penalty in a 2009 carjacking-murder trial, the U.S. attorney's office said. Shannon Shields was convicted and ended up receiving life in prison that case.

Related posts are in the federal death penalty index.

New York Federal Death Penalty Case May Proceed

"Judge Finds Wilson Not Mentally Retarded; Clears Way for Death Penalty Trial," is the New York Law Journal report by Mark Hamblett.

Ronnell Wilson is not mentally retarded and can once again appear before a jury that will decide whether he should be executed for the murder of two undercover police officers on Staten Island in 2003, a federal judge ruled this morning.

Eastern District Judge Nicholas Garaufis rejected claims by lawyers for Wilson that he was mildly retarded and should be spared capital punishment pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

Wilson was convicted in 2006 by a jury in Brooklyn federal court of the 2003 murder of NYPD Detectives James Nemorin and Rodney Andrews. The jury went on to vote that he be put to death and Garaufis imposed the penalty in 2007.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the capital punishment verdict on constitutional grounds and remanded to Garaufis for a retrial on the penalty phase.

On remand, Wilson requested a pretrial hearing on whether he was mentally retarded and thus ineligible for a death sentence under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Federal Death Penalty Act.

Garaufis held a nine-day hearing in December 2012 under Atkins, where the Supreme Court held that the execution of mentally retarded individuals was cruel and unusual punishment. At the hearing, believed to be the first of its kind in federal court in New York, dueling experts gave contrary opinions on Wilson's intellectual skills and abilities (NYLJ, Dec. 6, 2012).

This morning, Garaufis said, "Wilson has not satisfied the burden of proving that he more likely than not suffers from significantly subaverage intellectual functioning."

Yesterday, the case garnered media attention for another reason.  The New York Times reported, "Impregnated by Prisoner, Guard Now Faces Charges," by Mosi Secret.

He was one of the most notorious criminals in New York’s recent history, whose execution-style murder of two undercover police officers led a jury to issue the first federal death sentence in the city in more than a half century.

She was a lonely correction officer, assigned to guard the cell block at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where he was being held.

Inside the federal jail, Ronell Wilson, the convicted killer, and Nancy Gonzalez, his nighttime guard, would talk for hours, according to other inmates. They would disappear together for minutes at a time, behind closed doors. Several times, they were seen kissing, confirming suspicions of an illicit romance.

Ms. Gonzalez later admitted that the two had sex repeatedly, with the goal of having a child together. She was aware, she said, of the many possible complications, from the prospect of facing jail herself to the difficulty of telling her child the truth about his father. She explained her motivations to another inmate: “Why not give him a child, as far as giving him some kind of hope?”

On Tuesday, Ms. Gonzalez, 29, displaying the full contours of a pregnancy now in its eighth month, was arraigned in federal court on charges of sexual abuse of a person in custody, because an inmate cannot legally consent to sex. The charge carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. She stood before the judge in a black overcoat and sweat pants, softly answering procedural questions while dabbing her eyes with a tissue.

The press surged around Ms. Gonzalez the instant she stepped out of the courthouse, and she put her head on the shoulder of her lawyer, Anthony L. Ricco. “She’s had a very tragic life and as this case proceeds, you’ll learn more about it and how these affected her judgment,” Mr. Ricco said. He added, “People find love in the strangest places.”

"Authorities: Guard Had Sex With Inmate Facing Death Penalty," by Sean Gardiner and Carrie Melago for the Wall Street Journal.

A female corrections officer was charged Tuesday with having sex with an inmate facing the death penalty for the 2003 murders of two New York Police Department officers, authorities said.

According to a federal complaint, Nancy Gonzalez is eight months pregnant following a relationship with Ronell Wilson, who was sentenced to death in the homicides of undercover detectives Rodney Andrews and James Nemorin. She faces charges of unlawful sexual abuse and is awaiting arraignment in Brooklyn federal court Tuesday.

Gonzalez was captured on video repeatedly meeting with Wilson in a vacant room inside the Metropolitan Detention Center, and she disclosed her pregnancy to jail officials in June 2012.

Earlier coverage of Ronell Broom's case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the federal death penalty category index.