Month: August 2015

U.S. ‘supermax’ prison: ‘Alcatraz of the Rockies’ is seen as ‘inhuman and degrading’

U.S prosecutors want Ali Charaf Damache in the worst way.

An Irish resident originally from Algiers, Damache, 50, is accused of using online chat rooms to recruit American women into a would-be terrorist cell operating in this country and Europe.

One man and two women, including Damache’s wife, have already been convicted in U.S. courts of providing material support to terrorists. And Damache was captured by Irish authorities in 2010 in Dublin on a separate charge of making a telephone death threat and held without bail.

But despite requests from U.S. prosecutors to have him extradited to this country for trial in Philadelphia, the High Court of Ireland has refused.

It’s not because they want to prosecute him themselves or believe he is innocent. Rather, the Irish court ruled that Damache, if sent to the United States, would probably be locked up in the federal “supermax” prison. And to the court, that amounted to “cruel and unusual” punishment.

The court’s refusal to extradite Damache highlights the conflicting perspectives on incarceration between the U.S. and Europe. Some European nations see the U.S. prison system as a barbaric anomaly in a country that has often insisted on the protection of human rights around the world.

Even a terrorism convict, the Irish High Court said, should not be subjected to the harsh conditions at the supermax facility in Florence, Colo., with its 24-hour solitary confinement, no family visits and lack of access to the media.

Such a prison, the Irish court said, “amounts to a breach of the constitutional requirement to protect persons from inhuman and degrading treatment and to respect the dignity of the human being.”

So on May 21, High Court Justice Aileen Donnelly set Damache free, after he had served his time on the lesser death-threat conviction and faced no additional charges in Ireland.

Opened in 1994, the Colorado supermax prison is the toughest and most controversial correctional facility in the U.S. federal system.

It is dubbed the “Alcatraz of the Rockies,” and has housed some of the nation’s most notorious prisoners, including Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 World Trade Center bomber. No one has ever escaped.

Food is delivered through a slit in the cell door. Family visits are banned, conversations with others are restricted, and rarely, if ever, do inmates glimpse a tree or a bird through a window. They spend days and nights alone, their feet on concrete, their thoughts to themselves.

It’s considered so harsh that in recent years, defense lawyers have increasingly used the specter of the prison fortress to persuade jurors to vote against the death penalty and instead send their clients to supermax. They argue, in effect, that time there would be worse than capital punishment.

In the 2006 capital murder trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the self-described “20th hijacker” in the Sept. 11 attacks, prison expert James E. Aiken testified that inmates at supermax “rot” away. Moussaoui, he predicted, “will deteriorate.” The jury agreed and sentenced Moussaoui to life without parole at supermax.

This May in Boston, defense expert Mark Bezy testified that Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, if spared the death penalty and sent to supermax, would be limited to two 15-minute phone calls with his family each month, and his mail would be screened.

For the victims and their families, he would be forgotten, Bezy testified, calling supermax “a mechanism to cut off an inmate’s communications with the outside world.”

The jury sentenced Tsarnaev to death anyway. Though he was initially transferred to supermax, he will eventually be moved to federal death row in Terre Haute, Ind.

The issue of solitary confinement has been raised in other formats too. President Obama, who last month became the first sitting president to tour a federal prison, wondered whether solitary confinement “makes sense.” Last month, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said locking someone away all day and night “exacts a terrible price.”

In the Damache extradition effort, U.S. officials argued there was no certainty he would end up in supermax, and they denied allegations of mistreatment. But they said harsh conditions are necessary to ensure that convicts do not continue to run criminal operations from inside prison.

Kenneth Fulton, unit manager at the prison, offered a rare glimpse of supermax when he told the Irish court in legal documents that the prison houses less than one-quarter of 1% of all the federal inmates in the U.S.

Christopher Synsvoll, supervisory attorney at the penitentiary, said that as of August 2014, 407 inmates were kept there — out of the total 207,504 in the federal system.

Jennifer A. Williams, lead assistant U.S. attorney in Philadelphia in the Damache extradition effort, is coordinating with Justice Department officials in Washington to challenge the Irish ruling. “We are exploring the possibility of an appeal,” said spokeswoman Patricia Hartman.

In her 333-page decision, the Irish justice said there “is compelling evidence” the Colorado prison is inhumane, citing affidavits from human rights groups and other records.

“I am satisfied,” Donnelly said, “that prolonged exposure to involuntary solitary confinement exacts a significant physiological toll, is damaging to the integrity of the mind and personality, and is damaging to the bodily integrity of the person.”

She further noted that Damache already had completed a three-year prison sentence in 2013 in Dublin for the separate Irish charge. He was held until the U.S. extradition request was adjudicated.

Damache was indicted in Philadelphia in 2011 along with the three others on charges of plotting to assassinate a Swedish cartoonist who depicted the prophet Muhammad as a dog.

The others all pleaded guilty and were sentenced last year. Mohammad Hassan Khalid, a Pakistani native, was 15 years old and living in Maryland when he was recruited into Damache’s plot. He was sentenced to five years in prison. Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, whom Damache married, was given eight years; and Colleen R. LaRose, dubbed “Jihad Jane” in the media, received 10 years.

At her sentencing, LaRose still spoke highly of the thin, bearded Damache. “I had so much respect for him,” she told the court. “He was so brave.”

As head of the cell, Damache allegedly recruited others online to wage jihad and created separate teams to plan, research, recruit and finance terrorist operations.

Damache apparently believed that American women would draw less attention from security officials. The indictment said he emailed LaRose of his desire to die a martyr’s death, writing that “i tried twice but I wasn’t successful…[but]…I will…try until Allah will make it easy for me.”

Upon his release from jail in Dublin in May, his tone was strikingly different.

“I always had faith in the Irish legal system,” he said in a statement issued by his lawyers. “After more than five years in jail, I am looking forward to moving on with my life here.”

USA: Here’s what presidential candidates’ websites say about criminal justice reform

Criminal justice reform is the 1 issue that just about everyone seems to agree on right now. There are certainly disagreements over the details, but from the Koch Brothers to ThinkProgress, from Rand Paul to Bernie Sanders, from Newt Gingrich to Al Sharpton, from the Heritage Foundation to Black Lives Matter, nearly everyone agrees at least in principle that the system needs to be reformed.
Oddly though, criminal justice is all but absent on the websites most of the major contenders for the 2016 election. I just reviewed the sites for all of the announced candidates. (I know, I’m a glutton for punishment.) The 1st thing that struck me odd is just how little discussion there is of any issue on the candidates’ sites. Everyone has a bio, links to donate, links to volunteer, and a schedule. Some sites list the candidate’s major pieces of legislation and accomplishments in office, which does at least give some indication of what issues are important and where they stand on those issues. But there’s very little in the way of specific policy proposals, priorities, and positions. Most seem to be running on their personalities.
But even within the relatively light coverage of actual issues, criminal justice lags far behind. Only a handful of candidates address it at all. On the GOP side, there’s much discussion of ISIS, Iran, Israel, and of course Obama. Among the Democrats, there’s language about getting money out of politics (good luck!), income inequality, and health care. But for all the talk lately of policing, prisons, marijuana legalization, and so on, these issues still haven’t penetrated presidential politics. Basically there’s Martin O’Malley and Rand Paul, and then there’s everyone else.
This isn’t a review of the candidates’ records or a critique of their positions on these issues (although I’ll do some of that). It’s more of an evaluation of how (and if) they address criminal justice on their campaign sites. So here we go.
The Gold Stars:
By far and away, the most thorough, thoughtful, and detailed analysis of criminal justice issues is on the website of Martin O’Malley. “Criminal Justice Reform” is the 1st item listed under O’Malley’s “Issues” page. On the criminal justice page itself, O’Malley lays out several core principles, with key policies he’d push for each.
Under “Build Trust in Law Enforcement,” O’Malley proposes expanding and mandating data reporting from police agencies for “police-involved shootings, custodial deaths, discourtesy complaints, and use of excessive force.” The site adds that, “This data should be centralized in a universal database and made publicly available, allowing communities to observe trends and develop policy responses when necessary.”
O’Malley also proposes a national use of force standard, which he’ll then try to require each state to adapt. He proposes using the incentive of federal grants to encourage a variety of programs aimed at curbing common problems in policing, including, “undergoing racial bias training and crisis de-escalation training; establishing internal accountability measures to track and review civilian complaints and address officer misconduct; and creating and empowering civilian review boards to independently monitor and audit policing cases.” He also promises to work with law enforcement groups, civil liberties advocates, and technology experts to come up with national standards for the use of police body cameras.
Additionally, O’Malley wants to reform asset forfeiture laws to put an emphasis on public safety (as opposed to providing revenue for police agencies). He promises to encourage states to pass laws requiring independent investigations of police shootings, and most interestingly, he proposes to strengthen the Justice Department’s civil rights division by reducing the standard required for them to investigate abuses.
O’Malley’s next principle is called “Increase Fairness in Sentencing.” Here, he proposes eliminating the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity entirely, reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule II drug, eliminating mandatory minimums for low-level drug offenders, and giving judges and prosecutors more discretion on sentencing for more serious crimes. He also promises to push for abolishing the federal death penalty.
O’Malley then offers a number of proposals to reduce recidivism and promote successful reentry for former prisoners, including job training programs, and suggests reauthorizing and expanding the 2008 Second Chance Act, which provides funding for “housing and benefits, substance abuse treatment, mentoring, education, and job training” for recently released prisoners. He wants to re-fund Pell Grants for inmates (as the Obama administration recently did), dramatically reduce solitary confinement, and ban solitary for juveniles.
Up next, O’Malley looks at restoring the rights of former prisoners. He proposes a federal “fair chance” policy that would prohibit the federal government and its contractors from denying employment based solely on an applicant’s prior criminal record. He suggests permanent seals or expungement of juvenile records, restoring voting rights to felons who have served their sentences, and ending the federal ban on public assistance programs for people with drug records. He also promises to face out private prisons at the federal level.
Under the heading “Reinvest to Ensure Justice,” O’Malley proposes programs to invest in drug treatment, mental health, and provide better training for law enforcement to deal with people in crisis. He offers policies to address the school-to-prison pipeline, the shortage of public defenders, immigration detention centers, and reforming the troubled Custom and Border Patrol.
Lastly, O’Malley outlines what you might call a holistic approach to reform by including several policies that he believes will improve income inequality, like raising the minimum wage, strengthening the power of unions, student loan forgiveness, child care, and immigration reform.
Whatever you think of these policies – I agree with many; I have some problems with others – it’s clear that O’Malley has both given a lot of thought to criminal justice reform and plans to make the issue a key part of his campaign. It almost reads like a wish list of policies reform groups have been advocating for years. The section on policing in particular shows that O’Malley has followed the national debate closely, and has a deep and nuanced understanding of the issues at stake.
If anything, O’Malley’s policies may be a bit too ambitious. Most criminal justice policy is made at the state and local level. O’Malley could do a lot to change how federal laws are enforced, but with the states, he’ll be restricted mostly to encouraging best practices or trying to incentivize reform by offering or threatening to withhold federal money. There’s also the matter of how O’Malley would get these policies passed. If he plans to promote policies that would strengthen public service unions, for example, he’ll also be giving more power to the already-powerful police unions, nearly all of which will almost certainly oppose nearly every policing reform on O’Malley’s website. I’d also like to see O’Malley’s position on Byrne Grants, federally-funded multi-jurisdictional anti-drug and anti-gang task forces (which have a long history of problems) and police militarization.
And finally, O’Malley took a lot of criticism earlier this year for some the policies he implemented as mayor of Baltimore, including a policy of mass arrests that critics say created a lot of the same problems O’Malley addresses on his campaign website. It would be helpful to include a section in which he explains those policies, whether or not he still thinks they were good ideas, if he’d encourage other mayors to adopt similar policies, and how those policies jibe with his larger themes of fairness, second chances, redemption, and the destructiveness of a criminal record.
But given just how far out in front of the other candidates O’Malley is, these are minor quibbles. O’Malley demonstrates an understanding and appreciation of these issues on a level like no other candidate save perhaps for Rand Paul. Agree or disagree, he has certainly opened the discussion.
Rand Paul
Paul has disappointed some of his libertarian supporters of late with a rightward lurch on issues from Iran to immigration to putting a high priority on defunding Planned Parenthood. Still, no other candidate from the two major parties can match his legislative record on criminal justice reform. As I’ve pointed out here before, Paul’s interest in these issues seems genuine, not opportunistic. Yes, Paul has taken some criticism for his high-profile visits to black colleges, a few of which resulted in some awkward moments. But Paul also made the case for restoring the voting rights of nonviolent felons at an Iowa GOP convention. Telling a crowd of conservative, overwhelmingly white Republicans in the 1st caucus state that we need to restore voting rights to a population of disproportionately black people drug offenders who are likely to vote Democratic isn’t political opportunism, it’s leadership.
On his website, Paul briefly explains why criminal justice reform has become a priority for him, noting the lessons he learned after trips to Ferguson, Detroit, Atlanta, and Chicago. He doesn’t get into specific policies he’d push as president, but he does list the bills he has already sponsored. Those include: –The REDEEM Act: A law aimed at helping nonviolent offenders (particularly juveniles) expunge their criminal records. It includes incentives for states to do the same.
–Justice Safety Valve Act: A law that would give judges more discretion over sentencing, reducing the effect of mandatory minimums.
–Civil Rights Voting Restoration Act: Would restore federal voting rights to all nonviolent offenders. The bill would also withhold prison fund to states that don’t do the same.
–RESET Act: Makes possession of small amounts of illicit drugs a misdemeanor, instead of a felony. It also eliminates the crack/powder cocaine disparity.
–FAIR Act: A bill to reform federal asset forfeiture. It would require that federal prosecutors show by “clear and convincing evidence” that the property was tied to a crime. It would also put forfeiture proceeds into the Treasury’s general fund and eliminate the DOJ’s asset forfeiture fund. It would eliminate the ability of police agencies in states that have passed forfeiture restrictions to get around those laws by partnering with federal law enforcement.
Paul hasn’t just talked about reform, he has sponsored legislation that would actually achieve it. Though his campaign site is less thorough and comprehensive than O’Malley’s, his record has already established his bonafides on these issues. It’s just too bad that he’s so quick to exploit a high-profile, admittedly awful crime to grandstand on immigration. That sort of demagoguing by politicians are how we got so many bad laws and harsh sentences in the first place.
The Also-Rans
Jim Webb
Jim Webb has been talking about criminal justice reform since his days in the Senate. In that he actually proposed reform legislation while he was a senator, Webb has also done more “walking the walk” than any candidate but Paul. So it’s not surprising that the issue is 1 of the 5 highlighted on Webb’s campaign site. What is surprising is that it only gets a paragraph, and that paragraph contains no policy proposals and no positions on reform bills now pending in Congress. Webb basically just makes a broad, non-specific argument that things are bad and need to be changed. That’s unfortunate, because he has been much more thoughtful and interesting about these issues in the past.
It’s clear that Webb gets it. But as he writes in the 1st line of his one paragraph, “This is not a political issue; it is a leadership issue.” That’s quite true. So lead. Tell us what needs to be changed, and how you’d change it.
Rick Perry
Perry makes no mention of criminal justice on his “Issues” page, nor does he discuss what he’d do as president. But he does talk about what he’s done in this area in his “Record” section. And despite Perry’s ugly grandstanding on the death penalty in the 2012 primaries, he does have some accomplishments to tout. Perry helped implement drug courts in Texas for 1st time offenders, an imperfect approach that is nonetheless better than incarceration. He also notes that the policy was about treating addiction as a disease, not as a crime – at least for 1st-timers. (Of course, the vast majority of people who use illicit drugs aren’t addicted and never get that way.) Perry also boasts about closing prisons in Texas without opening new ones. The very fact that a GOP primary candidate would find this something worth bragging about is a good indication of how much the debate has shifted.
Hillary Clinton
Despite the splash she made in her speech on criminal justice a few months ago, the issue doesn’t get prominent placement on her campaign site. Clinton’s policy proposals are roughly divided into what she calls “the 4 Fights.” Criminal justice is unintuitively lumped into the “Strengthening America’s Families” fight, and shows up at the very bottom of that page, under the heading “A balanced criminal justice system.” It’s about 500 words long.
Clinton hits some buzzwords – Ferguson, Charleston, Baltimore, mass incarceration – but there are few specific proposals. It’s more about vague generalizations. For example: “We will listen to law enforcement leaders and work with communities to prevent crime, rather than measuring success just by the number of arrests or convictions.”
Clinton is the only candidate whose campaign site addresses police militarization, although this too is vague.
We will ensure that federal funds for state and local law enforcement are used to bolster best practices, rather than to buy weapons of war that have no place on our streets.
The story is the same in the 2 paragraphs about drug addiction.
We must ensure that everyone understands that prescription drugs can be addictive and a gateway to other drugs. We must also give young people opportunities to pursue education, good jobs, and a future that does not need to be dulled or muted by the use of substances …
So she’s going to prevent young people from using drugs by giving the opportunities, good jobs, and a future. Well okay then. It’s too bad no one else thought of that. This is as close as she gets to a specific policy on drug treatment . . .
Yet, too many people who are addicted to prescription drugs, opiates, or other substances have no access to effective substance abuse treatment programs. We must work to ensure that everyone has access to these programs.
And it isn’t really all that close. How will we do that? And who is we?
The only specific policy Clinton endorses on her site are body cameras for police. Like O’Malley, Clinton doesn’t try to explain or atone for her own support for disastrous criminal justice policies over the years. Instead, we get vague platitudes.
Still, the mere fact that she’s emphasizing treatment over incarceration is, again, an illustration of how the debate has moved. Clinton’s site doesn’t mention sentencing, the death penalty, or a host of other issues. Yet paltry as it is, it’s still in the top tier.
Bernie Sanders
Sanders’s “Issues” page makes no mention of criminal justice at all. For the candidate widely described as a socialist, and who is probably well to the left of anyone else in the field (at least among the 2 major parties), discussion of criminal justice is surprisingly hard to find. I finally did a Google search for “incarceration” on the URL for Sanders’s site and found a a blog post about a speech he gave in Des Moines and a video and the transcript of a speech he gave to the National Urban League. The latter includes some discussion of police militarization, racial bias, incarceration, and root causes of crime. It also includes some vague policy positions – support for body cameras, “moving away” from police militarization, opposition to private prisons, investing in community policing. But it’s still pretty vague, and you have to go through some effort to find it. Sanders also tends to talk about incarceration by lamenting how few bankers and Wall Street traders are in prison, which is more about economic populism than about reforming the courts, cops, and prisons.
It all has the whiff of a candidate who was thrust into this discussion, rather than a candidate who took it up willingly.
Whisperers of Reform
Jeb Bush
Jeb Bush’s website doesn’t list criminal justice reform anywhere in its main sets of menus. The site doesn’t have an “Issues” section at all. After some poking around, I did find a speech Bush recently gave to the National Urban League. That speech included the following paragraph in which Bush does at least make some mention of reform:
“We didn’t lose sight of the ones who had missed their chance at a better life, or maybe even lost their way and landed in jail. In Florida, we didn’t want to fill prisons with non-violent offenders. So we expanded drug courts and prevention programs. I took the view – as I would as president – that real justice in America has got to include restorative justice. I opened the 1st faith-based prison in the United States and signed an executive order to promote the hiring of ex-offenders. In this country, we shouldn’t be writing people off, denying them a 2nd chance at a life of meaning. Many ask only for a chance to start again, to get back in the game and do it right – and as a country, we should say yes whenever we can.”
That’s at least something. Unfortunately, this was followed by a passage in which Bush boasted about increasing mandatory minimum sentences for other crimes. Bush then claims credit for presiding over a historic crime drop in Florida. But of course, this was a period over which crime was dropping all over the country. Bush said a few good things in his speech, but these issues don’t appear to be priorities for him.
Lincoln Chafee
While Chafee does include “protection of personal liberties” as one of his campaign priorities, the only issue on which he takes a specific position is “the wiretapping of our phones,” which he says is forbidden by the Fourth Amendment. (I presume he’s referring to the NSA wiretapping, and not all wiretapping in criminal investigations.) Chafee promises that, “I will never allow our liberties to be diminished.” I’m not sure what that means. In what context? He’ll allow no liberties to be diminished ever? Whose definition of “liberties?” Chafee also says he supports the First and Eighth Amendments. Bold!
Chafee’s site doesn’t address any other criminal justice issues.
Lyndsey Graham
According to his campaign site, Graham’s core principles are “Securing Our Nation,” “Securing Our Future,” and “Securing Our Values.” I don’t see criminal justice issues discussed on any of those pages. Searches of the site do turn up a couple of articles, however. In this editorial from the Des Moines Register, Graham criticizes mandatory minimum sentences, and says both prison reform and sentencing reform are an “absolute necessity,” adding, “We have too many people in jail, and there are other ways to deal with these crimes rather than just filling up the jails.”
Wait and See
John Kasich
At the moment, there is no “Issues” page, but the “Meet John” section includes a line about how Kasich has “transformed how Ohio approaches police-community relations.” A search of the site for “prison” turns up a George Will column about how Kasich eschews mandatory minimums and has embraced re-entry programs to prepare inmates for life on the outside. Kasich has implemented some interesting reforms in Ohio. He only announced a few weeks ago, so perhaps he’ll add more to his site in the coming weeks.
Carly Fiorina
Fiorina’s site has no “Issues” page only loose collections of statements and articles under the headings “News” and “Blog.” Searches for prison, jail, incarceration, and police turned up nothing. However, Fiorina has made some comments about decriminalizing drug addiction, and about the need to reduce mass incarceration, and about holding abusive police officers accountable. So the dearth of criminal justice on her website may be more due to the site’s poor design and overall lack of content than a reflection of Fiorina’s priorities.
Bobby Jindal
When I checked it, Jindal’s campaign homepage redirected me to a donation page . . . and it then stayed there. There was no way out. I did a few searches on the URL, however, and found several articles that are in theory posted somewhere on the site. The problem is that when you click on them, they bring up a 404 error. At least as of this writing, the only thing you can do on Jindal’s page is give him money.
On the plus side, one of the headlines suggests a story in which Jindal touts a program that “gives prisoners a chance.” But there are also articles in which Jindal boasts of signing bills to lengthen sentences for drug crimes. (Jindal did sign a bill that lengthens heroin sentences, but he also signed another that softens Louisiana’s harsh marijuana laws.) Another headline suggests he approved new sentences for crimes related to child pornography. Before we can learn much more, we may have to wait until Jindal gets enough donations to fund a working website.
Reform? What Reform?
Marco Rubio
Rubio’s “Issues” pages includes sections on Life, Cuba, Israel, ISIS, marriage, veterans, the Internet, and 2 sections on Iran, but nothing on criminal justice. A Google search for “incarceration” on his site turned up nothing. A search for “prisons” turned up speeches about Iran, ISIS, and a condemnation of Obama for releasing unconvicted prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Ted Cruz
The closest Ted Cruz’s site gets to anything resembling criminal justice are passages in which he boasts about being part of a court case that preserved the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, suing to preserve the Texas Ten Commandments Monument, his participation in several Second Amendment lawsuits, his support for Houston pastors whose sermons had been subpoenaed by the city, and his defense of conservative groups that were allegedly targeted by the IRS. A search for “incarceration” on his site turned up little. A search on “prison” turned up a press statement condemning the deal with Iran and a National Review Online opinion piece listing “extended constitutional protections to prisoners of war on foreign soil” as an example of “judicial tyranny.”
Scott Walker
Walker’s site doesn’t have an “Issues” or “Record” or “Priorities” page. It’s mostly just short newsy clips about praise for Scott Walker. A search for “prison” brings up only this statement on Americans being held in Iran. A search for “incarceration” turned up nothing. Neither did searches for militarization, police, and jails. Given Walker’s record on these issues, perhaps that’s for the best.
Ben Carson
Topics on Carson’s “Issues” page include “Keep Faith in Our Society,” “Russia and Lessons Learned,” “Stand by Israel, Our Bulwark Middle East Ally,” and “Protecting Innocent Life.” The only topic remotely related to criminal justice is called, “Keep Gitmo Open.” Searches on jail, incarceration, and prison turn up nothing.
Chris Christie
There’s no mention of criminal justice on Christie’s “Issues” page. Odd for a candidate whose most newsworthy campaign bite of late was his promise to basically invade the state of Colorado to stop people from smoking pot. Site-specific searches of various criminal justice-related terms also turn up nothing. The only reference to these issues at all appears to be a photo of a police officer attending a Christie event at the the top of the page called, “Taking on the Tough Issues.”
Donald Trump
Not surprisingly, Donald Trump’s campaign site is mostly a testament to the prowess, success, and classiness of Donald Trump. Other than the trashing of immigrants, I see no discussion of any issues at all – just articles about how Trump is topping the polls, basking in praise from Ted Cruz, and issuing witty ripostes on Twitter. A search for “prison” turns up articles in which Trump bashes immigrants from Cuba and Mexico. A search for “incarceration” turns up an article in which trump bashes immigrants more generally. A search for “police” also turns up articles in which Trump bashes immigrants. That search did also turn up an interview with Anderson Cooper in which Trump criticized the police officer who arrested Sandra Bland. But he followed by telling Cooper, “I am a huge fan of the police. I think the police have to be given back power.”
Jim Gilmore
The former Virginia governor’s rudimentary campaign site has only one substantive page, and that outlines his economic plan. Searches on various criminal justice-themed terms produced no results.
George Pataki
The GOP’s other throwback candidate also mostly ignores criminal justice on his website. That’s too bad, because Pataki was in office when New York switched from incarcerating for low-level drug crimes to prioritizing treatment. The state’s prison population has plunged since 1999.
Of course, Pataki spent a good deal of his political capital fighting those reforms, and to this day he boasts of both reinstituting the death penalty and abolishing parole for violent offenders. Pataki also boasts more generally of his “tough on crime” policies, and takes credit for the drop in violent crime in New York that took place in part while he was in office. It would be interesting to hear him explain how that drop in crime happened even as the state was releasing drug offenders and closing prisons. Pataki’s site does link to an article in the Des Moines Register that touts him reaching out to minority voters, but the article makes no mention of criminal justice reform. The site also lists a Pataki appearance on MSNBC in which he chastises Rand Paul for the senator’s opposition to renewal of the PATRIOT Act.
Rick Santorum
Santorum’s priorities include “Fighting Radical Islam,” “Immigration Reform,” “Preserving Conservative Values,” and the Sanctity of Life,” but there’s no mention of criminal justice reform. The only remotely related issue is his promise to use the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to make employers accommodate the religious practices of their employees. Searches for criminal justice themes did turn up 1 article in which Santorum lists incarceration among a number of things that are “limiting opportunities to rise,” but it comes in an article about Santorum’s plan to “reduce immigration by 25 %.”
The Retrograde
Mike Huckabee
Given that evangelicals like Chuck Colson were beating the path to prison reform long before it was chic, it’s a bit surprising that neither of the 2 openly evangelical candidates seems to have much interest in these issues. But while Rick Santorum’s site mostly ignores criminal justice, Mike Huckabee’s site reads as if he were running in 1991.
Under his “Record as Governor” page, Huckabee writes:
Law and order has always been one of my top priorities. The 2 people in this country he values the most are soldiers and police officers, because they are the only thing standing between our freedom and total anarchy.
Huckabee then boasts of “carrying out 16 executions,” which just seems kind of gross. He also boasts that he turned down 85 % of commutation requests. Huckabee here appears to be trying to compensate for 1 particularly unfortunate commutation in which the man whose sentence he waved went on to kill 4 police officers in 2009. Whether that particular granting of clemency was the right call at the time is open to debate, but in an era in which politicians, pundits, and activists from across the political spectrum are decrying the destructive nature of harsh sentences, boasting about his reluctance to show mercy is an odd thing to see from a candidate, particularly one is so open about his faith in a religion that purports to be about love and forgiveness. In any case, Huckabee’s stinginess with the commutation power isn’t even in the same league as our current president’s. Obama has denied 99.7 % of commutation requests.
A search for “crime” on Huckabee’s site turns up this article, in which he promises to prosecute attacks on people who oppose gay marriage as hate crimes. Searches for incarceration, prison, and jails produce nothing of significance.

 

Oklahoma Governor Says She Can’t Stop Glossip’s Execution

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin does not have the power to commute the death sentence of Richard Glossip, her office said in response to criticism by activist actress Susan Sarandon.
Glossip is scheduled to die on Sept. 16 for hiring a man to murder his employer, Bary Allan Van Treese, in 1997. Glossip has always maintained his innocence.
Sarandon, who has campaigned against the death penalty for years, called Fallin a “horrible person” for refusing to intervene.
“Richard’s case is so typical. Bad representation, 2 trials that were ridiculous, no physical evidence,” Sarandon told the British news group Sky News on Thursday.
“He’s put there by a snitch who actually did kill the person, and then the snitch has life and this guy is being put to death on the 16th. Once a mistake has been made within a judicial system, people just do not want to admit that mistake has been made and it becomes impossible to readdress them. And the only thing now that is going to give him a chance to survive is public opinion – is public embarrassment.” Sarandon urged people to write Fallin to stop the execution.
She called the Glossip case “a perfect example of what’s wrong with the death penalty, and so of course I’m hoping that some kind of exposure will give him the opportunity to maybe get his sentence at least commuted, because he’s clearly innocent, and on top of that the guy who actually killed the person is in a minimum security prison for the rest of his life.”
Fallin’s spokesman Alex Weintz responded to Sarandon and several media inquiries on Twitter, saying Fallin does not have the ability to grant Glossip clemency.
“The limit of her legal ability to intervene is to grant a 60 day stay,” Weintz tweeted Thursday. “The gov[ernor] can only grant clemency [to] inmates who have been recommended clemency by the Pardon and Parole Board. Glossip’s request was unanimously denied … To say Glossip has had his day in court is an understatement. He has been pursuing the same arguments publicly and in court for 20 years. He was convicted of murder in court twice and sentenced to death twice by 2 juries (24 total jurors unanimous in their verdict).”
Even if Fallin could grant clemency, doing so would “unilaterally overturn” the judgments of jurors and several courts, including the 10th Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court, Weintz said.
“Glossip’s execution is going forward because he is (a) guilty and (b) has exhausted his legal options,” he said. “Final thought: there are multiple victims here, none of them Glossip. A man beaten to death, wife without a husband, 5 kids with no dad.”
Susan Sarandon
Susan Sarandon
Sarandon won an Academy Award for Best Actress in 1995 for her portrayal of anti-death penalty activist Sister Helen Prejean in “Dead Man Walking.” Prejean also has called for Glossip’s exoneration.
Glossip and 3 other death row inmates sued Oklahoma last year, claiming its use of midazolam – the 1st drug in a new 3-drug replacement protocol – fails to render a person insensate to pain, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
States have been forced to seek replacement execution drugs from compounding pharmacies after anti-death penalty opponents persuaded large drug manufacturers to stop making lethal injection drugs. Oklahoma’s previous protocol required pentobarbital to knock the inmate unconscious, vecuronium to stop breathing and potassium chloride to stop the heart.
Glossip’s lawsuit was filed after the botched execution of murderer Clayton Lockett, 38, in April 2014. He was declared unconscious after being injected with midazolam, but breathed heavily, writhed, clenched his teeth and strained to lift his head off a pillow 3 minutes later. Blinds separating a viewing gallery and the death chamber were lowered and Oklahoma Department of Corrections Director Robert Patton ordered the execution stopped. It took Lockett 43 minutes to die of a heart attack.
In a 5-4 ruling on June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the new execution protocol. Oklahoma quickly rescheduled four executions. The Supreme Court said the inmates failed “to identify a known and available alternative method of execution that entails a lesser risk of pain.”
Source: Courthouse News, August 8, 2015

 

Gov. Pete Ricketts confident executions will happen for men on death row

 

LINCOLN — If Nebraska succeeds in importing the $54,400 in lethal injection drugs it ordered from India, Gov. Pete Ricketts said Thursday he’s confident he won’t need to seek a refund.
During an interview Thursday on “The Bottom Line,” The World-Herald’s Internet radio broadcast, the governor was asked what happens to the state funds if the death penalty repeal ultimately remains in effect. Death penalty supporters are collecting signatures in an effort to let voters decide the fate of capital punishment in 2016.
“Would we then be able to sell it back to the people who sold it to us?” host Mike’l Severe asked. “Would we get our money back?”
The governor, a major contributor to the petition drive, said the state will need the drugs for the 10 men on death row, regardless of the drive’s outcome.
More coverage of capital punishment in Nebraska
“The Legislature actually doesn’t have the authority to go back and change sentences that have already occurred,” he said. “We’re still working under the premise that we’re going to continue to carry out the sentences for the inmates we have.”
State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, the chief sponsor of the law, has said that while the Legislature cannot change the death sentences of those already on death row, the repeal removed the statutory means for conducting an execution. That, he has said, leaves the death row inmates with a sentence that can’t be carried out.
The state has not yet imported the drugs it bought in May from a broker in India. An official with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said one of the two drugs Nebraska purchased can’t legally be imported.
Ricketts said Thursday that state officials remain in discussions with the Drug Enforcement Administration to get the drugs shipped. He offered no timeline, however, on when the drugs could arrive.
A DEA official has said the agency is working in tandem with the FDA on the issue, suggesting Nebraska would not be able to use one federal agency to go around another.
The governor repeated his stance that the death penalty is a necessary policy for public safety. In particular, he said he believes it’s important to protect law enforcement and correctional officers who work with inmates serving life terms.
“That’s why I feel so strongly the folks in Nebraska should have a chance to vote on it,” he said.
The governor also was asked about a new “re-employment” program being launched by the Nebraska Department of Labor with his support. The program seeks to get unemployed people back to work as quickly as possible.

A key part of the program requires those seeking unemployment benefits to meet with a jobs coach so they can post a résumé online. That résumé could then be searched by Nebraska employers seeking to fill vacancies.

“In a state where we have a 2.6 percent unemployment rate, we’re really working hard to make sure we can do the best job possible to connect people who are looking for jobs with the companies that have them,” he said.

Ricketts, a former executive with TD Ameritrade, often discussed how he would work to make government function more like a business if he were elected. On Thursday, he said he is requiring his department heads to set goals and devise methods for measuring progress toward the goals.

For example, he mentioned the common complaints of long hold times when citizens call into AccessNebraska, the call center for public benefits. The Department of Health and Human Services, which operates the program, now keeps monthly statistics on hold times.

“If we don’t have any measurements, how can we hold people accountable?” the governor said.

A Life Sentence for James Holmes, Aurora Theater Gunman Who Killed 12

CENTENNIAL, Colo., — A jury sentenced James E. Holmes to life in prison with no chance of parole on Friday, rejecting the death penalty for the man who carried out a 2012 shooting rampage that killed 12 people in a Colorado movie theater.
As the courtroom waited for Judge Carlos Samour Jr. to review the verdict, only the sound of him turning pages could be heard. Minutes later, he read each sentence of life, a decision that was a surprise to many in the courtroom.
Since Mr. Holmes was convicted last month of more than 160 counts of murder and attempted murder, his lawyers and prosecutors have been putting questions of his fate before a jury of nine women and three men.
Prosecutors, emphasizing the human toll and indiscriminate cruelty of opening fire on a happy crowd of moviegoers, argued that he should join the three other men on Colorado’s death row. They argued that toll he exacted was so great, and the indiscriminate rampage so horrible, that death by lethal injection was the only just punishment.
But defense lawyers said it was not hatred or a desire for notoriety that propelled Mr. Holmes to plot and carry out the massacre, but a deepening form of schizophrenia that infected his mind with powerful delusions that killing people somehow increased his “human capital.”
To reach a death sentence, jurors had to agree unanimously. If even one person dissents, the sentence is life in prison.
Jurors deliberated for less than a day before reaching their conclusion. They had walked to the precipice of sentencing Mr. Holmes to death, agreeing after earlier sentencing deliberations that he was eligible to receive the death penalty.
But defense lawyers emphasized that jurors had no legal obligation to sentence him to death, and they urged jurors to listen to their own moral compasses no matter what other jurors wanted.
Source: The New York Times, Jack Healy, August 7, 2015

 

Arizona: Debra Milke’s New World after Spending 23 Years on Death Row

In September 2013, 2 1/2 weeks after being released from custody, Debra Milke had a hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Debra Milke

She had spent 24 years behind bars and her eyes were wild, like those of an animal, as she backed into the corner of a crowded elevator, hugging the walls and shaking.
“I was trying to get used to people,” she told The Arizona Republic in an exclusive interview last week. “I was trying not to hyperventilate.”
Milke was a celebrated murderer, convicted of arranging the 1989 murder of her 4-year-old son, Christopher.
Christopher was told he was going to the mall to see Santa Claus. Instead, he was taken into the desert by Milke’s male roommate and one of his friends, and shot in the head.
Milke denied that she had any part in the murder, but a jury thought otherwise. She was sent to death row in 1991 and languished there until March 2013, when a federal appeals court threw out her conviction and her death sentence – not because she was exonerated, but because her constitutional rights had been violated. The prosecution and police had refused to turn over the spotty personnel record of a Phoenix police detective who claimed Milke had confessed to the arranged murder. There were no recordings or witnesses to prove the confession took place.
19 months after the federal appellate decision, an Arizona appeals court determined that it would constitute double jeopardy to retry her for the murder.
Now she lives free in a tile-roofed stucco house in a cookie-cutter development on the fringes of suburban Phoenix.
Her eyes have calmed, her face relaxed as she sits in a darkened room, shades drawn against the light.
She has gained 38 pounds.
“They don’t have ice cream in prison,” she said.
She speaks easily. She is friendly and talkative.
She was 25 and youthful when she went to prison. Now, at 51, she is white-haired and matronly.
“Half my life,” she said, sighing. “I don’t really mourn over that. I can’t get the years back. I accept that. I accept my life as it is now.”
Phoenix is a very different place than it was in 1989. Its population has swelled. So have its boundaries. The freeways baffle her. The supermarkets seem surreally large.
Technology has created gadgets that could not have been imagined in 1989.
Milke is trying to gain insight into who and where she is, like a time traveler from the 1980s who suddenly materialized in the second decade of the 21st century.
She still professes her innocence. Milke claims that she had nothing to do with her son’s murder. But there is no evidence to show she was not involved.
She feels as if she straddles a fence on the death penalty, “a victim on both sides of it,” calling herself the mother of a child who was murdered, who then spent half her life facing execution.
She doesn’t need to see her co-defendants executed.
“It’s not going to change anything,” she said. “They’re going to die in prison.”
She feels she was treated unjustly by the legal system, and even the criminal-defense community is bitterly split on whether she is innocent or guilty.
This is not the story of that argument. Only Milke and the 2 men who took her son to the desert and killed him know what happened. And even then, they may have differing views. But they aren’t talking anyway. While Milke is free, the other 2 remain on death row with little legal recourse standing between them and execution.
This is Milke’s story about being inside, and then about being outside.
“Just imagine being locked in your bathroom for 24 years and no one will let you out,” Milke said. “Just as I had to adapt to prison, now I have to adapt to freedom.”
Learning to live in prison
In December 1989, Milke was recently divorced, and she and Christopher were living in Phoenix with a would-be suitor named James Styers.
In 1 version of the story, Milke wanted the hyperactive child out of her life, and in another version, Styers wanted him gone to improve his chances with Milke. So Styers enlisted a friend named Roger Scott, and on Dec. 3, 1989, they took the boy into the desert and shot him.
Styers and Scott drove to Metrocenter Mall in northwest Phoenix and told a security guard that the child was lost in the mall. Police didn’t believe the story and Scott confessed, implicating Milke. Then he led police to the boy’s body.
Milke was arrested at her parents’ home in Florence and interrogated by Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate. He claimed that Milke confessed her involvement in the murder. But there was no tape or video recording of the confession and no one else had witnessed it. Milke flatly denied she had confessed or that she had arranged her son’s death.
Eventually, Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Noel Levy persuaded the jury to bring back a guilty verdict against Milke, and Superior Court Judge Cheryl Hendrix sentenced her to death.
Scott and Styers were also sentenced to death.
Milke no longer remembers which law-enforcement agency came for her on that February day in 1991 when she was taken from a Maricopa County jail to the Arizona State Prison Complex- Perryville in Goodyear.
She was a nervous wreck, and a jail doctor gave her an Ativan tablet to ease her anxiety before they loaded her into a car and drove her west on Interstate 10.
“I just remember the freeway seemed endless,” she said.
As she was led in handcuffs across the yards into the prison, she thought, “I’m not going to die here. I’m not going to live the rest of my life here. I’m going to get out.”
She cried all through her 1st night, angry at “God and everybody.”
Then she began to learn to live in prison.
Technically, she was on death row, but there was no such place in Perryville and she was its only occupant, and even then, it was only semantics. The next woman on death row, Wendi Andriano, who beat her husband to death, would not arrive until 2005. The third, Shawna Forde, an anti-immigrant vigilante involved in a double murder, followed in 2011.
So in 1991, Milke’s cell-block neighbors were general-population prisoners who were being disciplined in maximum security: prostitutes and gang-bangers – bad girls, career criminals. Though officially deemed an ogre, unlike the others, Milke was a middle-class girl who had never been in trouble before.
She saw drug overdoses and fights.
“I’ve seen inmates on fire,” she said, women who lit themselves in desperation and craziness. “I’ve seen a lot of crazy stuff.”
Today, death-row prisoners, especially the men, spend 23 hours a day locked in their cells with little contact with other prisoners or the outside world.
Milke had a cell with a window in its door, and anyone in the unit could walk up to it and talk to her. She had 2 windows to the outside world on the other side of her cell, 1 of which opened about 2 inches.
She was treated like a trustee. After 2 in the afternoon, she was allowed to stay out of her cell until 9 p.m., even going outside in a fenced-in part of her unit. She was allowed to help the correctional officers with dinner. She took correspondence courses.
That changed after 1997, when corrections Officer Brent Lumley was murdered by a male inmate. Afterward, a new wing bearing Lumley’s name was built at the Perryville prison, and the male prisoners were moved to Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis near Buckeye.
Milke had to learn to live in lockdown.
“I had to have the window open around the clock,” she said. “Otherwise I felt claustrophobic. I used to listen to the traffic on I-10 and watch the airplanes and wonder where they were going or coming from.”
Even if she knew what day it was, she lost all sense of time, describing the days as a conveyor belt with 1 rolling into the next. She built a routine: writing from 5:30 to 6:30, then showering, cleaning supplies, TV shows, reading.
She taught herself algebra. She read books she should have read in school, by Leo Tolstoy and Nathaniel Hawthorne.
She became friends with Andriano, and the 2 talked through a vent between their cells. They would pass coffee or tea to each other during shift changes, when they were less likely to be seen, by rolling up pieces of paper and telescoping them together until they had long wands that would reach from one cell to the next.
“Every year it was all the same,” she said. “It just melted one into another.”
Appeal victory
Milke’s case tracked through Arizona state courts without relief and then, as happens with capital cases, it bounced into federal court. Her attorneys had uncovered the sordid record of Detective Saldate, who had been fired from the Phoenix Police Department for his bad acts.
In March 2013, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Milke’s conviction and death sentence and ordered that she either be released or retried. The ruling noted that Saldate had a long history of misconduct that called his credibility into question.
On March 14, 2013, Milke said, she was lying on the floor of her cell talking to Andriano through the vent when a female correctional officer came with the news that one of her lawyers, Lori Voepel, was on the phone.
The first thing she said was, “We won.”
“I just started shaking on the inside,” Milke said. Voepel started to explain the ruling. “It went in one ear and out the other,” Milke said.
It took until July before the state of Arizona decided to retry her and transfer her to a Maricopa County jail. The case went to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, and County Attorney Bill Montgomery vowed to continue to seek the death penalty and send Milke back to Perryville.
Milke learned of the transfer the night before she would go. She packed some things, donated her TV and radio so that some other prisoner could have them and was sent to the Estrella Jail in south Phoenix.
Life in jail is harsher than life in prison – no windows, no TV, no clocks.
“You would ask what time it was and no one would tell you,” she said.
She could not stomach the food. She was stressed by the noise. And when she would be taken to her court hearings, she looked as haggard and unkempt and wild as a witch in a fairy tale.
But on Sept. 6, 2013, Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz ruled that Milke could be released on $250,000 bond. She was taken to Lower Buckeye Jail, where she changed into street clothes. Then her other lawyer, Michael Kimerer, secreted her away by car to Voepel’s office, where a court officer affixed an electronic monitoring device to Milke’s ankle.
“This bracelet means freedom to me,” she told the officer.
She snacked on a vegetarian sandwich that had been brought in for her, because she craved vegetables. And on the way to a welcome-home party at a friend’s home, they drove through a Starbucks restaurant because she had heard in prison that the coffee was wonderful.
“It was gross,” she said.
Welcome to the 21st century, Debra Milke.
European Backing
Unlike many inmates released from prison, Debra Milke has a strong and wealthy support system, and it is centered in Europe.
Milke was born in Germany, and her parents moved back there and then on to Switzerland, where they lived the last of their lives. Milke’s mother died after Milke was released from custody but before all charges were dropped, so she was not allowed to travel to Switzerland to see her mother on her death bed.
Capital punishment is illegal in Europe, and Europeans are stridently against its use elsewhere. There have been books and movies about Milke, and the French- and German-speaking media have assiduously followed her case.
In effect, she is perceived in Europe as Amanda Knox is perceived in the United States: a poor, innocent woman caught up in some unjust foreign judicial system.
(Knox and Milke, incidentally, have met.)
Subsequently, Milke’s European supporters footed her bond, and she is living in the Phoenix-area home of a German friend.
But on her first night out of custody, she might just as well have still been on the inside.
She ventured timidly out into the house’s backyard. The next night she dared step into the front yard. And on the 3rd day, her German friend took her for a walk around the block.
“It was strange. There were all these houses and cars,” she said.
She was overwhelmed the 1st time she went to the supermarket. “I was amazed at how huge the stores had become and became panicky.”
When she saw a woman and a young boy in one aisle, and heard the child say, “Mommy, I want this,” she fell apart.
Her first trip to Walmart was worse. And the first dinner out at a sports bar was unbearable for the noise, the talking and the overstimulation. She panicked at the State Fair.
She couldn’t bring herself to read or watch television because she had done so much in prison.
She bought a computer but left it in the box for a month, bought a flip phone and then eased into a smartphone but can’t fathom the things she can do with it.
“It was odd to see everyone walking around with a phone, and strange and annoying walking around listening to everyone’s conversations,” she said. “I wanted to just turn around and tell them to shut up.”
Because she was in isolation for so many years, she never got sick. Now she falls victim to every flu bug and suffers from allergies
After 24 years of waiting to get back to life, it was difficult to know what to do because she was overwhelmed by options.
She got a dog. She toils in the garden of her friend’s house.
Her attorneys persuaded her to go back to work and she found a job as a bookkeeper 5 days a week.
Mulling name change
In September 2014, the Arizona Court of Appeals dismissed all charges against Milke, ruling that retrying her would be tantamount to double jeopardy. The Arizona Supreme Court let the lower court decision stand. That freed Milke to travel and to move on in her life.
She will spend the next month in Europe, visiting with her remaining relatives there, fulfilling contractual obligations with German media, and traveling to Switzerland to visit her mother’s grave and tend to her estate.
She has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the city of Phoenix, Maricopa County, County Attorney Montgomery, disgraced Detective Saldate and other police officers, alleging malicious prosecution and civil-rights violations.
She is considering changing her name. She wants to fade into the world but is worried that going to court to change names will call more attention to her and reveal her new identity anyway.
She says she knows where she wants to live – but won’t tell so that she can become anonymous.
She is seeing a psychiatrist.
“I’m trying to figure out who I am today,” she said. “I’m trying to figure out how to pick up the pieces and move ahead.”
Source: WFMY news, August 3, 2015
 

Texas: Cathy Lynn Henderson, babysitter convicted of murder, dies in hospital

Cathy Lynn Henderson, who dominated national headlines in 1994 for the the killing of 3-month-old Brandon Baugh, died Sunday after a month of hospitalization, her lawyer said Monday. She was 58.
Once just two days away from execution, the former babysitter spent nearly two decades in prison before winning a new trial in 2012. On June 12, just months before her case was to go to trial a second time, Henderson hobbled into the courtroom on crutches with the help of her lawyers and pleaded guilty to murder. She was sentenced then to 25 years in prison, but with credit for time served, she could have been released in four years.
Henderson was taken to the hospital on June 25 after she had trouble with her breathing. She was diagnosed with pneumonia and had a stroke during her stay.
Cathy Lynn Henderson passed away last night, at peace and without pain,” her lawyer, Jon Evans, told the American-Statesman. “In the last few weeks of her life she was relieved of a 21-year burden. Her version of the events of the tragedy of Brandon Baugh finally was given the proper respect and credence it deserved. She passed with that satisfaction.”
A sharply divided Court of Criminal Appeals overturned Henderson’s capital murder conviction and sentence in December 2012. The court upheld a recommendation by District Judge Jon Wisser that she have a new trial based on new scientific discoveries into the nature of head injuries.
Henderson claimed that Baugh died after slipping from her arms and falling about 4 feet to the concrete floor in her home in the Pflugerville area. She said she panicked, burying the boy’s body in a Bell County field before fleeing to Missouri, where she was found and arrested 11 days later.
Some supporters of the Baugh family said they were relieved to see Henderson plead guilty after years of lies and denials. But Brandon’s parents, grandmother and sister said they had been surprised and disappointed to learn she would not face a jury once more.
“I have no doubts that your plea today is not an act of contrition but another act of selfishness in order to gain your freedom,” Brandon’s father, Eryn Baugh, told Henderson on the witness stand on the day she took her plea.
Source: Statesman, Jazmine Ulloa, August 3, 2015

Not guilty plea in federal court for church shooting suspect; he wants opposite, lawyer says

The white man accused of gunning down 9 parishioners at a black church in Charleston wants to plead guilty to 33 federal charges, but his lawyer said in court Friday that he couldn’t advise his client to do so until prosecutors say whether they’ll seek the death penalty.
During a brief arraignment in federal court, defense attorney David Bruck said that he couldn’t counsel his client, Dylann Roof, to enter a guilty plea without knowing the government’s intentions.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant then entered a not guilty plea for Roof, 21, who faces federal charges including hate crimes, weapons charges and obstructing the practice of religion. Appearing in court in a gray striped prison jumpsuit, his hands in shackles, Roof answered yes several times in response to the judge’s questions but otherwise didn’t speak.
“Mr. Roof has told us that he wishes to plead guilty,” Bruck said. “Until we know whether the government will be seeking the death penalty, we are not able to advise Mr. Roof.”
The federal prosecution, particularly on hate crimes, has been expected since the June 17 shootings at Emanuel African Methodist Church. Early on, officials with the U.S. Department of Justice said they felt the case met the qualifications for a hate crime, and Roof was indicted by a federal grand jury about a month after the killings.
Roof appeared in photos waving Confederate flags and burning and desecrating U.S. flags. Federal authorities have confirmed his use of a personal manuscript in which he decried integration and used racial slurs to refer to blacks.
Because South Carolina has no state hate-crimes law, federal charges were needed to adequately address a motive that prosecutors believe was unquestionably rooted in racial hate, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said during a news conference announcing Roof’s federal indictment.
18 of the 33 charges against Roof could potentially carry the death penalty, while conviction on each of the others could mean a life prison sentence. Each charge also carries the possibility of hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
Also during Friday’s hearing, Marchant accepted Roof’s application as an indigent defendant – meaning the state will pay for his attorneys – and formalized the appointment of Bruck and another defense lawyer, Michael O’Connell. Marchant set Aug. 20 as a deadline for attorneys to file pre-trial motions. No future hearings are scheduled in Roof’s case.
Marchant also heard briefly from victims’ family members, who at Roof’s bond hearing in state court expressed statements of mercy and forgiveness despite his alleged crimes. On Friday, several relatives made similar comments in federal court.
“We don’t hold no ill will,” Leroy Singleton, brother of Myra Thompson, said tearfully. “We’re going to let the system work it out.”
Gracyn Doctor, daughter of another victim, DePayne Middleton Doctor, said she misses her mother greatly but wouldn’t let Roof get the better of her.
“Even though he has taken the most precious thing in my life, he will not take my joy,” Doctor told the judge.
An attorney for the church said that the AME community nationally and worldwide would be watching the case closely as it moves forward.
“The world is watching,” Eduardo Curry told reporters outside the courthouse after the hearing. “What we want justice to be is mighty and fair.”
Roof also faces numerous state charges, including nine counts of murder and another potential death penalty prosecution. The Justice Department has not said if its case will come first, and the state also has not announced its decision on the death penalty.
Source: Associated Press, August 1, 2015

Case Targets Florida Death Penalty Sentencing

The U.S. Supreme Court this fall will hear arguments in a challenge to the way Florida sentences people to death — a challenge backed by 3 former Florida Supreme Court justices and the American Bar Association.
The case, which stems from the 1998 murder of an Escambia County fast-food worker, focuses on the role that juries play in recommending death sentences, which ultimately are imposed by judges.
Attorneys representing death row inmate Timothy Lee Hurst, including former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, contend that Florida’s unique sentencing system is unconstitutional. Supporting that position in friend-of-the-court briefs are former Florida Supreme Court justices Harry Lee Anstead, Rosemary Barkett and Gerald Kogan, along with the American Bar Association and seven former Florida circuit judges.
Part of the argument centers on what are known as “aggravating” circumstances that must be found before defendants can be sentenced to death. Hurst’s attorneys argue, in part, that a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling requires that determination of such aggravating circumstances be “entrusted” to juries, not to judges.
Also, they take issue with Florida not requiring unanimous jury recommendations in death-penalty cases. A judge sentenced Hurst to death after receiving a 7-5 jury recommendation.
“Florida juries play only an advisory role,” Hurst’s attorneys wrote in a May brief. “The jury recommends a sentence of life or death based on its assessment of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, but that recommendation has no binding effect. Moreover, the jury renders its advisory verdict under procedures that degrade the integrity of the jury’s function. Unanimity, and the deliberation often needed to achieve it, is not necessary; only a bare majority vote is required to recommend a death sentence.”
But in an earlier brief, attorneys for the state argued that the U.S. Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have repeatedly denied challenges to the sentencing process, including the Florida Supreme Court rejecting Hurst’s challenge. The state attorneys argued that a jury, in recommending the death penalty, has found facts that support at least one aggravating factor — which can be the basis for sentencing a defendant to death.
“Therefore, because the jury returned a recommendation of death, this court may infer the jury did find at least one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt,” state attorneys wrote in a January brief in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week scheduled oral arguments in the case for Oct. 13, according to an online docket. The court agreed in March to take up the case.
Hurst, now 36, was convicted in the 1998 murder of Cynthia Lee Harrison, who was an assistant manager at a Popeye’s Fried Chicken restaurant where Hurst worked. Harrison’s body was discovered bound in a freezer, and money was missing from a safe, according to a brief in the case.
In sentencing Hurst to death, a judge found 2 aggravating circumstances — that the murder was committed during a robbery and that it was “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel,” according to the brief filed by Hurst’s attorneys. That brief, along with others in the case, were posted on an American Bar Association website and on SCOTUSblog, which closely tracks U.S. Supreme Court proceedings.
Much of the October hearing could focus on how to apply the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision — a major case known as Ring v. Arizona — to the Florida law. Hurst’s attorneys contend that the 2002 decision held that “findings of fact necessary to authorize a death sentence may not be entrusted to the judge.” They said Florida’s system undermines the juries’ constitutional “functions as responsible fact-finder and voice of the community’s moral judgment.”
The brief filed on behalf of Anstead, Barkett and Kogan raised similar arguments and said there is “no assurance that Florida death sentences are premised on a particular aggravating circumstance found by the jury.”
“And because jury unanimity is not mandated during the sentencing process, there is no assurance that a Florida jury’s death recommendation represents a reliable consensus of the community,” the brief said. “As a consequence, (the former justices) believe that the jury’s role is impermissibly denigrated and that there is an unacceptable risk that Florida death sentences are erroneously imposed, in violation of the Sixth and the Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”
Source: WUSF news, August 1, 2015

Florida man struggles to build life after death row exoneration

Seth Penalver dropped to the floor and wept into his chair when a Florida jury declared him not guilty in the shooting deaths of three people during a 1994 home invasion.
After 3 trials and 18 years in prison – including 13 on death row – a Broward County jury in 2012 found Penalver not guilty of capital murder in the 1994 slayings of Casmir Sucharski, 48, Marie Rogers, 25, and Sharon Anderson, 25.
Little did he know about the struggles that lay ahead. His release from prison marked a new chapter, one that’s been filled with ups and downs, given his prolonged absence from society. Despite his acquittal, he says he struggles to find work because of his background, which includes 2 prior nonviolent felonies.
“You Google my name and it lights up the screen. I’m 20 years minus a resume, so it’s hard,” he said.
Experts say Penalver’s struggles with reintegration are typical for death row exonerees or people found to be wrongly convicted. On paper, they’re no longer offenders, but they’re not quite free of the stigma or psychological impact of their incarceration. The duration of their incarceration can strain personal relationships, creating a void in support systems after their release. Additionally, they often lack access to the same career or counseling services available to parolees because technically, they’re not on parole.
“The media attention tends to focus on how people got wrongly convicted, what in the system led to these cases, and those are important stories worthy of attention,” said University of North Carolina at Greensboro professor Saundra Westervelt, author of “Life After Death Row: Exonerees’ Search for Community and Identity.”
“But the story doesn’t end there. There’s a slew of practical problems they have to figure out how to manage.”
The state could help improve prospects for exonerees by providing monetary compensation and reintegration services, said Westervelt, a board member of Witness to Innocence, which works to abolish the death penalty and provide support to former death row inmates.
Only 30 states have laws that provide monetary compensation to wrongly convicted people, which can include death row exonerees. And in many states, including Florida, they come with limits. In some states, access to monetary compensation is available only for people exonerated by DNA evidence, who receive an official gubernatorial pardon or who don’t have prior felonies.
A crime unfolds on video
Local media dubbed the triple slayings the “Casey’s Nickelodeon murders” because Sucharski was an owner of Casey’s Nickelodeon, a Miramar nightclub where he met aspiring models Rogers and Anderson. The 3 were shot dead in Sucharski’s home in Miramar, Florida, early in the morning of June 26, 1994.
Penalver and co-defendant Pablo Ibar were charged in the crime after witnesses identified them in grainy home surveillance video showing 2 men breaking into Sucharski’s home. Penalver surrendered to law enforcement in August 1994 after a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Penalver stood trial three times for the murders. His first trial with Ibar in 1997 ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked 10-2 in favor of guilt. The cases were severed, and Penalver was tried again in 1999 and sentenced to death on charges of murder, attempted robbery and burglary.
The Florida Supreme Court overturned Penalver’s verdict in 2006 based on a series of evidentiary and constitutional errors related to witness testimony and identification. Given the absence of physical evidence connecting Penalver to the crime and questions about the identification of the men in the surveillance video, “the witnesses’ statements presented at trial were of paramount importance,” the judges wrote in their ruling.
An expert witness who viewed the tape said that he couldn’t identify anyone from it, but that the person in the video had facial characteristics inconsistent with Penalver’s facial structure. Some people who knew Penalver said the video wasn’t him or they couldn’t tell. One said she couldn’t tell from the face, but the subject’s gait was like Penalver’s. Another told the police that it was Penalver, but then testified in court that she couldn’t say whether it was him or not.
With respect to this last witness, the prosecution argued that she changed her testimony after meeting with the defense, improperly suggesting — with no evidence to support it — that the defense had tampered with her, the court found. The court also found that the prosecution improperly admitted hearsay testimony that an alternate suspect was out of state, when there was no evidence that the suspect was out of state. The prosecution also presented evidence implying that Penalver had been suicidal and wrongly used that suggestion to imply consciousness of guilt, the court said.
“In light of the scant evidence connecting Penalver to this murder and the consequent importance of identifying the individual depicted on the videotape in sunglasses and hat, we conclude that the improperly admitted evidence and the State’s suggestion that the defense tampered with or suborned perjury by an identification witness meet the cumulative error requirements outlined above and require reversal,” the court said in its opinion.
The video magnified the uncertainty, making the strength of the remaining evidence all the more important, said Temple University law professor Jules Epstein, who specializes in forensics. Appellate courts assess error based on the magnitude of the mistakes and their cumulative impact.
“The weaker the rest of the evidence, the more significant the mistakes are. Conversely, the stronger the remaining evidence, the impact of mistake goes down,” Epstein said.
Stepping up for the wrongfully convicted
Penalver says he gets by on odd jobs and government assistance in the form of food stamps. He would like to attend school or learn a trade, but living hand to mouth makes it impossible to find time or money for education, he said.
Compensation from the state would help, but under the “clean hands” provision of Florida’s Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act, Penalver is ineligible because of his 2 prior nonviolent felonies, which are unrelated to the triple slayings he was accused of.
“Just because I had prior felonies in the past, that shouldn’t mean I can’t be compensated for what was done to me,” he said. “It’s hard getting back on your feet; anything would help.”
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal, August 1, 2015