Inmates on the death row

ARIZONA -9th Circuit denies all but 1 claim of Arizona death row inmate convicted in 1980 murder case

march 6, 2014

PHOENIX — A federal appeals court has denied almost all of the claims of an Arizona death row inmate who says he had ineffective counsel at his 1997 resentencing.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Wednesday remanded one claim of 53-year-old Scott D. Clabourne to a Tucson federal court.

That was Clabourne’s assertion that his lawyers at resentencing failed to object to the court’s consideration of his confession to police.

Clabourne was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of a 22-year-old University of Arizona student.

Authorities say the New York woman was raped, strangled and stabbed in the heart on Sept. 18, 1980. Her naked body was dumped in an arroyo, where it was found the following day.

Clabourne was first sentenced to death in 1983.

 

On the evening of September 18, 1980, Laura Webster left work with some friends and went to the Green Dolphin, a Tucson bar frequented by students from the University of Arizona. Sometime around midnight, she left the bar with three strange men. The next morning, Webster’s naked body was found lying in the dry bed of the Santa Cruz River. Wrapped in a bloody sheet, Webster had been strangled with a blue and white bandana, then stabbed to death. She had also been severely beaten, and traces of semen were found in her mouth, rectum and vagina.

The Tucson police got their first break in the case almost a year later when a woman named Shirley Martin reported that her former boyfriend, Scott Clabourne, had made several statements inculpating himself in a homicide. Clabourne was in custody on an unrelated burglary charge at the Pima County Jail, where he was interviewed by Detectives Bustamante and Reuter of the Tucson Police Department.

Clabourne gave a detailed, taped confession to the rape and murder of Laura Webster. According to Clabourne, he and two other men, Larry Langston and a man Clabourne called “Bob” (later identified as Edward Carrico), went to the Green Dolphin to “get some women.” Langston convinced Webster to leave the bar with them by promising to take her to a cocaine party Clabourne was purportedly hosting; instead the three men took Webster to a house Langston had been taking care of for a friend. The three men forced Webster to remove all her clothes and to serve them drinks. They then raped her repeatedly over the course of several hours. Though a much larger man than Langston, Clabourne claims to have been afraid of Langston; he also claims to have been intoxicated. Langston was the instigator, and he “made” the others take part. At the end of the night, Langston instructed Clabourne to kill Webster, and Clabourne obeyed: He strangled Webster with a bandana he carried, and then stabbed her with a knife.

Three days after Detectives Bustamante and Reuter interviewed Clabourne, a criminal information was filed charging Clabourne with first-degree murder, kidnapping and sexual assault. Lamar Couser was appointed as Clabourne’s counsel. Couser brought a pretrial motion to suppress the confession, which was denied. He also moved for a hearing to determine Clabourne’s competency to stand trial, but the state called two psychiatrists to testify that Clabourne was not so mentally impaired that he would be unable to assist in his own defense. The court found Clabourne competent.

Clabourne was tried alone. 1 The prosecution relied primarily on Clabourne’s taped confession, but also introduced evidence of other incriminating statements Clabourne made after the murder. Shirley Martin testified that Clabourne had admitted committing the crime on several occasions (although his accounts were not consistent). Barbara Bailon, who worked at the Salvation Army halfway house, testified that Clabourne had confessed to killing a girl. Scott Simmons, a Pima County Jail Corrections officer, testified that Clabourne had told him about the crime before giving his taped confession. And a second corrections officer, Dale Stevenson, testified that he overheard Clabourne tell another inmate, “Yeah, I raped her. She didn’t want it but I know she liked it.”

The state also introduced testimony to corroborate Clabourne’s confession. Shirley Martin testified that the blue and white bandana found tied around Webster’s neck was similar to one that belonged to Clabourne. The owner of the house where the rape and murder occurred identified the sheet in which Laura Webster’s body had been found and testified that the mattress on one of her beds had been turned over to conceal large stains. And Webster’s friend Rick Diaz identified Clabourne as one of the men who had left the Green Dolphin with Webster.

Couser raised an insanity defense. However, he called only one witness: Dr. Sanford Berlin, a psychiatrist who had treated Clabourne several years previously at the University of Arizona Medical Center. 2 Couser did not contact Dr. Berlin until the week of trial. Perhaps for that reason, Dr. Berlin was not prepared to testify as to Clabourne’s mental state at the time of the murder; he could only surmise that Clabourne might be suffering from a mild form of schizophrenia. The state put two psychiatrists on the stand to testify that Clabourne understood the nature of his actions and the difference between right and wrong, and that he was legally sane at the time of the murders. Couser cross-examined the state’s experts, but put on no other witnesses.

Clabourne was convicted on all counts,3 and a sentencing hearing was held before Judge Richard N. Roylston, who had also presided at trial. Judge Roylston found that the offense was committed in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner, an aggravating circumstance under Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. S 13-703(F)(6). 4 Couser argued that Clabourne should not be sentenced to death because he was mentally impaired at the time of the offense, but he put on no evidence at the sentencing hearing, relying on the evidence presented at the guilt phase of the trial. Judge Roylston concluded that Clabourne’s “capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired but was not significantly impaired.” Judge Roylston did not consider this evidence sufficiently compelling to be a mitigating circumstance under Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. S 13-703(G)(1),5 and in any event found that whatever mitigating effect Clabourne’s impairment might have had was outweighed by the cruel and depraved manner in which he had committed the offense. 6 Judge Roylston sentenced Clabourne to death.

With Death Penalty, How Should States Define Mental Disability?

march 3, 2014 (npr.org)

Twelve years after banning the execution of the “mentally retarded,” the U.S. Supreme Court is examining the question of who qualifies as having mental retardation, for purposes of capital cases, and who does not.

In 2002, the high court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that executing “mentally retarded” people is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment. But the justices left it to the states to define mental retardation.

Now the court is focusing on what limits, if any, there are to those definitions.

The case before the court involves the brutal murder of Karol Hurst, who was 21 years old and seven months pregnant when she was kidnapped, raped, and killed by Freddie Lee Hall and an accomplice.

Hall was sentenced to death, but after the Atkins decision, his lawyers challenged the sentence. They cited multiple diagnoses of Hall as having a mental retardation and quoted the state supreme court as having previously declared that Hall had been “mentally retarded his entire life.” The state court, nonetheless, subsequently upheld Hall’s death sentence on grounds that his IQ tests averaged higher than 70.

Hall appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the question Monday is whether states can establish a hard statistical cutoff in these cases.

Florida’s statute, as interpreted by the state supreme court, sets the definition of developmental disability at an IQ score of 70 or below. With anything higher, the defendant cannot put on other evidence to show he is intellectually disabled. Moreover, the state does not allow use of the standard error of measurement that is deemed inherent in IQ tests.

Hall’s various test scores added up to an average of more than 70, but no more than 75, meaning that he would qualify as having a disability if the state had used the standard five-point error of measurement. Without that statistical norm, however, Hall’s lawyers were barred from putting on any other evidence of disability — for example, school records that consistently identified Hall as being mentally retarded.

“Florida’s position is inconsistent with the views of all the mental disability organizations and professional organizations that are involved in the definition of mental retardation,” says Jim Ellis, a longtime advocate for people with mental disabilities. He has also filed a brief in the case.

Allowing states to redefine “mental retardation” in defiance of professional standards, he argues, is nothing more than a way to undo the Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling.

But the state of Florida counters that the Supreme Court did not require any particular clinical definition. Rather, the court relied on what it deemed to be a national consensus that executing mentally disabled people is cruel and unusual punishment. And Florida argues that national consensus is not necessarily the same as a clinical definition.

“The line separating ‘retarded’ from ‘not retarded’ is itself arbitrary,” says Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. “It is itself a matter of convention and not science.” Scheidegger has filed a brief in support of Florida’s position.

Florida is one of only five states that have set an inflexible line for determining intellectual disability in capital cases. The others are Alabama, Kentucky, Virginia and Idaho, and the results there have been stark. Only two claims of mental retardation have been successful in those states since 2002, according to a Cornell University study. That’s about 2 percent, compared to a 28 percent success rate in the other 45 states.

TEXAS – A Letter From Ray Jasper, Who Is About To Be Executed

march 3, 2014

Texas death row inmate Ray Jasper is scheduled to be put to death on March 19. He has written us a letter that, he acknowledges, “could be my final statement on earth.” It is well worth your time.

Read the whole story at Gawker

FLORIDA – Opening statements begin in death penalty case resentencing – Richard Michael Cooper

february 26, 2014 (tampabay)

LARGO — A jury has been selected and opening statements are scheduled to start at 2 p.m. Wednesday in the resentencing of Richard Michael Cooper, who has been on death row for 30 years after being convicted in a triple murder.

A federal appeals court threw out Cooper’s death sentence in 2011 after finding that a jury should have heard evidence of abuse Cooper suffered as a child during the sentencing phase of his trial.

It took a day and a half to seat a jury to hear the evidence on what sentence Cooper should receive for his role in the 1982 deaths of Steven Fridella, Bobby Martindale and Gary Petersen — remembered since as the “High Point murders.”

Cooper’s guilt is not in dispute. On the morning of June 18, 1982, Cooper and three others — Jason Dirk Walton, Terry Van Royal and Jeffrey Hartwell McCoy — drove to Fridella’s Largo residence looking for cocaine or money.

They parked a distance away and, wearing ski masks, crept toward the home at 6351 143rd Ave. Among them they carried a .357 Magnum revolver, a .22 rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun, according to court records.

They had originally planned to rob the men inside while they slept. But someone recognized one of the intruders, and the plan changed.

Fridella, Martindale and Petersen were bound with duct tape and forced to lie on the floor. Cooper, then 18, confessed to shooting Fridella twice with the shotgun. Cooper’s attorneys called no witnesses in his defense, arguing that he was under the spell of Walton, whom Cooper had described as “a Charles Manson-type figure.”

Cooper’s conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal. In 2011, the federal 11th Circuit again affirmed the conviction but tossed out the death sentence because of evidence the first jury never heard. That included frequent beatings at the hands of his hard-drinking father, Phillip “Socky” Cooper, who earned his nickname as a Golden Gloves boxing champion.

The elder Cooper beat his children with “boards, switches, belts and horse whips,” leaving welts all over their bodies, sometimes for offenses as small as not knowing their multiplication tables.

The abuse was so constant, a school principal, fearing he was making things worse, “stopped calling their father when Cooper would get in trouble because Cooper would show up at school beaten and with bruises all over him,” the court said.

Cooper’s stepbrother and sister also said no one had contacted them to testify at the first trial.

Jailhouse Interview With Man on Death Row for Shooting, Killing Daughters – John David Battaglia

february 21, 2014 (nbc)

A Highland Park man is on death row for shooting and killing his two daughters more than a decade ago.

John David Battaglia was arrested for the May 2, 2001 shooting deaths of 9-year-old Faith and 6-year-old Liberty in his downtown Dallas loft. The girls’ mother was on the phone and heard the gunshots.

Jurors found Battaglia guilty of capital murder and sentence him to death.

Battaglia, 58, is now on death row. Sarah Mervosh, a reporter with The Dallas Morning News, spoke with him for an hour in a jailhouse interview. Here is some of that interview.

Sarah Mervosh: “Do you feel like you were killing them to get back at your wife?”

Battaglia: “I don’t feel like I killed them.”

Mervosh: “You what?”

Battaglia: “I don’t feel like I killed them. I do not know why. If you read what I wrote, you will find that I am a little bit in the blank about what happened.”

Mervosh said Battaglia was persistent that he is innocent.

“From what he says and if I can infer that is true that he can’t remember what happened and he doesn’t feel like he did it,” Mervosh said.

During the interview, Battaglia talked about his late daughters.

“You think about your best little friends. Nicest little kids you’ve ever met. Not much you can do about that,” Battaglia said. “I have pictures of them up in my house. I have them on my table and on my wall, I have them around me all the time,” Battaglia said, speaking of his prison cell.

“I thought that was interesting that he wants to keep it in his line of sight, because it means something to him, and yet he killed them,” Mervosh later said.

Battaglia at one point turned on Mervosh, pointing his finger at her and yelling. But during the interview he saved most of his venom for the people he believes put him behind bars.

Sypnosis

John Battaglia was an abuser…. period.  Most of his abuse was directed at his two wives, however, there were others that were victims of his abuse.  As the classic abuser however, he was able to use charisma and charm to get out of things and to convince people that he was the victim.  Even when he was obviously caught he would blame the victim for pushing him to the point in which he abused.  Also, like many classic abusers, after he abused his spouse he would apologize and cool down to which the women would take him back and accept his apologies.   

Battaglia’s abuse to his first wife, to which he was often faced with legal problems began in the 1980’s.  During this time domestic abuse was not taken very seriously.  There was little talk about what went on behind closed doors and there was even less understanding as to the psyche of the abused woman.  His first wife, Michelle, saw a few personality things prior to their marriage and although it was still considered a bit taboo at the time Michelle considered not going through with the marriage and raising their daughter as a single mother.  While she was still pregnant with their daughter Michelle suffered mainly verbal abuse.  However, she began to see some signs of physical abuse towards her son from a previous relationship.  With each escalation of abuse Michelle would kick John out of the house but he would charm his way back in.  Finally the abuse to her and her son came to a point in which his charm had no affect on her and she worried that their daughter would be in danger.  She finally filed for divorce.  When John could no longer control or even charm Michelle this enraged him.  Michelle had gotten a restraining order against John but that did not stop him.  She repeatedly changed the locks to her home and he would charm a locksmith into making him a copy.  He would enter her home when she was not home and even when she was.  She often woke in the middle of the night to find him in the home.  At first it was even a challenge to prove that he was entering the home and doing things, then later it became a more challenge to get the authorities to do anything about it.  Generally they would set out an arrest warrant for him.  It would be a process of the police picking him up and taking him to the station where he would sign papers for his bail, pay the bail and walk out the door.  These arrests and legal troubles only infuriated John more, although he generally faced little to no repercussions for his actions. Finally John went too far.  He had hidden on a public street waiting for Michelle to pass and attacked her breaking her nose and dislocating her jaw…. and there was a witness.  He spent some time in jail for this offense, but, as I said domestic violence was not taken as serious.  Oftentimes the abused were (and still are at times) blamed for “pushing” the abuser.  At this point Michelle realizes the only way to get away was to move out of state to where her family lived.  Once she moved John’s criminal charges were still being debated.  She was informed that he likely would not serve anymore jail time than he had already but that he would get probation which would not allow him to leave Dallas, Texas where he lived.  At this point Michelle agreed with the agreement thinking the restrictions would keep her and her children safe.  Michelle never imagined that John would be given unsupervised visitation with their daughter.  

The ongoing belief at that time, and sadly still seems to be sometimes, is that when there is no evidence of abuse against the children but only against the spouse (or ex-spouse), there is no reason to limit contact between the abuser and their children.  Again, this goes back to the mentality that it is about pushing buttons and isolated abuse only to the one person. Michelle also never thought of the future and if her actions or decisions could ever possibly affect anyone else.  Her concern, as it should have been, was for the well being of herself and her children. 

After a few years John met Mary Jean.  They quickly married and over the course of the years had two daughters, Faith and Liberty.  Luckily for Mary Jean and her children for many years there was no physical abuse from John, but the verbal abuse was evident from the start of their marriage, just like it had been for Michelle.  For a long time Mary Jean knew little or at least believed little of what Michelle had been through with John.  For the most part after John met Mary Jean he left Michelle alone and their daughter visited her father one weekend a month.  John had always been fairly well about hiding things.  Then, like Michelle, after several outbursts of events in which John’s charm smoothed things over, Mary Jean also had had enough, kicked John out and filed for divorce.  

Just as Michelle did, Mary Jean obtained a protective order against John. And, just like Michelle, Mary Jean never imagined John would harm their children. Christmas of 1999 John came to Mary Jean’s house with his daughter with Michelle to pick up the girls.  Against her better judgment Mary Jean allowed him in the house because the girls wanted to show him their gifts and decorations.  While there John began attacking Mary Jean.  Ultimately he left, not taking any of the children with him.  Mary Jean filed charges against him. Just before they were to go to court John contacted Mary Jean and asked if they could sign the divorce papers the morning of court beforehand but at another location.  Mary Jean really did not want to risk being late to court but she also wanted the divorce to be over.  She went to where they were to meet only to find out that he had lied to her in attempts to make her late to court, to which she was.  She got a message to the lawyers that she was on the way but the judge refused to wait.  She was able to refile but ultimately John simply got two years of of probation after pleading guilty.  He was still not to contact Mary Jean and lost visitation for 30 days with the girls but that was all.  He repeatedly violated the order, just as he did when dealing with Michelle.  Once was for testing positive for drugs and also by contacting Mary Jean.  

By May 12, 2001 Mary Jean had filed charges against John more than two weeks before.  Earlier that day there was finally a warrant made for John’s arrest.  It was a day of visitation (for a 2 hour dinner) for him with Faith and Liberty.  Earlier in the day John had gotten someone to contact Mary Jean to see if she was going to allow visitation (there’s no prove of his claims that she ever denied him) and that they would meet in their normal public place.  He also became aware of the warrant for his arrest and talked to his probation officer as well as a detective.  Both assured him that he would not be arrested that evening while with his children.  However, he called the girls, on a phone line that was just for them, telling them that he would likely be arrested while he saw them that evening and that he likely would not see them for a year and that it was their mothers fault.  Mary Jean assured them that he would not be arrested that night and that even if he were put in jail it would not be for a year.  At this point neither girl was very interested in going to see their father but Mary Jean encouraged it and met him at the designated time and place. 


A short time after dropping them off and going to a friends house Mary Jean received a phone call from her mother.  John had contacted her asking that she get a hold of Mary Jean because the girls wanted to talk to her.  Although she was not at home they had called Mary Jean’s home phone and left a message for her to call them back.  When Mary Jean called back John answered and then turned on the speaker phone demanding to Faith,  “ask her.”  Through tears Faith asked Mary Jean why she wanted her Daddy to go to jail.  Always trying to keep her children out of the middle of their problems, Mary Jean chastised John for putting the children in that position.  Suddenly she heard Faith yelling “No, Daddy, please don’t” and Mary Jean heard several shots from a gun.  Suddenly John came back to the phone and said “Merry Fucking Christmas.”  


Rushing to his home Mary Jean called 911.  She expected to get to John’s home and see several police officers but no one was there and she was scared to go to his loft apartment, not only for her own life, but for what she would find.  Her call had not properly been handled.  First it was to be transferred to another district since that was where John lived and secondly it was listed as a simple domestic issue and had a low priority.  While outside John’s apartment building Mary Jean saw a police officer and flagged him down.  He called for backup before entering the apartment.  Once in they found the bodies of the girls each shot several times, with one shot through the head.  They also found several firearms in the apartment. What they did not find was John.  A man hunt was made for him.  He was found several hours later intoxicated by alcohol and drugs coming out of a tattoo parlor in which he had gotten a tattoo of two roses, telling the woman who had gone with him it was to represent his daughters so he had them forever.  The woman had no idea that John had killed his daughters.


John was ultimately convicted and currently sits on death row in Texas but the story does not end there.  While in some areas by 2001 domestic violence was taken more serious than it had been in previous years, it still was not a high priority everywhere. Further, it was widely believed that while a father may be physically abusive to a mother that did not mean they were a danger to their children and there was no need for supervised visitation with the abusive spouse.  Whether John has openly admitted it, I am not sure, but it is widely believed that this was solely done as an act of revenge against Mary Jean.  This case proved that domestic violence and child visitation and custody need to be more closely watched and related.  However, I must admit that in the recent case of Josh Powell, it was proven even those who are violent are capable of getting around even supervision.  


John Battaglia tormented and abused both of his wives for many years.  He never cared who was around, including his own children, when he abused them.  He never batted an eye to bad mouth the mothers to his children.  The courts allowed this behavior and in the end his children suffered the ultimately sacrifice. 

PENNSYLVANIA – Gov. Tom Corbett on Thursday signed a death warrant ordering the execution of a man convicted nearly 25 years ago for the grisly murder of a 2-year old girl.

february 20, 2014 (tribune-democrat)

Gov. Tom Corbett on Thursday signed a death warrant ordering the execution of a man convicted nearly 25 years ago for the grisly murder of a 2-year old girl.

The execution of Stephen Rex Edmiston, now 55, has been ordered for April 16, according to a statement from the governor’s office.

Edmiston was convicted in 1989 by a Cambria County jury for the 1988 murder of Bobbi Jo Matthew.

Edmiston was living in Huntingdon County when he took the girl from the home of her grandmother, Nancy Dotts, in Beccaria, Clearfield County, during the early morning hours of Oct. 5, 1988.

The child’s body was found two days later in a remote area of Reade Township in northeastern Cambria County.

Edmiston maintained his innocence at his trial. But state police testified that he drew a map with an X marking the location where, he said, “You’ll find a dead, raped little girl.”

Police found the girl’s body at the location and Edmiston allegedly admitted to raping her in his truck, then hitting her three or four times until she became quiet.

An autopsy showed Bobbi Jo was partially scalped, had blunt force injuries to her torso and a skull fracture. Her body was burned and her genital area obliterated, according to trial testimony.

Edmiston, who has been housed at SCI-Greene for several years, has been involved in the appeals process for more than two decades.

Cambria County attorneys David Kaltenbaugh and Kenneth Sottile defended Edmiston at his trial, but the appeal process was assumed several years ago by Robert Dunham of the Federal Defenders Office in Philadelphia.

Dunham could not be immediately reached for comment late Thursday.

Kaltenbaugh said he had lost track of where Edmiston was in the appeal process, but said of death row inmates: “They never really exhaust their appeals.”

Executions in Pennsylvania are carried out by lethal injection, but it is highly unlikely that the execution will be carried out this spring.

The last time anyone was executed in Pennsylvania was in 1999, when Gary Heidnik of Philadelphia was executed, said Joshua Maus, of the Governor’s Office of General Counsel.

That execution occurred only after Heidnik voluntarily give up his appeal process so he could be put to death.

The Edmiston execution warrant was the 31st signed by Corbett, Maus said.

Trial testimony and information provided by the governor’s office was that Bobbi Jo went to bed in the home she shared with her grandmother and her father, Harold Matthew, on the night she was abducted.

Around 3:30 a.m., Harold Matthew, who was sleeping on a sofa in the home, was awakened by a man with a beard, the father later told authorities.

The man was wearing a baseball cap and apologized to Harold Matthew for waking him, according to trial testimony.

At some point, Edmiston went into a bedroom shared by three children, including Bobbi Jo, and removed her from the home.

Edmiston was said to be the nephew of the boyfriend of Dotts, the child’s grandmother, who discovered her missing when she came home at 5:30 a.m.

Edmiston is the last Cambria County inmate on death row. The death sentence for Larry Christie, convicted in the murder of a night watchman at the Oriential Ball Room in Gallitzin was reduced to life in prison after it became apparent the courts would rule in his favor of his appeal.

Ernest “Ernie,” Simmons, convicted in the 1990s  murder of Anna Knaze, had his status changed when an appeals court ordered a new trial and prosecutors allowed him to plead guilty to third-degree murder.

Simmons was expected to be given credit for time served, and released, but is now back in prison on a parole violation.

Late last year the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the Simmons appeal regarding the parole violation.

CALIFORNIA : Death sentence upheld for Montebello woman who murdered her husband – Angelina Rodriguez

february 20, 2014(latimes)

Angelina Rodriguez during her 2004 sentencing for murder. Her death sentence was upheld Thursday by the California Supreme CourtSAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court unanimously upheld the death penalty Thursday for a Montebello woman convicted of murdering her husband for life insurance and implicated in the choking death years earlier of her baby daughter.

 

Angelina Rodriguez fatally poisoned her husband, a special education teacher, by serving him drinks laced with oleander and antifreeze in 2000, a few months after persuading him to take out joint life insurance policies, the court said.

It was her second attempt, according to the ruling written by Justice Ming W. Chin.  She had previously tried to kill him by loosening natural gas valves in their garage, the court said.

Rodriguez had married Jose Francisco Rodriguez several months before his death.

During her murder trial, the prosecution also presented evidence implicating her in the 1993 death of her 13-month-old daughter, Alicia. Rodriguez was married to another man at the time.

The baby died after choking on the rubber nipple of a pacifier. Two months earlier, Rodriguez had taken out a $50,000 life insurance policy on the baby—without her then-husband’s knowledge—and made herself the beneficiary, the court said.

Rodriguez and Alicia’s father also sued the manufacturer of the pacifier, which had been recalled based on five consumer complaints that it had broken apart. The company paid a $710,000 settlement.

While behind bars for the murder of her husband, Rodriguez  tried to dissuade a witness from testifying against her, the court said. The jury convicted of her interfering with the witness but failed to reach a verdict on a charge that she tried to have the witness murdered.

In challenging her conviction and sentence, Rodriguez argued, among other things, that the jury should not have been told she killed her daughter.  Rodriguez was not charged or convicted in connection with the death, but law enforcement reexamined it after the poisoning of her husband.

The court said the jury was entitled to hear about the child’s death during the penalty phase of deliberations.

“There was ample evidence that defendant murdered her daughter,” Chin wrote.

Karen Kelly, who is representing Rodriguez on appeal, said she would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

California supreme court /opinion : click to read, pdf file

Arizona death-row case to get unusual 13th look by high court – Richard hurles

february 20, 2014, (azcentral)

WASHINGTON – When the Supreme Court’s justices sit down Friday to consider which cases to hear, one appeal will be familiar – an Arizona murder case that the justices have taken up the last 12 times they met.

Experts say it is unusual for the justices to consider one case 13 times in a row – so far – at their regular case conference without turning it down or agreeing to hear it. And while they say no one can know for sure, they have several theories why Ryan v. Hurles has been hanging around since before the court’s current term started in October.

“Twelve is a long time,” said Dale Baich, an assistant federal public defender in Arizona. “I don’t recall seeing a case held over for that many times.”

The petition to the Supreme Court is the latest twist in the 22-year case of Richard Hurles, who killed Buckeye librarian Kay Blanton in 1992 when he stabbed her 37 times as she worked alone in the library. He was convicted in 1994 of burglary, attempted sexual assault and first-degree murder, and sentenced to death.

Hurles has filed repeated appeals since then, getting to the point that a death warrant was issued in 2000 before it was stayed.

Among the claims in his latest round of appeals is a charge of judicial bias against trial Judge Ruth Hilliard. Hurles had asked that Hilliard – the judge at both his trial and his sentencing – not be allowed to consider his second post-conviction review.

But that request was denied by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Eddward Ballinger. Hilliard then denied Hurles’ second petition, a decision that was affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and in January 2013 a three-judge panel of that court ordered an evidentiary hearing into Hurles’ bias claim.

The Arizona attorney general’s office appealed that ruling last summer to the U.S. Supreme Court, which first put Hurles’ case on its conference calendar Sept. 30. It has put the case on every conference calendar since then, 12 so far, without deciding whether or not to hear it.

“We really don’t know why the case is being held,” said Baich.

But he, like others, offered several possible explanations: The court could be waiting for a decision in a different case to be resolved first, it could be writing an opinion, or a justice, or justices, might be writing a dissent should the case get rejected.

“This is pure speculation on my part,” Baich said. “There could be a number of reasons.”

Amy Howe, editor for the U.S. Supreme Court blog SCOTUSblog, said it is also possible that a justice might be rewording the petition. Or it could just be that the four votes needed to issue a writ of certiorari – agreeing to hear the case – are not there yet and justices are trying to pick up that fourth vote.

Paul Bender, a law professor at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, said the delay is most likely caused by the court waiting to see a 9th Circuit decision on a similar case that “might resolve the issues in this case.”

The Hurles’ case is “an issue that they’re potentially interested in, but whether they’re really going to take it depends upon what the 9th Circuit did and what the state’s going to do after that,” Bender said.

Howe said despite the theories, there will be no way of knowing the reason for the delay until after the court has either granted or rejected the appeal.

“You just don’t know until you actually see what’s happening,” she said.

Florida death row inmates receive ‘consciousness checks’ at execution – Paul Howell

february 20, 2014 (theguardian)

The state corrections official who stands beside condemned inmates as they take their last breaths in Florida’s death chamber recently pulled back the veil on what has largely been a very secretive execution process.

The testimony was given during a 11 February hearing in a lawsuit involving Paul Howell, a death row inmate scheduled to die by lethal injection 26 February. Howell is appealing his execution; his lawyers say the first of the injected drugs, midazolam, isn’t effective at preventing the pain of the subsequent drugs.

The Florida supreme court specifically asked the circuit court in Leon County to determine the efficacy of the so called “consciousness check” given to inmates by the execution team leader.

The testimony is notable because it shows that the Department of Corrections has changed its procedures since the state started using a new cocktail of lethal injection drugs. A shortage of execution drugs around the country is becoming worse as more pharmacies conclude that supplying the lethal chemicals is not worth the bad publicity or legal and ethical risks.

Timothy Cannon, who is the assistant secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections and the team leader present at every execution, told a Leon County court that an additional inmate “consciousness check” is now given due to news media reports and other testimony stemming from the 15 October execution of William Happ.

Happ was the first inmate to receive the new lethal injection drug trio. An Associated Press reporter who had covered executions using the old drug cocktail wrote that Happ acted differently during the execution than those executed before him. It appeared Happ remained conscious longer and made more body movements after losing consciousness.

Cannon said in his testimony that during Happ’s execution and the ones that came before it, he did two “consciousness checks” based on what he learned at training at the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Indiana – a “shake and shout”, where he vigorously shakes the inmate’s shoulders and calls his name loudly, and also strokes the inmate’s eyelashes and eyelid.

After Happ’s execution, Cannon said the department decided to institute a “trapezoid pinch”, where he squeezes the muscle between an inmate’s neck and shoulder.

It was added “to ensure we were taking every precaution we could possibly do to ensure the person was, in fact, unconscious”, Cannon said. “To make sure that this process was humane and dignified”.

Lawyers for Howell say that they are concerned that the midazolam does not produce a deep enough level of unconsciousness to prevent the inmate from feeling the pain of the second and third injection and causes a death that makes the inmate feel as though he is being buried alive.

“Beyond just the fact that constitution requires a humane death, if we decided that we wanted perpetrators of crime to die in the same way that their victims did then we would rape rapists. And we don’t rape rapists,” said Sonya Rudenstine, a Gainesville attorney who represents Howell.

“We should not be engaging of the behavior that we have said to abhor. If we are going to kill people, we have to do it humanely. It’s often said the inmate doesn’t suffer nearly as much as the victim, and I believe that’s what keeps us civilized and humane.”

Corrections spokeswoman Jessica Cary said on Wednesday that the department “remains committed to doing everything it can to ensure a humane and dignified lethal injection process”.

Cannon explained in his testimony that each execution team member “has to serve in the role of the condemned during training at some point”.

“We’ve changed several aspects of just the comfort level for the inmate while lying on the gurney,” he said. “Maybe we put sponges under the hand or padding under the hands to make it more comfortable, changed the pillow, the angle of things, just to try to make it a little more comfortable, more humane and more dignified as we move along.”

He said an inmate is first injected with two syringes of midazolam and a syringe of “flush”, a saline solution to get the drug into the body. Midazolam is a sedative.

Once the three syringes have been administered from an anonymous team of pharmacists and doctors in a back room, Cannon does the consciousness checks.

Meanwhile, the team in the back room watches the inmate’s face on a screen, which is captured by a video camera in the death chamber. The inmate is also hooked up to a heart monitor, Cannon said.

There are two executioners in the back room – the ones who deploy the drugs – along with an assistant team leader, three medical professionals, an independent monitor from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and two corrections employees who maintain an open line to the governor’s office.

If the team determines that the inmate is unconscious, the other two lethal drugs are administered.

Us- Upcoming Executions march 2014

Dates are subject to change due to stays and appeals

UPDATE MARCH 20

Month State Inmate
19 OH Gregory Lott – Stayed
20 FL Robert Henry executed 6.16pm
20 OK Clayton Lockett – Stayed until April 22
26 MO Jeffrey Ferguson EXECUTED
26 MS Charles Crawford Stayed as execution date had not been affirmed by state court.
27 OK Charles Warner – Stayed until April 29
27 TX Anthony Doyle EXECUTED
27 MS Michelle Byrom Update – The Mississippi Supreme Court threw out Michelle Byrom’s murder conviction and death sentence and ordered a new trial due to numerous problems, including inadequate representation, critical evidence not presented to the jury, confessions by another defendant, and the prosecution’s lack of confidence in its own story of what actually happened.
March
19 OHIO Gregory Lott MOVED NOVEMBER 19
19 TEXAS Ray Jasper EXECUTED 6.31 PM
20 OKLAHOMA Clayton Lockett DELAYED (drug shortage)
27 OKLAHOMA Charles Warner DELAYED (drug shortage)
27 TEXAS Anthony Doyle