Inmates on the death row

Rob Will – Another Potentially Innocent Man On Death Row Faces Execution In Texas

april 2 2012  source : http://thinkprogress.org

Yet another death row inmate in Texas may in fact not be guilty of the crime that put him there. Robert Gene Will was convicted in the 2000 slaying of Deputy Sheriff Barrett Hill in Harris County, Texas. Will and another man, Michael Rosario, were caught trying to break into a car in December 2000. Both men fled, but Will says he was apprehended and placed in handcuffs by police. That’s when someone shot Deputy Sheriff Hill.

 

Will says that the shooter couldn’t have been him, on account of his hands literally being tied behind his back. And his lawyers argue that Rosario, the accomplice in the attempted car burglary, has admitted to at least five people that he was the one who pulled the trigger that morning. And now, Will’s case is attracting even more attention after a U.S District Judge voiced his own reservations about the initial conviction and the appeal that was conducted. TheHouston Chronicle reports:

“The questions raised during post-judgment factual development about Will’s actual innocence create disturbing uncertainties …,” [Judge Keith] Ellison wrote in a Jan. 17 memorandum. “On top of the considerable evidence supporting Will’s innocence and the important errors in the trial court, there must also be addressed the total absence of eyewitness testimony or strongly probative forensic evidence. With facts such as these, and only circumstantial evidence supporting Will’s conviction and death sentence, the court laments the strict limitations placed upon it.”

Judge Ellison was limited in his ability to hear new evidence before making a decision on whether to grant an appeal to Will, and despite his expressed dismay over the lower court’s verdict, was forced to deny the appeal on a technicality. But Will and his defense attorneys still have avenues open to them, including a recent Supreme Court ruling that allows for convicted criminals to, in some cases, challenge the competency of their state-assigned appeals lawyers. For Will, whose appointed attorney filed a legal brief that copied extensively from one he filed previously for a completely different case, the Supreme Court decision offers a ray of hope.

Texas has a well-earned reputation for unsympathetic governors who are undeterred at overseeing more executions than any other state in the country. Current Gov. Rick Perry presided over 235 executions during his time in office, by far the most of any governor in the modern era. This despite several questionable convictions that call into question the use of the death penalty at all.

 

my own opinion

Perry is more of a murderer than anyone who’s death warrant he has signed. Innocent isn’t  in Perry’s vocabulary, Perry loves the smell of burning flesh in the morning. What’s going wrong with him ? what’s going wrong with this state ? Maybe Perry may need psychotherapy, an event in his childhood of the trauma to become a man who happens to sleep at night knowing that he killed people and especially innocent people. I think sometimes the most dangerous people are not those caught, but those who elected to lead.

well we know  Texas-Bush-Perry .. murderers.. 

 

 

Ohio’s execution process, death row inmates face uncertain future

With Ohio’s execution process tied up in court, 153 inmates on death row face an uncertain future.
The 2011 Capital Crimes report, issued today by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, summarizes the status of the death-penalty process, including the 12 inmates with scheduled execution dates and 46 inmates lethally injected since 1999. The report, required annually by state law, goes to the governor, state lawmakers and the courts.
What DeWine’s report does not say is when, or if, executions will resume. Reginald Brooks, a Cuyahoga County man who murdered his three sons in their beds, was the last person executed, on Nov. 15 last year.
Since then, the state has been tied up in federal court on a legal challenge to the lethal injection process. U.S. District Judge Gregory L. Frost has been highly critical of the state’s lethal-injection protocol and stopped an execution; Gov. John Kasich postponed others, anticipating federal court entanglements.
In general, the appeals process in capital punishment cases takes so long that 22 Death Row inmates died before their execution, DeWine said. That number increased by one this week with the death by natural causes of Billy Sowell, 75, of Hamilton County.
DeWine’s report covered the calendar year through Dec. 31, 2011.
DeWine reported there are 14 convicted killers with scheduled death dates, although the number is now 12 with two having been postponed. The death dates run through Jan. 16, 2014.
The 46 men who have been executed were responsible for killing 76 people, 17 of them children.
Source: Columbus Dispatch, March 31, 2012

Thomas Arthur – Cruel and unusual?: Death row inmate challenges state execution procedure

april 1, 2012 source : http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com

A death row inmate who had his execution blocked by a federal court that cited Alabama’s “secrecy” concerning its execution procedure says that procedure could leave him conscious while drugs that stop his breathing and his heart flow through his body.

Attorneys for Thomas Arthur, who was convicted in a 1982 murder-for-hire scheme, argue that the use of pentobarbital to anesthetize a prisoner during an execution violates Arthur’s Eighth Amendment protections.

Suhana Han, Arthur’s attorney, claims the drug does not work fast enough to prevent the inmate from feeling the potentially painful effects of the two drugs that follow, and that the state’s secrecy surrounding its execution protocols makes it impossible to determine whether its use constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, or even if the state follows its own procedures during executions.

Documents filed by Arthur’s attorneys cite the execution of inmate Eddie Powell last year, in which officials apparently did not pinch Powell, the final step of a consciousness test before the fatal drugs are administered.

“What we’re asking the court to do is allow us the opportunity to prove our claim,” Han said. “Alabama has never had its lethal injection process challenged at trial on the merits.”

Arthur was scheduled to be executed March 29, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 21 overturned a lower court’s dismissal of Arthur’s appeal on the use of pentobarbital, finding there was no evidence that Alabama was conducting executions in a constitutional manner.

The situation, the court wrote, was “exacerbated by Alabama’s policy maintaining secrecy surrounding every aspect of its three-drug execution method.

“It is certainly not speculative and indeed plausible that Alabama will disparately treat Arthur because the protocol is not certain and could be unexpectedly changed for his execution,” the court wrote.

Brian Corbett, a spokesman for the Alabama Department of Corrections, declined comment last week, saying he was not at liberty to discuss the state’s execution procedures. The Alabama Attorney General’s office also declined comment on the case.

Arthur was convicted of murder in the 1982 death of Muscle Shoals businessman Troy Wicker Jr. Wicker’s murder occurred while Arthur was in a work release program after being convicted of murdering the sister of his common-law wife in 1977. Arthur has maintained that he is innocent of Wicker’s murder.

The state Department of Corrections does not release information on its execution procedures, but the protocols have come out in litigation over capital punishment.

The condemned are first administered pentobarbital, rendering the condemned unconscious. After the pentobarbital, the inmate is given pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the inmate’s muscles and stops breathing. Finally, the condemned receives a dosage of potassium chloride, which stops the heart.

Alabama, like other states with the death penalty, had used sodium thiopental until 2011, when Hospira, the manufacturer of the drug, stopped making it in the United States. Pentobarbital, which had been used by veterinarians and in physician-assisted suicide in some countries, was adopted as a replacement by most states.

The Death Penalty Information Center said the drug was used in 35 executions in the United States last year, including five in Alabama.

According to court filings, sodium thiapentol takes about 60 seconds to render an inmate unconscious. But Arthur’s attorneys, citing affidavits from two experts, argue that pentobarbital can take between 15 to 60 minutes to reach “maximum effect, which, in the context of a lethal injection, is an inmate’s anesthetization,” a brief filed by Arthur’s attorneys said.

With executions usually taking place within a half-hour attorneys for Arthur argue, that an inmate could feel the effects of the other two drugs before the pentobarbital takes hold.

“The Supreme Court recognizes that if an inmate is not unconscious, that will cause excruciating pain,” Han said. “If an inmate is not unconscious, (pancuronium bromide) is comparable to feeling like you’re being buried alive. The third drug, we’re told, is comparable to your veins and your heart being on fire.”

read the full article here

Death row inmate’s effort to spare live gains momentum – Rob Will

march 31 2012 source : http://www.chron.com

Robert Gene Will II says he couldn't have killed a Harris County officer because Will's hands were tied behind his back. Photo: Ben DeSoto / Houston Chronicle

Like so many before him, Texas death row inmateRobert Gene Will II says he’s not guilty. Given the state of Texas’ record in seeing its death sentences carried out, the odds on getting the right people to believe him are not great.

But there have been exceptions. Will insists that if he can get a fair hearing, he will be another one. He admits he was no saint in his younger days, that he ran with a bad crowd, and yes, that he and a buddy were breaking into a car on the morning of Dec. 4, 2000, when a spotlight suddenly caught them in its glare. Within moments his life changed forever, and Harris County Sheriff’s Deputy Barrett Hill lost his.

Will claims he did not shoot Hill. He has claimed as much since the day of his arrest. He could not have done it, he says, because his hands literally were tied behind his back.

“I am COMPLETELY INNOCENT,” Will wrote on a website dedicated to securing his freedom, “and I am sure anyone who takes the time to look into my case will come to that same conclusion.”

Perhaps not. Those convicting of killing law enforcement officers are even less likely than most of death row’s 288 residents to find sympathy. So it was bound to draw notice when U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison recently showed legal solidarity even as he denied Will’s latest appeal. Ellison said legal limitations – technicalities, if you will – precluded him from siding with Will.

“Questions as to Will’s possible innocence do remain,” Ellison wrote in a March 19 order granting Will the right to appeal to a higher court. “Unfortunately, the court is powerless to address the merits of additional claims raised post-judgment, unsettling though they are.”

Judge suggests review

In a separate opinion two months earlier, issued after a hearing at which Will was allowed to introduce evidence, Ellison reiterated his frustration at not being able to help, and he went further. Although he also denied Will’s motion, the judge made clear that Will’s case should get a broader review. He called one of the original trial judge’s rulings an “error of grave proportion” and said that the presence of rows of uniformed law enforcement officers in the courtroom “would have likely justified post-trial relief had the issue risen on direct appeal.”

“The questions raised during post-judgment factual development about Will’s actual innocence create disturbing uncertainties …,” Ellison wrote in a Jan. 17 memorandum. “On top of the considerable evidence supporting Will’s innocence and the important errors in the trial court, there must also be addressed the total absence of eyewitness testimony or strongly probative forensic evidence. With facts such as these, and only circumstantial evidence supporting Will’s conviction and death sentence, the court laments the strict limitations placed upon it.”

Questions abound

Will, 33, admits that he and Michael Rosario were burglarizing a car when Hill came across them. They ran, but Will was apprehended. He claimed that he was handcuffed when Rosario showed up and shot the deputy. Prosecutors contended that Will shot the deputy and admitted as much to a motorist he encountered during a later carjacking as he was trying to escape. Will’s lawyers argue that the motorist did not mention that in any of her early statements to police.

Will’s lawyers also have argued that Rosario, the son of a Houston police officer who was not charged in the murder, has admitted killing Hill to at least five individuals. They also point to an absence of any forensic evidence connecting Will to the shooting, and to a bullet graze on the back of a jacket Will wore that morning – consistent with a shot being fired by Rosario toward Hill when the latter was close by and in custody. Hill’s weapon was not fired.

Justices’ ruling a factor

Ellison’s sympathetic language after reviewing the case was the first good news Will’s legal team has had in a long time. But even better news arrived on March 20 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that simple fairness, if not the Constitution, requires that the lawyers who handle the early appeals of a capital murder conviction do so competently.

In a 7-2 decision in Martinez v. Ryan, the high court ruled those convicted of a crime can in some instances challenge the effectiveness of those hired for so-called habeas corpus appeals at the state level. It is unclear, experts said, whether such a challenge is limited to the very narrow circumstances raised by that Arizona case, or whether it can be applied to all manner of misconduct that results in a defendant being unable to raise an issue in future appeals, such as missing a deadline or failing to file certain claims.

“I think it is arguable that Martinez covers the latter scenario and will be argued by defense counsel that way, but the opinion as written is pretty restrictive,” said Brad Levenson, head of the State Office of Capital Writs, a public defender’s office for appeals in capital murder cases that was established in 2010 in part because of concern over the consistence of legal representation. “I think only time will tell how far Martinez can be interpreted.”

If the decision turns out the be less restrictive than the specifics of the Martinez case, the ruling could be significant. Critics of the decision, including dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia, raise fears that it will prolong death row appeals and be a burden to states. Defense lawyers who specialize in capital cases say it could be a great boon to those who have drawn the black bean of a lousy appeals lawyer.

Ex-lawyer defends work

Will’s former state habeas lawyer, Leslie Ribnik, filed a 28-page legal brief on Will’s behalf, the first 20 pages of which were the same — word for word, typo for typo — as the one he filed in the case of Angel Maturino Resendiz, the notorious “railroad killer” whose serial murders led to his conviction and ultimate execution in 2006.

Ribnik admitted making mistakes in Resendiz’s appeal and missed deadlines, which resulted in the default of some claims. Ribnik later removed himself from the appellate lawyer list and acknowledged he suffered from Parkinson’s disease and likely was feeling the effects even as he was preparing Will’s appeal.

Nevertheless, Ribnik has previously insisted he did an adequate job on Will’s appeal.

“I will own up to my screw-ups — I’ll take my lumps,” Ribnik told the Austin American-Statesman in 2006. “As for Will, I think I did a good job on that one.”

Will’s later appeals lawyers disagreed, pointing out that Ribnik did not investigate the statements from individuals about Rosario’s alleged statements about the shooting, or investigate anything.

“The damage was real,” Will’s lawyer, Samy Khalil, said of Ribnik.

Ellison seemed inclined to agree. If Will’s appeal is again placed before him, he may be able to do something.

“It seems that Judge Ellison could hear the claim now,” Levenson said. “And from what I know, it could be a substantial claim.”

FLORIDA – Carl Dausch – Judge sets date to decide on death sentence

march, 31 2012 source : http://www.dailycommercial.com

Dausch

A Sumter County judge has set a date to decide whether to approve the jury’s death recommendation given to a hitchhiker last year who stood trial on sexual battery and murder charges of a Lake Panasoffkee motorist.

Carl Dausch 53, of Indiana, will be sentenced April 26 at the Sumter County courthouse in the first-degree murder conviction in the 1987 death of Adrian Renard Mobley .

“I’m hoping everything will go as planned,” said prosecutor Pete Magrino, who started seeking the death penalty shortly after Dausch was brought back to Sumter County to face the charges.

A pre-sentencing hearing Tuesday included a letter submitted by Dausch’s daughter in support of her father’s character. Magrino said the court may give the letter some consideration but he doesn’t expect it to block the jury’s suggestion.

The hearing also comes after Judge William Hallman denied a list of motions by the defense in their arguments for a new trial.

The body of Mobley, 27, an electronics manager at the Walmart in Bushnell, was found stomped to death and hog-tied on July 15, 1987, off County Road 475 in Bushnell.

Mobley‘s legs were tied to his hands and arms behind him with a bed sheet. His jeans were partially pulled down.

And, Mobley‘s 1981 red Honda Accord and wallet were missing.

Sumter County Office sheriff’s detectives initially ran cold on the case. In 2004, a cigarette butt retrieved from the Honda was tested for DNA, which pointed to Dausch, an Indiana prison inmate at the time who was serving 60 years on an unrelated rape and battery convictions.

Magrino said DNA on anal swabs taken of the Mobley also linked Dausch to the crime.

The statue of limitations had run out for any robbery charges. But Dausch was indicted on murder and sexual battery charges. In December, a jury found Dausch guilty of murder, but downgraded the sexual battery charge to aggravated battery.

case  progress docket : read here 

CASE NUMBER FILE DATE CASE TYPE STATUS
602006CF000301XXAXFX
[06000301CFFA]		 05/10/2006 Circuit Felony CASE OPEN
CHARGE SEQ# STATUTE STATUTE TEXT DATE PHASE
1 782041a1 MURDER FIRST DEGREE 12/13/2011 Court: Adjudicated Guilty
2 7840451a1 AGGRAVATED BATTERY GREAT BODILY HARM 12/13/2011 Court: Adjudicated Guilty
[DEFENDANT=DAUSCH, CARL ]
[JUDGE=HALLMAN, WILLIAM H III]
LAST DOCKET DATE=03/28/2012
[Court Events | Finance Info | Docket Info]
CHARGE SEQ#: 1     Offense Date:
07/15/1987		 Trial Type:
Jury Trial
   INITIAL: Status Date:
08/18/2008		 Action:
Charged		 Statute / Text:
782041a1 / MURDER FIRST DEGREE
   PROSECUTOR: Decision Date:
05/10/2006		 Action:
Filed		 Statute / Text:
782041a1 / MURDER FIRST DEGREE
  COURT: Decision Date:
12/13/2011		 Action:
Adjudicated Guilty		 Statute / Text:
782041a1 / MURDER FIRST DEGREE
CHARGE SEQ#: 2     Offense Date:
07/15/1987		 Trial Type:
Jury Trial
   INITIAL: Status Date:
08/18/2008		 Action:
Charged		 Statute / Text:
7940113 / SEXUAL BATTERY WITH DEADLY WEAPON
   PROSECUTOR: Decision Date:
05/10/2006		 Action:
Filed		 Statute / Text:
7940113 / SEXUAL BATTERY WITH DEADLY WEAPON
  COURT: Decision Date:
12/13/2011		 Action:
Adjudicated Guilty		 Statute / Text:
7840451a1 / AGGRAVATED BATTERY GREAT BODILY HARM

Oregon – High court again overturns death sentence – Robert Paul Langley Jr.

The Oregon Supreme Court, for the third time in two decades, has overturned a death sentence against Robert Paul Langley Jr. for a murder committed in 1987.

The decision announced Thursday sent the case back to Marion County Circuit Court for further proceedings. District Attorney Walt Beglau has not announced whether he will seek the death penalty for Langley.

Because four of the sitting justices have worked for the Oregon Department of Justice, which represents the state in death-penalty cases, they did not take part in Thursday’s decision. The three remaining justices were joined by a retired justice and a Court of Appeals judge to decide the case.

In essence, the justices decided that Langley was erroneously compelled to represent himself in court when he was sentenced to death again on Nov. 9, 2005.

Death sentences are automatically reviewed by the high court.

Langley, who now is 52, originally was tried in connection with two separate murders.

The body of Anne Gray, 39, was found buried in the backyard of Langley’s aunt in April 1988. Gray’s death dated back to Dec. 10, 1987.

On April 14, 1988, Larry Rockenbrant, 24, was killed and his body found buried in a cactus garden at Oregon State Hospital, where Langley lived while he took part in a program for mentally and emotionally disturbed prison inmates. Langley’s therapist consented to the cactus garden as a way to allow Langley to relax.

Langley was convicted of aggravated murder in separate trials in 1989 and sentenced to death.

The Supreme Court reversed the death sentences in 1992. It ruled that in Gray’s case, the jury was not allowed to hear mitigating evidence, and in Rockenbrant’s case, evidence from Gray’s murder was improperly admitted in the trial.

Langley was sentenced to death for a second time in a retrial for Gray’s murder. But in the Rockenbrant case, he was sentenced to life in prison with a 30-year minimum.

Upon appeal in 2000, the Supreme Court again reversed his death sentence, ruling that the jury failed to consider an option of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

After the case went through three circuit judges — Joseph Guimond, Terry Leggert and Joseph Ochoa, all now retired — Langley was sentenced to death for a third time in Marion County in 2005.

Langley had reshuffled his lawyers several times.

But the sentence came down only after Langley was required to represent himself in the proceeding without the court obtaining a valid waiver of his right to counsel. That self-representation occurred after Ochoa ruled that Langley’s other option was to accept representation by someone who Langley had complaints about — but Ochoa assumed those complaints were frivolous.

“That, too, was not a permissible choice,” said the court’s opinion, written by Justice Robert Durham.

“The record indicates that the court decided that defendant’s (Langley’s) refusal to make the offered choice entitled the court to make the choice itself in favor of compelled self-representation, rather than representation by counsel,” Durham wrote.

“That was (an) error. In our view, because submission of the choice to defendant was itself impermissible, defendant’s refusal to make the proposed choice was entirely proper. It follows that the trial court erred in requiring defendant to proceed to trial on the sentencing phase of a capital murder case without the assistance of legal counsel.”

Oregon Supreme Court   read the opinion ( media release) : click here 

TEXAS – Hank Skinner – one more innocent on the death row

Filmmaker Werner Herzog’s segment on Hank Skinner, who is on Texas death row and fighting to prove his innocence with more DNA testing.

official website : http://www.hankskinner.org/

Arkansas – Death-row inmate claims state withheld evidence

march 29, source :http://arkansasnews.com

LITTLE ROCK — A man sentenced to die for a 1997 double homicide in Little River County did not receive a fair trial because prosecutors withheld crucial evidence from the defense, an attorney for the man argued today before the state Supreme Court.

An attorney for the state said the outcome of the case would have been the same even if the state had provided the evidence.

The court heard oral arguments but did not immediately issue a ruling in an appeal by Timothy Lamont Howard, 42, who was convicted of two counts of capital murder in the deaths of Brian and Shanon Day. The three were friends and were all involved in using and selling illegal drugs, mainly methamphetamine, according to court filings.

Brian Day’s body was found in a U-Haul trailer in Ogden on Dec. 13, 1997, and his wife’s body was found in the closet of the couple’s home in Ashdown later the same day.

At Howard’s trial in December 1999, jurors heard a forensics expert testify that boots found 2 1/2 miles from the murder scene contained hairs that were a likely match with Howard, and that blood on the boots was a likely match with Brian Day.

Howard’s trial lawyer argued that Howard was in Texarkana when the murders occurred and that the boots had been used to frame Howard.

The state Supreme Court upheld Howard’s conviction in 2002, but federal public defender Scott Braden argued before the high court today that it should order a new trial, or in the alternative send the case back to Little River County Circuit Court for a new evidentiary hearing, because the defense has learned that the state withheld evidence that could have changed the outcome of the trial.

That evidence includes notes showing that errors occurred during the testing of DNA from the boots and that samples may have been contaminated. Braden said the state had those notes but did not provide them to the defense before the trial.

“There is no question here that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have done something different” if the defense had been able to use those notes to try to impeach the DNA evidence, Braden argued.

Assistant Attorney General Lauren Heil argued that other evidence established that the boots were Howard’s, including testimony by Howard’s ex-wife that the boots looked like his.

Justice Robert Brown asked Heil if she thought that testimony was equivalent to testimony of a DNA match. She said she believed it was, in combination with Howard’s defense that the boots were used to frame him — a defense that she said required conceding that the boots were his.

Braden also argued that the state did not provide the defense with a police report detailing an incident of abuse that Howard suffered as a child. He said the defense could have used the report as evidence of Howard’s violent childhood during the penalty phase of the trial, and the jury could have considered Howard’s past a mitigating factor that weighed against imposing the death penalty.

Heil argued that Howard could have brought up the incident himself at his trial, but he did not.

“The defendant has an obligation to raise things within his own unique knowledge,” she said.

Heil also argued that the defense did not assert its claims in a timely manner, a charge that Braden denied.

The Supreme Court split on Howard’s previous appeal in 2002, ruling 4-3 to uphold his conviction. Only two of the justices who took part in that decision are still on the court: Chief Justice Jim Hannah and Justice Robert Brown, both of whom said then in dissenting opinions they would have overturned the conviction because of problems with the state’s case.

Justice Donald Corbin recused from hearing both appeals. Filling in for him today as a special appointed justice was Little Rock lawyer Ronald Hope.

Name Date Duration
NEW!! CR 00-803 Timothy Lamont Howard v. State of Arkansas, from Little River Circuit Mar 29, 2012 00h 53m Oral Argument

Case Caption:
TIMOTHY LAMONT HOWARD
V
STATE OF ARKANSAS

Timothy Lamont Howard (ACTIVE) Appellant’s counsel:
Dorcy Kyle Corbin – LEAD
Janice Wegener Vaughn – LEAD
Mac John Carder Jr – LEAD
Julie Brain – LEAD
Scott W. Braden – LEAD
Joshua R. Lee – LEAD
Conviction Information:
Convicted of: Capital Murder
Sentence: 000-00-000 (yyy-mm-ddd)
Sentence Type DEATH

State Of Arkansas (ACTIVE) Appellee’s counsel:
Attorney General – LEAD

Trial Court: Little River
Little River Circuit
Trial Court Number: CR-97-105
Trial Judge: Charles A. Yeargan

——- EVENT LISTING ——–
03/29/2012 Case Submitted – Orally Argued

03/29/2012 Supreme Court Votesheet Issued

03/29/2012 Supreme Court Oral Argument Issued for
REGULAR DOCKET scheduled for 03/29/12 at A.M. – ORAL Argument.
2/27/12 – Scott Braden and Josh Lee confirmed
2/27/12 – Lauren Heil confirmed

No. 02-6564 Status: DECIDED
Title: Timothy Lamont Howard, Petitioner
v.
Arkansas
Docketed: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Arkansas
September 26, 2002 (CR00-803)
~~Date~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 25 2002 Petition for writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 26, 2002)
Oct 28 2002 Brief of respondent Arkansas in opposition filed.
Nov 7 2002 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 27, 2002
Dec 2 2002 Petition DENIED.
********************************************************
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Jeffrey M. Rosenzweig 300 Spring Street 5013725247
Suite 310
Little Rock, AR 72201
Party name: Timothy L. Howard
Attorneys for Respondent:
Lauren E. Heil AG’s Ofc., 200 Tower Building 5016821309
323 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Party name: Arkansas

Why is Alabama opposing DNA testing?

March 28, 2012  source :http://socialistworker.org

why is Alabama opposing DNA testing?

Rebekah Skelton reports on a case where an Alabama man’s life is at stake.

March 28, 2012

Alabama death row prisoner Thomas ArthurAlabama death row prisoner Thomas Arthur

THOMAS ARTHUR has been on Alabama’s death row for 30 years. He was convicted of killing Troy Wicker in 1982, but has always maintained his innocence. Recently, a federal appeals court stayed Arthur’s March 29 execution date over an issue about lethal injection, though that stay could be lifted at any time.

The real question, however, remains this: Will Thomas Arthur be executed in Alabama without being allowed to have DNA testing that could prove his innocence?

There is a piece of evidence, an “Afro wig” worn by Wicker’s killer as a disguise, that could be tested for Arthur’s DNA. The wig has already been tested once for DNA, after another Alabama prisoner, Bobby Ray Gilbert, confessed to Wicker’s murder in 2008. However, the testing was inconclusive–there wasn’t a match for Gilbert or Arthur.

Ultimately, the original judge decided that Gilbert’s confession wasn’t credible, and despite a lack of other physical evidence tying Arthur to the crime, she recommended that the Alabama Supreme Court deny Arthur’s appeal, which it did.

Now, Arthur’s defense team is asking for a more advanced DNA test, called a mini-STR DNA analysis, on the wig, but Alabama’s attorney general is fighting the request–arguing that this test wouldn’t be any more accurate than the previous one. On top of that, there is no law guaranteeing Arthur the right to further DNA testing.

“I am outraged that there is physical evidence that, if DNA-tested, would prove my father’s guilt or innocence conclusively. This testing could be done prior to his execution and would be paid for by the law firm handling his case,” said Arthur’s daughter Sherrie Stone. “If we are to continue executions in this country, laws must be put in place in which DNA testing must be allowed at all stages of the process. There is a chance we are executing innocent people. I know because my father is one of those people.”

If the lawyers have offered to pay for the testing, what could possibly be the problem? If the test shows that Arthur’s innocent, the state of Alabama can rest easy knowing they didn’t condemn an innocent man to death. And if it show’s he’s guilty, it would only affirm what the state has already convicted him of, at no cost to them.

However, as Andrew Cohen pointed out in a February article in The Atlantic, the general consensus among prosecutors and judges is to value “finality” in cases, rather than “accuracy.” Sharon Keller, the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, outlined this position in a 2000 “Frontline” interview, saying, “We can’t give new trials to everyone who establishes, after conviction, that they might be innocent. We would have no finality in the criminal justice system, and finality is important.”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

IT SHOULD be clear to anyone with a conscience that if there’s even a small chance that someone might be innocent after being convicted, the court should do everything in its power to ensure they have the right person–especially when someone’s life is at stake.

But lately, prosecutors have been fighting harder than ever to keep defendants from having access to post-conviction DNA testing. Hank Skinner has been on Texas death row since 1995. His case has many similarities to Arthur’s, such as DNA evidence the court is denying him the right to have tested and a heavy emphasis on an eyewitness who at one point or another recanted.

“Since these guys are on their electoral deadlines, their finality has nothing to do with accuracy,” said Skinner’s wife Sandrine Ageorges-Skinner. “You can’t rush justice.”

The goal of any justice system has to be to find the truth. As Sandrine said, since no justice system is ever going to be infallible–there have been 289 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the U.S., according to the Innocence Project–prosecutors and judges must be willing to admit that they might have convicted the wrong person.

Post-conviction DNA testing must be granted to prisoners whose guilt is questionable–o matter what the cost, and especially when it could be an innocent person who’s paying the ultimate price.

First published at The New Abolitionist.

Mississippi – Joseph Patrick Brown loses post-conviction claims

march 23,2012  source : http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com

The Mississippi Supreme Court has sided with an Adams County judge who ruled death row inmate Joseph Patrick Brown was not unfairly treated when his attorneys decided against pursuing a mental evaluation of their client.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision Thursday, agreed with Circuit Judge Isadore W. Patrick that Brown’s attorneys “had not acted deficiently so as to satisfy a claim of ineffective assistance.”

In 2009, Brown‘s case was among nine death row post-conviction appeals in which the Supreme Court asked trial judges why they had not ruled – or scheduled hearings.

Brown’s claims of ineffective counsel were heard in Adams County Circuit Court in 2004. But no ruling was issued. Patrick, who was appointed to the case by the Supreme Court, issued a ruling denying the petition in 2010.

In a post-conviction petition, an inmate argues he has found new evidence – or a possible constitutional issue – that could persuade a court to order a new trial.

The Supreme Court asked Patrick to determine if there was merit to Brown’s complaint about his attorneys’ failure to ask questions about a state mental examination or to pursue an examination themselves.

Chief Justice Bill Waller Jr., writing for the court’s majority, said Thursday that Brown’s attorneys, after talking with doctors from the state mental hospital where Brown was examined, decided “not to have the doctors produce a report after determining that such report would be more harmful than helpful.”

Waller said that decision was courtroom strategy; a case, he said, “where a conscious decision was made to go forward with certain witnesses but not others.”

Four dissenting justices said it appeared Brown was not given all the material and records he needed to support his claims.

Brown was convicted and sentenced to death in Adams County in 1994 for the killing of a convenience store clerk in Natchez.

Prosecutors said Brown and his girlfriend were driving around Natchez on Aug. 8, 1992, looking for drugs when they pulled into the Charter Food Store where Martha Day worked.

Brown’s girlfriend testified that she saw Day grab her chest and fall after Brown approached the counter. The woman said Brown returned to the car with a cash register and other items.

Police said Day was shot four times and died at the scene.

Mississippi Supreme Court opinion read here