supreme court

WASHINGTON – Man on death row 18 years will get new trial – Darold Stenson

May 10, 2012 Source : http://seattletimes.nwsource.com

Eighteen years after Darold Stenson was sentenced to die for the killings of his wife and business partner in Clallam County, the Washington Supreme Court has overturned his conviction and ordered a new trial.

In an 8-1 ruling, the court said Stenson’s rights were violated because prosecutors “wrongfully suppressed” favorable evidence. At the crux of the reversal was possibly tainted gunshot residue found on the jeans Stenson wore on the night in March 1993 when his wife, Denise, and business partner, Frank Hoerner, were killed at the Stensons’ exotic-bird farm, said his attorney Sheryl Gordon McCloud.

McCloud said she was “gratified” by the ruling, which was announced Thursday morning. She said she spoke with Stenson by phone.

“He was crying,” she said.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said two crucial pieces of evidence linked Stenson to the shootings — the gunshot residue on the front pocket of his jeans and blood spatter on the jeans. The spatter was found to be “consistent” with Hoerner’s blood, according to court filings.

McCloud said the defense argued that a Clallam County sheriff’s investigator handled the jeans after the slayings, possibly getting residue from his own handgun on them. When the defense discovered this possible evidence tainting, more than 15 years after the murders, they had what McCloud describes as an “Oh, my God moment.”

“We’re gratified that the court agrees that you cannot execute a man based on evidence this unreliable,” McCloud said.

Justice Pro Tem Gerry Alexander, who authored the majority decision, wrote that Stenson claimed his due-process rights were violated because evidence, consisting of photographs and an FBI investigative file, did not end up in the hands of the defense until 2009.

The justices were asked to review the photographs, which showed Detective Monty Martin wearing Stenson’s jeans with the right pocket turned out and showing Martin’s ungloved hands. They also reviewed an FBI file indicating an agent who testified during the trial actually did not perform a gunshot residue test, something that had been implied during Stenson’s 1994 trial.

Stenson had claimed that he knelt next to Hoerner’s body, accounting for the blood on the jeans.

But an expert witness called by the prosecution had testified that was not possible.

“Had the FBI file and photographs been properly disclosed here, Stenson’s counsel would have been able to demonstrate to the jury that a key exhibit in the case — Stenson’s jeans — had been seriously mishandled and compromised by law-enforcement investigators,” Alexander wrote.

Stenson argued that his due-process rights were violated under Brady v. Maryland, in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that prosecutors violate a defendant’s constitutional rights by not turning over evidence that could prove a person’s innocence. The state Supreme Court on Thursday said that those rights were violated.

Speaking by phone Thursday morning, Clallam County Prosecutor Deborah Kelly said, “I don’t think anyone was prepared for this.”

Kelly defended the actions of investigators and said she’s “deeply disappointed in the decision to force a retrial.”

Kelly said it will be a few weeks before Stenson returns to Clallam County. She plans to prosecute him herself, again for murder. But, Kelly said, she is undecided on whether she will seek the death penalty.

Kelly said she will consult the victims’ families, try to track down the witnesses and put the case back together.

“It’s a very complicated decision. Does cost figure into the calculus? I don’t think it should, but certainly any prosecutor knows it will cost a great deal,” Kelly said. “To retry it is not as simple as people might think it is.”

Kelly added that staff from her office discussed the Supreme Court decision with relatives of the two victims who were “upset and disappointed.”

“It’s an utter tragedy for the victims’ families that this is the outcome,” she said.

Stenson, 59, was an exotic-bird dealer living near Sequim when he allegedly shot his wife at their home in what prosecutors called an effort to collect $800,000 in insurance. He allegedly shot and killed Hoerner to get out from a debt he owed the man, and to make it look like Hoerner killed Denise Stenson as part of a love-triangle murder-suicide.

Stenson’s three children were asleep nearby when the slayings occurred.

Stenson and Hoerner had been embroiled in a dispute over the cost of ostriches, which Stenson handled on his 5-acre Dakota Farms, prosecutors claimed.

Hoerner’s widow testified that Stenson persuaded the couple to invest their life savings of $48,000 in ostriches, but the big birds never materialized.

In his dissent, Justice James M. Johnson said the majority opinion failed to take into account the “totality of evidence” against Stenson and “exaggerates the potential prejudice of a late-discovered photo of Stenson’s pants.”

Denise Hoerner, the slain man’s wife, could not be reached Thursday, but she has been in support of Stenson’s execution.

“He needs to freaking die,” she said during a 2010 interview with the Peninsula Daily News.

NORTH CAROLINA – Guilty But Innocent – Henry Alford

april, 17, 2012 source : http://www.huffingtonpost.com

The recent flurry of news stories involving inmates claiming innocence but accepting guilty pleas in exchange for release from prison warrants some discussion. The particular plea bargain is known as an “Alford plea” and originated in the United States Supreme Court case of North Carolina v. Alford in 1970. The Supreme Court upheld the plea agreement entered by the trial court, despite defendant’s protests of innocence, and determined that since defendant was adequately advised of the plea arrangement by his lawyer and entered the plea voluntary, the plea bargain would stand. The underlying facts of the case are relevant to this discussion.

Henry Alford had been indicted on a charge of first-degree murder in 1963. Evidence in the case included testimony from witnesses that Alford had said after the death of the victim that he had killed the individual. Court testimony showed Alford and the victim argued at the victim’s house. Alford left the house, and afterwards the victim received a fatal gunshot woundwhen he opened the door responding to a knock.

Alford was faced with the possibility of capital punishment if convicted by a jury trial. The death penalty was required pursuant to North Carolinalaw at the time if two conditions in the case were satisfied. The defendant had to have pleaded not guilty, and the jury had to decide not to recommend a life sentence (this is not the law today). Had Alford pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, he would have avoided the death penalty and been sentenced to life in prison. The defendant did not want to admit guilt. Alford pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, and said he was doing so to avoid a death sentence if he had been convicted of first-degree murder after attempting to contest that charge. Alford was sentenced to 30 years in prison, after the trial judge in the case accepted the plea bargain and ruled that the defendant had been adequately apprised by his lawyer.

Alford filed an appeal requesting a new trial arguing he was forced into a guilty plea because he was afraid of receiving a death sentence. The Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that the defendant had voluntarily entered the guilty plea, with knowledge of what that meant. Following this ruling, Alford petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, which upheld the initial ruling, and subsequently to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which ruled that Alford’s plea was not voluntary, because it was made under fear of the death penalty. “I just pleaded guilty because they said if I didn’t, they would gas me for it,” wrote Alford in one of his appeals.

The defendant appealed to the US Supreme Court with Justice Byron White writing for the majority. In a 6 to 3 decision, the Court held that for the plea agreement to be accepted, the defendant must have been advised by a competent lawyer who was able to inform the individual that his best decision in the case would be to enter a guilty plea. The Court ruled that the defendant can enter such a plea “when he concludes that his interests require a guilty plea and the record strongly indicates guilt.” The Court only allowed the guilty plea with a simultaneous protestation of innocence as there was enough evidence to show that the prosecution had a strong case for a conviction, and the defendant was entering such a plea to avoid this possible sentencing. The Court went on to note that even if the defendant could have shown that he would not have entered a guilty plea “but for” the rationale of receiving a lesser sentence, the plea itself would not have been ruled invalid. As a factual basis existed that could have supported Alford’s conviction, the Supreme Court held that his guilty plea was sustainable while the defendant himself still maintained that he was not guilty.

full article : click here 

The U.S. Supreme Court: How it works

march 26, 2012, source : http://edition.cnn.com

Washington (CNN) — Few Americans have any real idea how the Supreme Court operates, since cameras are barred, and the case arguments and opinions are often dry and confusing for nonlawyers.

That’s too bad because the high court’s impact on Americans is incalculable. When disputes arise, the nine justices serve as the final word for a nation built on the rule of law. They interpret the Constitution and all that it brings with it: how we conduct ourselves in society, boundaries for individuals and the government, questions literally of life and death.

As the late justice William Brennan once wrote, “The law is not an end in itself, nor does it provide ends. It is preeminently a means to serve what we think is right.” And whether right or wrong, when it came to deciding who won the 2000 presidential election, it was the court’s conclusions that ultimately ended the issue, but not the controversy.

Preview: ‘The implications … are impossible to overstate’

A similarly epic constitutional showdown is now before the court over challenges to the health care reform law promoted by congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama — and opposed by a coalition of 26 states.

Article Three of the Constitution says, “The Judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court … the judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.”

Read a transcript of Monday’s court arguments on health care

Here’s a look at the history of the court, how it works and how you, the citizen, can interact with it:

Court goes back the late 1700s

The Supreme Court first met in 1790, as the ultimate part of the judicial branch of government. There are nine justices, led by the Chief Justice of the United States (that’s the official title). All justices — and all federal judges — are first nominated by the president and must be confirmed by the Senate. They serve for as long as they choose. The court has occupied its current building in Washington only since 1935. Previously, it borrowed space in Senate chambers in the Capitol Building.Explaining the health c

The Constitution’s framers envisioned the judiciary as the “weakest,” “least dangerous” branch of government. And while the court has often been accused over the years of being too timid in asserting its power, there is little doubt when the justices choose to flex their judicial muscle, the results can be far-reaching. Just look at how cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954 — integrating public schools), Roe v. Wade (1973 — legalizing abortion) and even Bush v. Gore (2000) have affected the lives of Americans.

Blockbuster decisions by the high court over the years

Traditionally, each term begins the first Monday in October, and final opinions are issued usually by late June. Justices divide their time between “sittings,” where they hear cases and issue decisions, and “recesses,” where they meet in private to write their decisions and consider other business before the court.

Court arguments are open to the public in the main courtroom, and visitors have the option of watching all the arguments or only a small portion. Tradition is very important. You will notice the justices wearing black robes, and quill pins still adorn the desks, as they have for more than two centuries.

Where to sit? Seniority counts

The justices are seated by seniority, with the chief justice in the middle. The two junior justices (currently Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) occupy the opposite ends of the bench. Before public arguments and private conferences, where decisions are discussed, the nine members all shake hands as a show of harmony of purpose. In the past, all lawyers appearing before the court wore formal “morning clothes,” but today only federal government lawyers carry on the tradition. The solicitor general is the federal government’s principal lawyer before the federal bench.

As the gavel sounds and justices are seated, the marshal shouts the traditional welcome, which reads: “Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”

Frequently asked questions about the court and the case

Arguments usually begin at 10 a.m. and since most cases involve appellate review of decisions by other courts, there are no juries or witnesses, just lawyers from both sides addressing the bench. The cases usually last about an hour, and lawyers from both sides very often have their prepared oral briefs interrupted by pointed questions from a justice.

This give-and-take, question-and-answer repartee can be entertaining, and it requires lawyers to think concisely and logically on their feet. And by the tone of their questioning, it often gives insight into a justice’s thinking, a barometer of his/her decision-making.

You can listen if you like

No cameras are allowed, but the public sessions are audio recorded, and are available for listening, usually several days later. The health care arguments — for this week — will be available only shortly after each of the four separate arguments end, at the court’s website.

After the arguments, conferences are scheduled, where justices discuss and vote on the cases. In these closed-door sessions, the nine members are alone. No clerks or staff are allowed. No transcripts of their remarks are kept, and it is the role of the junior justice (Elena Kagan for the past two years) to take notes and answer any inquiries from the outside.

Justices spend much of their time reviewing the cases and writing opinions. And they must decide which cases they will actually hear in open court. When asked just before her 2006 retirement what the jurists do most of the time, Sandra Day O’Connor said bluntly, “We read. We read on average 1,500 pages a day. We read. Sometimes we write.” Added Justice Antonin Scalia: “We try to squeeze in a little time for thinking.”

Read the full article : click here

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

Alabama Death Row inmate Thomas Arthur wins execution stay from federal appeals court

March 23, 2012 source : log.al.com

MONTGOMERY, Alabama — A federal appeals court has granted a stayof execution for an Alabama man who was set to die next week in a 1982 murder-for-hire case.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday postponed the execution of Thomas Douglas Arthur until further action of the court.

Earlier in the week the court had reversed a judge’s decision to dismiss Arthur’s appeal, which contended that Alabama’s decision to use a new sedative called pentobarbital as part of a three-drug execution combination could be cruel and unusual punishment.

Arthur’s attorneys on Thursday had sought a stay while the state asks the entire 11th Circuit to reconsider the court’s decision.

Arthur was set to be executed on March 29 for the 1982 murder-for-hire killing of Muscle Shoals businessman Troy Wicker.

William Mitchell asks US Supreme Court to stop his execution scheduled for Thursday

march, 20 source : http://www.therepublic.com

JACKSON, Miss. — William Mitchell has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop his execution now scheduled for Thursday at the state prison in Parchman.

In documents filed Tuesday, the death row inmate said his previous attorneys didn’t do a good job and the Mississippi courts have refused to give him a hearing and an expert to prove his “intellectual disability.”

The Supreme Court had not ruled on his motion Tuesday.

Mitchell, now 61, had been out of prison on parole for less than a year for a 1975 murder when he was charged with raping and killing 38-year-old Patty Milliken.

In documents filed Tuesday with the court, Mitchell says his previous attorneys didn’t do a good job and the Mississippi courts have refused to give him a hearing and an expert to prove his “intellectual disability.”

Milliken disappeared on Nov. 21, 1995, after walking out of the Majik Mart convenience store where she worked in Biloxi to have a cigarette with Mitchell. Her body was found the next day under a bridge. She had been “strangled, beaten, sexually assaulted, and repeatedly run over by a vehicle,” according to court records.

Mitchell was convicted of capital murder in Harrison County in 1998.

Mitchell argues the Mississippi Supreme Court twice refused to consider his ineffective counsel claims stemming from actions by his lawyers during the penalty phase of his trial and during his post-conviction petitions.

He said at no time did his attorneys try to develop evidence of his “intellectual disability” when evidence was available or could be available if he was given a psychological evaluation.

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.

Similar arguments from Mitchell were turned down in the federalcourts last year.

 

   Us. Surpeme Court
No. 11A882
Title:
William Gerald Mitchell, aka William Jerald Mitchell, Applicant
v.
Mississippi
Docketed:
Linked with 11-9373
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Mississippi
  Case Nos.: (2012-DR-00277)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mar 20 2012 Application (11A882) for a stay of execution of sentence of death, submitted to Justice Scalia.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
J. Cliff Johnson II. Pigott & Johnson (601)-354-2121
775 N. Congress Street
P.O. Box 22725
Jackson, MS  39225-2725
Party name: William Gerald Mitchell, aka William Jerald Mitchell
Attorneys for Respondent:
Marvin L. White Jr. Assistant Attorney General (601) 359-3680
450 High Street
P.O. Box 220
Jackson, MS  39205
Party name: Mississippi

Arizona – The Supreme Court today, in Martinez v. Ryan

The Supreme Court today, in Martinez v. Ryan, recognized that where a state habeas lawyer was ineffective for failing to raise a claim that trial counsel was ineffective, procedural rules will not bar a federal court from hearing those claims. Read the entire opinion below.

Martinez v Ryan opinions