|
Post by Charlene on Apr 1, 2005 14:34:56 GMT -6
Court Grants Death Row Inmate Stay Of Execution Inmate Had Been Scheduled For Execution In Weeks
POSTED: 12:31 pm EST April 1, 2005
BALTIMORE -- The state's highest court has granted a stay to a death row inmate who had been scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection sometime during the week of April 18.
Vernon Evans Jr. had asked the Court of Appeals for more time to argue that his sentence should be overturned because of racial and geographical disparities in Maryland's application of the death penalty.
The court scheduled oral arguments on the matter for June 7.
Evans was sentenced to death for the April 1983 killing of David Scott Piechowicz and Susan Kennedy at the Warren House Motor Hotel in Pikesville.
In seeking a stay, Evans' attorneys noted the court has agreed to hear an appeal from death row inmate Wesley E. Baker in June.
Both Evans and Baker, as well as two other death row inmates, have asked the courts to overturn their sentences based on a January 2003 study by University of Maryland professor Raymond Paternoster that had been commissioned by the Legislature.
Paternoster found that black defendants who killed whites statistically were most likely to be charged with capital murder and sentenced to death in Maryland. He also found that the likelihood of prosecutors seeking capital murder charges in Baltimore County is 13 times greater than in Baltimore.
Evans and Baker are black. The victims in their cases, all of whom were white, were killed in Baltimore County. Baker was convicted in 1992 of fatally shooting a teacher's aide in front of her grandchildren in the parking lot of a Catonsville shopping center.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 28, 2005 16:27:04 GMT -6
It's very nice of you both to post your feelings about Jenny & Elizabeth's murders - thanks.
Charlene
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 24, 2005 19:24:54 GMT -6
CJLF - Criminal Justice Legal Foundation PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 23, 2005 Michael Rushford, President (916) 446-0345 SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER RIGHTS OF FOREIGN MURDERERS Oral argument in Medellin v. Dretke set for Monday, March 28 The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Monday in a controversial case which will determine what additional rights (if any) a foreign national is entitled to when police fail to notify his government of his arrest, as required by an international treaty. The case of Medellin v. Dretke involves the 1993 conviction and death sentence of Ernesto Medellin for the gang rape and murder of two young girls in Houston, Texas 12 years ago. Medellin is a Mexican citizen who has lived in Texas most of his life. According to an international treaty signed in 1963, police were required to notify the Mexican government of Medellin’s arrest. Last year, in a case involving 51 Mexican nationals convicted of murder in the United States, the International Court of Justice ruled that when a foreign national’s government has not been notified, the defendant is entitled to a hearing to determine if the failure to notify had a prejudicial effect on his case. “This is an important case because it will determine how much disruption the World Court decision will cause in the American system of justice,” said Kent Scheidegger, author of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation’s amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the case. The facts found by the jury in this case describe a particularly brutal crime. At about 11:00 p.m. on June 24, 1993, Medellin was hanging out in a remote Houston neighborhood with several fellow street gang members when they spotted two young girls. Fourteen-year-old Jennifer Ertman and her sixteen-year-old friend, Elizabeth Pena, were walking home from another friend’s house. As they passed the gang, Medellin grabbed Elizabeth and threw her to the ground as Jennifer ran. When Elizabeth called for help, Jennifer returned to help her and was thrown to the ground by other gang members. Over the next hour, both girls were subjected to what investigating officers called the most brutal gang rapes they had ever encountered. Following the rapes, the men dragged the bleeding girls to a wooded area as they begged for their lives. Two men initially tried to strangle Jennifer with a belt wrapped around her neck with one pulling at each end. When the belt broke, they strangled her to death with a shoelace. Medellin later complained, “the *bi+ch* wouldn’t die,” and it would have been “easier with a gun.” Elizabeth was also strangled to death with her shoelaces. The murderers then divided money and jewelry taken from the girls and several joined Medellin at the home of one of the men’s brother and sister-in-law. There they bragged about the rapes and murders. Medellin explained to the sister-in-law that the girls had been killed to prevent them from identifying him and his accomplices. A few days later, the couple reported the crime to police. Following his arrest and after waiving his Miranda rights, Medellin confessed his participation in the rapes and murders in a written statement. Several hours after his confession, he disclosed that he had been born in Mexico. After learning this, but apparently unaware of a requirement of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Houston police failed to notify the Mexican Consul that Medellin was under arrest for murder. Following his trial, Medellin’s conviction and death sentence were upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. At that point, the Mexican consular authorities learned about the case and actively participated in the review on state habeas corpus. They argued that, had they been notified, they would have advised Medellin to refuse to talk to police without an attorney. The consulate did not suggest that they would have arranged for a more effective defense at Medellin’s trial, or that he suffered any other harm because the Mexican government was not notified following his arrest. The state habeas judge reviewed Medellin’s claim and ruled that the “failure to notify” had no effect on the validity of Medellin’s conviction or sentence, in addition to holding that the claim was too late. The state appellate court later affirmed that ruling. On federal habeas corpus, Medellin made several claims of trial and sentencing error in addition to the Vienna Convention issue. After reviewing the Vienna Convention claim, the district judge found it meritless, as well as procedurally defaulted (improperly raised). In 2004, the International Court of Justice (World Court) ruled, in a case including Medellin and 50 other murderers, that the United States should provide a hearing for foreign nationals convicted of crimes whose home government was not notified prior to the trial in accordance with the Vienna Convention. Even so, the federal appeals court upheld the District Court’s ruling and denied Medellin the right to appeal his Vienna Convention claim, based upon U. S. Supreme Court precedent. Last December, the Supreme Court agreed to consider Medellin’s claim that the lower court wrongly denied him any further opportunity to appeal his Vienna Convention claim. At the request of the Texas Solicitor General, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief to encourage a decision which does not disrupt the American legal process. The CJLF brief points out that Medellin has already had two hearings on the merits of his Vienna Convention claim and, under American law, it should not cause any further delay of his execution. CJLF argues that any decision to accommodate the World Court ruling should allow one hearing in state court, which can be appealed only to a state appellate court and the U. S. Supreme Court, not the lower federal courts. At such a hearing, the burden would be on the defendant to prove that a failure to notify his government had a prejudicial effect on his trial or sentencing. “This murderer has already received the process he is due, and the United States has already complied with its treaty obligations,” said Scheidegger. “There is no need for any further delay of justice in this case.”<br> CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger is available for comment at (916) 446-0345. Foundation arguments have helped win three United States Supreme Court decisions benefitting law enforcement and public safety during the current term. The Foundation’s brief in this case is available at: www.cjlf.org/briefs/Medellin.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 26, 2005 11:56:40 GMT -6
Memorial service planned for slain 9-year-old Saturday, March 26, 2005 Posted: 7:14 AM EST (1214 GMT) Jessica Lunsford was in the third grade. CRYSTAL RIVER, Florida (AP) -- Jessica Lunsford liked to ride her bike. She liked to practice cheerleading, too. The slain third-grader was remembered by her family at a private gathering Friday. A public memorial service was scheduled for Saturday. "We're going to make it," Jessica's grandfather, Archie Lunsford, told the Orlando Sentinel for its Saturday editions. "It's been tough, but we want to finish it up by going to the memorial." Authorities say convicted sex offender John E. Couey, 46, confessed to kidnapping and killing Jessica, 9, who was last seen in February when she went to bed after attending church. That was the last time she was seen. Jessica's body was found last week about 150 yards from her house, near a mobile home where Couey had been staying at the time of her abduction. Couey has pleaded not guilty to capital murder, battery, kidnapping and sexual battery on a child under 12. He was being held without bail. "Everything is done now," Archie Lunsford said. "Maybe we can start getting our lives back together." Medical examiners said Jessica was sexually assaulted and died of asphyxiation. Jessica's father, Mark Lunsford, has repeatedly said he wants prosecutors to seek the death penalty. Citrus County Sheriff Jeff Dawsy will ask the State Attorney's Office to pursue that sentence as well.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 17, 2005 10:37:15 GMT -6
High court says Bowling not retarded, subject to execution
FRANKFORT, Ky. - Condemned inmate Thomas Clyde Bowling is not retarded and cannot claim so 15 years after his murder convictions to avoid execution, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
Bowling was within days of his scheduled execution in November when the high court agreed to consider his claim of mental incompetency.
Coincidentally, the stay of execution was granted the same day a Franklin County Circuit Court judge granted another stay in a case brought by Bowling and another Death Row inmate that challenges Kentucky's lethal injection method of execution. A hearing in that case is scheduled for April.
Bowling was convicted of murdering Edward and Tina Earley and shooting their 2-year-old son outside the couple's Lexington dry-cleaning business in 1990. No motive for the crime has ever been clear.
Kentucky law prohibits the execution of anyone whose IQ is 70 or less. Two intelligence tests administered prior to Bowling's trial estimated his IQ in the mid-80 range.
Bowling's lawyers argued that a margin of error should be taken into account and other hedges factored in to determine that he was mentally retarded.
Justice William Cooper, who wrote the opinion for the 5-2 majority, said mental retardation is ordinarily a condition that becomes manifest before the age of 18.
Bowling, now 52, made no claim of mental retardation at his trial, even though a state law went into effect just months beforehand that set out guidelines for such claims in capital cases.
"Thus, (Bowling) was afforded both the opportunity to assert his mental retardation claim and the expert witnesses necessary to prove it - if it was provable. He chose not to assert the claim at trial and thereby waived it," Cooper said.
For Bowling to claim mental retardation now, he has to provide evidence before he can even warrant a hearing before a lower court judge, Cooper said.
Kentucky's only two executions since the death penalty was reinstated took place in 1997, when Harold McQueen was electrocuted, and 1999, when Eddie Lee Harper was given a lethal injection.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 29, 2005 17:08:52 GMT -6
Really, this entire topic has long since run its course and I don't understand why anyone wants to continue harping on it. Please stop and move on to more current and interesting issues.
Charlene
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 17, 2005 18:12:25 GMT -6
have u read up on joys husband ? Have you read up on the victim? I try to make it a point that we don't talk about a killer without also talking about the victim around here. Here is the case history from Solomon's appeal. I don't see anything here that says this man should not be executed for this brutal, senseless crime. Witnesses: Javarrow Young, Virginia Marie Wood, and Christina Davis. According to all three witnesses, Chris Solomon, Julius Murphy, Javarrow Young, Virginia Wood, and Christina Davis all attended a party at Murphy's mother's home on the afternoon of September 17, 1997. Young testified that Solomon engaged him in a conversation about a robbery. Murphy was present during this conversation but did not talk. Solomon later proceeded to show Young a pistol from the glove compartment of Wood's car. Solomon then passed the gun around to several others, including Young and Murphy. The gun was subsequently returned to Solomon, who pocketed it. Young, Wood, and Davis all testified that two vehicles of people traveled together to visit some out-of-town friends. One of the vehicles, a truck, was driven by Young's girlfriend and contained as passengers Young, Young's daughter, and a friend named Phil. The other vehicle, a car, was driven by Solomon and contained as passengers Murphy, Wood, and Davis. Upon returning from their out-of-town trip, the two vehicles stopped at a gas station. Young testified that he conversed with Solomon. Solomon related that he had seen a man with car trouble on the side of the road, and the man had waved, indicating he needed assistance. Solomon told Young that he was going to "jack him" - a statement Young interpreted as meaning Solomon was going to rob the man on the road. Young declined to get involved in the robbery but told Solomon "to do what they got to do, and go." Wood and Davis saw Solomon engage in a conversation but did not hear what transpired. Young saw Solomon's car stop by the man's car on the side of the road. Young then drove his truck to a different gas station and waited. When Solomon's car failed to appear after twenty to thirty minutes, Young drove his truck towards town. On the way, he saw the victim, Jason Erie, lying on the ground. Young flagged down a passing ambulance and directed it to the scene. Later, he talked to the police. According to Wood and Davis, Solomon drove Wood's car, Wood sat in the front passenger seat, Murphy sat behind Solomon, and Davis sat behind Wood. Murphy and Davis were not getting along because they had been fighting earlier on the trip. Solomon pointed to the side of the road to Erie, who was apparently having car trouble. Solomon gave Erie's car a "jump," and Erie paid Solomon five dollars. According to Davis, as Erie headed away, Solomon told Murphy that Erie had a lot of money in his wallet and said something to the effect of "we should jack him." At first, Murphy resisted the idea, but Solomon goaded Murphy until he agreed. Murphy then said, "Okay, give me the gun. I'll do it." Solomon then told Wood to take the gun out, Wood removed the gun from the glove compartment, and Murphy grabbed the gun. According to Wood, after Erie paid Solomon five dollars, Murphy told her to hand him the gun and she complied. Wood heard Solomon tell Murphy that he should shoot and kill the man because "that's how I got caught the last time." Davis was not listening to the conversation but she heard the last phrase "that's how I got caught the last time." Davis testified that she grabbed Murphy and told him not to go, but Murphy pushed her away and exited the car. Davis put her head down and heard a gun fire. Wood saw Murphy shoot the victim and take his wallet. According to Wood, Solomon and Murphy later bragged about the bullet shell remaining inside the gun's chamber, and Solomon coldly bragged that he was going to keep the five dollars given by Erie as a souvenir. Both Davis and Wood testified that, sometime after the incident with Erie, Davis ran from the car and contacted the police. Solomon, Murphy, and Wood were subsequently charged with capital murder. Solomon and Murphy did not testify. Wood, Davis, and Young all testified as witnesses for the prosecution. The jury charge included an accomplice as a matter of law instruction for Wood and an accomplice as a matter of fact instruction for Davis.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 15, 2005 15:36:19 GMT -6
California SC Upholds Death Sentence in Rape-Murder of Child
A death sentence imposed for the murder of an eight-year-old San Fernando Valley girl was unanimously affirmed yesterday by the California Supreme Court.
Justice Carlos Moreno acknowledged that the defendant, Hooman Ashkan Panah, “was a youth who, before this crime, had no prior record of any serious offenses” whose “journey from his native land”—Iran—“to this country was an arduous and perhaps traumatic one.”<br> But those facts “pale in comparison to the gravity” of the killing of Nicole Parker, who was kidnapped and sexually assaulted with tremendous force, Moreno said. “We are unable to conclude that the penalty imposed in this case is disproportionate to his culpability.”<br> Nicole disappeared Nov. 20, 1993, while playing with a softball and mitt outside her father’s Woodland Hills apartment. Her body was found stuffed in a suitcase in the close of Panah’s bedroom in an apartment he shared with his mother across the courtyard.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Sandy Kriegler, who has been nominated for elevation to this district’s Court of Appeal, sentenced Panah to death on the basis of a jury verdict rendered in Van Nuys in 1995.
Multiple Counts
Jurors found Panah, who was 22 at the time of the killing, guilty of first degree murder with special circumstances, and of kidnapping a minor for sexual purposes, kidnapping a child under the age of 14, child molestation, forcible sodomy, forcible penetration of a child with a foreign object, and forcible oral copulation of a child.
In the penalty phase, prosecutors presented evidence from the victim’s parents and brothers as to the devastating effect of the crime upon their lives. The defense argued that Panah should be spared because he was mentally disturbed.
The defendant’s mother testified that Panah had a difficult life, for which she took a great deal of the responsibility. She recounted the turmoil amid which he had grown up, as she moved from Iran to Germany to Mexico and finally to the United States.
She had disciplined him harshly, she said, and had twice threatened to commit suicide in order to get him to break off relationships with young ladies of whom she disapproved.
The defense also called a former girlfriend of Panah, who testified that she believed him to be the father of her infant daughter and that his execution would leave her without a father. Prosecutors presented a rebuttal witness who testified the woman had lived with another man for 10 years and had identified him as the father.
On appeal, in addition to attacking his sentence, Panah argued that Kriegler deprived him of his right to counsel by replacing one of his two court-appointed attorneys rather than continuing the trial after the lawyer was injured in an automobile accident.
‘Second Counsel’<br> Moreno pointed out that Judge Lance Ito, who had the case before Kriegler, had specifically appointed the attorney, Syamak Shafi-Nia, as “second counsel” to Robert Sheahen. Sheahen, the justice noted, is a veteran criminal defense lawyer with prior death penalty experience, whereas Shafi-Nia was not a criminal lawyer but was chosen because of a personal relationship with the defendant.
Sheahen, Moreno noted, had acknowledged making “97 percent of the decisions in this case,” and had analogized his co-counsel’s “learning curve” as a “50-pound weight that we are dragging around.”<br> Moreno also pointed out that the trial judge had praised the work of William Chais, who was appointed to replace Shafi-Nia. While Chais had only been practicing for five years at the time and had not previously tried a murder case, Kriegler said he had done an “outstanding job” that was “far beyond what Mr. Shafi-Nia could have ever hoped to have added in this case because of his complete lack of criminal experience.”
Attorneys on appeal were Robert Bryan of San Francisco, who was appointed by the court to represent the defendant, and Deputy Attorney General Ana Duarte for the prosecution.
The case is People v. Panah, 05 S.O.S. 1231.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 15, 2005 15:30:17 GMT -6
Execution moves forward Court is unswayed by claims that murderer is retarded
March 15, 2005
ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Supreme Court on Monday refused to halt the execution of Stanley Hall, despite claims that the condemned killer is mentally retarded.
The court offered no explanation in its one-line ruling. Hall’s attorney, Nelson Mitten, said he will appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Gov. Matt Blunt was also weighing a clemency request.
Hall, 37, is scheduled to die by injection at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday at the Potosi Correctional Center for the 1994 murder of Barbara Jo Wood of St. Louis County. His execution would be the 62nd since the state renewed the death penalty in 1989, but the first since John Clayton Smith was put to death on Oct. 29, 2003.
Mitten said Hall was disappointed by the ruling. Hall’s wife, Stephanie Hall, said, “He’s holding strong. He’s forgiven himself, God’s forgiven him.”
The U.S. Supreme Court banned executions of the mentally retarded in 2002, and Missouri issued a similar ban a year earlier.
In an appeal with the state Supreme Court on Thursday, Mitten wrote that he recently discovered an IQ test taken when Hall was 7 showing a score of 57, which would indicate he was mentally retarded. Mitten said Hall’s trial lawyer failed to cite the test.
But subsequent testing has shown Hall’s IQ generally in the 70-75 range, which Attorney General Jay Nixon characterized as borderline mentally retarded, making Hall eligible for the death penalty. Nixon said the latest claim was one more attempt to delay the process.
“I think it’s another step toward the completion of a long trip through the justice system for the Wood family, who suffered at the hands of this violent man,” Nixon said. “His own experts testified at the penalty phase he was not mentally retarded.”
Hall grew up in St. Louis and was often in trouble. He had spent time in prison for shooting a fellow drug dealer and a bystander. On Jan. 15, 1994, he and a friend borrowed a car and drove to South County Mall in search of a car to steal.
The men approached Wood as she pulled her 1991 Geo into a parking spot — she worked at a store in the mall. They pulled a gun and drove her to the McKinley Bridge, which spans the Mississippi River.
Wood was forced out of the car and shot. Hall lifted her over the bridge railing while she was still struggling and pleading for her life. Wood dropped 90 feet into the icy river. Witnesses notified police, who captured Hall moments after the crime.
Hall confessed. Wood’s body was found 71/2 months later, about 70 miles downstream.
Stephanie Hall said her husband is a different man now. In prison, she said, he has become a mentor to younger prisoners, encouraging them to turn their lives around. He also has participated in a program in which he meets with troubled youths.
“Rather than end his life, allow him to stay and do all those good things, even if it is within the walls of the prison,” Stephanie Hall said. “If he saves even one person, wouldn’t it be worth saving his life?”<br> Missouri was among the leaders in executions for many years — its 59 from 1989 through 2002 were third only to Texas’ 220 and Virginia’s 80 during the same period. In a January interview, Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronnie White said the recent decline is partly due to the fact that prosecutors are more reluctant to seek the death penalty and partly due to “a more deliberative approach” by the court since five Democratic appointees have been selected.
In the past two years, the court has overturned about half the death sentences it has considered, and the death row population has declined to 54 from 67.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 12, 2005 18:59:23 GMT -6
Anytime someone has a case history for one that is missing, please send it along. I could definitely use some help with research.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 12, 2005 13:51:38 GMT -6
If you are interested in finding out what the murderers who are scheduled for execution in March actually did in order to deserve their sentence, please click on the Scheduled Executions button above, then click on March under 2005. I have finally gotten all of the cases researched and online. Whew!
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 9, 2005 10:58:01 GMT -6
If anyone here is from Lawanna's family, or knows her family, please contact the AG's office regarding your wishes about witnessing the execution.
Family Members Of Murder Victim Sought As Killer's Execution Nears, AG Looks For Victim's Family Members
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Attorney General Drew Edmondson was looking Tuesday for family members of a murder victim as the execution of the woman's killer approached.
Garry Thomas Allen is scheduled to die May 19 for the November 1986 shooting death of Lawanna Gail Tittsworth. Edmondson asked for members of Tittsworth's family to contact his office.
Allen was convicted of killing Tittsworth as she picked up her two sons from a day care center in Oklahoma City.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 9, 2005 10:34:00 GMT -6
Ballistics Test Shows Newton's Gun Used In Family's Murder
A ballistics report on the gun death row inmate Frances Newton hid in a vacant home showed it was the murder weapon in her family's death, Local 2 reported in an exclusive story Tuesday.
Newton's attorney asked for confirmation that the bullets that killed her husband, Adrian Alton, and their two children came from a gun Newton admitted to hiding in a vacant home.
The retest, performed by the Harris County Firearms Laboratory, confirmed the bullets were fired from that gun.
Newton was sentenced to death in 1987 for the murders.
David Dow, the inmate's attorney, said he had hoped for a better outcome.
Newton's execution was stayed in December, pending the outcome of the new tests.
Prosecutor Roe Wilson told Local 2 she would take steps immediately to set a new execution date.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 10, 2005 10:56:50 GMT -6
Alexander Martinez had numerous criminal convictions since the age of 18, including theft, criminal mischief, aggravated assault and attempted murder. He had been released on parole on July 20, 2001. Less than one month later, Martinez sexually assaulted a 45-year-old woman, robbed her of $150, then stabbed her to death. In an appeal, Martinez concedes that he murdered the victim, but claims that the only evidence supporting a finding that he committed the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit aggravated sexual assault came from a "jail snitch" who was not worthy of belief. Martinez gave three different versions of the offense to police. In his first confession, videotaped on August 23, 2001, he stated that he arranged a meeting with the victim, a prostitute, on the phone. He agreed to the victim's price of over two hundred dollars, but he "told her that just to get her there." He stated that he really planned on trying "to get it for free." He stated that he met the victim at a mall and they got into her car and began driving. When he attempted to negotiate the price with the victim as they were driving, she became upset. Martinez told the victim to pull over so he could use the phone and when she stopped, he dragged her out of the car and cut her throat with a knife. He said he killed her because he did not like the way she was talking to him. He did not mention anything about sexual contact with the victim. Martinez gave a written statement the following day. This statement was largely consistent with the first statement except that he also stated that he took $150.00 in cash and some cocaine from the victim after he killed her. He reiterated that he agreed to the price for the victim's services on the phone but stated again that he "never intended to pay her that much money." He stated that he "didn't have any money at all." Again, he did not mention sexual contact with the victim. In a third interview Martinez admitted to killing the victim in his room at his mother's house. He stated that he had not been truthful about where he killed the victim because he was trying to protect his mother. In this interview, most of which was taped, Martinez stated that he had sex with the victim before stabbing her and that the victim "complied" with the sex. He also stated, however, that he did not pay her and never intended on paying her. He said he stabbed the victim when she "started tripping" about the money. She wanted to be paid around three hundred dollars and when Martinez told her he would not pay her, the victim started to leave. He said he grabbed her and "put the knife to her." Cesar Rios, a cell mate of Martinez's at the Harris County Jail, testified for the State. Rios acknowledged his own pending criminal charges for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and aggravated assault. Because he was a "habitual offender" Rios stated that the punishment range for the offenses was two to twenty years and twenty-five to ninety-nine years or life, respectively. Rios testified that could not read and write and that he did not learn any of the facts of the case from any source other than Martinez. Rios testified that Martinez told him about the offense during the course of two different conversations. Martinez told Rios that he contacted the victim through a phone number for an escort service. On the phone, he agreed to the victim's price of $300 which would make her trip across town worthwhile. Martinez told Rios that he really only had $30. Martinez explained that when the victim arrived at his house she sat down on the floor in his room and they began discussing money. The victim wanted the money first and when it became apparent that Martinez did not have it, she got mad and tried to leave. Martinez attempted to stall her, and she again asked him to see the money. Martinez then said the victim "started going off on him." He told Rios that he had a knife in his pocket and when she said she was leaving and started gathering her things, Martinez put the knife to the side of her neck. He said she was still sitting on the floor and he pushed her back. He then got on top of the victim to have sex and pushed the knife into her neck. According to Rios, Martinez told him he was "inside of" the victim attempting to have sex with her when she kicked him off of her. The victim was bleeding and began begging him not to kill her and to call an ambulance. She told him that if he killed her, there would be no one to take care of her dog. Martinez told her to be quiet so as not to wake the others in the house and tried to figure out how he could kill her without making too much noise. He finally sliced across her throat. After she was dead, Martinez put a towel over her sliced throat and had sex with her. He told Martinez he also played with sex toys he found in the victim's bag. When he was done, he stated that he folded the victim up and put her in a trash bag. He kept the body in his closet for about three days before disposing of the victim and her things. Martinez also described cleaning up his room and replacing the carpet. At the end of his testimony, Rios stated that the prosecutor had offered to drop the unauthorized use and habitual criminal charges against him in exchange for his testimony, the result being that Rios would plead to aggravated assault with a punishment range of two to twenty years. Other evidence was consistent with and corroborated Martinez's confessions and Rios' testimony. Houston police officers testified that the blood spatters and stains found in Martinez's room were consistent with Martinez's version that the victim was stabbed while sitting on the floor next to his bed. The victim's body was found in a trash bag at the vacant lot where Martinez stated he had taken it. The condition of the body and the way in which it was wrapped was consistent with Martinez's descriptions. Martinez's brother testified that he had assisted Martinez in replacing the carpet in Martinez's room. He described the stains on the carpet and also described an unpleasant odor in Martinez's room. Finally, the medical examiner testified that although the victim's body was in an advanced state of decomposition when found and was partially "skeletonized," he nonetheless concluded that stabbing to the neck was the cause of death based on hemorrhage in the neck area and cutting lesions to the bones in the neck.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 28, 2005 16:29:53 GMT -6
They are a motley-looking crew for the most part, aren't they....
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on May 17, 2005 10:13:31 GMT -6
I know which school I am enrolled in. Here's a hypothetical situation: When Villareal and Perez are released into the general prison population it's quite possible that one or both of them will be attacked, beaten up and even killed by other inmates. How would people feel about their deaths? And their killers? It's not inconcevable that we could be sat here in a few years time talking about the execution of their killers, how would people feel about that? I can see two schools of thought on this scenario and at the moment I'm not sure which one I support. 1) Villareal and Perez finally got what they deserve and that the killers were just doing what the state should have done a long time ago. or 2) Whether people agree with the Supreme Court ruling or not, the law is the law and whilst you can campaign to have it overturned, people should accept it. Vigilante killings are never acceptable whether in prison or in the outside community and the due process of the law with respect to the killers should be allowed to run its course.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Apr 12, 2005 17:26:11 GMT -6
It's true that Texas doesn't have a true life without parole. What we do have is that the alternate sentence in a capital case is life without the possibility of parole for 40 years. This for most cases means that a killer in his mid 20s would not even be eligible for parole until he was in his mid 60s and this is eligibility, which does not mean they would be released. Most killers die in prison long before they have been in for 40 years. This year a life without parole bill was again introduced, but it was defeated because the sponsor does not really want LWOP, he wants fewer death sentences. He did not suggest that we REPLACE life/40 with LWOP, he wants it as a third sentencing option in a capital murder, so there will be 2/3 chance that a killer won't get a death sentence. He fails everytime he brings it up but he refuses to just replace life/40 with LWOP. i wrote to efrain perez and i guess i expected a differance reaction. he says he wasnt going to talk about his case in any way for any reason. he never mentioned his remorse or anything. it seems to me 12 years of d/r haven't dont this murderer any good. i have always been told prison can change a person for better or worse. it seems to me he is worse. i have a questionthough..... i have been told texas doesn't have life without perole. is that true?
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 3, 2005 12:36:41 GMT -6
What they better start worrying about, rather than the state executing them, is where they are going to end up once they are taken off of death row. Maybe one of their pen pals should ask them if they remember how they were treated in the Harris County Jail when they were first arrested for these murders.....
On death row, they are just scumbuckets like all of the other scumbuckets. In regular prison, they will be low-life scumbuckets, unlike the other people who might just be there for drug use or burglary or bad checks.....who have daughters and remember what these a$$holes did over eleven years ago. Hopefully they will be sorry they ever left Terrell.....celebrate for now, boys......
Ruling is a 'relief,' but inmates not celebrating Harris County killers spared by Supreme Court action ponder new sentences
RESOURCES • The decision: Read the Supreme Court's full ruling • Excerpts: From the court's opinion and dissent • Harris County: 11 juvenile offenders on death row here • Summaries of cases: A look at some of the nation's murders by juveniles • Major rulings: Other death penalty decisions by the Supreme Court TELL US WHAT YOU THINK • Give us your opinion on Tuesday's decision
LIVINGSTON - Locked away on Texas' death row for more than a decade, Raul Villarreal knew the meaning of good days and bad. The good days came when appeals were filed to free him from the death sentence he received for the 1993 rape and murder of two teenage Houston girls; the bad, when those appeals met rejection.
The worst day came not long ago when the U.S. Supreme Court turned down his most recent appeal, thereby clearing the way for him to be put to death. The best came Tuesday when the same court ruled the execution of murderers who were minors when they committed their crimes is unconstitutional.
On Wednesday, Villarreal, 29, still was struggling to digest the meaning of the ruling, which has spared him and 27 other Texas death row inmates from the executioner's needle. Eleven of those inmates are from Harris County.
"In a way," he said after a thoughtful sigh, "it's a big relief. But I didn't act like I was celebrating. It's bittersweet. There are still a lot of guys left behind facing execution."
Villarreal, who was 17 when he and a group of other youths fatally attacked Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peña, 16, said he has spent recent days coming to grips with the probability that he would be executed. The high court had stayed his scheduled June 24 execution pending a decision in the case resolved Tuesday.
NEWS POLL What do you think of the Supreme Court's ruling banning the execution of juvenile killers?
Good decision; they're too young to vote: 18% They went too far; it depends on the case: 31% Juveniles should answer for their crimes: 52%
Total Votes: 2501
"My main worries concerned my family," he said of his mother, Louisa Villarreal, and his four siblings. "They're the ones who would be left behind. I tried to take things one day at a time. I've worked at accepting my responsibilities for the actions that brought me here. It's helped me accept my fate."
Similar thoughts of life, death and the long prison sentences they now likely will have to serve have occupied other Harris County killers spared by the ruling.
Johnnie Bernal, 28, who claims he is innocent of the August 1994 killing of Lee Dilley at a Houston ice house, has been on death row since July 1995. He thinks Tuesday's ruling is "a step in the right direction."
Villarreal and Bernal were caught up in a spike in juvenile crime in the late 1980s and early 1990s that resulted in an unprecedented number of young offenders on death row. And because those crimes were concentrated in gang-heavy urban centers, the bulk of those offenders were minorities.
Of the 28 "juvenile" offenders on Texas' death row, 21 were black, Hispanic or Asian; nine of 13 such offenders executed since 1982 were minorities.
Perry wants cases reviewed In the wake of Tuesday's ruling, Gov. Rick Perry has directed the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to review the 28 cases and recommend appropriate action. It is likely that many will receive life sentences, requiring that they serve 40 years in prison before becoming eligible for consideration for parole.
Bernal has appeals pending and is optimistic he ultimately will be cleared of the crime and freed from prison. But he acknowledged that a long sentence would be daunting.
"Watching your loved ones passing away and not being able to be there would be heartbreaking," he said. A long prison sentence would also be a continuation of a near-decade behind bars that he said has been filled with remorse.
"Every time I pray, I include the Dilley family," he said. "A life's been lost, lives have been destroyed and crushed. Every year I've been in here the depth of my feeling for his family has grown."
Life on death row, he said, has not been easy.
"I've seen friends almost every other day going to their last Mass," Bernal said. "I've been around. All you could do is prepare yourself mentally and spiritually. ... The more I've thought of the thing, the more at peace with God I've become. I'm not afraid, but I feel sorrow."
"They treat you like you are already dead," added Robert Acuna, 19, who has been on death row about six months for the 2003 killing of his Baytown neighbors, James Carroll, 75, and his wife, Joyce, 74. "They are as life-draining as they legally can be. They keep you out of society. There is no contact visitation, no watching the news on TV, no contact with other inmates. They don't go by names, you have a number. They make you feel unimportant."
Acuna said his trial and incarceration often have seemed unreal.
"I've seen all this stuff on TV," he said. "But then I realize there's no TV screen."
Only when Tyler murderer Donald Aldrich was executed shortly after Acuna's arrival last fall did the young killer recognize the seriousness of his situation.
"They took him away and I knew I wasn't going to see him again," Acuna said.
Acuna, too, insisted he is innocent, and expressed confidence he will be cleared.
"Forty years in prison is a long time," he said. "But if I'm alive, I can't complain."
Hoping to help others Acuna and Bernal said they would like to work to end the death penalty.
"I can't see myself in prison just wasting time," Villarreal said of his expected future. "I would like to use my experience to help others. Maybe in a youth program or something."
Villarreal said he is deeply remorseful for his crime, and he is aware that the Supreme Court ruling sparing his life angers his victims' families.
"If the shoe were on the other foot," he said. "If my children were dead ... I would feel the same way."
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 10, 2005 11:08:21 GMT -6
Sorry, I was out of town and got behind on research. He is now included. Hey Charlene, Are you going to get this execution into the "Scheduled Execution" list? After all, he clearly made the list -- he's now dead! peeved
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 9, 2005 10:36:08 GMT -6
Wallace refuses execution appeal March 9, 2005
By Jon Seidel / Post-Tribune staff writer
Donald Ray Wallace committed his crime more than 20 years ago.
And in less than 24 hours, his sentence likely will be carried out, barring a last-minute appeal by his lawyer.
Wallace, convicted in 1982 on four counts of murder, will be executed at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City at midnight.
While statewide attention will briefly be directed at this city in Northwest Indiana, residents here say they likely won’t notice. Executions have become common.
'A nasty one’
“This one was a nasty one,” Barry Nothstine, public information officer for the Indiana State Prison, said.
On Jan. 14, 1980, Wallace burglarized a home in Evansville, Nothstine said. When he finished, he “got greedy” and decided to hit the home next door as well.
“He was surprised to find the family inside,” Nothstine said.
They were the Gilligans: Patrick, 30, Teresa, 30, Lisa, 5, and Gregory, 4.
Nothstine said Wallace tied them up and shot each of them in the head. First Patrick, then Teresa and the children.
“He shot the children because he would not, could not, let the children grow up with the trauma of not having parents,” Nothstine said.
Wallace stole guns, a CB radio, a scanner and other property, Nothstine said. All of it was later recovered and traced back to him.
Wallace did not stand trial until 1982 because he was found incompetent and was sent to a mental hospital.
However, in letters to the Evansville Courier & Press, Wallace said he faked that illness, according to a release from the state prison.
'I don’t ... think of it’
Michigan City is home to Indiana’s death row.
Indiana law states that all executions must take place within the walls of the prison by sunrise.
The amount of attention given to executions there often depends on who the prisoner is, residents say.
As long as Wallace’s execution is not stopped or delayed, it will be the first execution since Joseph Trueblood in 2003, and the sixth execution in five years in Michigan City.
Ron Meer, a city councilman for Michigan City’s 3rd Ward, has lived a block away from the prison property for six years.
He and his wife, Agnes, say the executions have a minimal effect on the city, even in their neighborhood.
“They shut off a couple streets,” Meer said. “Usually there’s at least eight or nine satellite TV trucks there.”
Agnes said there isn’t much talk around town other than a few articles in the local newspaper.
“I don’t even think about it,” Meer said.
Nothstine said 35 to 50 protesters often show for the executions. The prison lets them use the parking lot there. Two roads, Sheridan Avenue and Hitchcock Street, are usually closed.
Marti Pizzini, secretary of the Duneland Coalition Against the Death Penalty, said her group will conduct a prayer vigil from 8 to 8:30 tonight. Then, from 8:30 to 9, there will be a protest walk in front of the prison, where members of the group will chant and make as much noise as possible.
“The state likes to do this in the silence and dark of the night,” Pizzini said.
The last time an execution attracted a significantly larger crowd was in 1994 when Gregory Resnover was executed for killing an Indianapolis police officer.
Resnover was the first prisoner to be executed in Indiana after exhausting all appeals.
“There was a large group,” Nothstine said. “It almost was a circus atmosphere.”
Though Michigan City might get a visit from a few protesters and the news media, the family of Wallace’s victims will not be there. They will attend a prayer service in Evansville, said Vanderburgh County Superior Court Judge Robert Pigman.
Pigman prosecuted Wallace’s case in 1982.
'A horrific act’
Wallace’s attorney, Sarah Nagy of Indianapolis, takes a strong stance against the death penalty, calling it barbaric and without moral or legal justification.
“Society has the ability to contain individuals,” Nagy said.
The process is also extremely costly, she points out.
“There’s a whole cottage industry of lawyers who work very hard,” Nagy said.
A study by the Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission in 2002 pointed out that the total cost of Indiana’s death penalty is 38 percent greater than sentencing a person to life without parole.
“You could spend a half a million dollars just defending the death penalty,” Nagy said. “You’ll spend just as much if not more prosecuting it.”
She is a part of that industry.
“I would love to work myself out of work in the area of capital punishment,” Nagy said. “I don’t know a capital litigator who wouldn’t agree with me.”
Asked if Wallace is prepared to die, Nagy said it is not possible for anyone to be prepared for that.
“It’s a horrific act the state is getting ready to commit,” Nagy said. “I don’t know how anyone could make themselves comfortable with that.”
Still, Nagy said Wallace will not seek clemency from Gov. Mitch Daniels. He has not given her permission to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 3, 2005 17:12:22 GMT -6
It would be more likely to be an anti who would use it - why would a pro want a vicious killer to represent him? I could see an anti wanting to use it so they could try to show the blood in argument against execution. no pro has obviously thought of it before. Many things dont occur to some pro's, like the possibility of factual innocence, people on DR not actually being monsters, using Davis pics for Avators.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 3, 2005 17:10:29 GMT -6
If they did and I saw it, I would delete it anyway so why bother? In all honesty I am suprised that no one has tried to use one of the Davis pics for an avatar.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 3, 2005 11:54:10 GMT -6
I have never been a proponent of the electric chair - lethal injection is much more humane and is therefore preferred as far as I am concerned. I don't want anyone to suffer more than the minimum amount of physical pain, not even the worst of the worst cold-blooded, heinous killers, which Davis certainly qualified as. He brutally slaughtered three viable humans and destroyed all possibilities of the fourth life. He decimated John Weiler's family in one fell swoop. Did he suffer? Perhaps, but really I don't give it much concern. His suffering cannot be compared to theirs. His fate is one he chose. My conscience is clear and I feel no worry about what effect his death had on society. It could only be an improvement as far as I am concerned. Since it is strictly a matter of opinion regarding what he makes the rest of us into when he is killed in this fashion, my opinion is that I have been made into a citizen who is safer in his absence. I fully agree Charlene, that what this man did was nothing short of heinous and said so in my post, and as for him personally, that was never the issue for me, what worries me is what he effectively makes the rest of us into when we kill even thrash like him in that sort of a fashion.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 2, 2005 17:11:37 GMT -6
At the time of the execution, the inquiry into the "horrible" pictures resulted in medical testimony about this ANIMAL. Davis was grossly overweight and the chin strap would not fit under his chin because he didn't really have one. He was sweating profusely and the strap slipped off his chin and pressed against his nose. He had extreme problems with high blood pressure and he regularly took prescription anti-coagulants. This explains the blood on the shirt and it looks like much more than it was because his shirt was soaked with sweat and this made the blood drops spread more widely than they would have under different conditions. Now, do you know what he DID? ? He slaughtered Nancy Weiler, her unborn baby, and her two daughters while her husband was out of town preparing a new home for the family who was being transferred to another city. Here is an excellent article that has been posted on this site for a long time about this case: WHO WEEPS FOR THE BLOOD OF THE WEILER FAMILY? Bob Greene - Chicago Tribune July 14, 1999 Some people were horrified by what happened to Allen Lee Davis last week. Davis, 54, was put to death in Florida's electric chair. During his execution, a spot of blood unexpectedly appeared on his shirt; by the time the execution was finished, the blood spot had grown to approximately 8 inches across. Prison officials later said that the blood came from a simple nosebleed, and that the blood dripped onto Davis' shirt. But some witnesses said that the blood seemed to come from Davis' chest area. All of this was used by some as evidence that putting prisoners to death--specifically by using the electric chair--is an appalling and cruel thing to do. The lawyer for another Florida man on Death Row said, "The degrading and mutilating manner in which (Davis) died was a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment. Blood gushing from the face and chest of a dying inmate is repugnant to the conscience of mankind." Civil liberties attorney Howard Simon said that the method used to execute Davis was "barbaric." Perhaps. But before we go too far down the path of mourning the way in which Allen Lee Davis died, maybe, just for a few moments, it is worth reporting something that has not been commented upon much: what Davis did to get to Death Row in the first place. On May 11, 1982, Davis--an ex-convict--entered the Jacksonville, Fla., home of the John Weiler family. Weiler, an executive with the Westinghouse Corp., was on a business trip in Pittsburgh. In the Weiler home, Allen Lee Davis attacked Nancy Weiler, 37, who at the time was three months pregnant with the family's third child. Davis bludgeoned Mrs. Weiler--who was the corresponding secretary of the PTA at her children's school--so severely that she was barely recognizable when police found her body. Davis brutalized Mrs. Weiler with such force that the trigger guard on the gun with which he was beating her broke, as did the wooden grips and metal frame of its handle. Davis tied up the Weiler's 10-year-old daughter, Kristy--a 5th-grade student who hoped to become a nuclear engineer someday--and shot her in the face, killing her. The Weilers' other child -- 5-year-old Kathy -- tried to run from Davis. He shot her in the back, and then beat her, crushing her skull. There was quite a bit of blood in the Weiler home after Davis had killed the mother and her two children. Considerably more blood than inadvertently appeared on Davis' shirt during the execution. When prisoners are wrongly sent to Death Row, there is justifiable outrage that the court system could condemn innocent people to death. This is as it should be. But there was no question about Allen Lee Davis. He murdered Mrs. Weiler and her two little girls. No one disputes that. And for 16 full years the State of Florida housed him, took care of his physical needs, fed him all the food he desired (he ballooned up to 344 pound in prison; one of his attorneys based an appeal on the theory that Davis should not be executed because his obesity might complicate the electrocution and cause him pain, which the attorney said would be cruel and unusual punishment. The attorney did not characterize the extent of the cruelty in the deaths of the Weiler family.) As his last meal before his execution, Davis received from the State of Florida the dinner he had requested: a lobster tail, fried potatoes, a half-pound of fried shrimp, six ounces of fried clam strips, half a loaf of garlic bread and 32 ounces of A&W root beer. In 1982, Davis did not give Mrs. Weiler and her two children a choice of a last meal before he killed them. But now the focus is on the blood spot on Davis' chest, and whether that indicates we are an immoral and vicious society for doing such a thing to him. John Weiler--whose wife and daughters have been dead for 17 years--apparently doesn't think so. At one point as he waited for Davis to at last receive the punishment the courts had ordered for him, Weiler said: "It is cruel and unusual punishment of the victims, living and dead, to know that this animal . . . still breathes." And now Allen Lee Davis is dead. Evidently his death was a somewhat unpleasant experience for him. There are a lot of things in this world for the public to worry about. Davis' discomfort is not necessarily one of them. The strap was most probably pulled too tight, that doesn't mean he was cooked to death as some antis insinuated at the time! And by the way Felix, didn't you read the full record of the execution procedure? Before they pulled the switch they politely asked him, "If anything is not to your complete satisfaction, put your hand up!" ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 20, 2005 19:27:03 GMT -6
The beauty.... and the beast....
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Feb 21, 2005 19:31:55 GMT -6
Here is an excellent article about forgiveness. The Sin of Forgiveness by Dennis Prager Wall Street Journal, December 15, 1997 The bodies of the three teenage girls murdered by a fellow student at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky., were not yet cold before the students of the Christian prayer group that was shot at announced, "We forgive you, Mike," referring to Michael Carneal, 14, the murderer. This immediate and automatic forgiveness is not surprising. Over the past generation, the idea that a central message of Christianity is to forgive everyone who commits evil against anyone, no matter how great and cruel and whether or not the evildoer repents, has been adopted by much of Christendom. The number of examples is almost as large as the number of heinous crimes. But one other recent example stands out. In August, the pastor at a Martha's Vineyard church service attended by the vacationing President Clinton announced that it was the the duty of all Christians to forgive Timothy McVeigh, the murderer of 168 Americans. "I invite you to look at a picture of Timothy McVeigh and then forgive him," the Rev. John Miller said in his sermon. "I have, and I ask you to do so." The pastor acknowledged: "Considering what he did, that may be a formidable task. But it is the one that we as Christians are asked to do." Though I am a Jew, I believe that a vibrant Christianity is essential if America's moral decline is to be reversed and that despite theological differences, there is indeed a Judeo-Christian value system that has served as the bedrock of American civilization. For these reasons I am appalled and frightened by this feel-good doctrine of automatic forgiveness. This doctrine undermines the moral foundations of American civilization because it advances the amoral notion that no matter how much you hurt other people, millions of your fellow citizens will immediately forgive you. This doctrine destroys Christianity's central moral tenets about forgiveness - that forgiveness, even by God, is contingent on the sinner repenting, and that it can only be given to the sinner by the one against whom he sinned. These tenets are unambiguously affirmed in Luke 17:3-4: "And if your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if seven times of the day he sins against you, and seven times of the day turns to you saying, I repent, you shall forgive him." This flies in the face of what passes for Christianity these days - the declaration, often repeated, that "It is the Christian's duty to forgive just as Jesus forgave those who crucified him." Of course, Jesus asked God to forgive those who crucified him. But Jesus never asked God to forgive those who had crucified thousands of other innocent people - presumably because he recognized that no one has the moral right to forgive evil done to others. You and I have no right, religiously or morally, to forgive Timothy McVeigh or Michael Carneal; only those they sinned against have that right - and those they murdered are dead and therefore cannot forgive them. (Indeed, that is why I believe that humans cannot forgive a murderer.) If we are automatically forgiven no matter what we do - even if we do not repent, why repent? In fact, if we forgive everybody for all the evil they do to anybody, God and his forgiveness are entirely unnecessary. Those who forgive all evil done to others have substituted themselves for God. When confronted with such arguments, some callers to my radio show offered another defense: "The students were not forgiving Carneal for murdering the three students," these callers argued, "they were forgiving him for the pain he caused them." Let us summarize this argument: You murder my classmates, and the next day I announce that I forgive you for the pain you caused me! That such self-centered thinking masquerades as a religious ideal is a good example of the moral disarray in much of religious life. Some people have a more sophisticated defense of the forgive-everyone-everything doctrine: Victims should be encouraged to forgive all evil done to them because doing so is psychologically healthy. It brings "closure." This, too, is selfishness masquerading as idealism: "Though you do not deserve to be forgiven, and though you may not even be sorry, I forgive you because I want to feel better." The rise of the theology of automatic "forgiveness" is only one more sign of the decline of traditional religiosity and morality. As Yale Prof. David Gelernter, who was severely injured by the Unabomber, notes in his thoughtful recent book, "Drawing Life," the 1960's made making moral judgments the greatest sin. He points out that none of his pre-1975 dictionaries contains the word "judgmental." Today, judging evil is widely considered worse than doing evil. Until West Paducah, I believed that Christians will lead America's moral renaissance. Though I still believe that - many Christians are repulsed by the demoralization and dumbing down of religion - the day those students, with the support of their school administration, hung out that sign I became less sanguine. If young Christians have inherited more values from the '60s culture than from their religion, where can we look for help? >:(My family wrote the jerk while he was in jail & forgave him for shooting their daughter & sister to death. Now that he's been executed they're pushing me to forgive him too. I'm not so quick to forgive that man that ruined my families life nor do I think I should have to be. Am I wrong? Just because he "made up with his maker" am I in the wrong to not forgive him?
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jan 28, 2005 14:10:20 GMT -6
Antonio Ponvert III represents Dan Ross, father of Michael Ross. Ponvert and attorney Jim Nugent filed a complex civil rights claim that the state cannot deprive Dan Ross of his familial relationship with his son if there are questions remaining about Michael Ross' competence and the fairness of Connecticut's death penalty scheme. Although related somewhat to the public defenders' contentions that Ross is incompetent, Dan Ross is suing on his own behalf and doesn't run into the issues of standing as the public defenders did.
Ponvert, who was working into the night Thursday preparing for this morning's hearing, called the state's arguments "frivolous." He said he expected the federal appeals court to understand that Dan Ross has a right to a hearing.
"The state is grasping for any straw they have so they can rush ahead and kill a man who is quite possibly incompetent" and unable to make a decision about whether he should live or die, Ponvert said. "[State officials] should allow due process before they take an irrevocable step in killing another human being."
Ponvert said he recognized that this morning's hearing could be the last effort to save Ross' life.
"Of course I'm feeling the pressure," he said. "I have a client who loves his son and wants his son to live. Keeping his son alive is my goal, and I intend to use every fiber in my brain to accomplish that."
But some of the dozens of lawyers who have been involved in the case said they hold out little hope the temporary restraining order will stand. They believe, in light of Thursday's Supreme Court order, that the panel of three judges will dissolve the stay.
Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano would not speculate on whether the execution would be carried out Saturday.
"The only thing I can say for sure is earlier today, there were two legal impediments blocking the execution of Mr. Ross. Now there is only one," Morano said. "Where we go from here depends very much on the matter being argued before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals."
Some family members have sought comfort from each other.
Linda Brodeur, sister of Debra Smith Taylor, said Edwin Shelley, father of Leslie Shelley, visited her at work this week to lend support.
Brodeur, 52, of Jewett City, is not eligible to witness the execution because Ross did not receive the death penalty for Taylor's killing.
"I would love to be there. I would give anything for that," Brodeur said. "But Ed told me he's going there for all eight victims so my sister will have someone there."
Attorney Michael Malchik, the retired state police detective who persuaded Ross to confess to six murders, said he was relieved by the Supreme Court order, but expressed frustration at continuing legal delays to the execution.
"The people of the state of Connecticut are not stupid," Malchik said Thursday afternoon. "Even though this seems to be a complicated legal issue, what it really boils down to is that the people who are against the death penalty and their attorneys are trying to delay this in any way they can.
"The people of Connecticut understand that. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chatigny's decisions leading to some of those delays are completely out of step with all the other legal reasoning that has gone on in this case over the last 21 years. At this point, the most important thing is for the families of the victims to get the justice that they deserve."
Public defender John Holdridge, who churned out many of the briefs in the various motions and appeals, was disappointed and cynical Thursday.
"Bush v. Gore strikes again," Holdridge said. "Apparently five members of the United States Supreme Court share John Ashcroft's radical right-wing agenda to spread the death penalty to the Northeast."
The majority deciding to lift the stay consisted of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The ruling was opposed by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Earlier in the day, the high court denied the application for an emergency stay of execution filed by the Missionary Society of Connecticut, which is a branch of the United Church of Christ.
The society, citing its longstanding opposition to the death penalty, earlier this month requested a commutation hearing in the Ross case from the state Board of Pardons and Paroles.
In Connecticut, the power to commute a death sentence to life in prison is vested in the board.
Board Chairman Gregory Everett denied the request, saying that only the death row inmate or his lawyer could seek a hearing. Even then, Everett has said, the board has the authority to deny the request for a hearing. The society then launched a lawsuit asking the judge to order the board to grant it a hearing, and claiming the board's lack of written rules and policies is a due process violation.
Superior Court Judge Robert E. Beach Jr. dismissed the suit in Hartford, saying the society had no standing to bring it. The state Supreme Court earlier this week dismissed the appeal.
"It looks like the execution will go through," said the Rev. Gordon Bates, who coordinates the society's anti-death penalty activities.
"We're disappointed in the order in our case, obviously, but not surprised," Bates said. "It's a sad time from our standpoint, regardless of what Mr. Ross says he wants or doesn't want. ... It simply puts the people of Connecticut on the same level of Mr. Ross - taking the life of a man who can't harm anyone at this point in a premeditated fashion. That's precisely what Mr. Ross did."
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jan 28, 2005 14:09:57 GMT -6
One Obstacle To Execution Left Ross Moving Closer To Death Chamber After High Court Rejects Public Defenders' Motion
January 28, 2005
Serial killer Michael Ross has his belongings packed in boxes and is expected to move into the holding cell adjacent to the death chamber today, even as the last bar to his execution is being argued before a federal appeals court this morning.
The state's first execution in nearly 45 years is scheduled for 2:01 a.m. Saturday.
The U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin Thursday, vacated the stay of execution issued Tuesday by Chief U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny. The stay was designed to give public defenders the opportunity to present evidence that Ross is mentally incompetent and should not be permitted to "volunteer" to be executed.
The high court's order leaves a temporary restraining order, also issued by Chatigny, in a civil rights lawsuit filed by Ross' father, as the only legal impediment to the execution being carried out.
"We're done," Chief Public Defender Gerard Smyth said, minutes after learning of the high court's order. "The highest court in the nation has denied us the opportunity to present our evidence. There's nothing further we can do."
A small army of public defenders has worked doggedly, often through sleepless nights, to stave off their former client's execution. Because Ross dismissed them four months ago and retained attorney T.R. Paulding to represent him, they tried in vain to assert that Ross is mentally incompetent. Only then would they be permitted to intervene on Ross' behalf.
Since Dec. 28, two Superior Court judges, the state Supreme Court and U.S. District Judge Christopher F. Droney have affirmed Ross' competence. Only Chatigny saw the need for further evidence on whether Ross' confinement for 20 years in a highly restrictive setting led him to despair and his decision to die.
Ross, who has seen three execution dates come and go this week, is said to be relieved.
"He's indicated he's prepared, if this does go forward tomorrow evening," Paulding said. "He's ready.
"He's obviously aware of the fact we still have another hurdle," Paulding said. "He's not convinced it's going forward, but he's much more confident than he was a few hours ago."
Kathy Jaeger, who is both a friend of and spiritual adviser to Ross, said she visited with him Thursday before the Supreme Court issued its order. At that point he was anxious that the high court would leave the stay in place and his fate uncertain.
"I told Michael it's not about us being in control of it," Jaeger said. "The U.S. Supreme Court was the big one.
"He's going to be glad in some respects," she predicted. "But then the reality is going to hit: They're going to kill me tonight."
The last-minute legal wrangling has taken a toll on family members of the victims, some of whom said they struggle daily over whether to read or listen to news reports about the case. Some want to stay apprised of the developments but feel that hearing about Ross each day causes them further anguish.
"You try to follow it in the news and you hear, `It's on,' then you hear, `It's not.' It's so hard to see it get dragged out like this," said Steve St. John, uncle of Tammy Williams, one of Ross' victims. "I find it very difficult from my end to concentrate or even sleep. It seems like there's no end to this."
The Supreme Court's order is a single sentence granting the application by state prosecutors to vacate the stay of execution. But Attorney General Richard Blumenthal - who will argue today in New York that the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals should dissolve the temporary restraining order - thinks that one sentence speaks volumes.
"The U.S. Supreme Court decision today sends a profoundly important message that our state's highest court is entitled to respect and the state is upholding the rule of law, which is a vital public interest," Blumenthal said. "There is an interest in finality and certitude in the criminal justice system - not only in the interests of the anguish and pain that may be caused to victims' families, but also in the emotional and financial burden to the state as a whole from revisiting and reconsidering lawful convictions and sentences.
"Our argument to the court of appeals will be that four courts have addressed and answered the issue of Michael Ross' competence," Blumenthal said.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jan 28, 2005 10:10:08 GMT -6
We have been contacted by a family member of one of Michael Ross's many victims who is interested in meeting pro-dp supporters who will be at the prison. His sister's murder was adjudicated by a life sentence so he will not be among the execution witnesses. He plans to be at the prison when Ross is executed, feeling the need to represent his sister as justice is done. Please let me know via email at charhall@gmail.com if you will be going to the prison in support of the victims' families. I will try to put you in contact with him or any others we hear from. Charlene
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jan 28, 2005 10:06:14 GMT -6
Court Lifts Stay of Execution for Connecticut Serial Killer HARTFORD, Jan. 27 - The United States Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a stay of execution for Michael Bruce Ross, leaving only an appeal brought by his father to prevent Mr. Ross, a convicted serial killer, from becoming the first person executed in New England since 1960.
|
|