Lazy Reporting

Patricia Parker doesn't really know if she wants her brother's killer punished by death. Her brother’s murderer has not been brought to justice and she has not been presented with all of the facts related to the crime. Her first hand qualifications for judging the judicial system don’t exist (yet).

Yet she’s being quoted by news media (as a representative of murder victims or their families?) and advocating for a moratorium on executions as if she really knew or represented all of their best interests? As a relative of a murder victim she’s certainly entitled to her opinions whatever they are on capital punishment (as an individual) but she doesn’t speak for all victims! It’s worth noting that if her brother’s case ever gets tried in “capital” way and the murderer is sentenced to death she stands a good chance of having at least two opportunities (sentencing and clemency) to voice her opinions on what she thinks the appropriate sentence might be (in the proper forums, i.e., not just the media).

Parker doesn’t even speak for the majority of persons who’ve lost a loved one to homicide or a majority of those family members who’ve seen the murderer of their loved one sent to death row. Reality is that District Attorneys are reluctant to pursue a sentence that the family of a murder victim doesn’t support. This doesn’t mean that all murder cases should be treated the same when relatives of murder victims oppose (or support) the execution of a murderer either. Sometimes the best interests of the state require an execution (or clemency) and these interests conflict with the desires of those who are related to the victims. These “conflicts” don’t mean that the death penalty (or an occasion commutation) is wrong.

But that’s what Parker and moratorium advocates are saying. If a moratorium is enacted, and by delaying executions for at least two years, the state will be treating all proven murderers in the same way. Moratorium supporters are engaging outright dismissals of the heinousness, brutality, dangerousness (even behind bars) of the murderers. Juries have said that these crimes scream for or “require a death sentence”. Even the sheer number of victims that some murderers killed (of those who might be executed in those two years) is being dismissed to some extent.

The next murderer scheduled for an execution is Earl Richmond. By all accounts this offender is guilty of no less than four murders. Moratorium supporters would have the state delay his execution so that they might review the fairness of sentences like his. How many murders would Richmond have to commit to be eligible for death or for his death sentence to be “fair”?

The most recent execution was attended by at least two relatives of a victim (Mary Gladden). William “Bugs” Powell bludgeoned Gladden’s head to the point he’d dislodged one of her eyeballs. Despite the dislodged eye and evidence that Powell showed little or no concern for his victim after he was jailed Powell’s lawyers argued that the murder was not premeditated. Unbelievable!

What is believable is the murderers who have been executed in recent years will never cause harm to other persons (corrections staff, other inmates or themselves). The murderers, who were executed, are dead AND THEY WERE GUILTY! There are no looming questions about their guilt either.

Parker and her five friends do not speak for the majority of those who have lost a loved one to homicide. Giving moratorium advocates half the media exposure or half the attention doesn’t give their opinions more weight that others who are right. The arguments of capital punishment should not be reduced to infighting amongst persons who are related to murder victims. Victims should never be pitted against each other like moratorium advocates are attempting to encourage.

Isn’t it apparent that when moratoriums on executions are observed or abolition occurs that only those persons that oppose the idea of an occasional and deserved execution get what they want?

Hopefully the General Assembly won’t turn the moratorium issue into just another political issue. Some of our leaders have already engaged in tactics that include “race baiting” by focusing their observations on perceived racial disparities in prison or death row populations without acknowledging the behaviors (murder, rape, robbery etc), which require the sentences. Favors should not be traded or alliances made (or broken) so that we can protect some guilty and violent murderers from a timely execution. If lawmakers want to study the system or suggest constructive changes that will improve the system for all of those who are accused nothing prevents that. It’s clear that those who support a moratorium are only listening to persons who advocated for the condemned (defense attorneys, relatives of the murderers, prison clergy, pacifist/activists).

Moratorium supporters repeatedly (and conveniently) fail to acknowledge the value of a judicial system that has identified cases (including Gell) where guilt was less than absolutely sure and provided relief when it was appropriate. Instead of making constructive suggestions on how to improve the system, they merely promote indecision (delays) and promote one bill. When the system works, all they see is flaws. The moratorium legislation only amounts to an attack on a sentence; it’s not a genuine attempt to improve anything. They have one item on their agenda; no other tangible legislation is on their radar.

When it comes to the arguments about meting out death sentences (fairly); just who are the sponsors and supporters of the moratorium legislation listening to? When moratorium advocates listen to persons whose primary duty is to represent a client (to the exclusion of others), you should wonder how objective these persons could be. There’s no question about it, they will protect the guilty if they can. And the closer you look into their agenda, the less sense they make.

Death penalty opponents or moratorium advocates (some persons say they are the same thing) only understand that “they know what’s best for all murderers” and they really don’t care what the results of any studies are. They just want to steer us all down a course that includes more delays and indecision (not justice?). These persons who propose moratoria are not among those who might be most directly affected if a murderer escapes his prison cell or kills again. Maybe the next time a new prison needs to be built, it should be in “line of sight” of where these moratorium supporters live or work? Maybe then they might understand? Then again, maybe they have been so socially engineered by their precious murderers that they really don’t know or care how much of a danger they might represent to others anymore.

The "report" (by AP or ABC?) wasn't really a genuine attempt to report truth or real news. It represents more of an attempt to inflame (and misinform?) viewers/readers. Some relatives of murder victims might not support the execution of some murderers (Patricia Parker really doesn't know) but these persons don't speak for all friends and family members of homicide victims (nor should they). The "report" was just STAGED AND SPOONFED MORATORIUM PROPAGANDA AND A PRODUCT OF LAZY REPORTING

Execution Date Set for Earl Richmond - May 6th, 2005

Earl Richmond DOC# 0343602



Richmond was found guilty of the November 2nd, 1991 first-degree rape and the first-degree murder of Helisa Hayes. While at the home of his victim, defendant had "forceful" sex with Helisa, beat her, and strangled her to death. Defendant then took Helisa’s son Phillip into the bathroom, where defendant strangled him with the electrical cord of a curling iron and stabbed him numerous (at least 20!) times in his head and body with a pair of scissors. After killing Phillip, defendant went into Darien's bedroom, sat her up on her bed, and strangled her to death with a curling-iron cord. Ms. Hayes’ father, William Stewart, discovered the bodies of his daughter and two grandchildren on November 4th when, after having not heard
from Ms. Hayes for two days, he became concerned about her safety. During this initial interview, Richmond told police that he had not been to Ms. Hayes’ home during the weekend of the murders. Moreover, Richmond sought to shift attention from himself. Richmond became a suspect when his sister, Andrea Knight, informed police that she had dropped Richmond off near Ms. Hayes’ home on the early morning of November 2nd after they and others attended an all night house party. In light of this information, police requested a suspect rape kit from Richmond, which revealed, through DNA evidence, that the semen found inside of Ms. Hayes’ body belonged to Richmond. Richmond, after initially denying any involvement in the murders of Ms. Hayes and her two children, confessed to having committed the murders.

In the opinion of Dr. John D. Butts, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, the adult victim died as the result of strangulation. She had numerous blunt-force injuries; tears, scrapes, and bruises; abrading of the skin in the entrance to her vagina; and blood over a portion of her brain beneath a bruise on her scalp. Defendant's first-degree rape conviction properly supports his conviction for the first-degree murder of the adult victim under the felony murder theory.

While defendant may have consumed alcohol and cocaine prior to the murders, there is little evidence of the degree of his intoxication at the time of the murders. The evidence, however, suggests that defendant methodically killed everyone in the house, leading one victim into the bathroom and sitting another on the edge of the bed. He also tried to hide his crimes by pouring alcohol on the adult victim's genitals and taking with him the scissors he had used to stab one of the child victims. Such behavior is indicative of a capacity for premeditation and deliberation.

While awaiting trial on these charges, Richmond was charged in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey with the April 4, 1991 murder of Lisa Ann Nadeau, an army dispersing clerk at the Fort Dix military base. On May 28, 1993, Richmond was convicted of Ms. Nadeau’s murder and subsequently sentenced to a term of life imprisonment.

Infractions include: REFUSE SUBMIT/DRUG/BREATH TEST, WEAPON POSSESSION, MISUSE MEDICINE, NO THREAT CONTRABAND, ILLEGAL CLOTHING, and UNAUTHORIZED FUNDS.

Long enough?

It’s amazing how much information you can glean from a short letter, if you just look. On January 31st, 2004 North Carolina inmate #0215851 had a letter to the editor published in the pages of the Raleigh News and Observer. Obviously offender Gregory H. Jones has too much time on his hands! Maybe he’s not had enough dishes to wash at Odom Correction Institute where he is being held in medium (not close?) custody.



Imagine if you were a relative of Jones’ victim(s?). The idea that the man who murdered your loved one and was supposedly “locked away” where no one would let him invade your lives again in 1978 just had his words delivered to your doorsteps today. Unfortunately, a “life sentence” then really hasn’t changed much today even though the lawyers say its “life without parole” and try to persuade folks that it should be enough. Justice isn’t always fair is she?

Aren’t Jones and other inmates like him who read and then write the papers using the media as a means to conduct further attacks on the families of their victims or others they have some grudge against? Some certainly think so. From the courtroom to the prison, and then they “court the media” from prison, for a life term? Isn’t this what’s happening now? What’s surprising is that Jones didn’t use some space in his editorial to complain about prison food or having to work.

How convenient it was that Jones saw fit to justify his own release stating that he’d served more time than he should have. Doesn’t he understand that he waived any rightful claim to parole after committing the first of his violent 103+ infractions behind bars?

Jones is in prison for 1st degree murder and another set of violent criminal offenses. His next review date is September 20th, 2005. It’s possible that the family and friends of his victims have passed or moved away. He committed his murders in the 1970’s.

Why should an offender like Jones even entertain notions of freedom? He’s certainly not been a model inmate. His 103+ infractions include: ACTIVE RIOTER, ASSAULT STAFF W/WEAPON, SUBSTANCE POSSESSION, ATTEMPT CLASS A OFFENSE, WEAPON POSSESSION, NON THREATENING FIRE, PROVOKE ASSAULT, REFUSE SUBMIT/DRUG/BREATH TEST, ATTEMPT CLASS B OFFENSE, MISUSE MEDICINE, PROFANE LANGUAGE, DISOBEY ORDER, FIGHTING, VERBAL THREAT, BARTER/TRADE/LOAN MONEY, ATTEMPT CLASS C OFFENSE, NO THREAT CONTRABAND, CREATE OFFENSIVE CONDITION, ILLEGAL CLOTHING, PROPERTY TAMPERING, UNAUTHORIZED FUNDS, POSSESSION MONEY, UNKEMPT ROOM, and MISUSE SUPPLIES.

Isn’t this (infraction record and the reason he’s in prison) proof to any reasonable person that Jones is and will remain a danger to himself and to others for the rest of his life? Yet each year he will be reviewed because he is “eligible” for parole. The law requires that parole commissioners review Jones’ case at least once a year now, until he dies in prison or is released.
http://www.doc.state.nc.us/parole/truths.htm

The state changes sides in cases like these. The primary obligation of the state now seems to be to make sure that the offender is granted all of his rights and is protected. He must be protected from other inmates (and himself). He is also allowed to voice his opinions in the news. This is at the expense of the relatives of his victims and other innocent North Carolina taxpayers.

So Jones wants to save the State and taxpayers a fortune. It’s quite likely that once released, Jones would cause harm to another victim and be right back where he is today or on death row in Central Prison. This would almost certainly mean that we would have to endure the extra expense of another indigent client and the costs of victimization to another taxpayer (or worse).

Obviously, we should all think twice before performing executions and use the laws and the courts to ensure that only the guilty and most dangerous offenders are the ones who get executed. Some death penalty foes contend that there is no real proof that capital punishment deters potential killers from committing murder. I’d prefer to believe that Jones represents one example of what deterrence can do. He’s not murdered any corrections staff (not yet anyway), but we continue to play the prison version of Russian roulette to pacify those who didn’t want him executed. Jones represents a loaded pistol with the hammer cocked; we are counting on him not to pull his own trigger and to control himself just enough not to actually harm himself or someone else.

Sometimes, (and despite the best efforts of corrections staff) offenders hurt others or become hurt. What incentive is there for an offender like Jones (who is obviously violent) from committing additional crimes? You can take away his television, visitation privileges, and access to the prison canteen and other things with only minimal effect. The only thing of value that this killer has left is the time he has on earth to eat, drink and breathe. The only thing he cares about is his life (not yours or anyone else’s). The threat of taking his life away is what has kept him from murdering again. A moratorium on executions only emboldens such inmates. When Justice blinks, the murderers abuse her.

31 on probation
277 on parole
182 on death row
5019 serving sentences inside NC Prisons

If justice were truly fair, Jones and inmates like him wouldn’t leave prison except to go to into a cemetery plot, and other inmates would be required to dig the hole. It’s too bad that there are more proven murderers who have served time for 1st degree murder who are on probation or parole than there are on death row. Maybe that’s what has motivated Jones to voice his opinions in the Raleigh News and Observer. It’s also a no-brainer that the N&O is probably one of the more popular newspapers in North Carolina prisons. Could this be because the Raleigh News and Observer more often sides with inmates, or confuses them with being victims? Or do many media sources like the N&O ignore victims and victim issues because their primary sources are those who advocate for the condemned or condemnable? I think it’s a little bit of both.

North Carolina legislators are considering a moratorium on executions. They believe that they might be doing the state a service by reviewing the fairness of sentencing of many murderers. Jones and a lot of other killers didn’t get to make it to death row. Is the General Assembly punishing the relatives of victims because we might not be executing often enough? Maybe...


ref:


Published: Jan 31, 2005Modified: Jan 31, 2005 1:15 AM
Long enoughhttp://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/2075907p-8455982c.html
According to your Jan. 8 article "New top-tier prison questioned," the state Department of Correction wants to build another $90 million, 1,000-man prison. Instead, why don't they parole the 2,600 prisoners eligible under the old laws?
The Fair Sentencing Act was in effect from 1980 to 1994. The "pre-fair" laws were before 1980. Some of us have done more than 24 years. I've done 29.
If the state would parole everyone eligible for parole, it wouldn't need new prisons. They could even close a few, and save the state a fortune.
Gregory H. Jones
(The writer, an inmate at Odom Correctional Institution, is serving a life sentence for first-degree murder.)

Nice guys on death row?

In recent days, I’ve noted that ex-death row inmate Allan Gell has made statements to the media implying that condemned inmates are “motivated to behave” or they may find it even more likely to be executed. That generally speaking, “the row” is a less violent place than "general population". Such remarks were made in what is obviously weak attempt to re-humanize death row inmates in the minds of North Carolinians, an effort which is being led by death penalty foes like Gell who say that they are promoting a study of the justice system and at the same time demanding a moratorium on executions. Having never spent time on death row as an inmate, I can’t profess first hand knowledge of what it’s like there or understand all the motivations that drive death row inmates, so I entertained Gell’s comments for a spell.

If as Gell says, the mere threat of an impending execution is enough to make at least some inmates think twice before committing additional and obviously violent (or even annoying) infractions, is that not also proof that capital punishment has a deterrent effect on crime? If there are some offenders that can’t be deterred by any sanction, shouldn’t the state consider executing these bad players first (if it can)?

Contrary to Gell’s statements, many death row inmates really are not well behaved. Recently executed murderers on North Carolina’s death row have been known to attack corrections officers and commit a number of different offenses while they sat on the row. If these inmates were moved to general population, there’s no guarantee that these murderers wouldn’t continue with their bad habits or become even more violent. More to the point, without an occasional and deserved execution these already violent felons could become even more violent. Seriously now, without a death penalty, what sanction will have any meaning to an offender who is already serving a life sentence (without parole)? You can’t add any real time to what the courts have already demanded that they serve. Adding a 2 years delay to the cycle only complicates matters and doesn’t come without some additional costs or risks.

How many proven “cop killers” or “kid killers”, wife beaters and robbers do we need to protect from an execution after they’ve already committed the most heinous crime of all (premeditated murder)? The death penalty abolitionists and state paid defense attorneys would have us protect all of them.

Today they are promoting a moratorium on executions. This they say is so that they can study the system and improve it. Supposedly their motivation is to save innocent lives. What about the innocent lives we risk (or lose) when we fail to execute? It slowly becomes more apparent that they intend to protect the guilty (even more than the innocent?).

Have the sponsors of the moratorium legislation actually lived in fear of a murderer who has already snuffed the life out of one of their loved ones? Doubtful. So whom do they represent?

A closer look at the persons who support the moratorium will show that they include persons of the clergy who minister to death row inmates, friends or family members of proven murderers, paid representation for the inmates (trial lawyers), well meaning but misguided students who are attacking a sentence instead of making constructive solutions, or so-called Person’s of Faith who would abolish capital punishment (no matter how violent the murderer).

Most of these moratorium supporters go home each night to a place that’s far away from Central Prison (or any other). They don’t live within line of sight of a corrections facility or a mental institution. They don’t get harassing phone calls from the murderers of their loved ones. They don’t live with the thought that a murderer might escape or disgrace the memory of their loved one even more by committing additional crimes either. Their social experiences include participation in these groups that glorify (or worship) death row inmates.

Due to the efforts and constant supervision of corrections staff, the average moratorium supporter, defense attorney or prison clergyman doesn’t have to worry very much about murderers attacking them when they visit "the row". It shouldn’t come as a surprise that most these murderers are reluctant to "bite the hands that feed them" (for as long as they are fed). Just who is using who more? Maybe that’s something they never considered studying… because they just can’t imagine murder happening to them or someone they love. Maybe one day, one of their "pets" will bite... and only then will one moratorium advocate understand why executions must continue... if for only a short time.

Execution Date Set for William D. Powell

State officials have announced a March 11th execution date for death row inmate William Powell #0239098.




Powell’s behaviors behind bars include: SUBSTANCE POSSESSION, DISOBEY ORDER, NO THREAT CONTRABAND, FAKE ILLNESS, and MISUSE SUPPLIES.

William Dillard Powell murdered Pantry convenience store clerk Mary Gladden on October 31st, 1991, by beating her on the head and face with a tire tool or lug wrench. Gladden was murdered for about $48 that was stolen from the register. Powell was observed at the crime scene; one eyewitness actually saw Powell inside the store at the approximate time (within 6 minutes) of the murder. Other evidence indicating Powell’s guilt includes taped confessions.

This murder was particularly brutal. The victim had numerous lacerations on her face, with corresponding skull fractures underneath. Part of her left ear was torn off. Her nose was broken on the left side, and her left eye was displaced due to a fracture of the bone behind the eye. The victim also had lacerations on her forearm and hand, indicating that she struggled for her life. Further, she had internal injuries. For example, she had bone fragments embedded in her brain from the numerous fractures. Her brain was torn in some places and protruded from the skull in others. Finally, she had several bruises on her brain and a sub-dural hemorrhage.

Powell has been determined to have an average IQ and normal concentration skills, language functions, sensory ability, and visual ability. Evidence showed that Powell was raised in a loving family, had worked as a jailer and with the fire department, and was well liked and not violent. An expert in psychology and neuropsychology, testified that he performed comprehensive testing of defendant on 22 November 1992. The results showed that defendant's memory, problem-solving skills, and motor functions are impaired. This was the result of using about a half gram of cocaine each day. Until two months prior to the murder the drugs were purchased from cashing social security checks that were meant for the support of his son. Prosecutors argued that Powell’s drug habit and lack of money is what motivated him to rob the grocery.

Two jailers at the Cleveland County jail testified that defendant had adjusted well to life as an inmate and had caused no problems. *Note: This contradicts his prison infraction record.

More information can be found in the State Supreme Court Opinion (Click Here)

When Lawyers Misspeak

Last September David Hoke and Debra Graves were brought before the North Carolina Bar to answer to their performance (or lack of it) as prosecutors in the initial trial of Alan Gell. The facts surrounding the Gell case have become almost self evident because of the extensive coverage from the Raleigh News and Observer. For those that missed it, evidence was withheld in the first Gell trial and as a result of that and new interpretations of physical (forensic) evidence by medical examiners, the case was subsequently retried and resulted in an eventual acquittal.

Today’s “digression” being offered up by N&O staff reporters (Joseph Neff) is related to some statements made by the state’s senior prosecutor, Jim Coman during a hearing where the NC Bar Association considered what punishment was appropriate for prosecutors Graves and Hoke. At issue is whether or not state prosecutors are intentionally withholding evidence that should be presented to defense attorneys when appeals are considered or prior to trial. It should be noted that recent legislation has been passed (that was inspired by the case in question) that now requires full disclosure of evidence against the accused prior to trial.

Anyone familiar with the Gell case already understands that established disclosure procedures allowed defense attorneys to uncover the questionable statements that were withheld at first trial. Eventually this information was used to impeach or undermine the testimony of witnesses who implicated Gell in the murder of Allen Ray Jenkins. Now media reporters and lawyers for condemned inmates believe they’ve discovered an “odd policy”.

It’s understandable that lawyers (or media persons?) representing condemned inmates should question why prosecutors might not divulge all witness statements before trial. Even still, some testimony or witness statements may seem more relevant to the case at hand than others or some statements resemble “trash”. Sometimes during interrogation or questioning witnesses become agitated or sarcastic and say things that they might later regret. Are prosecutors required to provide evidence or testimony to other lawyers that they believe is not true or just stupid things that angry 15-year-old girls say when they are implicated in a murder? What happened then is now a moot issue. The law now says even when those witnesses “talked trash” it should be shared prior to trial. The lawyers in the Gell trial have since been admonished (or publicly spanked?) for their indiscretions.

None of the statements that impeached witnesses for the state were permanently hidden. All the evidence that existed prior to trial was eventually turned over by the same prosecutors who were eventually admonished. Some would argue that Alan Gell got more consideration in the courts because his case was considered in a “capital way” and that this worked in his favor. Even those who know and love Alan Gell, knew he was no “choir boy” before Jenkins was murdered. If law enforcement and prosecutors were eager to believe in Gell’s guilt it might have been because he’d already impeached himself. These facts or Gell’s history as a felon prior to being accused of murdering Jenkins escapes acknowledgement in the pages of the N&O. Now, who is withholding more or more often?

Missing in the pages of the Raleigh News and Observer is any reference to who (other than Alan Gell) might have murdered Allen Ray Jenkins. In their search for a “story” (not truth?), they’ve focused on attacking officers of the court or faults they think they see in procedure. Suddenly (or not so suddenly) it has become more important to reference information (or digressions) about other unrelated cases (Munsey) instead of the case at hand (Gell). If there is “new news” on the Jenkins murder, when will readers hear about it? Or is it more important to focus on misstatements by state prosecutors?

The courts have spoken on the Gell case (acquittal). The North Carolina Bar Association has admonished the lawyers involved in withholding evidence in the first Gell trial. If defense attorneys suspect that evidence has been wrongfully withheld in individual cases, arguments should be presented in our courts and decided “one by one” based on evidence, testimony, logic and facts, not en-masse or supported only by rumor, hearsay or speculation. If the Attorney General’s office has ever engaged in any “odd policies”, past or present, on other cases, that remains to be seen.

Is the Raleigh News and Observer "reporting" news (as it happens) or manufacturing it? Or is it in the business of creating fear, uncertainty and doubt where there really doesn’t need to be? More importantly, where’s justice for the family of Allen Ray Jenkins? If this really is more than “just another story” to the N&O, maybe they can do more than poke at prosecutors who happen to misspeak.

Lost Generations

Statistically speaking black men are committing more crimes and face more and longer terms of incarceration. “These lost generations” are not just a racial issue or related to one race. Think of the victims that these young men (of all races) leave in their wake. The impacts are inter-racial and cross generational.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm

I consider myself lucky. I grew up in a household where my siblings and me lived with both my mother and father until I was almost 16. Then my parents divorced. Mom wasn’t rich; she was a schoolteacher. My father wasn’t any better off financially speaking. I grew up in South Florida in an area where drugs and bad influences were as common as anywhere else. Trouble was easy to find for those who weren’t afraid of it (or just didn’t care). Nothing prevented me from joining the military in the early 1980’s and I didn’t. I didn’t finish college either; I just went to work. The thought of going to prison was shameful. Taking something that wasn’t mine or harming someone else purposefully was appalling too.

A lot of kids these days don’t have any shame when it comes to criminal activities. Their role models are all eventually imprisoned or accused of some crime. Only a precious few (if any) college or professional athletes have clean records (legal or medical). They grow up with a Nintendo mentality (say “I’m sorry” and everything’s ok). They play Grand Theft Auto on video game machines at home in and in the real world.

Where do today’s youths learn about personal responsibility? Presidents commit adultery on the job, CEO’s are subpoenaed, investigated, convicted and imprisoned every year. When parent’s fail, why should we think it’s just their fault? Let’s face it, when “Junior” ends up in prison for life, it’s too darn late for everyone.

Members of the Saiz family have expressed support for the execution of convicted murderer Dwight McLean. They (Saiz’s) will share a life sentence dreading potential escapes or violent infractions of inmates like McLean. After sentencing, the State represents the offender; they are responsible for his well being now. As far as the State is concerned, the Saiz’s have all the justice they are going to get. It’s “case closed” as far as the courts are concerned. Lawyers say that life without parole means McLean will die in State custody. Lawyers also argue about the definition of the word “is”. No one can personally guarantee that McLean’s last breath of air will be drawn behind prison walls, or that he will never harm another person or never escape. Sad, ain’t it?

WRAL forgot who the victims are here. Yes, McLean was only a kid (17) when he murdered Robert Saiz, but 16 year old kids are given drivers licenses every day by the North Carolina DMV and they are entrusted to make life or death decisions on our roads. McLean committed PREMEDITATED MURDER, not an accidental traffic infraction. McLean wasn’t charged with being careless or stupid. He purposely pulled the trigger on a firearm (during a robbery) and shot his victim from behind (a victim trying to flee).

I don’t blame Dwight McLean’s parents for the murder of Robert Saiz. They didn’t pull the trigger. I blame Dwight McLean. He knew better and murdered anyway. Now he has to live with the consequences. Dwight McLean is not a victim! When we “feel sorry” for these murderers or put them up on a pedestal or glorify them in any way, we enable the next generation to do the same things.

The courts said that executing Dwight McLean might be the wrong thing to do; as a result, he was sentenced to “life”. Whose life? Only time will tell if he doesn’t harm a corrections officer, another offender or commit suicide. Things happen in prisons that are crueler than taking a nap on a gurney. There are no questions concerning guilt in McLean’s case. He’s not been in prison for all that long and he’s already committed a few “minor infractions”. Let us all hope that Saiz family's concerns about a mere life sentence or justifications for an execution are not confirmed. Dwight’s probably got another 50 years to go before this is over…

http://www.wral.com/news/3976105/detail.html

Laws, Lawyers and the Lawless

The New York Times recently published an extensive piece regarding some cases that the Supreme Court of the United States has rebuked (or might reverse) from the State of Texas. By some accounts recent reversals are supposed to send a message to the Fifth Circuit Court, that they need to focus on the principals of appellate law or previous Supreme Court decisions.

One of the arguments being made in the Supreme Court involves some Texas cases where white jurists and black defendants may have been involved in some sort of unfairness. What’s being implied (but not said, in as many words) is that some form of bias is the reason is why juries agreed on a death sentence, instead of life without parole. If these claims can be substantiated with proof of bias, that remains to been seen. On the surface, it looks like some defense attorneys think it is unreasonable to believe that a mostly white jury is capable of an impartial and objective decision for as long as the victim or defendant are not also white. How convenient?

Arguments are that these death sentences couldn’t have been a result of a jury’s impartial assessment of guilt or a defendant’s confirmed and established behaviors based on evidence, testimony, logic and facts, which were presented in court. Not when you ask a defense attorney, that’s for sure. I don’t usually read claims of unfairness aloud in a nasal tone for entertainment. Please excuse my sarcasm and disbelief. This doesn’t mean that claims of prejudice should be dismissed without due consideration or that they are considered flippantly.

One should not be surprised if some (or most) of these claims are just another series of weak boilerplate arguments that defense attorneys made on behalf of their clients . In many cases the racial bias claims are false ones. If bias does exist in an individual cases and jurists really have based their decisions on some prejudice, it should be argued, but with some kind of proof or witness testimony, not supposition. The courts should not be burdened with guesses or arguments that are made for the sake of arguing. Frivolous claims should result in some kind of disciplinary action but unfortunately, that’s not usually the case when baseless claims are made.

The purpose of playing the “racial card” is to shift blame for a verdict to other persons when juries decide that an execution is appropriate. The more desperate the client or the defense, the more likely there will be an attack on the courts. To some extent, trial lawyers are sometimes “professionally suicidal” when they sabotage their clients defense in some way (as drunken or sleepy lawyers) or are revealed to have used some arguably ineffective strategy. Another defense tactic is to attack the credibility of witnesses or jurists or other officers of the courts (judges or prosecutors).

A tendency for defense attorneys or media persons (or Hollywood actors) sensitive to the interests of death row inmates to reduce court arguments to “politics” (or ideology) is often observed as well. When prosecutors serve in higher (appellate) courts, it’s perceived to be an injustice to persons who are convicted by defense attorneys or advocates for the condemned. These justices serve at the pleasure of the public. When confidence in these persons is lost, they can be (and often are) replaced. If there are faults with decisions made in appellate courts, the Supreme Court of the United States has proven itself (repeatedly) capable of reversing decisions or admonishing inferior court decisions when they see error. For some reason, these persons who represent the condemned who find fault with appellate courts don’t find fault with public defenders that seek employment with private firms. Is that fair, or objective?

Oftentimes, the goal of the defense team is to reverse or re-try a case until a more satisfactory (for the accused) sentence or verdict (not guilty?) is reached. The defense’s first obligation is to their client or what they believe to be in the best interests of their client. That’s their perception of justice. It’s a necessary part of the judicial process and how adversarial parties achieve what some persons call “fairness”. If a criminal is wrongfully released because of an error, that is not "their problem" either. Really!

Part of the problem (undermined confidence in our courts) is founded in myth or ignorance. For instance, if all a person knew about trial lawyers or the courts was what they read in certain papers or anti-death penalty websites, justice could never be trusted. Contrary to popular belief, the requirements for passing State Bar exams or for becoming a lawyer don’t include alcohol related problems or some condition that makes a person a complete dolt or morally bankrupt. Rarely do advocates for the condemned describe their peers as professional or even remotely competent.

Reality is not TV; most trial lawyers (defense, prosecutors or judges) look and sound like normal persons. They are not actors or actresses who recite from scripts written by Hollywood’s best scriptwriters. In fact, many court proceedings are quite boring to most citizens.

Some cases are just made less boring. The media often “spins” cases in such a way that they can stimulate fear or uncertainty in even the most blatantly one-sided trials or decisions. When they (media) create doubt, it sure doesn’t hurt ratings (or revenue). The media is quick to point out that when prosecutors withhold evidence (even unintentionally), or when defense attorneys might have made a mistake. They remind the public that they should be wary. Yet, the media regularly withholds information about some murderers that makes many murder cases less controversial (offender infraction records during incarceration, prior offenses or convictions etc). Lies of omission are played for all they are worth, sometimes.

The goal of these persons who are advocating for condemned murderers is to undermine the faith that others (media, officers of the court, or the public) have in executions. The race card argument has nothing to do with the actual guilt or innocence of the client, and claim concerning prejudice are in many cases, nothing but a digression. Lawyers are using racial arguments as justification for postponements, these lawyers are engaging in “delay tactics”. These arguments are intended to avoid “the inevitable”, (delay and deny) for as long as possible. It should come as no surprise that many who represent indigent clients are compensated by the number of hours that they put into a case. So it should be even less of a shock when it’s made clear that many of the best arguments made on a clients behalf aren’t made until the last minute or until after an execution is actually scheduled.

Using racially charged arguments serves another purpose for defense attorneys. “Promotion of their client” is the politically correct term by these lawyers. When claims of racial bias are made without justification, reasonable persons have to wonder if they are also motivated by a desired to engage in a very public form of self-promotion (for the benefit of the trial lawyer, not the accused). In such cases the accused is reduced to a prop. In other cases, lawyers have actually "bonded" in some way with their clients. In one case in North Carolina, a death row inmate professed his love for one of his attorneys shortly before his execution. If arguments for a condemned murderer become too personal or failure to save a client more heartbreaking than usual, its possible that an attorney got too close to a client or involved in a case.

Now that states such as Texas have executed many of the offenders who were more violent, had cases that were more easily proven or those that were less defendable, it should come as no surprise that a number of cases have been rebuked or reversed because of some technicality. Should that encourage doubts in persons who support executions or encourage persons who oppose capital punishment to become more vocal? I don’t think so.

I think we should encourage the courts to focus on making quality decisions and enforcing the will of juries. Implementing and abiding known best practices actually works in everyone’s best interests. If some of us know enough to complain about the judicial system, we should challenge ourselves to propose tangible and reasonable solutions that can be implemented by sensible people. We shouldn't whine or encourage whining. We certainly shouldn’t limit ourselves to a defense attorney’s definition of the word “fair” when it comes to capital punishment. Such a thing probably won’t happen in Texas. Some prosecutors could argue at length that those on death row, even in Texas, aren’t any closer to dying than the average citizen. Especially in states like California or New York.

One thing is for sure, for as long as the courts tolerate frivolous claims, frivolous claims will be made. Part of determining the merit of these claims (specious or real) is hearing them in court. So don’t hold your breath waiting for things to change. When our courts or advocates for the condemned go “above and beyond the call of duty, to circumvent the will of a jury”, I think it should be done sparingly and with care (within the limits of the law). If problems with individual cases exist, they should be addressed one by one with quality arguments or evidence, not personal attacks or supposition. Just because a court affirms a sentence or a claim is determined to be unverified or an error is determined to be harmless, this doesn’t mean that the defense is entitled to retry case in the media. If we are not going to abide the will of our juries and enforce the sanctions they recommend, why do we have courts or laws? Isn’t that just another form of lawlessness (with a false perception of due process)?


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/national/05texas.html?hp&ex=1102309200&en=cb3c23993931bdaa&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Charles Walker's execution stayed.

Charles Walker's execution date was stayed on December 2nd, 2004.

http://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/deathpenalty/walker_chronology.htm
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1895086p-8230821c.html



Walker has at least two convictions in his record, one for the first-degree murder and another for conspiracy to commit murder of Elmon Tito Davidson, Jr. He was in disciplinary segregation (10/16/2004) at Central Prison in Raleigh.

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/apps/offender/offend1?DOCNUM=0420511&SENTENCEINFO=yes&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=2


On 12 August 1992, Walker, Sabrina Wilson, Antonio Wrenn, Pamela Haizlip, Rashar Darden, and Jesse (Jay) Thompson were at Nicki Summers' apartment, directly across from Haizlip's apartment. Summers and Wilson told Walker and Haizlip that Davidson attempted to take money and drugs from Haizlip's apartment the preceding night. Walker told Haizlip to lure Davidson into her apartment and keep him there. Thereafter, Walker, Darden, and Thompson entered Haizlip's apartment through the back door and found Davidson sitting on the couch. As they entered, Walker said that they were going to kill Davidson. Walker and Darden were armed with pistols, and Walker told Haizlip to leave.

Walker and Darden then pulled their guns, pointed them at Davidson, and made him sit down on the floor. Thompson tied Davidson's hands with duct tape and radio wire. Walker talked to Davidson; then Davidson's mouth was taped, and his feet were tied with rope or string. Walker hit Davidson on his kneecaps at least three times with a hammer. Davidson's hands came loose and were then secured by handcuffs. Walker gave a .380-caliber pistol to Thompson and left the apartment. Davidson was laid on the floor. Thompson cut Davidson's throat three times and then shot him through a pillow in the little finger and in the arm. Darden also shot Davidson several times with a .22-caliber pistol. Afterwards, Darden left and talked with Walker at Summers' apartment. Darden told Walker, "He ain't dying." Walker then reentered Haizlip's apartment, took the gun from Thompson, and shot Davidson in the neck. After the shooting and when Davidson ceased to move, Walker left the apartment.

North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nc&vol=1996%5Csupreme0510%5C&invol=walker

Fourth Circuit Court Opinion
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0311.U.pdf

Walker’s infraction record during his incarceration includes at least 94 infractions, which include:

FIGHT INVOLVING WEAPONS, SUBSTANCE POSSESSION, INVOLVEMENT W/GANG OR STG, ATTEMPT CLASS A OFFENSE, WEAPON POSSESSION, PROVOKE ASSAULT, HIGH RISK ACT, DAMAGE STATE/ANOTHERS PROPERTY, UNWANTED COMMUNICATE W/VICTIMS, ATTEMPT CLASS B OFFENSE, MISUSE MEDICINE, PROFANE LANGUAGE, DISOBEY ORDER, FIGHTING, OFFER/ACCEPT BRIBE ANOTHER, VERBAL THREAT, THEFT OF PROPERTY, BARTER/TRADE/LOAN MONEY, MISUSE/UNAUTH-USE PHONE/MAIL, THREATEN TO HARM/INJURE STAFF, ATTEMPT CLASS C OFFENSE, NO THREAT CONTRABAND, ILLEGAL CLOTHING, PROPERTY TAMPERING, UNAUTHORIZED FUNDS, and ATTEMPT CLASS D OFFENSE.

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/apps/offender/raw1?DOCNUM=0420511&INMV9CF1=on&SEARCH=Search

Currently his attorneys claim that no physical evidence links Walker to the 1992 murder and that no body, blood or forensic evidence links their client to a crime. They also attack the credibility of witnesses who testified against him.

WRALTV: Attorneys: No Evidence To Link Client To Murder, http://www.wral.com/news/3939581/detail.html Viewed on the Internet November 22nd, 2004

Raleigh News and Observer, Former justices urge mercy, Andrea Weigl, November 24th, 2004.

http://newsobserver.com/news/story/1858025p-8192406c.html

Former N.C. chief justice James G. Exum Jr. and former justice J. Phil Carlton have asked Easley to grant a life sentence for Walker based on his history of paranoid schizophrenia..
Exum's letter said that Walker's mental illness made him unable to fully understand the consequences of rejecting a plea bargain.

In a letter to The News & Observer in 2003, Walker proclaimed his innocence and volunteered to take a lie-detector test, which his lawyer, Megerian said hasn't occurred. Walker has consistently denied any involvement in the crime.

Carlton and Exum both favor a moratorium on executions.

Walker qualified for the death penalty on two factors: his prior conviction for attempted murder and the violence of the killing. Davidson was shot, beaten and had his throat slit with a Ginzu knife. The jury further determined that Walker did not personally commit the killing, though it was convinced that he had prompted it.

In issuing the stay, Guilford County Superior Court Judge John Craig found the case unusual and wrote that "a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from the court's failure to consider these claims." Prosecutors and defense lawyers are crafting further arguments on issues related to the reliabitity of witness testimony and Walker's role in the cruelty of the murder which will be explored in more detail next year.

Retreat from Capital Punishment…

It should come as no surprise that advocates for condemned murderers respond to “red herrings” offered by the Associated Press that reference downward trends in the number of killers sentenced to death. 

The gross numbers by themselves don’t mean much. The missing part of the story is the reduction in the total number of truly capital crimes or those that lead up to such things. 

For instance, consider some other violent crimes that are often the precursors to aggravated murder (i.e. rape robbery). 

It’s not “new news” that violent crime in general is on a downward trend. So it might also be reasonable to expect that capital murders would also decline in number. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ 

 If fewer persons are sentenced to death there might also some reasonable explanations that death penaly foes or defense attorneys (some say these persons are the same) don't acknowledge. 

 How about prosecutorial discretion? Consider cases where the closest relatives of a victim don’t want to pursue an execution (many murder cases involve other immediate family members), or they (relatives of victims) don’t want to bear the burden of a prolonged appellate process. 

Why find fault in a reduced number of capital sentences? 

If for the sake of argument, jurists have “raised the bar” in terms of what they are willing to consider to be “reasonable evidence” when they decide on guilt or recommend a death sentence today, then that doesn’t mean that decisions made using a lower standard of proof are necessarily wrong. 

Trial lawyers aren't prevented from demanding clemency for condemned inmates in cases where known technologies or increased standards of proof (i.e. use of DNA or other forensic evidence/technologies) might prove possible innocence. 

Laws already require that such evidence be processed where it might free a convicted murderer. 

These increased burdens on prosecutors to prove a case should represent at least some comfort to persons who question guilt in individual cases. 

 So yes, the option of using some “prosecutorial discretion” might encourage some prosecutors to try fewer cases capitally. This often occurs where the evidence establishes guilt but does not justify an execution in some strong way. 

Since when is a decision based on efficacy, also biased or unfair? Isn’t this also a more efficient use of our courts and jurists? The bottom line on statistics is that, they "might mean more to us" if all murders were committed in the same manner, by the same kinds of offenders and the victims were all equal in every respect, but this is not so. 

Not all cases are equally strong in terms of proving the heinousness of the crime or their motivations. Each murderer represents a unique risk to themself and to others persons (or inmates and corrections staff). Imprisonment means something different for each convicted murderer. Each crime is in fact unique. 

This is why juries make the decisions when it is time to consider an occasional (but deserved) death sentence. In the end, the statistics are just statistics. 

So if polls show no appreciable changes regarding the overall support for capital punishment, that shouldn’t surprise anyone. If Americans continue to support the concept of capital punishment yet recommend the execution of fewer murderers, this should not be cause for concern either. 

Especially, if Americans are being more careful in recommending just who, gets executed. 

Yes, occasional wrongful convictions should make us all more careful and demanding when it comes to meting out death sentences. Few persons acknowledge the fact that in the majority of cases where a supposedly wrongfully convicted murderer was released, that strong evidence indicating guilt usually still exists. 

This is a far cry from the “actual innocence” standard that death penalty foes would encourage persons to believe when a rare case is retried, or results in a acquittal, gets reversed, remanded or an error is found. If anything this proves how reluctant the courts are to follow up with an execution when a case against a condemned murderer is in fact, a weak one. 

 Concluding that the results of local elections reflect a change how the public views capital punishment would be short sighted too. America just re-elected an ex-Texas Governor to the presidency. He is a man with a strong background indicating support for capital punishment, in case no one noticed. 

 If some of us seem to take occasional (and public) joy in a death sentence that should be discouraged. Death sentences mean that the system has failed a victim by preventing a brutal murder. 

Make no mistake about it; murderers on death row are not to be confused with being victims. “Premeditated or 1st degree murder” means they had choices and did wrong. 

It's also worth mentioning that the effectiveness of counsel is considered for every condemned murderer as a part of normal procedure not happenstance. 

 If evidence is wrongfully withheld it should be considered in our courts. If an occasional or rare case demonstrates that these things have happened in the past, it also demonstrates that the courts threw the verdicts out when the circumstances called for it. 

The appellate process is there to root out all such errors and validate prior decisions in the courts. Yet some only find fault in the process when it actually works. Death penalty foes even find fault in our leaders when they occasionally commute or overrule a death sentence. 

North Carolina’s Governor has commuted two condemned murderers sentences to life without parole. This demonstrates that compassion and leniency can be argued for on his watch. If lawyers are going to find fault with individual decisions the Governnor has made they had better substantiate such things with evidence, testimony, logic and facts, not supposition or statistics (or other weak arguments and whining). 

 So legislatively speaking, if the polls indicate that North Carolinians still overwhelmingly support capital punishment and from an evidentiary standpoint, we know that all of the murderers who have been executed were in fact guilty, why should we seek a moratorium on executions? Certainly not just because many advocates for death row inmates object to all executions! 

It makes no matter to them how heinous the crime or dangerous the murderer. Many of those who advocate for condemned murderers have a primary obligation to their clients and/or are paid to object to executions. So, when these persons voice their objections to the occasional and deserved execution we should consider just whom (or what) they are advocating for. Shouldn't we?!

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/1884679p-8213758c.html

Shades of Gray...

On November 21st, 2004 an article was published in a local newspaper that included some statements from various persons on different sides of the issue of capital punishment. No news article, study or resource can ever fully accomplish the task of explaining why some cases are tried capitally while others are not. In the end, District Attorneys have been given the authority to use some discretion in what penalties to pursue and juries make a decision after guilt is established about whether or not an execution is appropriate.

Some persons object to the idea of an execution no matter how heinous the crime or violent the murderer might be. These persons who advocate for condemned murderers often associate a punishment for another crime or equate an execution with another murder. They also demonstrate what is arguably an “abbreviated attention span for facts” or lack of appreciation for the system even when it works to the benefit of a condemned murderer. When an occasional case is reversed or remanded or results in an acquittal after a new trial, they only find fault. Some persons never distinguish between presumed (or assumed) innocence and proven (or actual) innocence. The idea that our courts might occasionally be overly conservative, careful or cautious, and as a result wrongfully release murderers, escapes their attention.

Many factors are considered prior to trial when officers of the court decide on which punishment to pursue. The issue concerning what punishment a defendant might deserve really should lie with a jury. This does not mean that allowing at least some prosecutorial discretion is wrong. District Attorney’s have a first responsibility to do what they believe is in the best interest of the State. They hold elected positions and can be replaced if their performance is less than the public expects.

The State’s (or District Attorney’s) interests can conflict at times with the needs or desires of the friends or family members of homicide victims, but that does not mean that they are not considered (or shouldn’t be) when a case goes to trial. If a jury recommends a death sentence or "life without parole" in an individual case or there appears to be some unrelated pattern of increasing or decreasing death sentences (or other statistics), or some persons merely find these events/observations to be amusing, it doesn't mean they deserve special notice. Each case should be decided on it's own merits. All of these verdicts and sentencing recommendations deserve the reverence of the public. If additional evidence or facts happen to "change things", we should be supportive of the judicial process, not merely attack it. The public deserves to be notified too.

The idea of offering up disparate (and very recent and real) high profile cases as examples of the decisions that prosecutors face when deciding whether or not to try a case capitally is not necessarily new (Ann Miller-Kontz, Matthew Grant, Scott Peterson). The different sentences or prosecution strategies don’t indicate intentional or obvious unfairness. Persons, who object to instances where an execution was or was not considered, question if the process is fair for different reasons. Efficacy of prosecution is only one factor that should be considered before going to trial. Each case presents its own unique set of facts, circumstances and evidence; all have different levels of quality or present-ability in court. If prosecutors are influenced by the likelihood of a conviction and the efficacy of attaining an actual death sentence, that notion is not "new" either.

Attorneys who represent condemned or condemnable defendants work for the State, as do the prosecutors, on the other side of the courtroom. What makes them different from prosecutors is their primary task is to provide for the best interests of their clients (murderers?). This is a necessary part of the process. An effective and vigorous defense is required to maintain fairness (or that perception) in our courts. If a defense attorney conceded that any murder case deserves to be tried capitally, it might be perceived as a sign of weakness (by his or her peers, or those who depend on their services). So an occasional and public conclusion that a murder case doesn’t demand to be considered in a “capital way” should be considered with at least some reservation when made by certain trial lawyers (defending death row inmates). One should note that such persons rarely miss an opportunity to promote their clients and often engage in pubic appraisals of the judicial system or law enforcement, especially when their cases are particularly weak. One has to wonder how some of these persons sleep at night.

Even the most avid supporters of capital punishment wouldn’t propose to execute every single murderer, yet execution abolitionists believe that all murderers should be treated the same. If all murders and murderers are unique, how can sentencing all murderers to life without parole be considered fair?

Persons who support and oppose executions agree and disagree on almost every other issue. Each victim and defendant is unique. Each crime is unique. To treat all convicted murderers the same dismisses the notion that each murderer represents a unique risk to other persons (or himself) and that each victim represents a different kind of loss. Yes, all murder victims are “equally dead”, but victims all endure different pains and humiliation as they die. These are factors for jurists to consider, along with the desires of the friends and family members of the victims, not just the attorneys.

It’s a logical assumption that the primary issues of deciding whether or not to pursue a case capitally revolve around guilt and culpability, and strength of presentable evidence in terms of proving such things. The conclusion that a jury would “call it quits” or that unreasonable doubts might somehow become “reasonable” in capital cases because a death sentence is considered, fails to account for the fact that sentencing and guilt phases in murder trials are separate events. Special attention given to sentencing is evident in every capital case not just by a jury at trial but later on in the courts (appellate process).

The special attentions that condemned murderers receive are often criticized. Family members of victims are confronted with a State that frequently assumes an almost adversarial role by protecting an offender’s best interests first. Family members of the condemned demand more access to their loved ones, among other things. The fact that many victims and perpetrators are poor indicates some of the motivations that are behind the crimes, which require the ultimate punishment. “Righteous victims” are less prevalent in these populations too. This does not mean that victims or the condemned are being discriminated against in the courts.

If a family chooses not to repeatedly (and publicly) endure the disclosure of the checkered past of their loved one (or victim) and decides not to support pursuing an execution, one shouldn’t find fault with a prosecutor who respects those needs and desires. This doesn’t demonstrate that some families love the ones they’ve lost any less than others who support executions. At times, victims and defendants are closely related and families often wish to preserve what remains of their family, despite what has happened. Some surviving family members of murder victims seek executions because they feel threatened by the murderer. These needs and desires, whatever they are, should be respected.

Murder cases aren’t to be compared with games (playing horsehoes) or gamesmanship. They involve real persons who should be treated (and sentenced) individually. Arguments relating to such things, as “affirmative action” don’t apply to capital murder or executions. Statistical disparities should not be mistaken for actual bias. Issues of bias should be addressed based on logic and fact (not supposition or statistics). The murderers who happen to be on death row are there as a result of their proven behaviors and the results of a process that deserves more respect.

Yes, there are many shades of gray... and when readers, columnists or advocates for the condemned turn the issue into "blacks and whites" or "blacks versus whites" (with no "grays") consider what that means in terms of getting justice. Wouldn't it be wise to consider the motivations that influence these things? Don't we owe it to ourselves to decide each case individually based on the facts (evidence and testimony) on hand and not to mix them all up into indistiguishable shades of gray?


Raleigh News and Observer, Capital cases offer shades of gray, say prosecutors, Oren Dorrell, http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1849211p-8175977c.html , Viewed Online November 22, 2004.

Columnist misunderstands Miller case

Re: Educated suspects get break
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1839325p-8158108c.html

Once again Sheehan “gets it all wrong”. As president of the “Death Row Inmates Have Feelings, Too, Club” readers reasonably expected that Ruth Sheehan would vehemently oppose any efforts to give jurists an opportunity to sentence Ann Miller-Kontz to death. Instead she threw readers a curve ball and some twisted logic. Sheehan’s feigned astonishment that the State did not seek an execution for Eric Miller’s accused murderer only confirms her lack of understanding of capital punishment. Whatever Sheehan’s “education” might happen to be on this subject (or murder cases in general), it surely doesn’t pass for knowledge.

Was Sheehan’s comparison of Miller-Kontz (a petite female with no criminal record to speak of) to Matthew Grant (a young man on probation that displayed an escalating pattern of criminal behaviors at the time he murdered a law enforcement officer) fair or objective? I don’t think so.

Grant acted alone when he pulled the trigger on Mark Tucker and even though he had help afterwards, that is more or less irrelevant. The two murders were committed for different reasons and by different persons. Each perpetrator has presented their own unique risks to the public in the past (even before the murders) and capacity to commit future violent crime (after their conviction).

The full story of Miller-Kontz may never be known because one suspect in that murder committed suicide and can’t be interviewed. Questions about culpability might not be so clear in the case of Eric Miller’s murder, when you compare them to a case that is more clear cut like Mark Tucker’s. If prosecutors are occasionally conservative in the way they handle certain cases it might also be related to how much strong and convincing evidence could be presented to a jury, and what they might NOT do. Not all murder cases can be tried capitally. If a District Attorney reasonably believes that a jury will not recommend an execution (based on the facts of the case) he can pursue a life without parole sentence.

If Sheehan believes that the accused/alleged murderer in the Miller case is equally eligible for a death sentence when compared to Matthew Grant, she is dead wrong. If reasonable persons compare Matthew Grant to Michael Peterson, it’s obvious that Peterson would be more likely to die of natural causes behind bars (Mike Peterson isn’t physically comparable to a 19 year old punk who’d have a lot more opportunity to escape, kill another inmate or corrections officer or commit additional crimes during his incarceration) before he might ever be executed.

Prosecutors are often forced to make their decisions on how to prosecute a case based on efficacy, yet Sheehan doesn’t understand this (obviously). In her mind, all murders and murderers are the same. Would she use the same logic if the murderer or victim were one of her own? I don’t think so. While we’re talking about reasons why a prosecutor might seek an execution in one case and not in others, why shouldn’t Sheehan consider the desires of the families of the murder victims? I suspect that thought never crossed her little mind. She hasn’t respected that notion in the past.

So if Sheehan faults prosecutors, she’s entitled to her opinions. That doesn’t mean her thoughts on the subject stand up to the facts related to each of these cases or that her “attention deficit” for these things should be overlooked. Maybe readers should consider that she’s just not qualified to comment on this subject (and others) and that her last column proves her irrelevance (or lack of education?).

http://www.wral.com/news/3922945/detail.html

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/apps/offender/offend1?DOCNUM=0816932&SENTENCEINFO=no&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=1

Hostility House

Why would persons representing a religious group (I won’t say what faith or denomination, but you can probably guess who), decide to set up a “hospitality house” for the purpose of comforting friends and family members of condemned murderers within walking of a state prison (where executions are performed) and not do the same kind of thing for families and friends of victims of other violent crimes?

It’s hard to be sure what possesses or motivates some persons to do the things they do. Some choices we humans make are signs of wisdom. Other choices that certain persons or groups tend to make are indicative of indifference, desperation, and ignorance or are just plain unfortunate or misguided. It’s not good judgment or wisdom that drives persons to do bad deeds or reward bad behaviors that much is sure. And “meaning to do well” is not an excuse for a poor performance as a human being or lapse in judgment. As the saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. It’s also worth saying that “some folks just take a different road”.

Obviously the decision to set up a “hospitality house” only for family members and friends of convicted murderers (to the exclusion of other deserving and disadvantaged persons and groups) has to be driven by something, but what? It’s easy to see that there is a need for persons to visit and communicate with convicted felons (not just murderers on death row) so what is it about a death sentence that makes it more “special”? Murderers sentenced to “life without parole” have friends and family who wish to visit them? Why no offers of “hospitality" for them too? It is also self evident that all of us, who are alive today, will die one day and inmates who die naturally in prison are just as dead as those who are executed. So have these persons, who created a “hospitality house” excluded otherwise deserving persons from their thought processes or dismissed their needs? Perhaps, but maybe the real motivation behind their veil of “hospitality” is to make a statement against a punishment (death penalty), by not providing a service to others they know to have a real need. It’s the exclusion of certain persons who might disagree with them that sends the message they really want to communicate, not the service they promise to provide to persons who are related to condemned murderers. Maybe “hospitality house” is a misnomer and “hostility house”, more appropriate?

Does anything prevent these persons from offering “hospitality” as they see fit? No. Nor is anyone proposing to actively protest their actions or shut them down. They are entitled to express their views anyway that they wish, as long as it remains within the law. They are acting out what they perceive to be their faith when they offer their “hospitality” to persons they choose to advocate for (with morality strings attached).

These persons offering “hospitality” are not really in the business of helping those that they claim to. Their efforts are really a passive form of hostility to the families and friends of victims who support the execution of their loved ones murderer. The alternative to saying what they mean in more simple terms might require some additional justification. They’d just be competing for the same attentions (and money) that other groups who oppose capital punishment do too.

If there is any comfort to come from these passive but hostile actions by this supposedly religious group (even holy scriptures support an occasional and deserved execution), it’s in dismissal. Yes, this group has dismissed the families of real victims in their quest to oppose executions. This doesn’t mean that in other ways that persons who oppose their point of view won’t get the same kind of support from another source. Persons who happen to support executions or advocate for real victims can dismiss these so-called “hospitality houses” and what they really stand for (hostility) because in the end, their existence is irrelevant.

The Carrboro Contingency

Recent news articles say “Woman’s killer is executed” and remind readers that a defenseless 92-year-old widow was brutally struck in the head during an attempted robbery. No questions of guilt surround the murder of Doris Poore. Frank Ray Chandler murdered her, that much is certain.

The courts determined that Chandler’s execution should stand and Governor Easley didn’t get in the way of what the jury prescribed for an obviously violent felon. Yet some persons clung to a desperate hope that clemency might be granted in this case. One has to wonder why?

Among those clinging to a desperate hope is the “Carrboro Contingency” which claims that the death sentence should not have stood because a key witness collected a $2500 reward for his damning testimony. These objections don’t include any evidence that indicates that the witness in question was untruthful in court. Also according to the “Contingency”, persons who defended Chandler claim that they used drugs with this same key witness. Are such claims a ”double stab” of sorts at attempting to claim ineffective counsel or undermine a witness’s credibility or a “win at all costs” (even at the expense of the truth), to save a client, kind of defense strategy? Unrelated actions by a prosecutor are brought into the argument to defend Chandler too. Such wild claims make one wonder about who makes them on behalf of condemned murderers and what motivates such persons.

According to certain death penalty opponents, “Governor Easley has gone beyond all reason” when he allowed the execution to proceed as scheduled. If so, the governor is in good company because a jury unanimously recommended death for Chandler and the courts did too, if only by a majority of opinion. That’s what makes recent statements by former State Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr the argument de’ jour. Obviously the Justice Orr stands by his previous dissention and he is entitled to his opinions (even more than most on this issue), but the foundations of our courts are nestled in majority opinions. Even Orr would have to agree, that the execution (dissention and all) was lawfully performed. That Chandler in fact got access to the process he was due. Many thoughtful persons deliberated over his fate. Reasonable and learned persons will disagree on many "little things", but Chandler didn't deserve to be spared over a percieved technicality (that other justices disagree with).

Chandler by all accounts led a very troubled life. No one disputes that notion, but that doesn’t excuse what he did to Doris Poore. Ms. Poore’s relatives did not stand in the way of Chandler’s execution. The “Carrboro Contingency” paid them little notice.

Years of appellate process documented the effectiveness of Chandler’s counsel. If they missed something that was unreasonable during trial it didn’t merit special attention on appeal. Since Chandler’s incarceration began, he proved again (and again) just how violent of an offender he was. Make no mistake about it; Chandler represented a danger to himself and to others for as long as he would be allowed to live. And now he isn’t (alive).

Chandler expressed remorse for his crimes through the Governor before his execution. Like many things, this was too small an effort and much too late for it to amount to anything. It wouldn’t have been required if Chandler had passed up the notion of breaking into a house and breaking a widow’s head wide open during the process. The murder of Doris Poore was no accident and if Chandler got little or no sympathy from a lot of other North Carolinians for what he did, that was probably no accident either. What he did to his victim was unforgivable. If Chandler receives forgiveness, that’s between him and God.

The “Carrboro Contingency” opposed this execution like they do all others. There is no middle ground for them. They said, that our governor couldn’t be reasonable, when he didn’t see it their way. Obviously they didn’t consult the majority of North Carolinians for their opinion on the matter or the families of real victims.

More information about Chandler and his case can be found at:
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2004/11/frank-chandler-11122004.html

Frank Chandler 11/12/2004

Nov. 12, 2004 set as the execution date for Frank Chandler

http://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/deathpenalty/chandler_chronology.htm



7/20/1993 - Frank Chandler was sentenced to death in Surry County Superior Court for the first-degree murder of Doris Poore a 92-year-old widow who was killed during a burglary of her home on December 11th, 1992. Attached to this murder charge was an attempted larceny of over $200.

Chandler was tried before a jury, which found him guilty of the first-degree murder of Doris Poore under the felony murder rule, with first-degree burglary as the underlying felony. The jury also found him guilty of attempted larceny, but not guilty of attempted first-degree rape or first-degree sexual offense. After a separate capital sentencing proceeding, the jury recommended and the trial court imposed a sentence of death for the first-degree murder conviction and a three-year prison sentence for the attempted larceny conviction.

The victim was lying on the bed with her pajama top open and her body was nude from the waist down; smeared bloody fingerprints were on her abdomen. A pair of pajama bottoms and a pair of panties was wadded together at the foot of the bed between the victim's legs, but slightly beneath her right foot. Mrs. Poore died from a single "massive blow" to the head. The blow resulted in a hinge fracture to the scalp, which effectively caused the skull to snap in two resulting in extensive swelling and hemorrhaging of the brain. Mrs. Poore had numerous abrasions, lacerations, and bruises.

Chandler’s palm and fingerprints were found on the wooden door leading into the kitchen. He has an average-range IQ and was competent to stand trial.

Defendant, in this case, broke into and entered the home of an elderly woman who lived alone, seeking either marijuana or money. Based on defendant's testimony, if believed, as he walked through the house, he heard Mrs. Poore. Upon hearing her, he struck her in the head with such force as to break her skull in two. Thereafter, he carried her to her bed and wiped his bloody hands on her stomach. He then removed her pajama bottoms and underpants. He told his cellmate Jeffrey Kyle Wilson that he did this because he wanted to see what an old woman's "pussy" looked like. He then covered her up and proceeded to search the house for her purse. Unable to find it, he left the house and returned to his aunt's house and went to sleep. Defendant never attempted to seek medical attention for Mrs. Poore after he struck her, but instead left her in her bed in a pool of blood to die.

After the murder, defendant immediately began a failed attempt to establish an alibi. He lied to the police. He tried to convince his cousin to lie to the police and to say that he never left the house on the morning of the murder. He also tried to destroy his fingerprint cards after the police obtained them. He told Wilson that he would try to avoid conviction and would "play crazy." Defendant's lack of remorse is evident.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nc&vol=1996%5Csupreme0308%5C&invol=chandler

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/apps/offender/offend1?DOCNUM=0072498&SENTENCEINFO=no&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=1

Chandler has committed no less that 26 infractions during his incarceration, they include:
SUBSTANCE POSSESSION, WEAPON POSSESSION, LOCK TAMPERING, SEXUAL ACT, MISUSE MEDICINE, PROFANE LANGUAGE, DISOBEY ORDER, VERBAL THREAT, THEFT OF PROPERTY, THREATEN TO HARM/INJURE STAFF, and UNAUTHORIZED LOCATION.

Chandler record of prior incarcerations includes: B & E VEHICLES (PRINCIPAL), B & E (FEL/MISD) (PRINCIPAL), and MISC MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATION (PRINCIPAL).

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/apps/offender/raw1?DOCNUM=0072498&INMV9CF1=on&SEARCH=Search

Persons who support Chandler say that Doris Poore’s murder was “accidental”. This claim conflicts with the findings of a jury, which made its decisions based on evidence, testimony, logic and facts. These persons or groups who defend Chandler also claim that Chandler did not premeditate the killing without any specific reference to the court documents that they supposedly quote.

Defenders of Chandler also claim that his counsel used illegal drugs prior to trial and as a result he was ineffectively defended. Obviously no one else noticed this at trial (judges, witnesses, prosecutors, jurists, bailiffs, reporters etc). The lawyer’s subsequent behaviors (post-trial) and disbarment have nothing to do with how well Chandler was represented at trial. Chander’s case has been argued at various levels in the appellate courts and confirmed the effectiveness of his trial counsels representation of him. Claims of potential conflicts of interest with his attorneys do not include any specific complaints about what was (or not) said or done which prevented him from getting the assistance he was entitled to. If the appellate courts find no wrong with the representation he’s gotten so far or that any errors that might have occurred are harmless this means that an execution should proceed as scheduled.

Chandler’s supporters have found fault with the prosecutors who handled the trial. Those financial issues that they had have not been linked in any way to the trial or the handling of this case are irrelevant.

Persons who defend Chandler has also attacked the credibility of witnesses who testified against him without providing proof that any of their testimony was false. These claims represent speculation, not fact. Courts should not base their decisons on their imagination. If evidence indicates that false testimony exists, it has not been presented in the proper forum (court). What seems more likely is that when this case was lost in the courts, it was taken to the media so that what their pleas could be heard there (and conclusions would be made on speculation and supposition?).

If judges have dissented over the case, it’s been over technicalities. Chandler is in fact guilty of murder. He murdered a defenseless, old woman and defiled her memory and body after she was dead.

In short, the weakest of arguments have been made to spare Chandler from an execution. This is not due to lack of effort or because qualified persons were not involved in his defense, it is because that is what they are “weak”. These persons are entitled to their beliefs that life without parole might be an appropriate sentence (in their minds). Those arguments however conflict with common sense, the expressed decision of a jury when they recommended sentencing (or death), and with Chandler’s history of behavior on death room. These are not arguments of strength nor do they indicate innocence in any reasonable way. When one considers real facts and arguments, these requests or false justifications for clemency represent a series of digressions or an outright dimissal of what should be justice in this case.

It is clear that Chandler represents a danger to himself and to others. He will remain a danger for as long as he is allowed to live. For these and other reasons, this execution should be allowed to proceed as scheduled.

Ballroom full of lawyers

re: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/1784509p-8076141c.html

Someone heard a “ballroom full of lawyers” laugh the other day and decided that it could only characterize an instant dismissal of the seriousness of the occasion. Yes, laughter is usually associated with a comedic atmosphere but you have to consider “the laughers” for what they really are. Steve Ford didn’t consider that trial lawyers (most of the laughers were in fact lawyers) in some ways often resemble hyenas. Hyenas are usually associated with being scavengers but they are completely capable of predatory behaviors, even with their own kind. The sounds that hyenas make are often mistaken for laughter, but make no mistake about it, when they start circling a carcass (or something soon to be dead), they aren’t really laughing and many take equal joy in the spoils (living or dead) for as long as they aren’t the meal. Ford didn’t share that observation with readers because it is beyond his imagination. I suppose that the fact that his wife is a trial lawyer has nothing at all to do with that too. Another thing to consider is that every animal (hyena or lawyer) has his place in the food chain. It's understood that each serves it's own unique purpose, so "hyena" is not meant to evoke disrespect for them. They are what they are, they can't help it. One can't argue with what lawyers are. As in any profession, there are many good ones and others many agree need "a good spanking".

One shortsighted observation usually deserves another and Ford didn’t let readers down in that respect. Ford can’t “let go of Gell” and attacked the North Carolina Bar Association or persons entrusted to discipline lawyers for bad performance. It’s an easy guess that this pattern (and associated revenue stream?) will continue.

No one knows better than Debra Graves and David Hoke about their personal knowledge (or what they didn’t know) of case files or about the murder of Allen Ray Jenkins in Gell’s first trial. They’ve claimed to not know about all of the withheld evidence. Ford isn’t buying it. Maybe some other folks aren’t either. One can’t argue with the fact that this disagreement has resulted in continuous employment for a number of N&O reporters and columnists and that uncertainty and doom trigger ratings and revenue. Gell has been used as a prop for persons who oppose capital punishment.

Hoke and Graves (to their credit) have not disputed that the evidence in question was withheld from defense attorneys in the first trial. Had they known about the existence of it, it’s possible that their prosecution strategy would have been different too. Some might even wonder if the case would have even gone to trial a first time. That kind of speculation is only possible if you acknowledge what they have said and accept that they weren’t aware of the conflicting evidence.

To conclude that some kind of conspiracy was concocted solely for the purposes of securing a conviction would be “just plain stupid”. It contradicts what has already been reported. If Hoke and Graves were really trying to get a conviction “at all costs”, they wouldn’t have left exculpatory evidence in the Gell case files. Evidence that might have conflicted with the verdict would have “disappeared”. But it didn’t.

Obviously, Steve Ford and some other persons are clairvoyants. These skeptics (or mystics) seem to know more about what Hoke and Graves knew prior to the end of the first trial. Meanwhile, the North Carolina Bar had to make a decision on disciplinary action based on evidence, testimony, logic and facts (not clairvoyance). Ultimately, no one (not even Ford) could prove that Hoke and Graves lied about the prosecution of Gell.

It’s doubtful that skeptics (like Ford) will ever be silenced. The thought that what some persons now call a wrongful conviction may have resulted in an actual improvement to the judicial process is too much for them to handle. Forget mentioning that new laws have since been enacted to require full disclosure of evidence before trial (not after).

Don’t be fooled by Ford’s digressions into thinking that the hearing concerning Hoke and Graves’ performance was anything about what happened (or might have happened) to Gell. It was all about their performance (or lack of it) as lawyers. In the strictest sense of what the Bar was considering that day, they were not concerned about Gell at all. They were there to address a performance issue (at trial) with two of its lawyers. Ford knows this was not the forum for Gell to “play victim”, but he played that card in his column. Gell’s presence at the occasion was expected and by all rights, he should have been there. If no one asked what the personal consequences of the first trial were for Gell, it was not because they didn’t care. It’s worth mentioning that all persons involved in the disciplinary action understand that the case was initially a capital one (some facts are now self evident). It’s also worth mentioning that some persons in the media have almost forgotten about the Jenkins family and what they deserve in terms of justice. The real victim is in a grave.

It’s entirely possible that Hoke and Graves did their job to the best of their knowledge and provided a zealous prosecution (to a fault). They missed the exculpatory information in their own review of the evidence (and admit as much). Appellate review resulted in extra eyes and understanding of the case, and resulted in a second trial (as it should have).

It’s a shame that the folks at the News and Observer haven’t put as much effort into other cases that resulted in early or wrongful releases of known predators. They haven’t looked more closely into who actually murdered Allen Ray Jenkins, have they? That could mean that a case might be closed, Lady Justice might be satisfied, and revenues (and gloom and doom effect) would be reduced. Wise readers probably shouldn’t hold their breath waiting for a conviction on the Jenkins (not Gell) case, should they? One might as well ask when the killer of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson will be convicted.

Yes, some persons will look at recent events and snort and giggle. To some extent, this amounts to unbecoming or disrespectful conduct (as lawyers, columnists or citizens at large) concerning the decisions leaders make on important issues, one must be prepared to live with it (and learn to love it). Ford and other persons who disagree (or giggle) with the Bar are entitled to their opinions, but if they cannot accept that the buck has to actually stop somewhere (or nothing gets done on any case), perhaps they should consider a different kind of employment (where life is more black and white and all of their issues will be more simple). If the issue has been turned into a “fiasco” they have only themselves to blame. One could just as easily conclude that the abuse of power is occurring at a more public bully pulpit (a.k.a. Raleigh News and Observer?).

The next week’s (election) decisions will require us all to separate such wheat from the chaff. Maybe that’s the real agenda of the N&O, to support the election of candidates that loathe or disrespect the system (along with them)? Or perhaps folks at the N&O will refer to this court case as “The Jenkins Case” (which is still unresolved)? Jenkins happens to be the name of the real victim(s). That family and their loss should not be forgotten.

Yes, the prosecutor’s said “My bad” and they’ve accepted the shame and ridicule (and warning from the Bar) that goes along with it. They've been publicly "spanked". Changes have been made to the process to prevent such things from happening again too. Don’t expect to read much more about it in the N&O or from Steve Ford (unless they find fault with it).