a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Yesterday, a Hartford jury convicted Lazale Ashby of the murder of Elizabeth Garcia.

The jury found Ashby guilty of murder, felony murder, capital felony, sexual assault, burglary and three counts of kidnapping in Garcia’s death. Authorities charged that he beat, stabbed and strangled her sometime between 7:30 p.m. on Dec. 1 and 7 a.m. Dec. 2, 2002.

The State is seeking the death penalty and jurors will return in September to commence the penalty phase of the trial.

Drugs played a prominent role in Ashby’s life, authorities say.Sources close to the investigation said Ashby grew up in Hartford’s Asylum Hill neighborhood, mostly on Huntington Street. His mother was a drug addict, and his father was not around to raise him. He was cared for by his grandmother, his only close relative until she died after his trial started.

Part of what sank him was this note [pdf] he passed to another inmate, which was introduced into evidence.

Just sad all around.

Technorati Tags: death penalty, connecticut, lazale ashby

For those interested, I promised to answer this question over the weekend. Here’s the answer: It got screwed.

The bill was HB 7365 - An Act Concerning the Procedure in a Capital Felony Trial. The provisions were that if a death penalty jury was deadlocked on the punishment to be imposed, the jury would be discharged and the judge would impose LWOP. It was voted out of the Judiciary Committee and then things started going downhill. Among other things, I wanted to point out this amendment that was proposed:

(a) any person convicted of a capital felony and sentenced to death who takes a direct appeal of such conviction to the Supreme Court shall file such appeal not later than twenty-one days after imposition of sentence.

(b) The defendant’s briefs and the state’s briefs shall be filed in accordance with a schedule that will ensure that all briefs are filed not later than four months after the date of the imposition of sentence.

(c) The Supreme Court shall schedule oral argument not later than six months after the date of the imposition of sentence.

This amendment called for oral argument in a death penalty case within six months of the imposition of the sentence. This would have been a logistical nightmare. I’m not sure transcripts would be ready in 6 months, let alone the four month limit for filing the briefs.

It also affected the timeline for filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus:

(a) An application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a capital felony conviction or the imposition of a sentence of death shall be brought not later than one hundred eighty days after the date of the imposition of such sentence. Such application shall fully plead all cognizable claims that the defendant’s conviction or sentence was entered in violation of the Constitution or laws of the state or the Constitution of the United States.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, the filing of a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus shall not be barred if (1) the facts underlying the claim were unknown to the defendant or the defendant’s attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence prior to the filing of the earlier application, and (2) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would have reasonably led the original trier of fact to have either found the defendant not guilty or not sentence the defendant to death. The court shall hold a hearing on such subsequent application not later than one hundred eighty days after the filing of such application.

Anyone that practices Habeas law will tell you that filing an Amended Petition in a regular felony trial case within six months is a tall order, let alone a capital felony trial case. Keep in mind that the Habeas and direct appeal would proceed simultaneously under the provisions of this amendment.

There needs to be serious debate in the legislature about the death penalty. The last time there was serious debate, the abolition of the death penalty received 60 votes. The debate was shelved pending the execution of Michael Ross, because legislators felt it was an inappropriate time. Since then, it has not been revived. Aside from geographical disparities in the imposition of the death penalty, there are racial disparities as well, which need to be evaluated and discussed. With an election year next year, there’s little hope of serious debate any time soon.

Technorati Tags: connecticut, death penalty

Two New Jersey legislative proposals in the past few days caught my eye: one good, one bad. In the plus column is New Jersey’s bill to abolish the death penalty, which was voted out of the Judiciary Committee (8-2) and now heads to the full Assembly for a vote.

If also passed by the Assembly and signed by Gov. Jon Corzine, who opposes capital punishment, it would make New Jersey the first state to legislatively abolish capital punishment since 1976. That was the year the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the first revised death penalty laws after striking them down nationwide four years earlier.

“That would be historic,” said Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), said passing it would “give New Jersey an opportunity to lead the nation by recognizing the death penalty has no reason to exist.”

“The death penalty cannot be fixed,” Lesniak said. “The time has come to abolish it.”

Full audio of the judiciary committee hearing is available here. Click on listen and then skip to around 51 minutes in.

HT: CDW

On the other hand, Lyndhurst, NJ has this asinine proposal:

Lyndhurst is gathering feedback on a proposal to require background and fingerprint checks of all ice-cream truck and other food-on-wheels vendors as a way to protect children. ‘Most of the people who come to an ice-cream truck are kids,’ says Mayor Richard DiLascio. ‘A parent might not always be around.’ Volunteer coaches and teachers must already submit to such checks.

This is nothing but fear mongering. As Mark Bennett rightly points out, only 7% of all reported sexual assaults against minors are carried out by strangers. He also has an interesting proposal to reduce child sexual assault.

Yes, that is a “Jersey Ice Cream ” ice cream truck in the picture.

Further update: Workman was executed last night around 1:38 am. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Update: Workman’s public defenders are working hard on his behalf. After the denial of cert. by SCOTUS, it seems that they have now filed a Motion for Stay with Tennessee’s Supreme Court. There’s no timestamp, so I can’t tell for sure whether I’m linking to something hours old, but it does reference the fact that three Supreme Court justices would have granted cert, so I think it is fairly recent.

I haven’t posted about this TN lethal injection challenge, but I have been following it. Minutes ago, SCOTUS denied [pdf] the petition for certiorari. Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg would have granted cert. I’m disappointed, but not surprised.

As CDW notes, Workman’s attorneys did a fantastic job. Please take the time to read the petition here [pdf]. All the pleadings can be found here.

Edit: I had the wrong link for the SCOTUS denial. Now updated.

Technorati Tags: death penalty, tennessee, philip workman

The death row hunger strike continues, but with one less participant. One of the five has started accepting meals again (names were not released). The others continue to fast. Nothing else has changed.

Previous coverage:

• Further details about death row hunger strike
• Death row inmates start hunger strike

Technorati Tags: connecticut, death row, hunger strike

Earlier today I received an e-mail which included a press release by the CNADP (Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty). The press release merely served to reproduce the statement of the death row inmates. CNADP did not take a position on the actions of the death row inmates.

Here are their main demands:

1. Group recreation is reinstated in small or large groups.
2. Religious Services (Congregate).
3. Use of gym twice a week (like population).
4. Access to hot pot at recreation (like population).
5. Housed separate from Northern population.
6. Contact visits (death row had them in Osborn).
7. Eating meals in Day Room.
8. Picture program

Previous coverage:

• Death row inmates start hunger strike.

While we’re at it, CDW has the latest nation-wide roundup of death penalty news.

There rest of the statement goes into some detail and I have reproduced it after the jump, if you’re interested.

Five of the eight inmates on Connecticut’s death row have started a hunger strike to protest the conditions at Northern CI. The last time they went on strike was in 2005, right around the Michael Ross execution.

They said in a statement released through an anti-death penalty group that they want to be able to participate in recreation outside their cells with one another rather than alone.

Death row inmates spend 23 hours a day in their cells and have one hour of solitary recreation.

They’re also asking for additional privileges, including contact visits and use of the gym for recreation, and for a meeting with the commissioner of the Department of Correction.

The conditions are pretty tough, but I doubt anything will come of this.

Technorati Tags: connecticut, death row, hunger strike

Somehow I missed the coverage of Thursday’s hearing in the death penalty discretion trial. Two more prosecutors testified.

Tolland County State’s Attorney Matthew Gedansky and Danbury State’s Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky were subpoenaed by lawyers for convicted murderer Jessie Campbell III.

Gedansky said he would seek the death penalty if the facts of the case met the state statute. And, he testified, he also would consider input from the victim or victims’ families, the defense, and the strength and circumstances of aggravating and mitigating factors.

Sedensky offered similar testimony, telling Mullarkey that the state statutes are the guidelines.

By my count, that makes 11 out of the 12 prosecutors testifying that they have discretion in applying the death penalty. The only one who categorically stated that he had no discretion was Waterbury State’s Attorney John Connelly.

Previous posts (older to newer):

• State prosecutors have to testify at death penalty hearing.
• Death penalty constitutionality hearing under way.
• Death penalty constitutionality hearing continues.

Technorati Tags: connecticut, death penalty

Missed in my migration this weekend was Friday’s testimony in the death penalty constitutionality hearing. Waterbury State’s Attorney Connelly testified about his hands-on approach in deciding whether to pursue the death penalty. Waterbury has prosecuted five of the seven current death row inmates.

While Connelly described, step-by-step, his decision-making process, other prosecutors said they simply followed the guidelines established in the Connecticut General Statutes.

The question of a prosecutor’s discretion appeared pivotal.

Connelly said he does not have a choice not to pursue a capital case. “That’s a misuse of discretion. … If you have the evidence and you don’t seek it, I think a state’s attorney would be abusing that discretion.”

In describing his approach, Connelly said, “If I only felt I could find probable cause I would not charge. I’d have to be convinced of a conviction. If I felt I could sustain a conviction for a capital felony I would charge.”

The hearings resume on April 12.

Previous coverage:

• Death penalty constitutionality hearing under way.
• State prosecutors have to testify at death penalty hearing.

Technorati Tags: connecticut, death penalty

Currently before the Judiciary Committee is HB 7365, which provides for the imposition of life without parole in the event that the jury in a capital felony trial is deadlocked as to the sentence to be imposed.

Here [.pdf] is the testimony of Ron Gold, a public defender in the capital unit, in support of the legislation.

Prof. Berman at SL&P is live-blogging from (and participating in) a conference entitled "Life and Death Decisions: Prosecutorial Discretion and Capital Punishment in Missouri." This is of particular interest to me (and should be to other nutmeggers), because CT is currently having the same debate in the trial of Jesse Campbell [previous commentary here and here].

Overview:  The conference has assembled an
amazing group of folks (including lots of important attendees) to
discuss and examine an amazing academic study concerning the operation
of prosecutorial discretion in intentional homicide cases over a
five-year period in Missouri.  I view both the study and the conference
to be extraordinarily important for the ways in which it is framing and
examining the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in intentional
homicide cases in a capital jurisdiction.

The third panel is particularly interesting, because it seems there was some interaction with prosecutors:

Panel 3. Prosecutors discuss charging practices: This
panel has three diverse county prosecutors  expressing various opinions
about the findings and recommendation of the study.  This panel began
with one prosecutor doing an amazing job cross-examining the study
authors to raise questions about their authors’ normative commitments
of their ability to really understand all the variables that impact of
capital prosecutorial discretion.  The other prosecutors in their
comments have been stressing not only how many different "moving parts"
there are in any potential capital case, but also how dynamic these
cases are from the time they get a homicide case from investigators to
the time the case goes to trial (or is pled out).

In Connecticut, Jesse Campbell is challenging the methods used by prosecutors in various jurisdictions to pursue the death penalty, claiming that it is arbitrary and capricious. If you’ve seen the data, then you would tend to agree.

A hearing on the Constitutionality of the state’s death penalty is underway as five top prosecutors testified last week. Attorneys for accused Jesse Campbell III, who faces the death penalty, are claiming that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it is applied in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner throughout the state.

Prosecutors testified that they follow the law and the prosecutor’s code of ethics when deciding whether to pursue the death penalty. However, they also testified that there was no written standard or guideline regarding the matter.

Kevin Kane, the state’s top law enforcement officer, testified first, followed by state’s attorneys from the Windham, Middlesex, New Britain and Ansonia/Milford judicial districts.

Kane gave the most detailed answers. He said in his current position, as supervisor of all state’s attorneys in Connecticut, and during his more than a decade as New London state’s attorney, he used an “operating assumption” that if assistants in his office planned to charge a defendant with capital felony, they would discuss the matter with him first.

“Because of the nature of the case, I expect the assistants to talk to me. I expect assistants to have common sense in cases that would have a significant relevance or impact,” Kane said.

Several other prosecutors are expected to testify when the hearing resumes on March 23. Stay tuned.

Previous coverage of this hearing:

• State prosecutors have to testify at death penalty hearing

Michael Kendall’s jury spared him the death penalty today. The jury had convicted him two weeks ago of murdering his wife and two daughters. After deliberating for less than 5 hours, the jury decided that he should be sentenced to life.

On Jan. 18, the jury found Kendall guilty of two counts of capital
felony, three counts of murder and one count of arson, determining he
fatally shot his wife and daughters and set two fires that burned them
severely on Dec. 13, 2003. He poured accelerant, most likely gasoline,
next to Ramona Kendall in her second-floor bedroom and in the hallway
of the townhouse-style apartment at 42 Great Hill Road in East
Hartford, according to testimony. Accelerant also was found on Alexis,
a state chemist testified. Ramona Kendall was seeking a divorce, and
Michael Kendall was under a court order to vacate the home by 10 a.m.
that day.

The jury concluded that the State had not proven the aggravating factor that Kendall knowingly put people besides the victims at a “grave risk of death”.

A little late with this, but Connecticut now has its 8th inmate on death row. On October 12th, a jury imposed the death sentence on Jessie Campbell.

Campbell was convicted in 2004 of
shooting and killing 20-year-old LaTaysha Logan, his long-time
girlfriend and the mother of his son, as they were talking outside a
house in Hartford on August 26, 2000.

 

The jury also convicted
him of shooting two other women who were sitting with Logan on a front
stoop: 18-year-old Desiree Privette, who was killed, and her aunt,
Carolyn Privette, who survived after being shot twice.

Another significant news event seems to have slipped by me (I must be getting old): New Jersey’s legislature has approved a moratorium on the death penalty!

New Jersey lawmakers voted Monday to suspend executions while a task
force studies the fairness and costs of imposing the death penalty.

The measure now heads to Gov. Richard J. Codey, who has indicated he will sign it before leaving office on Jan. 17.

Under the measure, a 13-member commission would have until November
to report on whether the death penalty is fairly imposed and whether
alternatives would ensure public safety and address the needs of
victims’ families.

New Jersey will become the first state to suspend executions through an act of the legislature. Illinois has an executive moratorium.

California is also considering a similar move:

On Monday, a group of current and former California prosecutors,
including the author of the state’s 1978 death penalty initiative, sent
a letter to state Assembly members calling for a moratorium on
executions in the state.

The Assembly is scheduled to hold the first hearing Tuesday on a
bill that would halt executions until Jan. 1, 2009, while the
California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice studies
wrongful convictions.

For more on the California proposal, see this article.

Hat tip: Prof. Berman