The 2nd Execution of 2012
Convicted killer Rodrigo Hernandez was executed at a Huntsville Prison last week for raping and strangling a Texas woman in 1994. He was the first person executed in 2012.
Hernandez said little in the moments before he died, according to the Houston Chronicle.
"I want to tell everybody that I love everybody," he said. "We are all family, people of God almighty. We're all good. I'm ready."
As the lethal injection took its course, reporters heard him say, "This stuff stinks, man. Almighty," although a state transcript released minutes later quoted it as, "This stuff stings, man," reported the Chronicle.
Hernandez was condemned after being convicted in the murder of a San Antonio woman, Susan Verstegen, whose slaying was a cold case until 2002, when a DNA sample Hernandez provided as a condition of his parole for an assault in Grand Rapids, Michigan, matched evidence collected in the San Antonio killing. After Verstegen was killed, her body was put in a 55-gallon drum behind a baseball field.
Hernandez maintained his innocence through it all, but recanted moments before execution.
“It still doesn't seem real. I did not commit this murder; I'll take that to the grave,” he told the San Antonio Express-News recently. “My grandma raised me to respect women.” He described himself as a “family man.”
In 2009, while Hernandez was on death row, Michigan detectives also connected him to the 1991 rape and fatal shooting of Muriel Stoepker, 77, a homeless woman.Stoepker was shot several times in the head with her body dumped on a parking-lot doorway at GRCC. She was once a successful legal secretary but suffered mental illness that eventually put her on the street.
Hernandez declined to talk to a Michigan detective in 2010 about Stoepker's slaying, and again when interviewed this month. But in a letter to an Express-News reporter days before his execution, he wrote, "I didn't do it; I payed (sic) for (oral sex), that's it, that's where they found my DNA."
When it became apparent that Hernandez's life would not be spared or his execution postponed, he admitted he shot and killed Muriel Stoepker near Grand Rapids Community College campus, and raped and strangled Susan Verstegen whose killing in San Antonio led to his execution.
“I can tell you, Mr. Hernandez did not want (the execution) to happen,” Michigan State Police detective Sgt. Sally Wolter said after the execution, reported the The Grand Rapids Press.
To read more: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Man-executed-for-1994-killing-2742873.php
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Redemption Rescinded?
The pardons by out-going Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour have touched on issues around the nature of redemption and mercy for the U.S. which has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, reported the Christian Science Monitor.
In Mississippi, the debate has been overshadowed by the disappearance of Joseph Ozment's. He was one of five governor mansion trustees pardoned by the governor. Trustees are prisoners who upkeep the mansion and grounds for meager prison wages. Ozment was convicted of the point-blank execution-style shooting of a store clerk in 1992 convenience store robbery near DeSoto, MS.
According to testimony, Ozment fired the fatal two shots at the clerk as he crawled across the store's floor. At the time, Ozment testified he feared the clerk would be able to identify him. He was serving a life sentence.
While the four other former mansion trustees that were released have checked back in with the judge, and vowed to maintain daily contact, Ozment has disappeared.
Attorney General Jim Hood called Barbour's mass pardons “a slap to the face” of victims and the judicial system. He is offering a reward for information that helps locate Ozment who was last seen in northwest Mississippi, reported the Christian Science Monitor.
The search has raised unprecedented issues, including the extent to which the state can legally force Ozment, who's not wanted for any crime and now has a clean criminal record, to report to a judge.
I examined an issue of redemption through expungement of criminal records. Read my blog The Cautionary Instruction, Another Look at Legislating Redemption.
To read more: http://www.blogger.com/goog_2097225311
In Mississippi, the debate has been overshadowed by the disappearance of Joseph Ozment's. He was one of five governor mansion trustees pardoned by the governor. Trustees are prisoners who upkeep the mansion and grounds for meager prison wages. Ozment was convicted of the point-blank execution-style shooting of a store clerk in 1992 convenience store robbery near DeSoto, MS.
According to testimony, Ozment fired the fatal two shots at the clerk as he crawled across the store's floor. At the time, Ozment testified he feared the clerk would be able to identify him. He was serving a life sentence.
While the four other former mansion trustees that were released have checked back in with the judge, and vowed to maintain daily contact, Ozment has disappeared.
Attorney General Jim Hood called Barbour's mass pardons “a slap to the face” of victims and the judicial system. He is offering a reward for information that helps locate Ozment who was last seen in northwest Mississippi, reported the Christian Science Monitor.
The search has raised unprecedented issues, including the extent to which the state can legally force Ozment, who's not wanted for any crime and now has a clean criminal record, to report to a judge.
I examined an issue of redemption through expungement of criminal records. Read my blog The Cautionary Instruction, Another Look at Legislating Redemption.
To read more: http://www.blogger.com/goog_2097225311
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Washington state considers outlawing death penatly
The Washington legislature is considering legislation to abolish the death penalty.
Capital punishment is rare in Washington. Since the current law was passed in 1981, just five people have been executed, most recently Cal Coburn Brown in 2010. The state has carried out two more executions than Pennsylvania. All three of Pennsylvania's executions were of volunteers--offenders who wanted to be executed.
Brown was executed for the rape and murder of Holly Washa in Seattle. After torturing her for a period of time, he killed her and left he body in the trunk of a car at the Sea-Tac airport. Brown then got on a plane for California and tried to sexual assault and kill another woman. Moments before his execution, Brown complained that he only killed one person and Washington serial killer, the Green River Killer Gary Ridgeway, killed 48 women without being executed.
Although, Washington has carried out executions Senator Mike Carroll believes, “We don’t have a death penalty in the state of Washington," reported the Olympian.
Carrell said capital punishment is little more than a “bargaining chip” for prosecutors to use to force plea deals. But he thinks it’s crucial for prosecutors to have that threat, which was used, for example, to force serial killer Ridgway to reveal the locations of some of his victims’ bodies, reported the Olympian. Carrell's position on the death penalty is not much different that condemned killer Cal Coburn Brown.
Opposing executions are the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of advocates planning to lobby lawmakers and testify at a public hearing today. Opponents point to death sentences around the country that have been overturned upon finding new evidence, reported the Olympian. This is a bit of a misleading argument. There have been only 17 cases across the country since 1989 where an inmate on death row was released due to DNA testing.
Some states have rethought capital punishment. Last year, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber put a halt to executions.Illinios, New Mexico, New Jersey and New York have all recently abolished the death penalty. New Mexico is considering bringing it back.
In a time of budget cuts, opponents note the cost of capital cases. A 2006 study by the Washington State Bar Association found the death penalty can add more than $700,000 to court costs.
And Brown’s execution cost about $100,000, according to the Department of Corrections – though it did avoid keeping him imprisoned any longer at a cost of more than $42,000 a year.
To read more: http://www.blogger.com/goog_496849562
Capital punishment is rare in Washington. Since the current law was passed in 1981, just five people have been executed, most recently Cal Coburn Brown in 2010. The state has carried out two more executions than Pennsylvania. All three of Pennsylvania's executions were of volunteers--offenders who wanted to be executed.
Brown was executed for the rape and murder of Holly Washa in Seattle. After torturing her for a period of time, he killed her and left he body in the trunk of a car at the Sea-Tac airport. Brown then got on a plane for California and tried to sexual assault and kill another woman. Moments before his execution, Brown complained that he only killed one person and Washington serial killer, the Green River Killer Gary Ridgeway, killed 48 women without being executed.
Although, Washington has carried out executions Senator Mike Carroll believes, “We don’t have a death penalty in the state of Washington," reported the Olympian.
Carrell said capital punishment is little more than a “bargaining chip” for prosecutors to use to force plea deals. But he thinks it’s crucial for prosecutors to have that threat, which was used, for example, to force serial killer Ridgway to reveal the locations of some of his victims’ bodies, reported the Olympian. Carrell's position on the death penalty is not much different that condemned killer Cal Coburn Brown.
Opposing executions are the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of advocates planning to lobby lawmakers and testify at a public hearing today. Opponents point to death sentences around the country that have been overturned upon finding new evidence, reported the Olympian. This is a bit of a misleading argument. There have been only 17 cases across the country since 1989 where an inmate on death row was released due to DNA testing.
Some states have rethought capital punishment. Last year, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber put a halt to executions.Illinios, New Mexico, New Jersey and New York have all recently abolished the death penalty. New Mexico is considering bringing it back.
In a time of budget cuts, opponents note the cost of capital cases. A 2006 study by the Washington State Bar Association found the death penalty can add more than $700,000 to court costs.
And Brown’s execution cost about $100,000, according to the Department of Corrections – though it did avoid keeping him imprisoned any longer at a cost of more than $42,000 a year.
To read more: http://www.blogger.com/goog_496849562
Friday, January 27, 2012
The Cautionary Instruction: SCOTUS ruling signals more trouble for Adam Walsh Act?
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
January 27, 2012
In 2006, growing concern about unaccounted for sex offenders whose whereabouts were unknown to law enforcement and the community, caught the attention of Congress.
In response, Congress enacted the Adam Walsh Act (AWA). The AWA created a new federal offense for failing to register as a sex offender as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. The AWA also established a baseline standard for states to comply with regarding sex offender registration.
The statute also included an incentive to comply. Failure to comply with the AWA would cause non-complying states to lose 10 percent of their annual federal crime fighting funds. The AWA has not been without controversy and a U.S. Supreme Court decision this week has added to the concern .
In 2001, Billy Joe Reynolds was convicted of a sex offense in Missouri. After he was released from prison, Reynolds registered as a sex offender in Missouri. However, in 2007 he moved to Pennsylvania and failed to register.
Reynolds was indicted and pled guilty to a registration violation pursuant to the AWA. He immediately appealed the conviction, challenging the constitutionality of the AWA, suggesting that the attorney general did not follow proper procedure when establishing an interim rule making the law retroactive.
The Third Circuit upheld the conviction. The court determined that Reynolds did not have standing to challenge the attorney general’s interim rule, finding the AWA itself required Reynolds to update his information, not the subsequent interim rule issued by the attorney general.
This week the U.S Supreme Court disagreed with the Third Circuit and sent Reynolds’ case back to the appeals court. Reynolds does indeed have standing and the appeals court has been ordered to get to the merits of his claim.
"The question before us is whether the act requires pre-act offenders to register before the attorney general validly specifies that the act's registration provisions apply to them," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court. "We believe that it does not."
The high court’s decision did not get to the question of whether the AWA should be applied retroactively. However, it does require the Third Circuit to make that determination. Inevitably, Reynolds’ case will make its way back to the Supreme Court.
The consequences of the AWA not applying to offenders convicted prior to the law’s enactment are enormous. The purpose of the AWA was to provide uniformity to registration requirements that were, prior to the act, a patchwork of differing state statutes that were not compatible or consistent from state to state.
If the AWA does not apply to those offenders convicted prior to the law’s enactment, the primary purpose of the AWA will be thwarted. All sex offenders prior to 2006 will be, once again, governed, for purpose of registration and community notification, by an unwieldy mélange of state statutes.
Visit Ipso Facto
January 27, 2012
In 2006, growing concern about unaccounted for sex offenders whose whereabouts were unknown to law enforcement and the community, caught the attention of Congress.
In response, Congress enacted the Adam Walsh Act (AWA). The AWA created a new federal offense for failing to register as a sex offender as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. The AWA also established a baseline standard for states to comply with regarding sex offender registration.
The statute also included an incentive to comply. Failure to comply with the AWA would cause non-complying states to lose 10 percent of their annual federal crime fighting funds. The AWA has not been without controversy and a U.S. Supreme Court decision this week has added to the concern .
In 2001, Billy Joe Reynolds was convicted of a sex offense in Missouri. After he was released from prison, Reynolds registered as a sex offender in Missouri. However, in 2007 he moved to Pennsylvania and failed to register.
Reynolds was indicted and pled guilty to a registration violation pursuant to the AWA. He immediately appealed the conviction, challenging the constitutionality of the AWA, suggesting that the attorney general did not follow proper procedure when establishing an interim rule making the law retroactive.
The Third Circuit upheld the conviction. The court determined that Reynolds did not have standing to challenge the attorney general’s interim rule, finding the AWA itself required Reynolds to update his information, not the subsequent interim rule issued by the attorney general.
This week the U.S Supreme Court disagreed with the Third Circuit and sent Reynolds’ case back to the appeals court. Reynolds does indeed have standing and the appeals court has been ordered to get to the merits of his claim.
"The question before us is whether the act requires pre-act offenders to register before the attorney general validly specifies that the act's registration provisions apply to them," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court. "We believe that it does not."
The high court’s decision did not get to the question of whether the AWA should be applied retroactively. However, it does require the Third Circuit to make that determination. Inevitably, Reynolds’ case will make its way back to the Supreme Court.
The consequences of the AWA not applying to offenders convicted prior to the law’s enactment are enormous. The purpose of the AWA was to provide uniformity to registration requirements that were, prior to the act, a patchwork of differing state statutes that were not compatible or consistent from state to state.
If the AWA does not apply to those offenders convicted prior to the law’s enactment, the primary purpose of the AWA will be thwarted. All sex offenders prior to 2006 will be, once again, governed, for purpose of registration and community notification, by an unwieldy mélange of state statutes.
Visit Ipso Facto
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Pennsylvania Launches Justice Reinvestment Initiative
Governor Corbett Meets with Judicial, Legislative and Criminal Justice Leaders
Harrisburg – Governor Tom Corbett today encouraged members of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, a newly-formed panel of judges, lawmakers, state cabinet members and other officials, as they begin studying ways to increase public safety in Pennsylvania and reduce spending on corrections.
“The justice reinvestment working group is here to look at the numbers, the costs, the projections and the system,’’ Corbett told the gathering at the Governor’s Residence this morning. “We look to you to come up with solutions to make our system better. I expect this initiative will help reduce further our crime rate, decrease recidivism and manage corrections spending more efficiently.’’
Led by Mark Zimmer, chairman of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, and Department of Corrections Secretary John Wetzel, the group will meet regularly during the next several months to review data analysis, hear from local government representatives, prosecutors and public defenders, victim advocates, treatment providers and others, before crafting policy proposals.
The Justice Reinvestment Initiative is a comprehensive, research-based approach that identifies factors driving the growth and costs in prison and jail populations. The data-driven model is designed to:
· Develop and implement policy options to control and lower the costs of the state’s corrections system;
· Improve offender accountability;
· Reinvest a portion of the savings into the justice system to further reduce corrections spending;
· Reinvest a portion of the savings into the community to prevent crime;
· Measure the impact of policy changes.
Contributing to the project is the Council of State Governments Justice Center in partnership with the Pew Center on the States and the U.S. Department of Justice.
The CSG Justice Center, which has helped policymakers in 15 other states using a justice reinvestment approach, reported the following about Pennsylvania at today’s meeting:
· Between 2000 and 2010, the number of people admitted to prison climbed 46 percent, with much of this growth driven by increases in the number of people convicted of property and drug offenses serving relatively short minimum sentences.
· Over this same period, the number of people in prison grew 40 percent, from 36,602 to 51,312, and annual Department of Corrections spending increased 76 percent, from $1.1 billion to $1.9 billion.
· Despite significant state investments in resident programs for people on parole supervision, a 2011 study showed that recidivism has declined but remains high: nearly half of people (44 percent) released from prison were re-incarcerated within three years.
“Today’s meeting identifies issues that need to be addressed, and I am confident this group will work hard to use the data and other information gathered to make legislative proposals which will try to strike the delicate balance between public safety and reducing costs through improved efficiencies and prison population reduction,’’ Zimmer said.
“The scale of this effort is exactly what Pennsylvania needs to see the complete connections that take place from the time someone is arrested all the way through discharge to parole supervision,’’ Wetzel said. “With the extensive data analysis and stakeholder input in this process, policy makers from across the political spectrum will develop strategies that answer a fundamental question we all ask ourselves: What more can we be doing to increase safety in our communities while getting a better return on taxpayers’ investment?’’
“This is an excellent example of officials working together, across systems, levels of government and parties toward the common goal of improving the safety of our state,’’ Corbett said.
Visit PCCD online at www.pccd.state.pa.us.
Harrisburg – Governor Tom Corbett today encouraged members of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, a newly-formed panel of judges, lawmakers, state cabinet members and other officials, as they begin studying ways to increase public safety in Pennsylvania and reduce spending on corrections.
“The justice reinvestment working group is here to look at the numbers, the costs, the projections and the system,’’ Corbett told the gathering at the Governor’s Residence this morning. “We look to you to come up with solutions to make our system better. I expect this initiative will help reduce further our crime rate, decrease recidivism and manage corrections spending more efficiently.’’
Led by Mark Zimmer, chairman of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, and Department of Corrections Secretary John Wetzel, the group will meet regularly during the next several months to review data analysis, hear from local government representatives, prosecutors and public defenders, victim advocates, treatment providers and others, before crafting policy proposals.
The Justice Reinvestment Initiative is a comprehensive, research-based approach that identifies factors driving the growth and costs in prison and jail populations. The data-driven model is designed to:
· Develop and implement policy options to control and lower the costs of the state’s corrections system;
· Improve offender accountability;
· Reinvest a portion of the savings into the justice system to further reduce corrections spending;
· Reinvest a portion of the savings into the community to prevent crime;
· Measure the impact of policy changes.
Contributing to the project is the Council of State Governments Justice Center in partnership with the Pew Center on the States and the U.S. Department of Justice.
The CSG Justice Center, which has helped policymakers in 15 other states using a justice reinvestment approach, reported the following about Pennsylvania at today’s meeting:
· Between 2000 and 2010, the number of people admitted to prison climbed 46 percent, with much of this growth driven by increases in the number of people convicted of property and drug offenses serving relatively short minimum sentences.
· Over this same period, the number of people in prison grew 40 percent, from 36,602 to 51,312, and annual Department of Corrections spending increased 76 percent, from $1.1 billion to $1.9 billion.
· Despite significant state investments in resident programs for people on parole supervision, a 2011 study showed that recidivism has declined but remains high: nearly half of people (44 percent) released from prison were re-incarcerated within three years.
“Today’s meeting identifies issues that need to be addressed, and I am confident this group will work hard to use the data and other information gathered to make legislative proposals which will try to strike the delicate balance between public safety and reducing costs through improved efficiencies and prison population reduction,’’ Zimmer said.
“The scale of this effort is exactly what Pennsylvania needs to see the complete connections that take place from the time someone is arrested all the way through discharge to parole supervision,’’ Wetzel said. “With the extensive data analysis and stakeholder input in this process, policy makers from across the political spectrum will develop strategies that answer a fundamental question we all ask ourselves: What more can we be doing to increase safety in our communities while getting a better return on taxpayers’ investment?’’
“This is an excellent example of officials working together, across systems, levels of government and parties toward the common goal of improving the safety of our state,’’ Corbett said.
Visit PCCD online at www.pccd.state.pa.us.
Job Security: Oldest Federal Judge Dies, Appointed by President Kennedy
U.S. District Judge Wesley Brown, the oldest sitting federal judge in the nation, died this week at the age 104. He was appointed by President John F. Kennedy and sat on the U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas for 50 years, reported Law.com. Brown took senior status in 1979.
Brown was born in 1907 in Hutchinson, Kansas. He was confirmed in 1962 and served as chief judge of the District of Kansas from 1971 to 1977. He earned his law degree in 1933 from Kansas City School of Law.
With Brown's death, the distinction of being the longest-living sitting federal judge goes to U.S. District Judge Robert Kelleher of the Central District of California in Los Angeles, according to Law.com. The 98-year-old judge was appointed by Richard Nixon.
Kelleher, who has been on the bench for 42 years, was born in 1913 in New York. He was a 1938 graduate of Harvard Law School. Kelleher took senior status in 1983.
The longest serving federal judge on record was Joseph Woodrough, who sat for 61 years before he died in 1977, according to Law.com. Woodrough served in the District of Nebraska from 1916 to 1933 and was appointed by President Woodrow Wilson. He was later appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit beginning in 1933.
To read more visit Law.com
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
PA Supreme Court to review controversial Superior Court decision
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to review a controversial Superior Court ruling overturning the convictions of three men accused of sexually assaulting a West Chester University student almost three years ago, according to the Associated Press.
Chester County District Attorney Joseph W. Carroll called the decision "the worst legal reasoning I have ever seen in an appellate court opinion." Deputy District Attorney Nicholas Casenta Jr. told The Philadelphia Inquirer that prosecutors look forward to arguing the case.
The men were acquitted of rape but convicted of sexual and indecent assault and false imprisonment after the 18-year-old said she was attacked in her dorm room in February 2009.
The three-judge Superior Court said in an unpublished memorandum opinion that it was "manifestly unreasonable" to assume she had not consented, saying she had only minor injuries and there was no evidence that she cried for help or tried to escape, reported the Associated Press.
To read more: http://articles.philly.com/2012-01-24/news/30659701_1_appellate-court-high-court-convictions
Chester County District Attorney Joseph W. Carroll called the decision "the worst legal reasoning I have ever seen in an appellate court opinion." Deputy District Attorney Nicholas Casenta Jr. told The Philadelphia Inquirer that prosecutors look forward to arguing the case.
The men were acquitted of rape but convicted of sexual and indecent assault and false imprisonment after the 18-year-old said she was attacked in her dorm room in February 2009.
The three-judge Superior Court said in an unpublished memorandum opinion that it was "manifestly unreasonable" to assume she had not consented, saying she had only minor injuries and there was no evidence that she cried for help or tried to escape, reported the Associated Press.
To read more: http://articles.philly.com/2012-01-24/news/30659701_1_appellate-court-high-court-convictions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
