Corrections Officials Warn Arkansas Leaders About Psychological Trauma From Unprecedented Execution SchedulePosted: March 31, 2017
As Arkansas moves toward attempting to conduct an unprecedented eight executions in eleven days, former corrections officials from across the country are warning Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson of the psychological toll the compressed execution schedule could take on prison personnel. Dr. Allen Ault (pictured), former warden and corrections commissioner in Georgia who oversaw five executions in that state, said "[t]he rapid schedule will put an extraordinary burden on the men and women required by the state to carry out this most solemn act, and it will increase the risk of mistakes in the execution chamber — which could haunt them for the rest of their lives." Dr. Ault joined 22 other former corrections officers in sending a letter to Governor Hutchinson, urging him to "reconsider the pace of the planned executions to protect the professionals who will carry them out and to ensure that the procedures are legal and humane." They caution, "[a]s former corrections officials and administrators—some of whom have directly overseen executions—we believe that performing so many executions in so little time will impose extraordinary and unnecessary stress and trauma on the staff responsible [for] carrying out the executions." Frank Thompson, a former warden of prisons for the Arkansas Department of Corrections and superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary, spoke of the mental health problems he has witnessed in prison officials who participated in executions, saying, "There is absolutely no way to conduct a well-run execution without causing at least one person to lose a little bit of their humanity, or to start at least one person on the cumulative path to post-traumatic stress. So for Arkansas to do this eight times in 10 days, to me that is unimaginable – it is compounding the stress, laying traumatic experiences on top of each other.” Jerry Givens, who carried out 62 executions for the state of Virginia, said simply, "I just ask the governor a favor.... [J]ust have some heart for the officers that have this task that they want them to carry out. Think about their lives afterwards."
NEW VOICES: Bipartisan Former Governors Support Death Penalty Exemption for Those With Severe Mental IllnessPosted: March 30, 2017
In a joint op-ed for The Washington Post, former governors Bob Taft (pictured, l.) and Joseph E. Kernan (pictured, r.) have expressed bipartisan support for proposed legislation that would prohibit the use of the death penalty against people who have severe mental illness. Taft, a former Republican governor of Ohio, and Kernan, a former Democratic governor of Indiana, call the execution of mentally ill defendants "an inhumane practice that fails to respect common standards of decency and comport with recommendations of mental-health experts." They highlight recent executions of Adam Ward, who exhibited symptoms of mental illness by the age of four, and decorated Vietnam War veteran Andrew Brannan, whom the Department of Veterans Affairs classified as 100% disabled as a result of his combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder, as examples of severely mentally ill defendants who "continue to be sentenced to death and executed" in the United States. Legislators in Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia have introduced legislation in 2017 that would prohibit the death penalty for people with severe mental illness, arguing that these defendants are less culpable, more vulnerable to wrongful conviction, and often falsely perceived by jurors as more dangerous. Taft and Kernan explain that "Legislation being considered on this topic varies by state, but each bill creates a case-by-case decision-making process—conducted by either a judge or jury—to determine if a defendant has a severe mental illness. Only those with the most serious diagnoses would qualify." They urge legislatures to pass these measures, saying, "This is a fair, efficient and bipartisan reform that would put an end to a practice that is not consistent with current knowledge about mental illness and fundamental principles of human decency."
Maricopa County, Arizona DA Seeks Death Penalty So Often, The County Has Run Out of Capital Defense LawyersPosted: March 29, 2017
Maricopa County, Arizona County Attorney Bill Montgomery has sought the death penalty so frequently that the county has run up millions of dollars in defense costs and run out of defense lawyers qualified to handle new capitally-charged cases. The Arizona Republic reports that, with 65 active death-penalty cases and more new capital cases charged than the 35 that have been resolved since July 1, 2014, the county ran out of the specialized lawyers needed to defend the cases in January of this year. Yet despite the county's high rate of seeking the death penalty, the number of death sentences imposed in the county is falling. With 81 people on death row as of January 1, 2013, Maricopa County ranked fourth among all U.S. counties in the number of death-row prisoners. According to a 2016 Fair Punishment Project report, Maricopa County imposed 28 death sentences between 2010 and 2015, making it one of only 16 counties to have imposed as many as 10 death sentences over that period. However, only six of the cases resolved since July 1, 2014, have resulted in death sentences. In addition to burdening the county's defense services, the County Attorney's broad pursuit of the death penalty has placed a significant financial strain on the county. An audit commissioned by the Office of Public Defense Services, one of the agencies that provides representation for capital defendants, found that capital murder cases cost eight to 40 times more than first-degree murder cases in which the death penalty is not sought. The audit found that non-capital murder trials cost about $27,000 to defend, whereas capital cases—which require two defense attorneys, an investigator, and a mitigation specialist—cost from $213,000 to $1 million, depending on the outcome. Capital cases ending in a plea to a lesser offense or sentence cost about $213,000, the audit said; more than the cost of a non-capital case taken to trial. Death penalty trials resulting in life sentences cost $580,000, and those that ended with a death sentence cost $1 million, not including federal appeals. John Canby, an attorney for the Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, summarized the situation: “For a variety of reasons it appears that juries in Maricopa County are less willing to return death verdicts in trials for first-degree murder than they once were. Nevertheless, it seems that the County Attorney’s Office is still willing to seek death sentences in cases with only a remote possibility of a death verdict. That practice costs the taxpayers of Maricopa County a lot of money because the court is required to appoint capital-qualified attorneys to those cases, even if the possibility of a death sentence is in fact very remote."
Supreme Court Overturns Texas' "Outlier" Standard for Determining Intellectual Disability in Capital CasesPosted: March 28, 2017
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously struck down Texas' standard for evaluating intellectual dIsability in death penalty cases, calling the state's approach an "outlier" that, "[b]y design and in operation, ... create[s] an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed." In Moore v. Texas, the Court on March 28 vacated the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), which had applied an unscientific set of lay stereotypes known as the “Briseño factors” (named after the Texas court decision that announced them) to overturn a trial court determination that Texas death-row prisoner Bobby Moore was intellectually disabled. The Court described these seven factors—including such things as whether lay people who knew the defendant thought he was intellectually disabled and whether he could hide facts or lie effectively—as an unscientific "invention" of the CCA that was "untied to any acknowledged source" and that lacked support from "any authority, medical or judicial." The Supreme Court ruled in 2002, in Atkins v. Virginia, that the execution of individuals with intellectual disability was unconstitutional, but it left states with some discretion in determining who was intellectually disabled. However, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the five-justice majority, reiterated, "States’ discretion ... is not unfettered.” "[A] court’s intellectual disability determination," she wrote must be “informed by the medical community’s diagnostic framework." The Moore decision is the second time in recent years that the Court has addressed state deviations from clinical definitions of intellectual disability, which focus on "three core elements: (1) intellectual-functioning deficits, (2) adaptive deficits, and (3) the onset of these deficits while still a minor." The Court struck down Florida's use of a strict IQ cutoff in the 2014 case Hall v. Florida, noting that Florida's standard, "disregards established medical practice." The Hall decision addressed the first element, intellectual-functioning, while Moore addressed aspects of both the first and second, adaptive deficits. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the portion of the Court's opinion that held that Texas had inappropriately rejected Moore's evidence of the first prong, deficits in intellectual functioning. But they joined the Court in rejecting Texas' use of the Briseño factors, calling it “an unacceptable method of enforcing the guarantee of Atkins.”
"We live in a gendered society," says Dr. Mary Atwell (pictured), one of the nation’s foremost experts on women and capital punishment, and the men and women who go to death row are different. In the latest podcast episode of "Discussions with DPIC," commemorating Women's History Month, Dr. Atwell says why that is so. Dr. Atwell chose to write about women on death row because she "wanted to do something about capital punishment that was not just numbers, that was a human take on capital punishment.” In the podcast, DPIC staff members Anne Holsinger and Robin Konrad interview her about patterns in cases in which women have been sentenced to death, including the nature of the crimes, the defendants' histories of physical and sexual abuse and addiction, and prosecutor and media stereotyping of female capital defendants as violating gender norms. They also discuss how women are affected differently than men by systemic issues, such as inadequate defense and jury bias. "Women who have been sentenced to death are much more likely than the men who are sentenced to death to have committed a murder of an intimate person, rather than a stranger," Dr. Atwell says. She explains that, "for the state to put somebody to death in our name, we have to see them as ‘other’ in some way – ... and I think that’s even more true with a woman. You have to see her as not just doing things that are violent and cruel, but as particularly outside the expectations of what a woman should do.” That is why, she says, in cases in which women are sentenced to death and executed, prosecutors and the press "played up to a great extent" that "these were women who stepped outside the norms of gendered expectations." Dr. Atwell is Professor Emerita of Criminal Justice at Radford University and author of three books on capital punishment, most recently Wretched Sisters: Examining Gender and Capital Punishment.
Judy and Glenn Cherry (pictured), the parents of Jonas Cherry, have asked Texas state and local officials not to execute Paul Storey, the man convicted of killing their son. The state has scheduled Storey's execution for April 12. In a letter to Tarrant County District Attorney Sharen Wilson, Gov. Greg Abbott, state District Judge Robb Catalano, and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, the Cherrys ask state officials to commute Storey's sentence to life without parole. They write, "Paul Storey’s execution will not bring our son back, will not atone for the loss of our son and will not bring comfort or closure." Storey's commutation efforts have also drawn support from one of the jurors in his case, Sven Berger, who has provided an affidavit for the defense. Berger says the jury was unaware of evidence of Storey's mental impairments at the time it rendered its verdict, and that, had that information been available, it would have affected his decision. He was also affected by learning that Tarrant County prosecutors had agreed to give Storey's co-defendant, Mike Porter, a plea deal for a life sentence. “It seemed clear to me that Porter was the leader,” Berger said. "It was infuriating to see Porter get life and Storey get death.” But most importantly, Berger said knowing the Cherrys' stance would have led him to vote differently because the prosecutor had misled jurors during the trial that the Cherrys wanted Storey to be sentenced to death. “If the family of the deceased did not want the perpetrator executed, that would have been important for me to know, and I believe it would have been important to the other jurors," Berger wrote. The Cherrys have also released a video explaining why they oppose Storey's execution and their desire to spare Storey's family the pain they felt at the loss of their son: "We have never been in favor of the death penalty. However, in the current situation before us, it pains us to think that, due to our son's death, another person will be purposefully put to death. Also motivating us, is that we do not want Paul Storey's family, especially his mother and grandmother, if she is still alive, to witness the purposeful execution of their son. They are innocent of his deeds." The Cherrys said they recently learned that Storey had been offered the same deal as Porter, but had turned it down.
Florida Black Caucus, Victim's Parents Urge Governor to Rescind Order Removing Prosecutor For Not Seeking Death PenaltyPosted: March 23, 2017
The Florida Legislative Black Caucus has joined more than 100 lawyers and legal experts and the parents of murder victim Sade Dixon in urging Governor Rick Scott to rescind his order removing Orange-Osceola County State Attorney Aramis Ayala (pictured) from a high-profile double murder case in which she decided to not seek the death penalty. The other victim in the case, Lt. Debra Clayton, was an Orlando police officer. Governor Scott did not speak with Dixon's family before issuing an order removing Ayala and appointing a Special Prosecutor to the case. At a press conference on March 23, Sen. Perry Thurston (D-Lauderhill), chairman of the legislative black caucus, said "Gov. Scott's hasty response to State Attorney Ayala's announcement set a dangerous precedent and is a slap in the face of the voters who carried her into office." He called the order "little more than an unfettered and uninformed power grab by the governor's office over a difference of opinion." Rep. Sean Shaw (D-Tampa) highlighted the racial history implications of the Governor's action, saying, "Clearly all the data and all the studies show that the death penalty is applied with racial bias, particularly in Florida. This is still the case and has always been the case, and by standing against the death penalty, State Attorney Ayala is standing with communities of color." Ayala, Florida's first African-American elected state attorney, was removed by a white governor and replaced with a white prosecutor. The defendant, Markeith Loyd, is black. Both parents of Sade Dixon, Loyd's ex-girlfriend who was pregnant at the time of the murder, supported State Attorney Ayala's decision not to subject them to the ordeal of extended death penalty proceedings, and oppose Gov. Scott's decision to remove her from the case. "Life, no chance of parole, we get closure," said Ron Daniels, Dixon's father, "but now if you give him the death penalty, he comes back. Every time he appeals this family or any family has to relive that case all over again." Ayala also received support from a group of 100 law professors, judges, and attorneys, who said in a letter to Gov. Scott, "We believe that this effort to remove State Attorney Ayala infringes on the vitally important independence of prosecutors, exceeds your authority, undermines the right of residents in Orange and Osceola counties to the services of their elected leaders, and sets a dangerous precedent." Following her decision not to seek the death penalty, a white employee of the Seminole County clerk of courts wrote on Facebook that Ayala "should be tarred and feathered if not hung from a tree." Rep. Shaw responded: "It's 2017 and the newly elected state attorney was threatened with a lynching. That's why we're here today. The death penalty is a link to the sordid past of Florida where lynching was used to terrorize our community." The courts' employee subsequently resigned.
Lawyers Seek Supreme Court Review Of Alleged Torture As Accused USS Cole Bomber Awaits Capital TrialPosted: March 22, 2017
Lawyers for Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, the man accused of plotting the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, are seeking U.S. Supreme Court intervention to prevent his trial before a military tribunal in which Nashiri faces the death penalty if convicted. The petition for a writ of certiorari asks the Court to allow Nashiri's lawyers to challenge his military detention—and efforts to try him in a military tribunal rather than a civilian court—because the CIA admittedly subjected him to 14 years of "physical, psychological and sexual torture." Hundreds of pages of documents chronicle Nashiri's experiences. These documents include evidence that Nashiri was subjected to waterboarding, forcible sodomy, starvation, rectal force-feeding, sleep deprivation, being placed in a coffin-sized box for a total of 11 days and a box the size of an office safe for 29 hours, and being threatened with a racked gun and a revved power drill while being suspended, naked and shackled, from the ceiling of a cell in a black site one CIA agent described as "the closest thing he has seen to a dungeon." Dr. Sondra Crosby, an expert on the medical and psychological effects of torture, wrote in October 2015 that Nashiri, "is most likely irreversibly damaged by torture that was unusually cruel and designed to break him." She predicted that Nashiri is likely to "decompensate fully during his trial." The heavily redacted descriptions of torture contained in Nashiri's petition are based on a prosecution timeline of his time at black sites, a gradual collection of declassified information, and recently published memoirs by a former CIA contract psychologist. All of the interrogation practices are also documented in the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's controversial 2014 report, known as “The Torture Report.” Nashiri's case presents a range of important factual, legal, and evidentiary issues, but without Supreme Court intervention, he will not have any legal mechanism to obtain appellate review of them prior to trial. Although Nashiri is considered one of Guantánamo’s 15 most “high-value” prisoners, detained in a secret location in a special jail known as "Camp Seven," his lawyers argue he is actually an intellectually limited al-Qaeda foot soldier, not a criminal mastermind. In a federal civilian court, evidence obtained as a result of the torture to which the CIA admits Nashiri was subjected would be inadmissible; but in a military tribunal, there are questions whether that evidence may be admitted and whether the fact and extent of his torture may be used as evidence in his defense. In addition, Nashiri's case involves potentially sensitive national security matters and CIA videotapes of some of Nashiri's interrogations may have been destroyed, leaving questions both as to what information the government may withhold and what sanctions, if any, there should be for evidence it may have destroyed.
A feature story in the March issue of Harper's Magazine explores the growing conservative movement against the death penalty, with a focus on the group Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty and its national advocacy coordinator, Marc Hyden (pictured). Hyden, who previously worked on Republican campaigns and was a field representative for the NRA, explained the genesis of his views against the death penalty. His opposition to the death penalty came from his pro-life beliefs, concerns about wrongful convictions, and the high cost of the death penalty, which violated his belief in small government. “There’s really no greater power than the power to take life, and currently our government can kill its citizens,” he said. “I don’t think there’s anything limited in that.” The article recounts one meeting Hyden had with Tea Party members in his native Georgia. After pointing out notable conservatives who oppose the death penalty, discussing the financial burdens imposed on communities by capital punishment, and providing examples of innocent death-row prisoners who were later exonerated or executed, Hyden asked the group, “Do you trust the government to fairly administer the death penalty?” Polling from the Pew Research Center shows that support for the death penalty among those identifying themselves as conservative Republicans dropped by seven percentage points between 2011 to 2015, while support among white Evangelical Protestants dropped by 6 percentage points. Hyden and his colleague, Heather Beaudoin, an evangelical Christian and former staff member at the National Republican Congressional Committee, have worked to bolster that trend, highlighting the numerous conservative voices already speaking out about capital punishment and creating an environment in which conservative officials and groups understand they are not alone in their opposition to the death penalty. They helped to shift the National Association of Evangelicals from strong support for capital punishment to a more neutral stand that acknowledges "systemic problems" in the administration of the death penalty in the United States and that "a growing number of evangelicals now call" for a shift away from its use, and have worked with conservative legislators in states such as Kansas, Montana, Utah, and Nebraska to bolster bipartisan support for abolition legislation.
After prison personnel took more than a half hour to set the IV line during Virginia's January 18 execution of Ricky Gray, the Commonwealth's Department of Corrections has changed its execution procedures to conduct more of the execution preparations out of view of witnesses. Prior to the change, witnesses watched as the prisoner entered the execution chamber and was strapped to the gurney. A curtain was closed while staff placed intravenous lines and electrodes for a cardiac monitor, then reopened when the execution was ready to be carried out. The curtain was closed for 33 minutes during Gray's execution, raising concerns that something had gone wrong in the placement of the IV. The ACLU of Virginia said, "the length of time Gray was behind the curtain, as well as the presence of a doctor who confirmed his death using a stethoscope rather than by viewing a heart monitor as the previous protocols required, suggest something unusual happened during the process of killing him." Under the new protocol, witnesses will no longer be able to view the prisoner entering the chamber, so they will not know when the process begins. In 2015, the American Bar Association adopted an Execution Transparency Resolution calling for execution protocols to be promulgated "in an open and transparent manner" and to "require that an execution process, including the process of setting IVs, be viewable by media and other witnesses from the moment the condemned prisoner enters the execution chamber until the prisoner is declared dead or the execution is called off." In response to the Commonwealth's change in policy, the ACLU of Virginia urged Governor Terry McAuliffe to halt all pending executions and initiate a public review of the execution protocol. "It seems that, when confronted with questions and criticism over issues with the written protocols and actual practice of executing people in Virginia, the DOC and the administration’s posture is to ignore these concerns and then tighten the veil of secrecy even further to avoid uncomfortable questions in the future," the ACLU stated in a letter to the governor. The Virginia ACLU's Director of Public Policy and Communications, Bill Farrar, told WVIR-TV, "We have secrets upon secrets upon secrets with Virginia's process of executing people in this state and it needs to stop."