Execution Information

Week of  December 24, 2007 –  In Favor of the Accused or Condemned

• Luis Hidalgo v.  District Court, 123 Nev. Adv. Rep. 59 (Nev  12/27/2007) Nevada Supreme Court "grants an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's order denying petitioners' motion to strike the State's notice of intent to seek the death penalty.  The Court concludes that solicitation to commit murder is not a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person of another within the meaning of NRS 200.033(2)(b) and that the State's notice of intent to seek the death penalty did not satisfy the requirements of SCR 250(4)(c)." Partial dissent noted. [via Harmful Error & congrats to H/E's JoNell Thomas as it was her case.]   
  

• Comm. v. Willie Cooper, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2931  (PA 12/28/2007) Trial counsel "unwittingly presented the jury with a compelling and independent basis for imposing the death penalty on his own client." "The trial court granted appellant’s post-sentence request for a new penalty hearing based on a finding that mitigation counsel was ineffective for making biblical references to the jury that in effect sanctioned the imposition of the death penalty. Counsel told the jury that while most people were familiar with the biblical phrase “an eye for an eye,” not many knew that the Bible reserved this severe punishment for a very narrow type of wrongdoing,that is, where a person kills a pregnant woman."
  

• Ronald Chambers v. Quarterman,  2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29832 (5th Cir 12/27/2007) (unpublished)  On remand from the Supreme Court, writ shall issue ordering retrial within a reasonable time in light of Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman.

• Brent Brewer v. Quarterman, No. 04-70034 (5th Cir 12/27/2007) On remand from the Supreme Court, writ shall issue ordering retrial within 180 days.

Week of  December 24, 2007 –  In Favor of the State or Government

• United States v. Alan Quinones, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29866 (2nd Cir 12/28/2007)  As is germane here, in this capital trial that resulted in a  LWOP jury verdict, empanelment of an anonymous jury and  written questionnaire as to death qualification without follow-up oral voir dire affirmed.

• Ron Smith v. Baldwin, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29743 (9th Cir 12/26/2007) (en banc) (dissent)  Denial of a habeas petition affirmed where actual innocence exception with respect to the instant facts not obtainable and withholding of  criminal companion's polygraph examination constituted sufficient cause and prejudice to excuse petitioner's procedural default resulting from his failure to exhaust his state remedies.

• State v. Roderick Davie,  2007 Ohio 6940 (Ohio 11th App 12/24/2007) Relief denied on the sole issued raised on appeal, whether the court below "erred in overruling Roderick Davie’s motion for leave to file motion for new sentencing hearing and Davie’s accompanying motion for new sentencing hearing.”

• Comm. v. Mikal Moore, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2939 (PA 12/28/2007) Relief denied on claims relating to: [1] admitting other-bad-acts evidence in the form of testimony from Appellant’s father, his sister, and Officer Davis concerning prior assaults and bullying perpetrated against the victim by Appellant, over objections based on prejudicial impact and hearsay; [2] permitting a detective to testify concerning “word on the street” implicating Appellant in the killing; [3] allowing the Kinney and Mobley statements to be read into evidence; [4] permitting the admission of “good character” evidence concerning the victim; [5] failing to instruct the jurors concerning the use of other-bad-acts evidence; [6] issuing an overly-restrictive charge regarding voluntary intoxication; [7] allowing the Commonwealth to pursue the Section 9711(d)(9) aggravator based solely on two juvenile robbery adjudications; [8] failing to issue an instruction under Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 114 S.Ct. 2187 (1994); [9] misstating the purport of a life sentence in Pennsylvania; and [10] coercing the holdout juror in his response to the announcement that the jury was hung. Further, Appellant asserts that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by calling for justice in her guilt-phase closing based on the other-bad-acts evidence."
  

• Comm. v. David Copenhefer, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2930  (PA 12/28/2007) (dissent) Prior state supreme court holding that stipulated mitigatory factors must be found by a jury was not constitutional in nature and therefore did not toll the period in which Copenhefer to file his postconviction petition.

• Comm. v. Edwin Romero, 2007 PA LEXIS 2--- (PA 12/28/2007)  Relief denied most notably, according to the dissent, "it was undisputed at the post-conviction hearing, that Appellant is borderline mentally retarded. As the majority notes in passing, the educational records that trial counsel should have obtained confirm Appellant’s poor performance in school. See Lead Opinion, slip op. at 36. I have difficulty accepting the notion that capital counsel presented with a client who he should have known had performed very poorly in school, and who is undisputedly borderline mentally retarded, will lack cause to investigate his client’s intellectual functioning as a mitigating factor."  Williams v. Taylor held not to be retroactive.
  

• Comm. v. Ricardo Natividad, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2897 (PA 12/27/2007) Relief denied on: [A] guilt-phase IAC (1. failing to object,  2. opening door to third-party threats evidence, 3. failure to object to Prosecutor's closings); [B] instructions in the guilt phase (1. malice, 2. first degree murder, 3. juror unanimity, 4, self-defense, 5. carjacking; 6.  malice- reasonable doubt, & 7. malice-self-defense); [C] appellate IAC; [D] failure to investigate victim's background  (both phases); [E] trial counsel's investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence at the penalty phase of trial (1. failure to provide psychologist with mitigation records; 2. investigation of mitigation witnesses; [F] failure to introduce successful rehabilitation and mental health evidence );  [G] failure to life-qualify jury;  [H] penalty phase jury instructions (1. "rejecting the death sentence," 2. "more terrible/less terrible," ,3. "No Sympathy," & 4. cumulative instruction error ), as well as [I] cumulative error.

(Initial List for the Week of  December 31, 2007 ) –  In Favor of the State or Government

• Edward Bell v. Kelly, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 125 (4th Cir 1/4/2008)  (unpublished)  "Bell claims that counsel was deficient for failing to investigate and present available mitigating evidence from his ex-girlfriend, ex-wife, ex-wife’s sister, ex-girlfriend’s mother, and a co-worker.. He further claims that if counsel had presented such evidence, there is a reasonable probability that he would have received a life sentence. Finally, Bell argues that the findings of the Supreme Court of Virginia to the contrary were unreasonable. See § 2254(d). We conclude that the district court correctly found that the finding of the Supreme Court of Virginia on prejudice was reasonable, and therefore Bell is not entitled to relief on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel."

• Nathan Bowie v. Branker, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 38 (4th Cir 1/3/2008)  Relief denied on claims relating to: that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, in "(1) failing to investigate certain aspects of Bowie’s background, including his mental health history, in preparation for sentencing; (2) failing to object to the admission of William’s statement, or, alternatively, failing to request an instruction limiting its relevance to William’s guilt; and (3) failing to appeal the admission of Rochelle’s statement as violative of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment."

• Ex parte Donald Deardorff, 2008 Ala. LEXIS 1 (Ala 1/4/2008) Relief on questions relating to: (A) "Was the offense 'especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel' when compared to other capital offenses?;" (B) "Did the trial court err in admitting evidence of Deardorff's prior  bad acts?; (C) Did the trial court err in allowing the State's expert witness to testify as to facts not in evidence?;" and (D) "Did the prosecutor's arguments in the penalty phase amount to improper 'testifying'?"

• State v. Roland Davis,  2008 Ohio 2 (Ohio 1/3/2008)  Relief denied on 18 claims including: (A) the trial  judge failed to allow sufficient voir dire ; (B)  that Davis received ineffective representation by his trial counsel; and (C) that the trial court allowed prosecutors to improperly appeal to the emotions of jurors and prejudice them in favor of the death penalty by repeatedly displaying the victim's picture and emphasizing her advanced age and physical frailty during both the guilt and penalty stages of the trial. Partial dissent on sufficiency of kidnapping charges and the death penalty specification linked to that charge.

• State v. Patrick Leonard, 2007 Ohio 7095 (Ohio 1st App 12/31/2007) Relief denied on claims relating to the defendant wearing shackles and stun belt during the course of the trial.

SMALL PRINT
SUBSCRIBING & ARCHIVES: Capital Defense Weekly is normally written by Karl Keys. CDW is published forty (40) times (or so) a year.