Case Roundup - MS - AP - Manning's second death penalty case pending | FL - Palm Beach Post - Lawyers ... in death-sentence appeal say they lack time, resources | CO - ReutersLegal - Judge to hear Colorado insanity defense challenge in Homes case
Steve Hall
MS - AP - Manning's second death penalty case pending
FL - Palm Beach Post - Lawyers ... in death-sentence appeal say they lack time, resources
CO - ReutersLegal - Judge to hear Colorado insanity defense challenge in Homes case
- - - - -
May 17, 2013 | via Hattiesburg American
Manning's second death penalty case pending
by JACK ELLIOTT JR. | Associated Press
JACKSON — Willie Jerome Manning, who won a stay of execution in one capital case, waits to hear if an Oktibbeha County judge agrees he was denied a fair trial in 1996 when he was sentenced to death for the slayings of two women.
The judge has promised a decision by the end of June. The Mississippi Supreme Court will have the final say on whether the death sentence will stand.
On May 7, Manning was within hours of being executed for the fatal shootings of two Mississippi State University students when the state Supreme Court ordered a reprieve. The Supreme Court has not said why it issued the stay. Manning had argued DNA testing would prove him innocent.
The execution overshadowed the pending case in Oktibbeha County.
Manning was convicted in 1996 in the deaths of Emmoline Jimmerson, 90, and her daughter Alberta Jordan, 60, in Starkville. The women were beaten and their throats slashed during a robbery attempt in 1993 at their apartment. The Supreme Court upheld his two death sentences in 2000.
In 2004, the Mississippi court said Manning could pursue a post-conviction argument on whether prosecutors withheld certain evidence, whether prosecutors presented false evidence and whether Manning was denied effective assistance of counsel both at trial and on appeal.
Resolution of the post-conviction proceeding would not place Manning any closer to execution. He would have the right of appeal through the federal system should Mississippi courts rule against him.
The bodies of the women were found in their apartment on Jan. 18, 1993. Their deaths came only a few weeks after the bodies of Mississippi State students Jon Steckler and Tiffany Miller were discovered in rural Oktibbeha County on Dec. 11, 1992.
By the time Manning was brought to trial in the women's deaths, he already had been convicted in the students' slayings and sentenced to death.
In his 1996 trial in the women's deaths, Kevin Lucious, a friend, testified he saw Manning at Brooksville Gardens apartments around 6:30 p.m. on the day of the killings. After their conversation, Lucious testified he returned to his apartment and saw Manning go to the women's apartment.
Lucious testified he watched Manning knock on the door, and when one of the women opened the door, he pushed the door open, went in and closed the door behind him. Other witnesses also testified they saw Manning at the apartments, but he denied he had been there.
The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld Manning's conviction and death sentences in 2000.
In 2004, the Supreme Court gave Manning limited approval to try to convince a judge he deserved a new trial. In his request to the Supreme Court to pursue a post-conviction claim, Manning cited 16 issues. The justices allowed three — whether prosecutors withheld certain evidence, whether prosecutors presented false evidence and whether Manning was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal.
Oktibbeha County Circuit Judge Lee Howard conducted hearings on the post-conviction petition in January and April 2011.
In February 2013, the Supreme Court asked Howard why no ruling had been issued. In his response, the judge said his decision had been delayed because lawyers on both sides asked for more time to file briefs, which he had to review while continuing his own court schedule.
Howard asked the Supreme Court to give him until June 28 to file his ruling on Manning's post-conviction petition.
/ / / / /
From Eric Freedman:
Monday, May 13, 2013 @ 9:21 p.m.
Lawyers ordered to defend Van Poyck in death-sentence appeal say they lack time, resources
By Jane Musgrave - Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
WEST PALM BEACH — Instead of having one lawyer who claims he is incapable of representing him, condemned prison guard killer William Van Poyck now has three.
In a two-hour long hearing Monday that most involved described as bizarre, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Charles Burton appointed the three lawyers even though all said they have neither the time, resources nor expertise to represent Van Poyck as the clock ticks toward his scheduled June 12 execution.
Faced with a 3 p.m. Friday deadline to file motions that could spare Van Poyck’s life, attorney Jeffrey Davis indicated that the only logical move would be to ask the Florida Supreme Court to grant a stay so he and the other two lawyers could launch the type of vigorous appeal the state demands before it executes someone.
Failing that, he said they could ask the federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to intervene.
“Everyone’s willing to clear the decks and put in the time necessary,” he said. “But (four) days — that’s just not enough time.”
“Frankly, this is the kind of case that gives the death penalty a bad name,” said Davis, who practices civil appellate law in Milwaukee. Wisconsin doesn’t have the death penalty.
Davis and Jacksonville attorney Gerald Bettman were tapped because they have represented Van Poyck, 58, in appeals he has launched since his conviction for the 1987 murder of Glades Correctional Institution prison guard Fred Griffis outside a West Palm Beach doctor’s office. Therefore, Burton said, they have the most knowledge about the case. He appointed Tallahassee attorney Mark Olive to help them navigate the complex appeals that occur after a death warrant is signed.
As one of Florida’s top death-penalty defense attorney, Olive said he has the legal chops but knows nothing about Van Poyck’s case. “It’s just a farce, frankly,” he said.
The problem, Davis said, is that Van Poyck’s only court-appointed appellate lawyer, William Lasley, was arrested for possession of cocaine, claimed insanity as a defense, disappeared from the case and let his Florida Bar membership lapse.
Davis and Bettman agreed to represent Van Poyck on specific issues but were never appointed to represent him. Neither ever contemplated being tapped to handle Van Poyck’s appeal after Gov. Rick Scott signed his death warrant May 3.
Davis, for instance, who was in France on vacation last week, never received notice that the death warrant had been signed nor was he sent an order from the Florida Supreme Court laying out the strict timetable for appeals.
Last week, Bettman argued he shouldn’t be forced to handle Van Poyck’s last-minute appeals. Late Friday, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that all 14 lawyers who filed appeals for Van Poyck were still his attorneys. The high court set the stage for Monday’s hearing by ordering Burton to decide which of the 14 attorneys, including Lasley, was most qualified.
Burton said he had no choice but to follow the high court’s order. He called claims by Davis and Bettman that they weren’t well-versed in the facts of the case “disingenuous.”
The prosecutor, Celia Terenzio, agreed. “Everyone’s trying to do the backstroke here, but what they did they did,” she said. Davis’ name appears on 10 of the 12 appeals filed on Van Poyck’s behalf since 1994. Bettman’s name appears on two, and Olive’s name on one.
Olive said he did little more than walk papers to a courthouse. Bettman said his role was limited to specific issues. Davis said much of the detail work was done by attorneys from the state’s now-defunct Volunteer Lawyers Resource Center.
Martin McClain, an attorney and a death-penalty expert, narrowly escaped being named to Van Poyck’s team. In a telephone call to Burton from Florida State Prison, Van Poyck said he didn’t want McClain’s help because he represented Frank Valdes, who was also given a death sentence for killing Griffis in a failed attempt to free a convicted murderer who was being taken for skin cancer treatment. Valdes was killed by prison guards in 1999.
McClain said what the three attorneys are being asked to do in four days is impossible. In other cases involving volunteer lawyers, the Florida Supreme Court has granted stays, so new lawyers can get up to speed, he said.
“Crazy,” he said, summing up his view of the hearing. “Absolutely insane.”
/ / / / /
From Eric Freedman
5/17/2013 | ReutersLegal
Judge to hear insanity defense challenge in Colorado theater shooting case
By Keith Coffman
DENVER (Reuters) - The judge who will hear the capital murder case against accused Colorado theater gunman James Holmes has agreed to hear arguments on the constitutionality of Colorado's insanity defense law in death penalty cases.
Arapahoe County District Judge Carlos Samour Jr. ruled on Thursday that he will consider a defense motion that argues the law is unconstitutional because it bars Holmes from calling his own mental-health experts at sentencing if he refuses to cooperate with court-appointed psychiatrists.
Holmes, 25, faces multiple counts of first-degree murder and attempted murder for allegedly opening fire inside a suburban Denver cinema during a midnight screening of the Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises" last July.
The rampage killed 12 moviegoers and wounded 58 others, and another 12 people were hurt as they fled the theater.
Prosecutors announced last month that they would seek the death penalty for the California native if he was convicted, and defense attorneys are moving to change Holmes' standard not guilty plea to not guilty by reason of insanity.
Judge Samour ordered lawyers from both sides to present oral arguments on the issue at a hearing next week.
Earlier this year, public defenders had asked then-presiding Judge William Sylvester to declare the state's insanity defense law unconstitutional because it forces a defendant to cooperate with court-appointed psychiatrists.
They argued that compelling Holmes to possibly divulge information that could be used against him at trial and in sentencing violated his right against self-incrimination, especially in a death-penalty case.
Prosecutors countered that state and federal courts have upheld the legality of court-ordered mental health examinations for defendants who raise insanity defenses.
"It is well-established law in Colorado that submitting to court-ordered evaluation does not violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination," they wrote in a court filing.
Sylvester declined to rule on the matter at the time because the insanity defense had not been raised, and prosecutors had not yet indicated if they would pursue capital punishment.
Samour, who was assigned the case last month, ruled on Monday that there was sufficient cause to allow Holmes to change his plea. The judge said he would not be able to advise Holmes of the consequences of an insanity plea until all the legal challenges were resolved.
Former Denver prosecutor and legal analyst Craig Silverman said the judge recognized the legal issues the defense raised.
"It is unusual that the law says you can't raise any mitigating factors in a death-penalty sentencing," he said. "It's not obvious that such a sanction is constitutional."
The Colorado theater attack ranks as one of the deadliest U.S. shootings. Along with the December 2012 shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which killed 20 children and six adults, it helped reignite a national debate on gun control.
- - - - -
Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal
/ / / / /
Steve Hall
The StandDown Texas Project
PO Box 13475
Austin, TX 78711
512.879.1675 (o
512.627.3011 (m
Skype: shall78711
@standdown_tx
@steve_hall