Matt Mangino's new book, published in softcover by McFarland, a publisher of academic and nonfiction works, contains a detailed account of the murders, trials, appeals, and drama behind every execution that took place in 2010. The book includes gripping narratives of 63 murders, countless appeals and stays of execution, two suicide attempts, 41 last meals, 33 final statements, and 46 executions in states that include Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Ohio, and Missouri.
The Executioner's Toll, 2010 is a unique, skillfully written, tightly organized, and thoroughly researched collection of fascinating cases featuring an extremely important and controversial subject in American life.
Mangino, a former prosecutor and an active columnist and blogger, is not only a criminal justice expert, he is a talented nonfiction author. His new book is highly recommended.
To read more Click Here
Showing posts with label Matt Mangino. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matt Mangino. Show all posts
Monday, May 26, 2014
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Book: The Executioner's Toll, 2010 by Matthew T. Mangino
The Executioner's Toll, 2010
The Crimes, Arrests, Trials, Appeals, Last Meals, Final Words and Executions of 46 Persons in the United States
Matthew T. Mangino
Legal Executions of 2010 is a meticulous examination of every execution (and the details surrounding the execution) carried out in a single year—and a thought-provoking exploration into the minds of 46 killers as each plays the role of predator, quarry and condemned. The unsettling narratives begin with a murder on May 26, 1993, and end with an execution on December 16, 2010. The book chronicles 63 murders, 44 trials, countless appeals, two suicide attempts, 41 last meals, 33 final statements and 46 executions. Executions are rare in the United States. This book presents the compelling stories behind each of them, accounts often neglected in the mainstream media. Every person facing the executioner has a story, every killing is as unique as it is devastating. The death penalty remains in 32 states. Thinking about capital punishment is more than a philosophical debate about good and bad, right and wrong, or "just desserts." The death penalty is about human beings and the impact of their conduct against and with one another.
Like The Executioner's Toll, 2010 on Facebook
Like The Executioner's Toll, 2010 on Facebook
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Matthew T. Mangino: Kennedy assassin claims Manchurian defense
Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse News Service
June 14, 2013
This month marks the 45th anniversary of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. His senseless and tragic death came about on the evening of June 5, 1968, in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.
Moments before entering the hotel kitchen, Kennedy had given a victory speech after winning the important California Democratic primary for president of the United States.
Kennedy was being ushered through the hotel kitchen by a group of campaign volunteers. The kitchen was crammed with supporters and well-wishers. Suddenly, Kennedy was shot by Sirhan Sirhan, a young man angered over Kennedy’s pro-Israeli position in the Middle East.
Less than five years earlier, Kennedy’s brother, President John F. Kennedy, was struck down by an assassin’s bullet, and only two months earlier civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. was slain in Memphis, Tenn., by an assassin.
Sirhan was convicted ten months later and within a week of his conviction he was sentenced to death. The sentence was commuted to life in prison in 1972 after the California Supreme Court vacated all pending death sentences.
Sirhan remains in a California prison and has been denied parole 14 times, most recently in 2011. However, his lawyers have come up with a new plan for his release that reads like the plot of a Hollywood movie.
Although Sirhan’s conviction occurred more than four decades ago, he has asked the court to review his conviction through a Writ of Habeas Corpus. His direct appeal rights have long been exhausted, but habeas corpus remains a viable option.
Appeals are used to correct errors that occurred before or during trial based on evidence found on the court record. A Writ of Habeas Corpus asks the court to consider “new” evidence that the trial judge might not have heard.
In 2008, Sirhan’s lawyers hired memory expert Daniel Brown, a professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School. Brown was described by Sirhan’s lawyers as "one of the world's foremost experts in hypno programming."
Brown interviewed Sirhan for 60 hours over a three-year period. Sirhan now remembers that when he fired his shots in the hotel kitchen he believed he was at a gun range and shooting at circular targets, reported CNN.
Sirhan’s lawyers believe he was programmed to cause a distraction in the kitchen, allowing a second gunman to secretly shoot Kennedy from behind. Lawyers say that Professor Brown believes a mysterious young woman in a polka dot dress lured Sirhan into the kitchen as part of the alleged mind control plot.
The conspiracy claim is bolstered somewhat by an analysis of a recently uncovered tape recording of the shooting. The recording is the only known soundtrack of the assassination and it reveals at least 13 shot sounds over a period of less than six seconds. This appears to contravene the theory at trial that eight shots were fired by Sirhan.
Sirhan’s claims of hypno programming and assassination might make for an action-packed Hollywood thriller — if it hadn’t already been written, produced and premiered more than 50 years ago. "The Manchurian Candidate" released by MGM in 1962 starred Frank Sinatra and portrayed a supposed war hero who was brainwashed into becoming an unwitting assassin.
At times, truth is stranger than fiction. In the case of Sirhan Sirhan, fiction is being used to cobble together a cockamamie claim that is beyond strange and just downright fantastic.
Unfortunately, Sirhan’s claim can’t be completely written off — especially not in California. The Twinkie defense worked for Dan White after he assassinated San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978.
Thirty-five years later, can the Manchurian defense work for Sirhan Sirhan?
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly and George and the former district attorney for Lawrence County, Pa. You can read his blog at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.
GateHouse News Service
June 14, 2013
This month marks the 45th anniversary of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. His senseless and tragic death came about on the evening of June 5, 1968, in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.
Moments before entering the hotel kitchen, Kennedy had given a victory speech after winning the important California Democratic primary for president of the United States.
Kennedy was being ushered through the hotel kitchen by a group of campaign volunteers. The kitchen was crammed with supporters and well-wishers. Suddenly, Kennedy was shot by Sirhan Sirhan, a young man angered over Kennedy’s pro-Israeli position in the Middle East.
Less than five years earlier, Kennedy’s brother, President John F. Kennedy, was struck down by an assassin’s bullet, and only two months earlier civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. was slain in Memphis, Tenn., by an assassin.
Sirhan was convicted ten months later and within a week of his conviction he was sentenced to death. The sentence was commuted to life in prison in 1972 after the California Supreme Court vacated all pending death sentences.
Sirhan remains in a California prison and has been denied parole 14 times, most recently in 2011. However, his lawyers have come up with a new plan for his release that reads like the plot of a Hollywood movie.
Although Sirhan’s conviction occurred more than four decades ago, he has asked the court to review his conviction through a Writ of Habeas Corpus. His direct appeal rights have long been exhausted, but habeas corpus remains a viable option.
Appeals are used to correct errors that occurred before or during trial based on evidence found on the court record. A Writ of Habeas Corpus asks the court to consider “new” evidence that the trial judge might not have heard.
In 2008, Sirhan’s lawyers hired memory expert Daniel Brown, a professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School. Brown was described by Sirhan’s lawyers as "one of the world's foremost experts in hypno programming."
Brown interviewed Sirhan for 60 hours over a three-year period. Sirhan now remembers that when he fired his shots in the hotel kitchen he believed he was at a gun range and shooting at circular targets, reported CNN.
Sirhan’s lawyers believe he was programmed to cause a distraction in the kitchen, allowing a second gunman to secretly shoot Kennedy from behind. Lawyers say that Professor Brown believes a mysterious young woman in a polka dot dress lured Sirhan into the kitchen as part of the alleged mind control plot.
The conspiracy claim is bolstered somewhat by an analysis of a recently uncovered tape recording of the shooting. The recording is the only known soundtrack of the assassination and it reveals at least 13 shot sounds over a period of less than six seconds. This appears to contravene the theory at trial that eight shots were fired by Sirhan.
Sirhan’s claims of hypno programming and assassination might make for an action-packed Hollywood thriller — if it hadn’t already been written, produced and premiered more than 50 years ago. "The Manchurian Candidate" released by MGM in 1962 starred Frank Sinatra and portrayed a supposed war hero who was brainwashed into becoming an unwitting assassin.
At times, truth is stranger than fiction. In the case of Sirhan Sirhan, fiction is being used to cobble together a cockamamie claim that is beyond strange and just downright fantastic.
Unfortunately, Sirhan’s claim can’t be completely written off — especially not in California. The Twinkie defense worked for Dan White after he assassinated San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978.
Thirty-five years later, can the Manchurian defense work for Sirhan Sirhan?
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly and George and the former district attorney for Lawrence County, Pa. You can read his blog at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
The Cautionary Instruction: Plea bargaining afforded Constitutional protections
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
March 30, 2012
Plea bargaining is an integral part of the criminal justice system. Last week, Justice Antonin Scalia said, with apparent surprise, that plea bargaining “is no longer a somewhat embarrassing adjunct to our criminal justice system.”
Justice Scalia should not be surprised, 97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains. The reality is that criminal justice today is "a system of pleas," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. In two U.S. Supreme Court decisions last week, the court ruled that the Constitutional guarantee of adequate assistance of counsel cannot exclude the "central role plea bargaining plays." For the most part, plea bargaining determines "who goes to jail and for how long. It is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system. It is the criminal justice system.”
The plea bargain, however unpopular or unseemly, plays a central role in the administration of justice.
Setting aside the fact that trying every criminal case is impossible, there are other compelling reasons to plea bargain. Prosecutors are intimately familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of every case. There are situations where a plea to a lesser offense is better than a not guilty verdict. A reluctant witness or a poor witness will influence plea negotiations.
Witnesses often have to deal with their own demons, such as criminal records and substance abuse—such witnesses do not impress juries. In those cases, a plea bargain may not be palatable, but is better than the alternative.
Last week, in Lafler v.Cooper, the court ruled that an attorney's advice to reject a favorable plea bargain based on an incorrect understanding of the law was ineffective assistance of counsel. In Missouri v. Frye, the court found that counsel's failure to disclose the terms of a favorable plea offer is a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
Justice Kennedy wrote in Frye, “In today’s criminal justice system the negotiation of a plea bargain, rather than the unfolding of a trial, is almost always the critical point for a defendant.”
What will a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations have to prove? The court has established a three prong analysis. First, a defendant must prove he would have accepted the plea bargain if not for bad legal advice; that there was a reasonable probability that prosecutors would not have withdrawn the offer before trial; and a judge would have accepted the plea.
Justice Scalia calls it “crystal-ball gazing posing as legal analysis.”
Stephanos Bibas, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times the decisions were a great step forward. But he acknowledged that it may give rise to gamesmanship. “It is going to be tricky,” he said, “and there are going to be a lot of defendants who say after they’re convicted that they really would have taken the plea.”
Visit Matt Mangino
March 30, 2012
Plea bargaining is an integral part of the criminal justice system. Last week, Justice Antonin Scalia said, with apparent surprise, that plea bargaining “is no longer a somewhat embarrassing adjunct to our criminal justice system.”
Justice Scalia should not be surprised, 97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains. The reality is that criminal justice today is "a system of pleas," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. In two U.S. Supreme Court decisions last week, the court ruled that the Constitutional guarantee of adequate assistance of counsel cannot exclude the "central role plea bargaining plays." For the most part, plea bargaining determines "who goes to jail and for how long. It is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system. It is the criminal justice system.”
The plea bargain, however unpopular or unseemly, plays a central role in the administration of justice.
Setting aside the fact that trying every criminal case is impossible, there are other compelling reasons to plea bargain. Prosecutors are intimately familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of every case. There are situations where a plea to a lesser offense is better than a not guilty verdict. A reluctant witness or a poor witness will influence plea negotiations.
Witnesses often have to deal with their own demons, such as criminal records and substance abuse—such witnesses do not impress juries. In those cases, a plea bargain may not be palatable, but is better than the alternative.
Last week, in Lafler v.Cooper, the court ruled that an attorney's advice to reject a favorable plea bargain based on an incorrect understanding of the law was ineffective assistance of counsel. In Missouri v. Frye, the court found that counsel's failure to disclose the terms of a favorable plea offer is a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
Justice Kennedy wrote in Frye, “In today’s criminal justice system the negotiation of a plea bargain, rather than the unfolding of a trial, is almost always the critical point for a defendant.”
What will a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations have to prove? The court has established a three prong analysis. First, a defendant must prove he would have accepted the plea bargain if not for bad legal advice; that there was a reasonable probability that prosecutors would not have withdrawn the offer before trial; and a judge would have accepted the plea.
Justice Scalia calls it “crystal-ball gazing posing as legal analysis.”
Stephanos Bibas, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times the decisions were a great step forward. But he acknowledged that it may give rise to gamesmanship. “It is going to be tricky,” he said, “and there are going to be a lot of defendants who say after they’re convicted that they really would have taken the plea.”
Visit Matt Mangino
Thursday, January 12, 2012
America's "Mental Health Gulag"
Matthew T. Mangino
The Crime ReportJanuary 10, 2012
They say justice is blind. It must be to ignore the plight of the mentally ill in America’s prisons.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s recent two-part series on serious mental illness highlights the shortcoming inherent in a failed system. Wisconsin is far from the only state to push the mentally ill off on the criminal justice system.
An internal review of conditions inside a North Carolina prison, recently obtained by the Associated Press, found that inmates held in solitary confinement were often locked in cells for extended periods without being let out for meals, recreation time or even showers.
This past February, a North Carolina inmate being secured in solitary confinement had a doctor’s order requiring one hour of exercise per day in the prison’s day room. A review of prison records found that the inmate had not left his cell for 78 days consecutive days.
This is not an isolated case.
According to research published in the Harvard University Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, the mentally ill typically account for as much as one-half of the population in solitary confinement. In Wisconsin, a 2010 audit of three state prisons reported that “between 55 percent and 76 percent of inmates in segregation [solitary confinement] are mentally ill,” according to a report published in The Crime Report.
Last year, a Utah prisoner suffering from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder died of starvation and dehydration after spending four months in the Salt Lake County Jail. A significant period of his incarceration was spent in solitary confinement. Twenty-year-old Carlos Umana weighed approximately 180 pounds when he entered the jail; when he died, he weighed just 77 pounds.
Why would a young man suffering from mental illness, to the point that he would starve himself to death, be in prison?
According to National Public Radio, the answer is simple; the three largest inpatient psychiatric facilities in the country are the Los Angeles County Jail, Rikers Island in New York City and Cook County Jail in Illinois.
Jails and prisons are America's de facto psychiatric hospitals.
As a member of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, my number-one priority is public safety. There are, at times, inmates with severe mental illness who might not be suited for prison. Nonetheless, many are also too dangerous to be released directly to the street.
During the 1960s, policymakers across the country decided to close mental health institutions in favor of community treatment. In 1955, there was one psychiatric hospital bed for every 300 Americans.
Today, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, a Virginia-based non-profit dedicated to the treatment of severe mental illness, there is one psychiatric hospital bed for every 3,000 Americans. As the Journal Sentinel reported, there are 20 times as many people with mental illness in jails and prisons as there are in psychiatric hospitals.
As it became obvious that the community treatment experiment was not working, some policymakers found it easier and less expensive to stigmatize mentally ill persons as criminals and send them to prison, rather than to treat them with the attention and compassion that is required for those suffering from a debilitating disease.
Once in prison, mentally ill inmates have a difficult time getting out. Prison rules are often violated by offenders who believe cellmates, guards and even family at home are out to harm them.
The mentally ill are often targeted by fellow inmates who are aggravated by the strange manifestations brought on by their illness. Mentally diseased inmates may have a problem concentrating in programming and therefore fail to complete required treatment programs.
Prisons are not completely to blame.
Prison medical systems were not designed nor equipped to provide quality mental health services to prisoners in need. Seriously mentally ill inmates often face overworked or undermanned staff overwhelmed with the need to evaluate and implement treatment plans for an ever growing population of ill inmates.
Our board and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections work extremely hard to assist inmates with mental illness transition back into the community. Some of my colleagues have committed considerable time and energy to this process.
Such efforts do not eliminate the fact that an absence of available psychiatric hospital bed space makes it extremely difficult to place those inmates with violent criminal histories and intensive treatment needs.
Until we are willing to acknowledge that our prisons have become de facto mental hospitals— and unless we are willing to make the hard and costly decisions that both protect the public and humanely treat those inflicted with disease— I believe the American mental health gulag will continue to indelibly blur the line between justice and expediency.
The Crime ReportJanuary 10, 2012
They say justice is blind. It must be to ignore the plight of the mentally ill in America’s prisons.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s recent two-part series on serious mental illness highlights the shortcoming inherent in a failed system. Wisconsin is far from the only state to push the mentally ill off on the criminal justice system.
An internal review of conditions inside a North Carolina prison, recently obtained by the Associated Press, found that inmates held in solitary confinement were often locked in cells for extended periods without being let out for meals, recreation time or even showers.
This past February, a North Carolina inmate being secured in solitary confinement had a doctor’s order requiring one hour of exercise per day in the prison’s day room. A review of prison records found that the inmate had not left his cell for 78 days consecutive days.
This is not an isolated case.
According to research published in the Harvard University Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, the mentally ill typically account for as much as one-half of the population in solitary confinement. In Wisconsin, a 2010 audit of three state prisons reported that “between 55 percent and 76 percent of inmates in segregation [solitary confinement] are mentally ill,” according to a report published in The Crime Report.
Last year, a Utah prisoner suffering from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder died of starvation and dehydration after spending four months in the Salt Lake County Jail. A significant period of his incarceration was spent in solitary confinement. Twenty-year-old Carlos Umana weighed approximately 180 pounds when he entered the jail; when he died, he weighed just 77 pounds.
Why would a young man suffering from mental illness, to the point that he would starve himself to death, be in prison?
According to National Public Radio, the answer is simple; the three largest inpatient psychiatric facilities in the country are the Los Angeles County Jail, Rikers Island in New York City and Cook County Jail in Illinois.
Jails and prisons are America's de facto psychiatric hospitals.
As a member of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, my number-one priority is public safety. There are, at times, inmates with severe mental illness who might not be suited for prison. Nonetheless, many are also too dangerous to be released directly to the street.
During the 1960s, policymakers across the country decided to close mental health institutions in favor of community treatment. In 1955, there was one psychiatric hospital bed for every 300 Americans.
Today, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, a Virginia-based non-profit dedicated to the treatment of severe mental illness, there is one psychiatric hospital bed for every 3,000 Americans. As the Journal Sentinel reported, there are 20 times as many people with mental illness in jails and prisons as there are in psychiatric hospitals.
As it became obvious that the community treatment experiment was not working, some policymakers found it easier and less expensive to stigmatize mentally ill persons as criminals and send them to prison, rather than to treat them with the attention and compassion that is required for those suffering from a debilitating disease.
Once in prison, mentally ill inmates have a difficult time getting out. Prison rules are often violated by offenders who believe cellmates, guards and even family at home are out to harm them.
The mentally ill are often targeted by fellow inmates who are aggravated by the strange manifestations brought on by their illness. Mentally diseased inmates may have a problem concentrating in programming and therefore fail to complete required treatment programs.
Prisons are not completely to blame.
Prison medical systems were not designed nor equipped to provide quality mental health services to prisoners in need. Seriously mentally ill inmates often face overworked or undermanned staff overwhelmed with the need to evaluate and implement treatment plans for an ever growing population of ill inmates.
Our board and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections work extremely hard to assist inmates with mental illness transition back into the community. Some of my colleagues have committed considerable time and energy to this process.
Such efforts do not eliminate the fact that an absence of available psychiatric hospital bed space makes it extremely difficult to place those inmates with violent criminal histories and intensive treatment needs.
Until we are willing to acknowledge that our prisons have become de facto mental hospitals— and unless we are willing to make the hard and costly decisions that both protect the public and humanely treat those inflicted with disease— I believe the American mental health gulag will continue to indelibly blur the line between justice and expediency.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
The Cautionary Instruction: U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in case with local twist
Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
October 21, 2011
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court listened to arguments in the case of Florence v. Board of Freeholders. Albert Florence was picked up in New Jersey on a warrant for an unpaid fine and lodged in two different county jails where, in each, he was strip-searched as part of routine jail policy.
After it was determined that the warrant had been issued in error, Florence was released. He filed suit claiming his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches was violated. A federal district court judge sided with Florence, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, saying routine strip-searches during intake are justified based on the prison’s concern that weapons and other contraband might be smuggled into the prison.
There is a local parallel to this case. In 2006, Allegheny County was sued for blanket strip-searches of all detainees that were “intermingled” with other county jail inmates. According to depositions taken during the suit, the searches largely included a visual examination of the genitals, as well as requesting detainees to bend at the waist and manipulate the buttocks, breasts and genitals to allow for a visual inspection of their body cavities and skin folds. Female detainees were required to “squat and cough” to see if any contraband dislodged from the vagina.
The class action law suit was settled for $3 million. However, Judge Terrence F. McVerry made reference, in his Settlement Opinion, to the lower court decision in Florence v. Board of Freeholders. Judge McVerry wrote that the Third Circuit in Florence held that conducting strip-searches did not require a showing of attempted smuggling or discovered contraband as a justification for the policy.
Allegheny County settled six days before Florence was decided. Florence ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and was the subject of last week’s argument.
Assistant Solicitor General Nicole Saharsky argued last week before the Supreme Court that corrections officials should be able to set search policies for their jails. "You cannot say that there are some minor offenders that don't pose a contraband risk.” Saharsky added that guards who screen arrestees are, “Individuals who are making (a) very quick determination. They have very little time, and if they guess wrong, those mistakes can be deadly."
Florence’s attorney, Thomas C. Goldstein, argued that such a “significant intrusion on individual privacy and individual dignity” requires a reason to believe that the arrested person poses a danger.
During the 12 months ending June 30, 2010, local jails admitted an estimated 12.9 million prisoners. While not every jail has a blanket strip-search policy -- the High Court would do well to debunk the near universally accepted idea that the U.S Constitution is of limited application behind the jail house walls.
Visit Matt Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
October 21, 2011
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court listened to arguments in the case of Florence v. Board of Freeholders. Albert Florence was picked up in New Jersey on a warrant for an unpaid fine and lodged in two different county jails where, in each, he was strip-searched as part of routine jail policy.
After it was determined that the warrant had been issued in error, Florence was released. He filed suit claiming his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches was violated. A federal district court judge sided with Florence, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, saying routine strip-searches during intake are justified based on the prison’s concern that weapons and other contraband might be smuggled into the prison.
There is a local parallel to this case. In 2006, Allegheny County was sued for blanket strip-searches of all detainees that were “intermingled” with other county jail inmates. According to depositions taken during the suit, the searches largely included a visual examination of the genitals, as well as requesting detainees to bend at the waist and manipulate the buttocks, breasts and genitals to allow for a visual inspection of their body cavities and skin folds. Female detainees were required to “squat and cough” to see if any contraband dislodged from the vagina.
The class action law suit was settled for $3 million. However, Judge Terrence F. McVerry made reference, in his Settlement Opinion, to the lower court decision in Florence v. Board of Freeholders. Judge McVerry wrote that the Third Circuit in Florence held that conducting strip-searches did not require a showing of attempted smuggling or discovered contraband as a justification for the policy.
Allegheny County settled six days before Florence was decided. Florence ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and was the subject of last week’s argument.
Assistant Solicitor General Nicole Saharsky argued last week before the Supreme Court that corrections officials should be able to set search policies for their jails. "You cannot say that there are some minor offenders that don't pose a contraband risk.” Saharsky added that guards who screen arrestees are, “Individuals who are making (a) very quick determination. They have very little time, and if they guess wrong, those mistakes can be deadly."
Florence’s attorney, Thomas C. Goldstein, argued that such a “significant intrusion on individual privacy and individual dignity” requires a reason to believe that the arrested person poses a danger.
During the 12 months ending June 30, 2010, local jails admitted an estimated 12.9 million prisoners. While not every jail has a blanket strip-search policy -- the High Court would do well to debunk the near universally accepted idea that the U.S Constitution is of limited application behind the jail house walls.
Visit Matt Mangino
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Capital punishment is the least of the justice system's problems
Matthew T. Mangino
The Philadelphia Inquirer
October 14, 2011
Pennsylvania has carried out only three executions since it reinstated the death penalty in 1976. All three were of men who volunteered to be executed.
The state's dormant death penalty contrasts starkly with the 236 executions presided over by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and also with the death chamber at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center in Butts County, where the execution of convicted killer Troy Davis caused a media frenzy last month.
By midnight on Sept. 21, despite the notoriety, Davis was dead. So was his victim, Michael Allen MacPhail, along with about 675,000 others who have been murdered in this country since the death penalty was reinstated.
Only a tiny fraction of those who kill ultimately pay with their lives. Since 1976, 1,271 men and women have been executed in the United States. More important, a much greater number of those responsible for murder have never even been arrested. A killer is 200 times more likely to get away with murder than to be executed for it.
That number has not improved. In 1961, 91 percent of killings were "cleared" - the term used by police to indicate an arrest has been made. In 2010, only 64 percent were. That means the killers of more than 5,000 people in 2010 alone could be at large, including the killers of more than 150 in Pennsylvania.
Where's the outrage over that? Why haven't the media lamented those 5,000 families who lost a loved one by the hand of someone who has never been identified?
The sorrow that envelops the family of a murder victim, particularly when the murder is unsolved, permeates entire communities. Unsolved homicides also hurt public confidence in the police and diminish police productivity, according to the Police Executive Research Forum. And, to the extent that offenders literally "get away with murder" and the public knows it, deterrence becomes more difficult.
Officer MacPhail's murder was solved, but his killer became the subject of considerable attention and speculation. Nevertheless, death penalty opponents cannot point to a single case in which an innocent person has been executed in the past 35 years - although they have certainly tried. One of their favorite cases was that of Roger Coleman, who was convicted of the rape and murder of his sister-in-law in Virginia. Before he became a suspect, Coleman had the audacity to serve as one of the victim's pallbearers.
Coleman's protestations of innocence became a cause célèbre, landing him on the cover of Time magazine and gaining the badly misplaced trust of many in the anti-death penalty movement. As he was strapped into the electric chair in May 1992, he said, "An innocent man is going to be murdered tonight." Sixteen years after his execution, the governor of Virginia ordered posthumous DNA testing that confirmed Coleman's guilt.
The U.S. Supreme Court ordered an evidentiary hearing in the Troy Davis case in June 2010. Two months later, a U.S. District Court in Georgia ruled: "Ultimately, while Mr. Davis's new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors. . . . After careful consideration, the Court finds that Mr. Davis has failed to make a showing of actual innocence. ..." Davis was finally executed 22 years after the killing of MacPhail.
An estimated 230,000 killings remain unsolved since the reinstatement of capital punishment. Yet more time, attention, and resources continue to be focused on the rare challenge to an execution that somehow captures the morbid curiosity of the public. Whether a condemned killer lives or dies strikes me as far less important than the literally thousands of killers who are walking America's streets.
Visit: http://articles.philly.com/2011-10-14/news/30279589_1_death-penalty-three-executions-murder-victim
The Philadelphia Inquirer
October 14, 2011
Pennsylvania has carried out only three executions since it reinstated the death penalty in 1976. All three were of men who volunteered to be executed.
The state's dormant death penalty contrasts starkly with the 236 executions presided over by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and also with the death chamber at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center in Butts County, where the execution of convicted killer Troy Davis caused a media frenzy last month.
By midnight on Sept. 21, despite the notoriety, Davis was dead. So was his victim, Michael Allen MacPhail, along with about 675,000 others who have been murdered in this country since the death penalty was reinstated.
Only a tiny fraction of those who kill ultimately pay with their lives. Since 1976, 1,271 men and women have been executed in the United States. More important, a much greater number of those responsible for murder have never even been arrested. A killer is 200 times more likely to get away with murder than to be executed for it.
That number has not improved. In 1961, 91 percent of killings were "cleared" - the term used by police to indicate an arrest has been made. In 2010, only 64 percent were. That means the killers of more than 5,000 people in 2010 alone could be at large, including the killers of more than 150 in Pennsylvania.
Where's the outrage over that? Why haven't the media lamented those 5,000 families who lost a loved one by the hand of someone who has never been identified?
The sorrow that envelops the family of a murder victim, particularly when the murder is unsolved, permeates entire communities. Unsolved homicides also hurt public confidence in the police and diminish police productivity, according to the Police Executive Research Forum. And, to the extent that offenders literally "get away with murder" and the public knows it, deterrence becomes more difficult.
Officer MacPhail's murder was solved, but his killer became the subject of considerable attention and speculation. Nevertheless, death penalty opponents cannot point to a single case in which an innocent person has been executed in the past 35 years - although they have certainly tried. One of their favorite cases was that of Roger Coleman, who was convicted of the rape and murder of his sister-in-law in Virginia. Before he became a suspect, Coleman had the audacity to serve as one of the victim's pallbearers.
Coleman's protestations of innocence became a cause célèbre, landing him on the cover of Time magazine and gaining the badly misplaced trust of many in the anti-death penalty movement. As he was strapped into the electric chair in May 1992, he said, "An innocent man is going to be murdered tonight." Sixteen years after his execution, the governor of Virginia ordered posthumous DNA testing that confirmed Coleman's guilt.
The U.S. Supreme Court ordered an evidentiary hearing in the Troy Davis case in June 2010. Two months later, a U.S. District Court in Georgia ruled: "Ultimately, while Mr. Davis's new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors. . . . After careful consideration, the Court finds that Mr. Davis has failed to make a showing of actual innocence. ..." Davis was finally executed 22 years after the killing of MacPhail.
An estimated 230,000 killings remain unsolved since the reinstatement of capital punishment. Yet more time, attention, and resources continue to be focused on the rare challenge to an execution that somehow captures the morbid curiosity of the public. Whether a condemned killer lives or dies strikes me as far less important than the literally thousands of killers who are walking America's streets.
Visit: http://articles.philly.com/2011-10-14/news/30279589_1_death-penalty-three-executions-murder-victim
Saturday, October 1, 2011
The Cautionary Instruction: Dueling reports on wrongful convictions
Matthew T. Mangino
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
September 30, 2011
Last week the long awaited Report of the Advisory Committee on Wrongful Convictions was issued by the Joint State Government Commission. The very first page of the report contains a telling caveat, “The release of this report should not be interpreted as an endorsement by members of the Executive Committee of the… [Report’s] conclusions.”
The caveat was an understatement. The law enforcement and victim representation members of the Commission issued their own Independent Report included in the advisory committtee's overall document starting at Page 309.
The Advisory Committee Report and the Independent Report both agree that the primary purpose of the committee was to review cases in which an innocent person was wrongfully convicted and subsequently exonerated and offer recommendations to reduce the possibility of future wrongful convictions.
That appears to be one of the last points of agreement between the competing reports. Initially the two groups disagreed as to the definition of “wrongfully convicted.” The Committee suggested, in a footnote, the official acts which could result in exoneration: “pardons based on innocence, judicial dismissals of criminal charges after evidence of innocence emerged and acquittals on retrial based upon evidence of no involvement in the crimes.”
The Independent Report took issue with that definition, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court held that an acquittal “does not prove that the defendant is innocent.” The Independent Report succinctly pointed out that the burden of proof in criminal cases requires proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court has made it clear that a jury must acquit “someone who is probably guilty but whose guilt has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The fundamental disagreement between the two reports -- did the Committee review only innocent persons wrongfully convicted. The Committee Report suggested that 11 people in Pennsylvania have been exonerated “partly or totally on the basis of DNA.” The Independent Report acknowledged that in one of the 11 cases cited by the Committee, “it is clear that and individual was wrongfully convicted.” However, considerable space in the Independent Report is dedicated to arguing that the remaining 10 individuals are not factually innocent.
Why is the definition of “wrongfully convicted” so important to the authors of the Independent Report? The Independent Report suggested, “The mis-definition of 'innocent' persons to include scores of guilty defendants means that the 'reforms' based on the mis-definition are likely to reward the guilty and make their convictions less likely in the future.” The Committee Report contended, “These exonerations challenge long-accepted assumptions in the soundness of certain practices of the criminal justice system.” The Committee Chairman, Duquesne University law professor John Rago, said "Mistakes happen—the question becomes how do we respond to our mistakes.”
Over the next couple of weeks The Cautionary Instruction will examine the recommendations put forth in the Advisory Committee Report and the Independent Report.
Visit Matt Mangino's Blog
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
September 30, 2011
Last week the long awaited Report of the Advisory Committee on Wrongful Convictions was issued by the Joint State Government Commission. The very first page of the report contains a telling caveat, “The release of this report should not be interpreted as an endorsement by members of the Executive Committee of the… [Report’s] conclusions.”
The caveat was an understatement. The law enforcement and victim representation members of the Commission issued their own Independent Report included in the advisory committtee's overall document starting at Page 309.
The Advisory Committee Report and the Independent Report both agree that the primary purpose of the committee was to review cases in which an innocent person was wrongfully convicted and subsequently exonerated and offer recommendations to reduce the possibility of future wrongful convictions.
That appears to be one of the last points of agreement between the competing reports. Initially the two groups disagreed as to the definition of “wrongfully convicted.” The Committee suggested, in a footnote, the official acts which could result in exoneration: “pardons based on innocence, judicial dismissals of criminal charges after evidence of innocence emerged and acquittals on retrial based upon evidence of no involvement in the crimes.”
The Independent Report took issue with that definition, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court held that an acquittal “does not prove that the defendant is innocent.” The Independent Report succinctly pointed out that the burden of proof in criminal cases requires proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court has made it clear that a jury must acquit “someone who is probably guilty but whose guilt has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The fundamental disagreement between the two reports -- did the Committee review only innocent persons wrongfully convicted. The Committee Report suggested that 11 people in Pennsylvania have been exonerated “partly or totally on the basis of DNA.” The Independent Report acknowledged that in one of the 11 cases cited by the Committee, “it is clear that and individual was wrongfully convicted.” However, considerable space in the Independent Report is dedicated to arguing that the remaining 10 individuals are not factually innocent.
Why is the definition of “wrongfully convicted” so important to the authors of the Independent Report? The Independent Report suggested, “The mis-definition of 'innocent' persons to include scores of guilty defendants means that the 'reforms' based on the mis-definition are likely to reward the guilty and make their convictions less likely in the future.” The Committee Report contended, “These exonerations challenge long-accepted assumptions in the soundness of certain practices of the criminal justice system.” The Committee Chairman, Duquesne University law professor John Rago, said "Mistakes happen—the question becomes how do we respond to our mistakes.”
Over the next couple of weeks The Cautionary Instruction will examine the recommendations put forth in the Advisory Committee Report and the Independent Report.
Visit Matt Mangino's Blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)