Federal Death Penalty News and Developments: 2003

USA Today: Death Penalty Distorts the Judicial System
In an editorial published after a Virginia jury recommended a death sentence for John Muhammad, USA Today noted that the case of Muhammad and his juvenile co-defendant "undermines public confidence that the law is applied objectively." The editorial criticized the manipulative placement of the case into Virginia courts and the stretching of Virginia's law to achieve the death penalty. Usually, Virginia has required that the defendant be the actual shooter to be eligible for a death sentence. And Virginia's new terrorism law may have been expanded considerably beyond its original intent for this case:

In this instance, the bending of the system began early. After the arrests of Muhammad and his teenage companion, Lee Malvo, Attorney General John Ashcroft seized control of the suspects. Though the pair had been caught in Maryland, where most of the killings occurred, federal authorities handed them over to Virginia for trial. One unvarnished reason was that Malvo was a juvenile. Maryland does not permit the execution of juvenile offenders. Virginia does.
. . .
Shopping for the most pro-death judicial venue and then custom-fitting new and existing laws to ensure what Ashcroft calls the "ultimate sanction" make prosecutors and law enforcement officials look as if they were willing to go to great lengths Ñ and even stretch the law Ñ to achieve a death-penalty conviction.
. . .
But twisting justice wasn't necessary to protect the nation and punish the criminal. Life without parole would have served equally well.
. . .
The overzealous application of Virginia's death penalty laws means that Muhammad's case is likely to command the nation's attention through years of appellate maneuvering. Life without parole would have forestalled that tedious endgame without ever calling into question the integrity of the judicial establishment.

(USA Today, November 25, 2003) See DPIC's report on the Politicization of the Death Penalty: "Killing for Votes".

Report Reveals F.B.I. Allowed Death Sentences for Innocent Men
According to a report by the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform, an F.B.I. policy to protect Boston informants who were known murderers resulted in the Bureau allowing at least two innocent men to be sent to death row. Investigators noted that the policy "must be considered one of the greatest failures in the history of federal law enforcement" and had "disastrous consequences." According to the report, the F.B.I. was so intent on protecting guilty informants that it passed up opportunities to try them for murder. On at least one occasion, this policy resulted in the Bureau knowingly allowing four men who had nothing to do with a killing to be tried and convicted of the crime. Two of the men were sentenced to life in prison and two were sentenced to death. Two of the four men died in jail, and the remaining two had their sentences commuted and were freed after serving 30 years behind bars. (New York Times, November 21, 2003) See Innocence.

Killer of 10 Allowed to Plea to Life Sentence in Federal Case
Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi was allowed to plead guilty to 10 murders, drug trafficking, racketeering and extortion, as federal prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty against him in exchange for his cooperation with ongoing crime investigations. Under the terms of the agreement, Flemmi - who has also admitted to murders in Florida and Oklahoma - will serve a life without parole sentence in a secure unit reserved for cooperating inmates. Among the murders committed by Flemmi were the murder of his girlfriend and the daughter of another girlfriend. (Boston Globe, October 15, 2003). This plea contrasts sharply with the more aggressive recent use of the federal death penalty and with the Justice Department's rejection of plea agreements in other cases. (See, e.g., Boston Globe, September 20, 2003). Moreover, Flemmi's case bears similarities in terms of the number of victims to the case of John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who are facing the death penalty in Virginia. The Justice Department inserted this latter case into Virginia in order to secure death sentences, particularly against Malvo. Neither the federal death penalty nor the statute in Maryland, which was the location of most of the murders, allows the death penalty for someone like Malvo, who was a juvenile at the time of the crimes.

NEW VOICES: Prosecutor Criticizes Federal Government's Decision to Seek Death Penalty
After U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft authorized a federal death penalty prosecution against two Massachusetts men accused of a gang murder, the local Suffolk County District Attorney, Daniel F. Conley, objected to using capital punishment to end urban violence, stating, "I do not believe the death penalty is a deterrent or appropriate punishment for inner-city homicide. The death penalty runs counter to the strategies for preventing and prosecuting urban crime -- which include sensitivity to the neighborhoods we serve -- that have proven successful in Boston over the last decade." Conley plans to personally appeal to Attorney General Ashcroft to drop the death penalty prosecution against the defendants. Carrie Gethers, the victim's grandmother, has also announced that she does not support the federal government's decision to seek the death penalty. She stated, "It won't do anybody any good. . . I don't see any use for that anymore. I'm not a murderer. Not me. I won't say yes to that. He's gone. It hurts, but this won't bring him back." (Boston Globe, September 19, 2003). See New Voices.

Judge Overturns Conviction, Criticizes Decision to Seek Federal Death Penalty
Stating that "this Court is unwilling to contort the law of federal kidnapping," and that federal prosecutors failed to present sufficient evidence to support that charge during the recent capital murder trial of Jay Lentz, a federal judge in Virginia has overturned the jury's guilty verdict in the case. In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee criticized the government for trying what he deemed a local homicide case in federal court. Earlier, the jury had rejected the government's request for a death sentence. (Washington Post, July 23, 2003) Despite a more aggressive pursuit of this punishment by the Justice Department, juries in 16 of the last 17 federal capital trials have declined to impose the death penalty.

Federal Judge Cites Risk of Innocence
In a decision reluctantly allowing a federal capital murder case against Gary Lee Sampson to proceed, Judge Mark L. Wolf of the Federal District Court in Boston expressed reservations about the accuracy of the death penalty and appeared to criticize the Justice Department's zealous approach to seeking the capital convictions. He noted:

[I]n the past decade, substantial evidence has emerged to demonstrate that innocent individuals are sentenced to death, and undoubtedly executed, much more often than previously understood. . . [T]he day may come when a court properly can and should declare the ultimate sanction to be unconstitutional in all cases.
Wolf, a former federal prosecutor who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, also noted that in 16 of the last 17 federal capital cases, juries rejected the death penalty. Wolf questioned the Justice Department's more aggressive seeking of the death penalty:
[J]uries have recently been regularly disagreeing with the attorney general's contention that the death penalty is justified in the most egregious federal cases involving murder.
. . .
[I]f juries continue to reject the death penalty in the most egregious federal cases, the courts will have significant objective evidence that the ultimate sanction is not compatible with contemporary standards of decency.

(New York Times, August 12, 2003). See Innocence.

Excerpts from Judge Wolf's opinion in U.S. v. Sampson regarding innocence and the federal death penalty

Less Than Death Sentence in 20 of Last 21 Federal Trials
On August 14, 2003, a federal jury in Detroit voted to reject the death penalty for John Bass. Federal capital juries have rejected the death penalty for 20 of the last 21 defendants who have completed trial and 38 of the last 43 since the year 2000. Since the reinstatement of the federal death penalty there have been 32 death sentences, 60 life sentences, 2 convictions of lesser offenses and 8 acquittals after trials involving 102 defendants.
The 20 defendants are:

Source: Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project, 2003

Juries Reject Death Penalty in Nearly All Federal Trials
Juries in 15 of the last 16 federal capital trials have declined to impose the death penalty, despite a more aggressive pursuit of this punishment by the Justice Department. Since President George Bush took office, 15% of the capital trials have resulted in death sentences, compared to 46% of cases in which the death penalty was sought from 1988 to 2000. Legal experts believe that overreaching by prosecutors and some jurors' growing unease with the death penalty may account for the trend. Former U.S. Attorney Alan Vinegrad noted, "It reflects that the tide is turning in this country with regard to attitudes about the death penalty. There has been so much publicity about wrongfully convicted defendants on death row that people sitting on juries are reluctant to impose the ultimate sanction." (New York Times, June 15, 2003) See Innocence.

Federal Death Penalty Case in Puerto Rico Prompts Protests
Despite the fact that the Constitution defining Puerto Rico's status as a self-governing commonwealth associated with the United States unconditionally bans capital punishment, the U.S. is seeking the federal death penalty in the trial of two Puerto Rican men. The trial has spurred grass-root protests against the death penalty. Gov. Sila M. Calderon, the Commonwealth's top elected official, said the case demonstrates the need to further reform the U.S. - Puerto Rican relationship, especially in regard to federal laws "that infringe on our culture, our own laws and our customs." Arturo Luis Davila Toro, president of the Puerto Rican Bar Association, reiterated her concerns, stating, "We don't believe in capital punishment, and they are trying to impose it on us." Jury selection for the trial took place last week at the U.S. District Court in San Juan. (Los Angeles Times, June 9, 2003). The trial ended on July 31, 2003 when Joel Rivera Alejandro and Hector Oscar Acosta-Martinez were acquitted of all charges by the jury. It was not clear whether the question of federal jurisdiction and the death penalty affected the jury's decision. William Matthewman, attorney for Mr. Acosta-Martinez, said that imposing the death penalty upon Puerto Rico "is like pouring oil on one of their beautiful beaches." Despite this conflict, Matthewman believes that it was a lack of evidence (including over 200 samples of DNA not matching his client) that led to the acquittal. (New York Times, August 1, 2003)

Gulf War Veteran Executed by Federal Government
Louis Jones, Jr. was executed on March 18, 2003 at the Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana. Jones, a decorated Gulf War veteran who had no prior criminal record, claimed that his exposure to nerve gas in Iraq and post-traumatic stress from his combat tours contributed to his murder of Pvt. Tracie Joy McBride in Texas. President Bush refused Jones' clemency request. Jones was the third person executed under federal auspices since the death penalty was reinstated. (New York Times, March 16, 2003 and Associated Press, March 18, 2003).