Terry Lenamon on the Death Penalty : Lawyer & Attorney Terry Lenamon on Capital Punishment Defense, Death Penalty Trials & Appeals | Law Firm

People wonder why I am so adamently opposed to the death penalty, and then stories like this appear in the media and I, in turn, wonder how anyone can support capital punishment. 

Sam Milsap's Mea Culpa

Sam Milsap is a seasoned criminal lawyer with over 30 years experience, and for a long while he served as the head District Attorney of Bexar County, Texas (better known to most of us as the location of the city of San Antonio).  Last week, Mr. Milsap was a guest speaker in Topeka, Kansas, where the annual meeting of the Kansas Coalition Against the Death Penalty was being held.  And during his speech to this formidable group, Sam Milsap did a brave thing.  He admitted he was wrong.

Milsap explained from the podium that back in the early 1990s, he was in charge of prosecuting a young man named Ruben Montoya Cantu.  In his zeal to win -- something that every criminal defense attorney recognizes in ambitious, driven DAs -- Sam Milsap charged ahead in his case, and with only the testimony of one single eyewitness, he obtained a guilty verdict and a sentence of death for Mr. Cantu in the murder of Pedro Gomez. 

That's right.  No physical evidence.  None.  No admission of guilt from Cantu.  None.  Only the finger-pointing from one man -- Juan Moreno, who had been shot alongside Gomez as they were being robbed.   (Nevermind that the co-defendant said that 17 year old Ruben Cantu wasn't there at the time.)

Much has been written about the weakness of eyewitness testimony, so it should come as a surprise to no one when years later, Moreno changed his mind.  That's right:  the eyewitness recanted.

Or, as Milsap so eloquently described it, " ' 20 years later, my star witness says, ' I lied.'"

The Danger of Zealous Prosecutors in Death Penalty Cases

Sam Milsap must be given his due for not hanging out a "gone fishing" sign, but instead using his time and energy to do things like appear at the KCADP national conference to tell the story of how his vigorous efforts put a 17 year old to death by lethal execution in Texas.  That is a good thing, and every district attorney in the country should hear what Sam Milsap has to say.

Meanwhile, all of us must be aware of the temptations of prosecutors everywhere -- to win their case.  To acheive a personal victory, to pursue a reputation as an advocate as well as doing the job that is assigned to them.  In our criminal justice system, prosecutors have the role of proving up a case against a criminal defendant -- and if capital punishment is on the table, it's their job to try and prove its applicability in certain cases.

As Sam Milsap's story teaches, the danger here is that when a prosecutor makes a serious mistake, and the death penalty is involved, the consequences are too high.  That teenager in San Antonio is dead today, and no one can fix that -- although, from the sound of Mr. Milsap's speech last weekend, no one would like the opportunity to do so more than he. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Omar Loureiro will be tried a second time for the murder of a Lighthouse Point man who he had gone home with from a local bar: right now, he's setting on Death Row for this crime.

In 2007, Loureiro was tried for first degree murder in the case, found guilty, and sentenced to death. Two years later, he's going back in the courtroom - and it's all because of the actions of the judge and the prosecutor in his first murder trial. (The new trial date hasn't been set.)

Testimony that Judge and Prosecutor Discussed the Case Over Dinner

Bottom line, there was testimony by Broward County prosecutor Sheila Alu that she had dinner with both Judge Ana Gardiner and prosecutor Howard Scheinberg, where they talked about the case, days before Loureiro was convicted. In fact, Alu testified that they had joked about the case.

Judge and Prosecutor Tell Their Side

The judge and prosecutor Scheinberg gave testimony, too - they admitted to an "appearance of impropriety," because they ran into each other at the restaurant while the trial was ongoing, but they denied discussing, much less joking, about Mr. Loureiro's trial. Critically, both also revealed in their testimony that they talked on the phone (cellphones, not office landlines) about the Louriero case sometime between this restaurant event and Mr. Louriero's sentencing several months later.

The Appearance of Impropriety is the Standard

Looks bad, especially since all attorneys everywhere recognize that phrase "appearance of impropriety" all too well. It's engrained early on that attorneys (and judges) are to err on the side of caution - we're not to give even a suggestion that anything inappropriate is taking place.

The Recent Texas Judge and Prosecutor Case Comparison

Of course, things can get much worse than this. Much worse. Over in Texas, it was revealed last year that a trial judge and the district attorney assigned to her courtroom had been carrying on a secret love affair for many years - and no one knew (though there was much courthouse gossip suggesting it) until one of the prosecutor's assistants blew the whistle on the two, which resulted in at least one Texas Death Row conviction being overturned thus far.

Charles Hood's conviction was overturned last month with the court ruling he had received an "unfair trial" due to the relationship between the judge and the prosecutor during his murder trial - and this, without any direct evidence that the judge and the district attorney ever spoke about the case directly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A few weeks ago, we posted about the Ohio death row case of Vietnam Vet Gary Cone, where the United States Supreme Court returned the case back to the lower courts for a fresh consideration of his sentencing after finding that 23 years ago, Cone's due process rights had been violated because the prosecution withheld key evidence that was favorable to the defense - exculpatory evidence.

Sad to say, this happens all too often in this country.

Just this past week, in the Washington Post, Maryland attorneys Albert D. Brault and Timothy F. Maloney wrote an excellent article entitled, "A Standard for Fair Trials," where they outlined several examples of prosecutorial misconduct in the form of withholding exculpatory evidence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Tuesday, our post focused upon the pending Dennis Cyrus case in California, and how this case may be the first time in over half a century that a defendant setting in a San Francisco court actually faces capital punishment for a crime.

Looking at the case from another angle, there are several key examples of how the prosecutor works in a death penalty case. First, there's the consideration of the head prosecutor for that jurisdiction.

Federal Prosecutors

Federal prosecutors pursue matters in federal criminal courts under the auspices of the region's U.S. Attorney, who in turn is an employee of the Department of Justice. U.S. Attorneys are appointed to their positions.

As a part of the executive branch, federal prosecutors have guidelines to follow in capital punishment matters. In the Cyrus case, the example is shown of the Bush Administration's established policy that there be uniformity among all U.S. Attorneys in their decisions to seek the death penalty. While the particular federal prosecutor does have some autonomy to try his or her case, there are boundaries within which that case must be pursued and tried - and those boundaries are marked by the President of the United States.

State Prosecutors

State prosecutors pursue matters in state criminal courts under the direction of the local District Attorney. Usually, these are county officials who have been elected for a specific term. They may have been prosecutors for many years, some may have served time on a criminal bench as judge before running for election.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Yesterday, the jury came back in a San Francisco federal courtroom, and found Dennis Cyrus guilty of a number of gang-related acts, including the murders of three men - including Ray Jimmerson, who had informed the cops about the gang's assorted criminal activities.

The Distinction Between State and Federal Prosecutors

It was the first time since 1991 that San Francisco has seen a trial where capital punishment was even on the table - two of its district attorneys had followed an internal determination not to seek the death penalty, even if the law allowed for capital punishment. But they are state officials, and this is a federal proceeding.

Over in the Northern District of California's federal district court, the U.S. Attorney makes the call on whether or not to ask for the death penalty, and this U.S. Attorney has decided to do so in Cyrus' case. It's the first time since 1946 that the federal prosecutors have sought the death penalty in the Northern District. The last time that the U.S. Attorney's Office in this federal district asked for capital punishment in a crime was in the 1946 trial of two men who had escaped from Alcatraz and in the process, had killed two guards and three prisoners.

So why now, 62 years later, is capital punishment being sought? Why now? Why Dennis Cyrus?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks