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

This past Sunday, the New York Times responded to the horrific execution of Ken Biros by the State of Ohio last week.  Yes, where Biros was killed in the same way that your vet euthanizes dogs and cats.  Yes, where Ohio ran ahead and used a new method of execution that hasn't been vetted, allowing Biros to be a human guinea pig.

In a succinct, well-written opinion piece, the New York Times shares in the horror of what Ohio has done.  From its offices in Manhattan, the Times states it plainly:  "There is no Humane Execution." 

Of course, the editorial has its critics.  At Sentencing Law & Policy, for example, the New York Times piece is challenged -- most interestingly, for its suggestion that the Texas case of Cameron Todd Williamham is a fluke:  

"Finally, as serious students of the death penalty know, the Willingham case is the closest we've gotten to a clear showing an innocent person may have been executed; to suggest that a large number of innocent people have quite likely been put to death is especially misguided."

From our post dated 09/11/09, here are the names of the innocent setting on Death Row per the Innocence Project as of that day - visit our earlier post for links to each man's individual story, as told by the IP:

Kirk Bloodsworth

Rolando Cruz

Alejandro Hernandez

Verneal Jimerson

Dennis Williams

Robert Miller

Ron Williamson

Ronald Jones

Earl Washington

Frank Lee Smith

Charles Irvin Fain

Ray Krone

Nicholas Yarris

Ryan Matthews

Curtis McCarty

Kennedy Brewer

Michael Blair

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Tonight, I will once again be questioned by Nancy Grace on recent issues developing in the Casey Anthony case.  For my position on the news of Andrea Lyons joining the Anthony defense team, check out today's Orlando Sentinel: 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I've been invited to be on Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell tonight.

I consider it a privilege to be asked to participate on a show of this quality and I look forward to tonight's discussion. Jane Velez-Mitchell is a formidable talent and it's an honor to be on her program.

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

Just a brief update: I will appear on Nancy Grace tomorrow night, Tuesday May 12, 2009, not today, as originally scheduled.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I'm honored to report that I'll be returning to the Nancy Grace Show this Monday, May 11, 2009. It is always a privilege to be asked by Nancy Grace to participate in her cutting-edge dialogue, and I look forward to the opportunity.

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

I have written an article concerning the impact of media coverage on our constitutional rights to a fair trial - and the presumption of innocence, which appears today in both the print and web versions of the Orlando Sentinel.

It is entitled "Media zap right to fair trial: To wit, Casey Anthony et al. " and you can read it here.

I welcome your thoughts and opinions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

1. In your jurisdiction, if you are charged with a state crime, will the state's discovery in your case be accessible as a public record, like the "document dumps" made famous in the Casey Anthony case?

2. In your jurisdiction, if you or a family member is charged with a state crime, what are your protections against people going through your trash and demonstrating in front of your home 24/7, as occurred at the Anthony family home after Casey Anthony was arrested on charges of filicide?

3. If you are interviewed by the local authorities, are you being videotaped? Is that videotape available to the media? In the Anthony case, interviews were videotaped and those videotapes have been provided to the media.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (19)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

When I checked my blog this morning, I was surprised to find a large number of responses to my posts. I was also pleased to find that the majority of the posts were thoughtful, measured, and reasoned responses.

Predictably, a number of responses were in regard to the Casey Anthony case. Although this case has touched deep emotions in those who follow it, this blog is not, and cannot be, about any Anthony family members. There are many good forums out there for that topic. This is not one of them.

This blog will talk about recent events and cases in the context of the death penalty. Hopefully, this blog will be a resource for you on capital punishment. This topic has ramifications at many levels in our lives: legal, moral, religious, social, and psychological. We can learn from each other as well as recent cases. There is more than enough to explore in these areas.

That said, here are the rules for getting your comments posted in the blog.

1. First, no responses that proclaim the innocence or guilt of an accused party will be published. That is not our job. It is ultimately the job of twelve good citizens who are willing to undertake that task.

2. Second, no comments speculating about evidence is likely to be published. Evidence is not the latest news report. It is not our job to determine what is evidence. That task is at the discretion of the trial judge, subject to codes such as the Florida Rules of Evidence or the Federal Rules of Evidence.

3. Third, off topic posts will not be published. Assuredly, there are blogs out there in the blog-o-sphere on those topics. Please post to them.

4. Finally, critical comments will be published but no responses containing pejorative comments about other posters, lawyers, judges, public figures, etc. are likely to be posted. This topic deserves critical thinking. Please give it the dignity and depth of thought that it deserves.

Responding to the Comments

I will make every effort to respond to comments promptly. However, I am an active trial lawyer with a family deserving of my time, as well. I hope to turnaround responses to comments within 24 to 48 hours - with the caveat that if I am traveling or in trial, that time frame will have to bend.

Lastly, thank you for reading and participating in this blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

First of all, let me just take this opportunity to say that I'm always honored to be invited to appear on the Nancy Grace show. Nancy Grace is a true star of the airwaves today, and a heroine to many. It's very humbling to be appearing before millions in one of those little rectangular talking-head cameo boxes on screen, along with Sue Moss and the rest of the lawyers. I was proud to have been invited once and I'm always thrilled to be asked back again.

And, no - Nancy and I don't agree on many things. Respecting your colleagues doesn't mean you necessarily see eye to eye with them. This is especially true among attorneys, and exceedingly true among the criminal bar. Prosecutors and defense attorneys may fight viciously in the courtroom, but we'll shake hands in the hallway. You know a good lawyer when you see one, even if they're on the other side.

Now, back to the Casey Anthony case ....
Last week, I was on the Nancy Grace show for a couple of nights, because Nancy was talking about the death penalty as it applies in the Casey Anthony matter. Specifically, the fact that the prosecution had taken the death penalty off the table in the Casey Anthony case and Nancy Grace's arguments that the "tot mom" should have a jury decide whether or not the death penalty should apply to her.
Now, before this goes any further let me reiterate: I will not discuss the Casey Anthony case, itself, in any detail or particular. As the attorney who represented Casey Anthony in the death penalty discussions with the Florida state attorney's office, I cannot do that - it violates my work product privilege, attorney-client privilege ... well, you get the idea.
That doesn't mean that I can't discuss generalities, and the law regarding the death penalty today. And with that caveat, there are lots of lessons popping up in the Casey Anthony matter.

The Casey Anthony case - it's revealing many things. Here's one.
One lesson that I'm learning from all this media coverage of the Casey Anthony case is this: the need to know WHY -- why did a beautiful baby, Caylee Anthony, die? Why ... why...why? A hundred questions come to mind.
Well, in all this questioning and need to understand, there's a great many people that are looking at judgment. And that's good. Our society, as with all successful societies, must have rules and judgments that are assessed against those who break those rules. Without this basic structure, we'd live in chaos.
But along with judgment, there must come mercy. At least, in America, we believe in the consideration of mercy before the imposition of judgment.
That is why we have things like probation and parole and personal recognizance. Mercy.
Mercy is my job.
That's my focus, it's the raison d'être of my practice. Death penalty considerations come in the sentencing phase of a defendant's case. Whether or not to impose the death penalty is a decision made only after the defendant has been found guilty of the specific charges that bring with them the possibility of capital punishment.
Judgment and Mercy

In the Casey Anthony case, there's a tremendous amount of airtime and forum group time (think Websleuths) with energies being placed upon judgment.
I'm not seeing much on mercy. Are there considerations that may explain and mitigate this woman IF (and that's right: IF) she did the crime of which she has been accused?
Journalists are taught that to get the whole story, you must ask "who, what, where, when, why, and how."

In the Casey Anthony case, I'm not hearing many people asking that question WHY.
And, to me, that's the most important question. Why. Why did this death happen? Because that's the real answer we all want to know, I think, in any crime. And, because that's where mercy is found.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (17)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link