The death penalty: state v federal "right to kill first" in the South Carolina hate shooting

An "interesting" fight is developing over death penalty in South Carolina.

Last year, a white young man came to a black church and shot 9 people to death.

The man was charged with capital crimes both in the State of South Carolina and in federal court (federal counts reportedly include hate crimes and violation of religious rights).

Now the state and the federal courts are competing on who is going to try Dylann Roof first and who gets to execute him.

The feds scheduled the federal trial ahead of the state trial.

The SC prosecutor ardently asked to allow SC to try Dylann Roof first.

I somehow doubt that the feds even have jurisdiction to try Dylann Roof.

Yes, it is obviously a hate crime.

Yes, the defendant is white and all victims are black, and the crime happened in a black church.

But, the crime was not committed on federal property and does not involve "interstate commerce", and thus, feds should not have been involved in the criminal prosecution, whatever is my position on the death penalty.

I am generally against the death penalty, as my posts on this blog indicate.

Yet, in this case there appears to be no question that the defendant is the perpetrator of the shooting deaths of 9 people.

There are witnesses who observed Dylann Roof when he came to the church, was invited to join in the prayer, and spent some time before he started to shoot.  Enough time for the surviving witnesses to be able to clearly identify him as the shooter.

Unless the defendant is ruled incompetent or not guilty by reason of some kind of mental illness, he, of course, must be held accountable.

In my view, it will not be unfair to demand his life for the lives of 9 people he killed.

Yet, given the law about appellate process in the case, it will cost taxpayers less to keep Dylann Roof alive and serve a life sentence, rather than to put him on the death row.

For the sake of saving taxpayers' money, I would give him a life sentence.

The death penalty - handled by opportunists, sadists and people with mood disorders. Enough?

I wrote on this blog about a Georgia prosecutor "enthralled with the death penalty" (not my words, it is the words of public defenders in a pleading) that she keeps a battery-operated "toy" electric chair in her office.

That indicates clear sadistic tendencies, and a complete unfitness for the position of a public prosecutor who must not only get convictions, but to be fair to criminal defendants.

I also wrote about opportunists in public office who have used, or are using the death penalty for personal gain.

People I wrote about is the former Philadelphia District Attorney and then Chief Judge of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ronald Castille who obtained the death penalty against the victim of sexual abuse that lasted for years since he was 13, and who killed his abuser when he turned 18.  Prosecutor/Judge Castille not only obtained the conviction and death penalty by fraud, but then, when became a judge, refused to recuse from the defendant's habeas corpus petitions 4 TIMES, reinstated his death penalty in 2012 and issued a separate concurring opinion blasting federal defenders representing Terrance Williams for doing their job.

Another opportunist who is getting political capital on the death penalty is Texas Bell County DA Henry Garza.

Henry Garza is currently prosecuting Marvin Louis Guy, the person who shot a police officer as a home invader, not knowing that the armed person who was climbing into his window at night during an unannounced was a police officer.

At the same time, Henry Garza is running for his 5th term as Bell County DA, a position that currently pays $140,000 a year, and is the Chairman and former President of the National District Attorneys' Association.

Henry Garza is capitalizing not only on seeking the death of an innocent person who exercised his right to self-defense in his own home, but, by doing that and not prosecuting those who have sent the police officer to his sure death, he is making sure that similar - completely unnecessary - raids against pot-growers will happen in the future, and will cost more lives to police officers, more lives to criminal defendants, and millions of dollars to taxpayers.

Now there is also a report that the Dallas County DA (Texas, a death penalty state) suffered a THIRD mental health setback and was hospitalized into a psychiatric hospital.

The DA was hospitalized a month ago for depression, now she is hospitalized for "mood disorders".

A person who needs repeated psychiatric hospitalizations, especially those for "mood disorders", has an unlimited discretion to seek death penalty against people?

But - you know what is most interesting?

The news reports says that the reporters allegedly spoke to "mood-disordered" DA's potential opponents in a re-election, and the opponents said that they will NOT make the issue of the DA's mental condition "an issue" in their election campaign.

WHY?

Does political correctness trump people's RIGHT TO LIFE?

And, is it possible that the Dallas DA's mood swings and/or depression are the direct results of the responsibility that humans should not have, to "play God" and hold decisions to seek a government-controlled murder against other people.

A lot is being said about why the death penalty should be abolished.

About mistakes, racism, ineffective assistance of counsel, police and prosecutorial misconduct.

Yet, more and more comes to light as to personalities of prosecutors:

• sadists;
• political opportunists using the death penalty for personal gain, for the advancement of their career;
• mentally ill individuals with mood swings.

Such people should not handle life-and-death decisions.

Yet, with the "mood-disorder" DA, the issue of her mental illness came to life only because she needed to be away from the office, she needed repeated hospitalizations.

That means that, for a while, she was handling her mental illness issues on the job, possibly while handling death penalty cases.

Opportunists can be figured out through conflicts of interest, sometimes years later.

Prosecutors with mental health issues, from sadism to mood disorders, may never be figured out because, short of hospitalization, their records are private. 

The only "safe" way to deal with it is to abolish the death penalty.

Otherwise, you may be allowing a secret psychopathic sadist during one of his/her mood swings to make the decision to seek or not to seek the death penalty.

And - when people's lives are at stake, political correctness should be damned and prosecutors' mental health issues should be made the front and center issues in whether to remove such a prosecutor by any means - public demand for resignation, impeachment, discipline or reelection.

And the same refers to opportunist prosecutors.

Why the National District Attorneys Association chooses the most unethical prosecutors as their Presidents - Part II, #DAHenryGarza The Salesman of The Death Penalty for personal political gain, jeopardizing lives of police officers

I just posted a blog about the interesting pick for President by the National District Attorneys' Association - the corrupt and unethical Onondaga County DA from New York William Fitzpatrick.

This is the current President of NDAA.

One of the previous presidents was not better, if not worse than Fitzpatrick.

His name is Henry Garza, see page 2 of this Board Roster of NDAA.

Henry Garza is a DA from Bell County, Texas.  On top of being the past President of the National District Attorneys' Association, he is NDAA's current Chairman.

DA Garza is proud of his position in the NDAA, as is evident from
DA Garza's official webpage.

DA Garza even states that NDAA is the "Voice of America's Prosecutors".

Making DA Garza, the Chairman of the NDAA, THE voice of the America's prosecutors.

Here is the picture of that "voice".

And here is what that "voice" is currently doing.

DA Henry Garza was elected in 2001 and "is currently serving his fourth term" in Bell County, Texas.

Texas is a death penalty state.

It is the discretion of the DA to seek that death penalty.

This is the man who was deciding whether to seek death on behalf of the government in the State of Texas for 15 years so far.

But, that's the law in the State of Texas, so he is not doing anything wrong for following the law, right?

Let's see.

In November of 2015 DA Garza announced his bid for yet another re-election (by the way, Henry Garza looks older in his 2014 picture than on his current official website picture indicating some vanity issues in DA Garza, an obvious problem for a death penalty prosecutor), compare:

In his re-election bid announced on November 11, 2015, DA Henry Garza claimed that

"he's dedicated to the idea of fairness in criminal justice and plans to continue his dedication to the residents of Bell County."

Once again:

DA Garza is "dedicated to the idea of fairness in criminal justice".

Is he?

In February of 2014, a Texas grand jury returned a "no-bill" and refused to indict a man who shot and killed a police officer during a "no-knock" raid.

Imagine ninja-clad armed people climbing into your window in the wee hours of the morning - are you supposed to presume they are police officers and not defend yourself and your family, with deadly force?

So, a Texas grand jury reasonably concluded that there is nothing to charge the man for when he believed he is being attacked and is risking death from home invaders.

The "no-bill" was returned, once again, in February of 2014, in Burleston County, Texas.

Burleston County DA Julie Renken presented to that grand jury a capital murder case.

The grand jury refused to charge any crime.

Look at the face of a DA who sought death penalty for a person's legal action, an obvious self-defense against a home invasion:

Homey, kind, compassionate, right?

This is the face of an attempted murderer.

Of course, a police media outlet in 2013 reported what happened in a completely different way.

There was no mentioning that it was a no-knock raid.

There was no mentioning that police officers did not identify themselves before storming the Magee residence.

The article only stated that Mr. Magee shot a police officer when "a team of eight deputies served a search warrant at a mobile home".

The search warrant was because of a tip that Mr. Magee was growing marijuana - a non-violent "crime".

Here is a table of similar no-knock raids in several states from 2001 to 2014, as reported by the media, and of results of such raids:

No.	Date	State		Death penalty state? Y/N		Name of fallen police officer	Name of defendant	Race of defendant	Circum- Stances Of the case	Outcome
1	December, 2001	Mississippi	Yes		Ron Jones		Cory Jermaine Maye	Black	Girlfriend and child at home; A no-knock drug raid, a tip from a racist informant; defendant had no prior criminal record, DOB September 9, 1980 – 21 years old at the time of the raid	Charged, convicted of capital murder, sentenced to death;sentence overturned in 2006 on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds; conviction overturned in 2010;  in 2009, the conviction was overturned for denial of the right of vicinage; in 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction for denial of self-defense instruction regarding Maye’s infant daughter;  Maye was coerced to plead guilty to a lesser charge in 2011 in exchange for immediate release and time served
2	January 2008	Virginia	Yes		Jarrod Shivers		Ryan Frederick	White	No-knock drug raid for growing marijuana; Drug raid was based on information from a criminal/informant who DID break into the home of Ryan Frederick 3 days prior	Capital murder, death penalty sought, jury convicted for lesser charge of manslaughter, defendant was sentenced to a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison
3	January 4, 2011	Utah	Yes		Jared Francom		Matthew David Stewart	White	Pot-growing raid with a battering ram;  defendant was an Army veteran; defendant was sleeping and naked when the home was breached, one police officer was killed and several injured	Charged with capital murder, prosecutors announced they will seek death penalty; hung himself in his pre-trial detention cell after a judge denied dismissal of charges based on self-defense
4	December, 2013	Texas	Yes		Adam Sowder		Henry Magee	White	Pot-growing no-knock raid	Capital murder case presented to the grand jury, grand jury refused to indict;  but, indicted for felony possession of marijuana while possessing a deadly weapon
5	May 16, 2014	Texas	Yes		Charles Dinwiddie		Marvin Louis Guy, age 50	Black	No-knock drug raid	Indicted for capital murder, prosecution is seeking death penalty, the trial is set for September 26, 2016

The raids were for growing marijuana.

Washington and Colorado, the states where marijuana was legalized, received, respectively, 70 million dollars in taxes (Washington) and 76 million dollars in taxes (Colorado) in the year 2014. 


Instead, the states of Utah, Mississippi, Virginia and Texas wasted thousands of tax dollars on law enforcement and prosecution of pot-growers, sent police officers into no-knock raids knowing that they may be killed as presumed home invaders, buried at least 5 officers killed as home invaders, paid for injuries of many more and spent and will spend millions of dollars on prosecution, incarceration, feeding, housing and medical treatment of people who killed officers as home invaders, in self-defense.

Officers:

1. Ron Jones, of Mississippi, age 29, on the force for 5 years when killed; survived by parents and two brothers;
2. Jarrod Shivers, of Virginia, age 34, on the force for 8 years when killed, who left behind a wife, a son and two daughters, parents, siblings and grandparents;
3. Jared Francom, of Utah, age 31, survived by a wife and two young children;
4. Adam Sowder, of Texas, age 31, 7 years on the force;
5. Charles Dinwiddie, of Texas, age 47, 18 tears on the force, left behind a wife, two children, parents, multiple siblings, nephews and nieces.

All of what happened is grossly unfair.

To the officers whose lives were cut short.

To their families.

To the people who were put into the position of self-defense, exercised it and were charged with capital murder.

To their families.

The deaths of these five police officers are on their superiors, the prosecutors and the judges who authorized the no-knock raids.

Yet, the officers paid with their lives.

Other officers paid with their injuries.

The officers' families paid with life-long loss and grief.

People who were defending their homes paid with:

1. the life (Matthew Stewart),
2. 10 years in prison and coerced violent criminal record for manslaughter because it was beneath the prosecution to admit they did something wrong and withdraw the charges completely (Cory Maye),
3. the stress and publicity of criminal prosecution (Henry Magee);
4. incarceration for 10 years (Ryan Frederick);
5. possibly, death penalty (Marvin Guy).

There is no indication that ANY of those people who:

1) directed a criminal to break into an apartment to provide a probable cause for the raid (Ryan Frederick's case);

2) sent armed no-knock raids into homes with children (Cory Maey);

3) sent police officers to near-sure deaths because of a POT-GROWING OPERATION, -

that any of these people suffered any repercussions, demotion, discipline, prosecution - anything.

One of these people is the former president and present chairman of the National District Attorneys' Association, the Bell County (Texas) Da Henry Garza.

DA Garza is now, at the same time, running a re-election campaign for his 5th term in office, and is prosecuting Marvin Louis Guy for capital murder of police officer Charles Dinwiddie - instead of prosecuting those who have sent officer Charles Dinwiddie on a no-knock raid that could be perceived by ANY reasonable person as a home invasion, warranting self-defense by deadly force, which is what, in fact, occurred.

Let's compare the dates.

The no-knock raid against Henry Magee, in Texas, occurred in December of 2013 and the grand jury refused to indict in February of 2014.

Instead of rethinking the policy of no-knock raids and protecting police officers from death under similar circumstances, in May of 2014, 3 months after a Texas grand jury refused to indict Henry Magee for the shooting death of officer Adam Sowder, Bell County officials sought an identical no-knock raid, and sent officer Charles Dinwiddie into a sure death.

There are allegations that decisions to prosecute or not prosecute in such cases were racially based.

My table above does not allow for such a conclusion, without more evidence.

3 out of 5 defendants were white.

Prosecution for capital murder was sought against all five defendants.

One of the white defendants hung himself during the trial.

Another white defendant was "no-billed" by the grand jury, after the prosecution presented "hours of testimony".

The only racial aspect in the case of Marvin Guy that I would explore is whether the racial composition of his grand jury was predominantly white - but, in view of grand jury secrecy, I am not sure whether such information will be provided to the defense, and especially to the media.

The case of Marvin Guy is asking for a dismissal or jury nullification.

DA Garza knows this is a clear self-defense case.

But, DA Garza wants to be re-elected, and he won't be re-elected if he is not running a pro-death penalty Republican re-election campaign in the state of Texas, and if he does not cater for law enforcement who wants blood for the death of their brother.

Of course, the death of their brother, even if caused by Marvin Guy's bullet, was actually caused by those brainless public officials who have authorized and sent the no-knock raid team to raid Marvin Guy's home, even after the "no-bill" for Henry Magee.

The other possible racial motivation of the raid is because Marvin Guy, a black man, was chosen for the "no-knock" raid.

After all, growing marijuana is a very common crime, and it is common across all races.

So, why choose a black man for the raid right after a white man was "no-billed" for the same?

And, why DA Garza, who claimed he is running for re-election because he wants "fairness in the criminal justice" system not withdraw charges and end this farce?

DA Garza should know, after all, that to charge a person who is defending against a home invasion, is inherently unfair.

Or, is the sweetness of re-election to the position that pays $140,000 a year outweighing the unfairness of seeking government-authorized murder of a man for exercising his legal right of self-defense?

Apparently, the "voice" of American prosecutors has answered a resounding "yes" to that question.

Henry Garza is no more than a salesman.

Of the death penalty.

At the cost of lives of police officers and the life of the criminal defendant.

At the cost of devastation of families on both sides.

And, until and unless people realize who is the real culprit in the death of officer Charles Dinwiddie, and demand real accountability of the real culprits, more officers will be put in the exact same position, and in the exact same danger of death or serious injury - so that more salesmen like Henry Garza would claim political capital in their election campaigns.

Why the National District Attorneys Association chooses the most unethical prosecutors as their Presidents - Part I, #DAWilliamFitzpatrick The Extortioner

The current President of the National District Attorneys' Association is William Fitzpatrick, the District Attorney of Onondaga County, New York.

That is the District Attorney who is the law school buddy and roommate of the corrupt judge James Tormey who remains the Chief Administrative Judge of the 5th Admnistrative District despite being sued by several female plaintiffs for sexism, retaliation and using his judicial office for political espionage.

The last time Judge Tormey sued, he was sued together with his buddy DA Fitzpatrick, because of their collusive efforts to demote and strip of livelihood a Spanish female court interpreter who Fitzpatrick tried to prosecute for a felony, but who was acquitted by a jury.

The lawsuit - unfortunately - was dismissed on 'absolute immunity" grounds.

The previous lawsuit was brought against Tormey by a female court attorney who Tormey harassed, demoted and persecuted after she refused to spy on a judge who ran for re-election on a Democratic ticket (Tormey is a Republican).

That lawsuit was litigated for 4.5 years and was settled on the eve of trial for $600,000 out of taxpayers pockets.

The judge who leaked to the plaintiff Bobette Morin that Tormey and his cronies are out to get her was Onondaga Family Court judge Bryan Hedges.

After the settlement of the lawsuit against Tormey, William Fitzpatrick, Tormey's law school buddy, according to the records on file with the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, started to blackmail Judge Hedges and extort from him money on behalf of himself and the alleged victim of Judge Hedges of nearly 40 years back.

Fitzpatrick knew that in New York there is a statute of limitations for sex crimes, in criminal and civil court, and that claims of the alleged victim were time-barred.

Nevertheless, Fitzpatrick pursued extortion against Judge Hedges, according to e-mails of the alleged victim referenced by Judge Hedges attorney in the disciplinary proceedings before the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct.

According to the alleged victim, DA William Fitzpatrick wanted a portion of the extorted money, 


see my blog about the corrupt relationship between DA Fitzpatrick and Judge Tormey here, see arguments of Judge Hedges to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct here, page 9.

When Judge Hedges did not cave into that extortion, DA Fitzpatrick turned him into the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct.

Judge Hedges was taken off the bench.

DA Fitzpatrick was never prosecuted for extortion.

Instead, he was appointed to the New York State Commission for Public Ethics (the now-disbanded "Moreland Commission"), and is currently listed as the President of the National District Attorneys' Association.

Look at how the extorting DA Fitzpatrick talks about morals and ethics.  It is truly sickening.

Apparently, NDAA is happy to acknowledge that William Fitzpatrick is representing the FACE of ALL of prosecutors in the United States.

Look at the face of the "hero".

A very self-righteous guy, isn't he?

And extremely ethical.

As to my separate blog about yet another unethical pick-for-President (a recent one) by the National District Attorneys' Association - stay tuned.

Pennsylvania overturns a $1M sanction against an attorney because of wrong jury instruction and criticizes opposing counsel for personal venom

A Pennsylvania court has overturned a ONE MILLION dollar sanction against an attorney imposed in a civil case where the attorney's witness gave testimony on the subject that the trial judge claimed was precluded.

Not only the amount was staggering, but, as the appellate court found:

• the jury instruction on the subject was not clear as to whether the testimony was precluded; and
• it is generally unfair to sanction an attorney for actions of a third party that is not within the attorney's control.

It is interesting that the appellate court specifically criticized conduct of the attorney's opposing counsel who tried to bury her deeper throughout the ordeal.

"Each time plaintiff's counsel brought the contempt issue before the court, they presumed what they were initially required to prove and presented their conclusions with transparent venom, bloom, innuendo and increased outrage, refreshed periodically with personal attacks on Ms. Raynor," said the opinion, written by Superior Court President Judge Susan Gantman.

It is very clear that courts should not have authority to impose monetary fines upon attorneys, and especially fines of such a magnitude as was imposed upon attorney Nancy Raynor.

Such sanctions, imposed as a matter of the court's "discretion" (whim) are absolutely arbitrary and can be used simply as a tool of retaliation against an attorney who the judge simply does not like.

I am glad that for attorney Raynor the ordeal is over.

But, "discretionary" sanctions against attorneys and parties, which are nearly impossible to eliminate on appeal, are still on the books and should be eliminated.

Attorney Raynor is simply lucky that the issue upon which she was appealing caused an uproar in the upper echelons of he legal establishment.

Had the fine been $10,000, she would still be saddled with it.

California Legislature is seeking to dismantle attorney regulation by attorneys. Good first step, but too small under the circumstances to help close the "justice gap".

I wrote on this blog about a super-interesting court decisions in three states, including the State of California, where courts that are also regulating attorney licensing and discipline, claimed that attorney licensing and discipline has nothing to do with effective representation - meaning that representation by an attorney suspended as a matter of discipline was not a denial of effective representation to a criminal defendant.

California belongs to the majority of states with "organized bars", meaning that a non-profit corporation, a bar association, is acting as a government agency prosecuting attorney misconduct.

In February of 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that occupational licensing and discipline by members of the regulated profession without neutral state supervision is in violation of federal antitrust laws and stripped antitrust immunity from regulators.

After that, state bars did nothing to comply with that decision, give consumers more authority in the regulation of the legal profession which is done allegedly for consumers' benefit, nor did legislatures enact laws which would ensure neutral state supervision over occupational regulation in general and over attorney regulation in particular.

Last month, I wrote about how California State Bar and judiciary, in obvious collusion, were fighting against the former insider of the California State Bar and now whistleblower Joseph Dunn. 

The California Legislature responded to the corruption games in the California State Bar by a yet-unprecedented move suspending the CalBar's  authority to collect annual membership fees (allegedly used to prosecute attorney discipline).

It appears that the California Legislature is reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC in seeking "deunification" of the "organized bar" of the State of California, seeking to remove regulatory authority over attorney licensing and discipline from the California Bar Association, attorneys' special interest group.

The next logical step would be removal of yet another special-interest group, the American Bar Association, from controlling attorney licensing through certification of law schools where an attorney can only be licensed to practice law in a given state if he graduated from an "ABA-certified" law school.

Talking about special interests.

But, let's come back to where this article has started.

When 

• attorney discipline was ruled - by the California top court - as having nothing to do with effective representation,
• when all states at this time are violating federal civil and criminal antitrust laws in occupational regulation, including attorney regulation, by their non-compliance with the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court precedent;
• when what constitutes the practice of law is not clearly defined, and when the U.S. Federal Trade Commission AND the U.S. Department of Justice distinguish between legal services (by licensed attorneys AND unlicensed providers) and the practice of law, and
• when FTC and DOJ acknowledges that attorney regulation should be loosened up to deal with the "justice gap" - obviously admitting that the justice gap has been caused by attorney regulation -

WHY would the State Legislatures proceed in deregulating by mini-steps instead of ordering a Commission consisting of CONSUMERS ONLY, who have nothing to do with the legal profession, to verify whether attorney regulation as a measure of consumer protection is evidence-based and warranted?

Why not?

Under these circumstances?

Too much money paid by lobbyists to prevent that?

On adherence to "5-lawyer majority opinions" and the use of AEDPA in the State of Alabama - and in other states

An Alabama judge filed a lawsuit because he is upset.

He is upset for being investigated by disciplinary authorities for disobeying the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court precedent that legitimized same-sex marriage throughout the United States.

The judge calls that precedent a "5-lawyer majority decision".

And, apparently, thinks that such a "5-lawyer majority decision" cannot be binding law upon the judge when such a majority decision clashes with the judge's personal, including religious, views on homosexuality and marriage.

The interesting point in Judge Parker's opposition to "5-lawyer majority decisions" is that Judge Parker is a former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Alabama who regularly sought the death penalty for criminal defendants, according to his own biography on the court's website.

And, as the Assistant AG, Judge Parker had to regularly oppose death penalty appeals and habeas corpuses where defendants routinely raised the issue that the death penalty is unconstitutional.

And, I am sure that Assistant AG Parker argued that there is no "5-lawyer majority opinion" proclaiming that the death penalty is unconstitutional, and therefore, the defendants must be executed.

But, when a "5-lawyer majority opinion" is now being used against Judge Parker, with a potential to bite him in the butt, then Judge Parker got on the white horse and is claiming that U.S. Supreme Court decisions are just a "5-lawyer majority opinion" nonsense.

Judge Parker's yoyo arguments in the death penalty cases and in his own case prove only one things - there is no such thing as the rule of law or independent justice when a long-time prosecutor and judge sends people to death based on authority of the same court that he rejects in his own disciplinary case.

What was good to send people to their deaths should be good to discipline a judge.

Shouldn't it?