Home     |     Search     |     Site Map     |     Links     |     Contact IJP     
  the International Justice Project
Project Overview
Execution Calendar
Foreign Nationals
Mental Retardation
Mental Illness
Brief Bank, General Resources & Statistics
Training & Events
Externships
 
 



Printer Friendly Version

Federal News Articles

Puerto Rico

Hector Acosta Martinez and Joel Rivera Alejandro were accused of kidnapping, murdering and dismembering a grocery store owner. Although Puerto Rico statutorily prohibits the death penalty, the DOJ brought capital charges against the pair. On August 1, 2003, both men were acquitted of all charges. Puerto Rican authorities are currently deciding whether to file charge charges on the two men.

  • August 15, 2003 - Puerto Rican prosecutors weigh retrial
  • August 11, 2003 - Death-penalty cases in Puerto Rico get stay of execution
  • August 1, 2003 - Acquittal in Puerto Rico averts fight over death penalty
  • July 24, 2003 - Ashcroft imposes death penalty in Puerto Rico---Demanding death across the board
  • July 20, 2003 - Facing a Jury of (Some of) One's Peers
  • July 17, 2003 - Puerto Ricans Angry That U.S. Overrode Death Penalty Ban
  • July 13, 2003 - Death-penalty debate goes to heart of Puerto Rico's status
  • June 13, 2003 - Puerto Ricans Accuse U.S. of Imposing Capital Punishment

Massachusetts

In 200l, Gary Sampson admitted, he killed 3 people over 6 days in New Hampshire and Massachusetts before turning himself in. Sampson is currently on trial in federal court.

Federal prosecutors in Boston have asked US Attorney General John D. Ashcroft to consider filing a death penalty charge against Charles Jaynes, one of two men convicted in the 1997 kidnapping and murder of 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley.

  • September 23, 2003 - US mulls seeking death of convict----Reviews life term in Curley murder

Wisconsin

Malkit Singh and Ekabal Busara are facing death penalty charges in the federal courthouse in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The two men are accused of kidnapping and killing a businessman after a deal turned sour.

  • August 11, 2003 - Kidnapping suspects could face death penalty
  • July 31, 2003 - Federal charges bring chance for death penalty in kidnappings

Iowa

Three men face death penalty charges in the federal courthouse in Des Moines, Iowa. Juan Fernando Licea-Cedillo, 26, Rogelio Hernandez Ramos, 38, and Guillermo Madrigal Ballisteros, 45, are charged with conspiring to smuggle the immigrants into the United States. The men face capital charges in connection with the death of 11 Mexican immigrants.

Michigan

On August 15, 2003, a Michigan federal jury refused to impose the death penalty on John Bass. Bass was accused of having his brother’s murder arranged, and also murdering his brother’s killer. The government alleged gang activity in the charges.

Minnesota

Richard Oslund has been indicted in the 1998 killing of armored car guard Billy Strelow outside the Bloomington Target store. If sentenced to death this would be the first execution for Minnesota in over a century.

Judge rejects Sampson's bid to throw out death penalty

The federal judge who is slated to sentence convicted spree killer Gary Sampson to death said Monday that he believes Sampson was mentally ill, but that there was enough other evidence to warrant the death sentence.

A jury last month made Sampson, 44, the first person in decades to receive a death sentence in Massachusetts. He pleaded guilty to killing 19-year-old Jonathan Rizzo and 69-year-old Philip McCloskey during the same week in July 2001.

Speaking at a motion hearing in advance of Thursday's formal sentencing, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf said he disagreed with the jury's finding that Sampson was not mentally ill.

The judge said if it had been up to him, he would have found that Sampson had evidence of bipolar disorder - the main impairment cited by experts called by Sampson's defense during his sentencing trial.

But Wolf added that even if the jury had found Sampson to be mentally ill, it would not have been enough to affect the jury's decision to sentence Sampson to death.

Wolf's remarks angered the father of Rizzo, a college student from Kingston who was carjacked, tied to a tree, and repeatedly stabbed by Sampson.

"It sort of undermines the jury," Rizzo said. "It's curious to me that he would choose to do that. ... I don't know what the relevancy is. Who really cares about what his opinion is at this point?"

At Monday's hearing, Wolf firmly rejected bids by Sampson's attorneys to grant him a new sentencing trial and to declare the federal death penalty unconstitutional.

Sampson's attorneys asked for a new sentencing trial based on remarks made by jurors after they sentenced Sampson to death last month. One juror, Wendy Putnam, was quoted widely saying the jury rejected Sampson's claim of mental illness because there was testimony that he knew right from wrong.

Jurors were asked to decide on a series of mitigating factors related to Sampson's mental state, including whether they believed Sampson was mentally ill now or at the time of the slayings, whether his capacity to conform his conduct to the law was significantly impaired, whether he was suffering from a severe mental or emotional disturbance and whether he has a brain dysfunction.

All 12 jurors answered "no" to each question.

Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA, said jurors evaluate mental health evidence not as experts, but as laypeople.

"They are not supposed to be doctors. They are simply supposed to evaluate the defendant from the standpoint of a peer," Martinek said.

The judge also rejected a renewed request by the defense to declare the federal death penalty unconstitutional.

Associated Press

Judge views Sampson as mentally ill

The judge who presided over the federal death penalty trial of Gary Lee Sampson said yesterday that he believed that the convicted murderer was mentally ill, disputing a key finding of the jury, but that there was enough evidence to justify the jury's death sentence.

Although the statement by US District Judge Mark L. Wolf in court yesterday didn't challenge the overall verdict, it was an unusual expression of disagreement with a key jury finding, and it angered some family members who heard it.

"It sort of undermined the jury," said Michael Rizzo, whose 19-year-old son, Jonathan, was killed by Sampson after he offered Sampson a ride.

During the 3-hour hearing yesterday in US District Court in Boston, Wolf upheld the death penalty verdict against Sampson, whom Wolf will formally sentence to death on Thursday. The jury voted unanimously Dec. 23 to execute Sampson after finding that there were more aggravating than mitigating factors in Sampson's conduct, in particular that the murders were especially cruel and heinous.

Sampson's attorneys had made his mental state a centerpiece of their defense, arguing that he could not tell right from wrong and that once he began the series of killings he was no longer in control of his actions.

Jurors did not accept that argument. "We would have gladly found that he was mentally ill, if we felt the proof was there," jury forewoman Mary E. Dever told the Globe the day the verdict was returned. "We all looked for it. It just wasn't there."

Even if the jury had found that Sampson was mentally ill when he committed 3 murders in July 2001, Wolf said, there were ample aggravating factors to justify the death penalty for Sampson.

But, he said, he believed that he would have weighed the evidence about Sampson's mental state differently than the jury did. "If it had been up to me, I probably would have found that Mr. Sampson had at least a mental illness, bipolar disorder," Wolf said.

Legal specialists said it was extremely rare for a trial judge to publicly disagree with a jury while allowing its verdict to stand.

"Any time a judge is disagreeing with some part of a jury verdict he is leaving in place . . . he is in some way trying to cast some shadow on the jury's decision," said Bill Stuntz, a professor at Harvard Law School. At Sampson's sentencing, at least three relatives of Sampson's victims will speak: Rizzo and Jonathan's mother Mary, as well as Scott McCloskey, son of murder victim Philip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton.

Yesterday, Rizzo said he was upset by many of the defense motions and the judge's handling of procedure, including his statement about Sampson's mental illness. "What's the relevancy?" Rizzo said. "Who really cares what his opinion is at this point?"

The victims' families chafed during the defense's legal arguments during the penalty trial and were especially angered when Wolf ordered them to move out of the jury's line of view.

Sampson's defense lawyers had asked Wolf to overturn the jury's death verdict on several grounds or to grant a new penalty phase trial. Failing that, they asked him to declare the federal death penalty act unconstitutional, as they had argued unsuccessfully before the penalty trial began.

Wolf denied all the defense motions yesterday, and said his own views of Sampson's mental illness didn't rise to the level where he would overturn any part of the the verdict.

It is probable that Sampson's defense team will appeal the death sentence, but it's uncertain whether Wolf's comments will be a factor.

"Saying that a verdict is wrong but you're going to let it stand is the kind of thing that might attract the attention of an appellate court," Stuntz said. "The obvious reason for a judge to say something like that is if he wants the appellate court to pay attention. Why else do you say that?"

But Martin G. Weinberg, a Boston lawyer and past director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, praised Wolf's handling of the case, the 1st in Massachusetts to yield a death sentence in decades. "He didn't say the jury was irrational in its verdict," Weinberg said. "He disclosed his candid views over a subject he's agonized about over months of intensive litigation."

If Wolf believed that prosecutors had not presented enough evidence to prove that Sampson was mentally aware during his killing spree, he could have dismissed that particular finding by the jury, which he did not. But even if he had, that alone would not have undone the death verdict.

By letting the jury's vote on Sampson's mental state stand, Weinberg said, Wolf was acknowledging that there was ample evidence to let the jury make its own decision about Sampson's mental state, even if he would have decided another way.

"It's quite consistent with a sense of judicial restraint for him to believe one thing but feel there's nowhere in the system for him to superimpose his belief on the jury's decision," Weinberg said.

Boston Globe

Killer gets rare death penalty in Massachusetts

A drifter who confessed to carjacking and killing 3 Massachusetts men during a weeklong crime spree was sentenced to death today by a federal jury. If the sentence is carried out, he would be the 1st person executed in a Massachusetts case in more than a half-century.

Gary Sampson, 44, received a death sentence for the murder of Philip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton. The jury had not immediately announced its verdict in the carjacking murder of Jonathan Rizzo, 19, of Kingston.

Sampson pleaded guilty in September to killing McCloskey and Rizzo several days apart in July 2001, after each man picked him up hitchhiking.

Massachusetts last executed someone in 1947 under the state death penalty in effect at the time. The state abolished capital punishment in 1984.

It was only the 2nd case in modern times in which federal prosecutors have sought the death penalty in Massachusetts. Veterans Affairs nurse Kristen Gilbert, who was convicted in 2001 for killing 4 patients, was sentenced to life.

Prosecutors pursued the case against Sampson in federal court under a federal law allowing the death penalty when a murder is committed during a carjacking.

Because Sampson pleaded guilty, the jury was never asked to decide whether he killed McCloskey and Rizzo. But the jury deciding his fate heard the murders described in graphic detail during the sentencing phase of the trial.

Prosecutors portrayed Sampson as a ruthless, calculating killer who preyed on Good Samaritans.

Associated Press

Judge issues 3 hours worth of instructions

The life or death decision facing federal jurors in the Gary Lee Sampson capital murder trial may sound simple, but getting there will take a long road.

Jurors began deliberating Sampson's punishment for the murders of Philip McCloskey and Jonathan Rizzo on Friday, but not before taking in more than 3 hours of complicated instructions from Judge Mark Wolf.

The verdict forms for each murder charge alone are 14 pages long and include more than 30 questions of fact the jurors must answer before even starting to weigh Sampson's penalty.

In the end, a single juror can spare the defendant from death by lethal injection, using evidence that the judge, the prosecutors and the defense never even considered.

The forms, called "road maps" to a verdict by the judge, include a multitude of aggravating and mitigating factors that jurors must consider under the Federal Death Penalty Act.

For starters, in each case jurors must reach the threshold decision that Sampson intended to kill his victims and at least 1 of 2 statutory aggravating factors for each murder.

Federal prosecutors have alleged that both murders were especially heinous, cruel or depraved because of the serious injuries inflicted on the stabbing victims. Prosecutors further allege that McCloskey, a 69-year-old Taunton retiree with heart problems, was especially vulnerable because of his medical problems. Prosecutors allege that the murder of Rizzo, a 19-year-old college student from Kingston, was planned and premeditated.

Jurors must find at least 1 of these factors to be true for deliberations to proceed.

Jurors could then consider 7 other aggravating factors. Among them are allegations that Sampson robbed banks at gunpoint in North Carolina before the murders and killed a 3rd man in New Hampshire afterward. Prosecutors allege that Sampson also carjacked another man in Vermont before surrendering.

Prosecutors also allege that Sampson's history of bad behavior in prison make him a continuing threat if sentenced to life.

Aggravating factors must be found unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. A lesser standard applies to mitigating factors that might spare the defendant from death.

Jurors can individually find that some mitigating factors apply to Sampson and need only determine that the scales tip even slightly in his favor, or by a preponderance of the evidence.

The defense has raised 17 separate mitigating factors and a handful of them are undisputed.

Both sides concede, for instance, that Sampson called police after his last murder and surrendered in Vermont. They also agree that Sampson offered to plead guilty and accept a life sentence well before the government decided to seek the death penalty and later pleaded guilty anyway.

Both sides have also stipulated that Sampson called the FBI to surrender on bank robbery charges before any of the murders.

Another handful of mitigating factors focus on Sampson's mental state at the time of the murders and even now. All of them are in dispute, as are defense claims that Sampson accepts responsibility and is remorseful.

The jury must determine each murder count separately and can raise mitigating factors of their own that were not presented by the defense.

The jurors must ultimately weigh the aggravating factors they find against the mitigating factors they find and can decide individually how much weight to give each.

They must return 1 of 3 verdicts for each crime - unanimous for death, unanimous for life or, after "due deliberation," an inability to reach a unanimous decision, which would automatically result in a sentence of life in prison.

The Colony Memorial

An enraged Sampson confronted US marshals, court is told

Admitted killer Gary Lee Sampson tried to rush out of his cell and threatened to kill a deputy marshal last week when he was taken to the federal courthouse in Boston, it was disclosed yesterday in court.

Dr. Angela Hegarty, a forensic neuropsychiatrist testifying as a defense witness at Sampson's federal death penalty trial, said Sampson became "threatening, hostile, and belligerent" on Dec. 1 when federal marshals transported him from the Essex County Jail in Middleton to the courthouse over his objections.

Jurors, who will decide whether Sampson will be executed or sentenced to life in prison for carjacking and killing two men in July 2001, had been given Dec. 1 off but defense lawyers and prosecutors appeared before US District Judge Mark L. Wolf for a hearing.

"He knew there wasn't going to be any court," Hegarty testified yesterday. "He became very, very angry and began screaming and calling the marshals' names."

After some 5 marshals put Sampson in a cell at the courthouse, "they were closing the door when he rushed at them," Hegarty said.

"Did he threaten to kill one of the marshals?" asked David A. Ruhnke, a Sampson lawyer.

"I wouldn't be surprised if he had," said Hegarty.

Hegarty, who testified that earlier this year she diagnosed Sampson as suffering from bipolar disorder, said he has been taking a mood-stabilizing drug since September but "it is not a magic bullet."

Sampson, 44, a drifter who grew up in Abington, confessed in September to carjacking and killing Philip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton, and Jonathan Rizzo, 19, of Kingston, when they picked him up hitchhiking on the South Shore on separate days in July 2001. He faces additional charges in New Hampshire in the slaying of Robert "Eli" Whitney, 59, of Penacook, N.H., during the same week.

Prosecutors argue that Sampson should be executed because the crimes were especially heinous and cruel and he is likely to kill or seriously injure a guard or another inmate if sentenced to prison. Defense lawyers are trying to persuade jurors that Sampson's life should be spared because he's mentally ill and tried to surrender before the slayings.

Boston Globe

Doctor says killer couldn't stop himself----Sampson defense calls

Gary Lee Sampson knew right from wrong when he killed 3 strangers during a weeklong crime spree, but he couldn't stop, according to a forensic neuropsychiatrist who testified yesterday at Sampson's federal death penalty trial.

"He knew what he was doing was wrong, but he lacked the capacity to stop himself," said Dr. Angela Hegarty, the director of forensic psychiatry at the Creedmore Psychiatric Center in New York. "He lacked the capacity to do what he knew was right."

Called by the defense in a bid to convince jurors that Sampson's life should be spared, Hegarty testified that she diagnosed Sampson as suffering from a borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder, which means his moods aren't regulated and he has both manic and depressive episodes. Sampson started taking medication in September to treat his bipolar disorder, she said.

After conducting 21 jailhouse interviews with Sampson this year and reviewing case records, Hegarty said she concluded that Sampson's "capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was significantly impaired."

US District Judge Mark L. Wolf cautioned jurors that Sampson isn't claiming he was insane when he killed his victims. But, he said, if jurors conclude that Sampson's ability to follow the law was significantly impaired, then they may consider that as a factor when deciding his fate.

Sampson, 44, a drifter who grew up in Abington, pleaded guilty in September to carjacking and killing Philip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton, and Jonathan Rizzo, 19, of Kingston, after they picked him up hitchhiking on separate days in July 2001. He's facing additional charges in New Hampshire for the slaying of Robert "Eli" Whitney, 59, of Penacook, N.H., during the same week.

Jurors will decide whether Sampson should be executed for the slayings of McCloskey and Rizzo or sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Hegarty told jurors that Sampson was aware of the pain he's caused and now has "huge problems with nightmares."

Disgusted by the testimony, Rizzo's father, Michael, said, "We have nightmares. My wife hasn't slept in two years. The last time she slept somebody stole her son. He has no idea the pain he's inflicted on the families."

McCloskey's son, Kevin, called the testimony about Sampson's inability to stop himself from killing "ridiculous."

Michael Rizzo said it was "illogical" to conclude Sampson had no control over his actions. "I don't buy it as enough of a reason to kill 3 people." In response to questions from a Sampson attorney, David A. Ruhnke, Hegarty told jurors that Sampson suffered mood swings, restlessness, and impulsivity, and had a pattern of unstable relationships with family and friends.

While in one of his grandiose moods, Sampson saw himself as a James Bond or Robin Hood figure, yet at other times described himself as a loser, Hegarty said. One time, she said, he boasted he was going "to beat the death penalty." After robbing 5 banks in North Carolina between May and July 2001, Sampson fled to Massachusetts. On July 23, 2001, he called the FBI's Boston office from a pay telephone in Abington, offering to surrender, but the call was disconnected and agents never showed up, according to evidence.

Hegarty testified that Sampson's "fantasy" was that the FBI would arrive by helicopter within minutes to make a dramatic arrest and "he felt an increasing loss of control when he realized they weren't coming."

Boston Globe

Defense witness says Sampson was hardworking, amicable

In the months before Gary Lee Sampson carjacked and killed 2 people, he was living in a North Carolina motel room with a succession of girlfriends and seemed polite and hardworking until he started drinking and using drugs, according to testimony yesterday at his federal death penalty trial.

Called as a defense witness to tell jurors about his brief friendship with Sampson, Billy Houston Roberts Jr., who owns the Royal Eight Motel in Thomasville, N.C., testified that he met Sampson when he checked into the motel on Aug. 11, 2000. Within a few weeks, Sampson and a motel housekeeper, Kay Epley, moved into an apartment unit at the motel and lived together for 8 months, he said.

"When he'd come home from work, occasionally he would bring her flowers . . . . they would hold hands and they'd walk around the property," said Roberts, in response to questions from defense attorney David A. Ruhnke. He described Sampson as a "loner," but also said Sampson was polite and friendly.

Yet, while Roberts portrayed Sampson as a person capable of making friends, he undercut the defense's effort to persuade jurors Sampson is mentally ill.

During cross-examination, Assistant US Attorney Frank M. Gaziano asked, "You certainly didn't consider him mentally ill?"

"Oh, no," said Roberts, who told jurors that Sampson sometimes became "agitated" when he wasn't working or making enough money and started drinking heavily and using drugs.

Sampson pleaded guilty in September to carjacking and killing Philip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton, and Jonathan Rizzo, 19, of Kingston, after they picked him up hitchhiking on the South Shore on separate days in July 2001. He faces additional charges in New Hampshire for the slaying of Robert "Eli" Whitney, 59, of Penacook, N.H., during the same week- long crime spree.

The jury, which has heard 12 days of testimony in US District Court in Boston and will return on Monday to hear more evidence, will decide whether Sampson should be executed or sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Roberts was the 1st witness to testify who had been a friend of Sampson's. The admitted killer is estranged from his family.

Roberts told jurors that when Sampson lost his job in North Carolina with a local landscaper he let Sampson earn his rent by doing carpentry, roofing, and other repair jobs around the motel and at his home. He told jurors that Sampson "was reliable and conscientious."

Sampson and Epley split up in April 2001 and Sampson moved out of the motel, only to move back in five days later with a new girlfriend after asking Roberts if it was all right. Roberts testified that Epley confided to him that she broke off her relationship with Sampson because "she was uncomfortable because he talked to her about robbing banks."

Sampson checked out of the motel for the last time on May 11, 2001, before allegedly robbing five banks in North Carolina over the next 2 months. He later took a bus to Abington, where he had grown up.

On July 24, 2001, Sampson was hitchhiking in Weymouth when he forced McCloskey at knifepoint to drive him to Marshfield, where he led him into the woods, tied him up, and stabbed him 24 times. 3 days later, Sampson forced Rizzo at knifepoint to drive him from Plymouth to Abington, where he tied him to a tree in the woods and stabbed him 15 times.

In an effort to refute the prosecution's claim that Sampson should be executed because he is likely to kill or seriously injure guards or other inmates if sent to prison for life, defense lawyers yesterday called a forensic psychologist to testify about security measures at federal prisons.

Mark D. Cunningham, who has doctorate in psychology and has conducted research on federal prisons, testified that it's "extremely rare" for federal correctional officers to be killed in federal prisons, with four officers being slain in the past 20 years.

While inmate assaults are more common, Cunningham testified that only about 7 % of inmates were involved in assaults on inmates or guards between October 2002 and September 2003. 2 inmates were murdered during that period, he said.

But when prosecutors challenged Cunningham's analysis of federal prison statistics, he speculated that as many as 20 to 25 % of federal inmates have assaulted other inmates or guards over the past 10 years.

To demonstrate how prison officials may subdue unruly inmates, the defense showed jurors a videotape of a 10-member team of guards, dressed in riot-type gear, storming an inmate at the federal penitentiary at Allenwood, Pa., in April 2001.

Boston Globe

Sampson pleaded for help, court told

He was the black sheep of his family and suffered from a torturedchildhood and years of alcohol abuse, but Gary Lee Sampson was ready toget help for his problems and believed his weekly sessions with a prisoncounselor had turned him around.

That's what Sampson told a counselor at the New Hampshire state prison inConcord during their weekly counseling sessions in 1991 and 1992, writingto her, "I got a lot inside that hurt me and confused me. . . . I needhelp and I'm ready for it."

Testifying for the defense yesterday at Sampson's federal death penaltytrial in US District Court in Boston, the counselor, Tina Withington, saidSampson was frequently seeking help for mental health and substance abuseissues in the early 1990s, when he was serving time for theft andburglary, and she believed he was on the road to recovery.

Under cross-examination, Withington admitted that she had helped Sampsonget paroled in 1992 by testifying on his behalf that he had come a greatdistance through counseling and was genuinely trying to deal with hisproblems so he wasn't likely to commit another crime.

"Do you feel Sampson manipulated you during your counseling sessions?"asked Assistant US Attorney George Vien.

"I don't feel I was manipulated," Withington responded.

Yesterday marked the second day that evidence focusing on Sampson's mentalhealth and childhood issues was presented by the defense in a bid topersuade jurors to spare his life.

Sampson, 44, who grew up in Abington, pleaded guilty in September tocarjacking and killing Philip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton, and JonathanRizzo, 19, of Kingston, after they picked him up while he was hitchhikingon separate days in July 2001. Sampson faces state charges in NewHampshire in the slaying of a third man, Robert "Eli" Whitney, 59, ofPenacook, N.H., during the same weeklong crime spree.

The jury will decide whether Sampson should be executed or sentenced tolife in prison, without parole.

Defense lawyers presented evidence yesterday that Sampson wrote persistentand demanding letters to correction officials during the nearly 17 yearshe spent in prison prior to the killings, pleading for help. Sometimes itwas a request to participate in a drug or alcohol treatment program, or toseek help for chronic headaches and insomnia.

While the defense team elicited testimony from prison officials that theletters were a cry from a mentally ill Sampson, prosecutors got witnessesto admit that the letters sometimes coincided with Sampson's effort to beparoled and may have been an attempt to manipulate the system.

And while prison officials testified that Sampson suffered mood swings andsometimes was depressed, they also said that he was never referred topsychiatric units within the prison system.

Wayne Brock, who counseled Sampson while working in the mental health unitof the New Hampshire state prison in Concord in the 1980s, testified thatSampson was prescribed drugs after complaining of severe headaches. Healso acknowledged that there were reports that Sampson was buying andselling drugs, and that officials were concerned about inmates using drugsas "currency" with other inmates.

Joan Katz, a forensic social worker hired by the defense to interviewSampson in the fall of 2001 after his arrest for the murders, testifiedthat Sampson told her he had a "negative and tormented relationship" withhis brother; was beaten and berated by his father; and became a"crackhead" and alcoholic.

Sampson confided that he was "rather fearful" as a child and thought therewas "some kind of monster" hiding in the stained-glass windows at hisAbington home, said Katz. "This thing was there and it scared him."

It was a story that resonated with the Rizzo and McCloskey families, whohave attended the trial every day. Jonathan Rizzo's mother, Mary, refersto Sampson, not by name, but as "the monster."

Boston Globe

Killer's parents severed all ties to son

Gary Lee Sampson's parents repeatedly gave him shelter after his prison stints, but refused to help him fight execution and cut all ties when he killed 3 men, jurors were told yesterday.

Sampson's defense began its case for mercy yesterday by showing a letter he sent from prison April 9, 2002, begging Charlotte and Elbert

"Herc" Sampson to visit him and talk to his lawyers. The letter was returned unopened with "REFUSED" written in red ink across the front.

"I have done some terrible things and I know I have brought you great shame. I'm sorry,'' Sampson wrote. ``I am guilty of hurting innocent people and I am ready to spend the rest of my life in prison. I do love you both very much."

Sampson has confessed to the 2001 carjacking murders of Philip McCloskey, 69, and Jonathan Rizzo, 19, in Massachusetts, and the New Hampshire killing of Robert "Eli" Whitney.

Social worker Jill Miller who studied Sampson's family and social history testified yesterday his life began to unravel with use of drugs and alcohol at age 12. Sampson, 44, claims his father, who died last year, punished him with beatings and verbal abuse, calling him "retarded" and "evil" as a boy.

He was diagnosed at age 7 as dyslexic, but was deemed too smart for special education. He dropped out of school after the 9th grade and began his criminal career at age 15, Miller said.

Sampson married for the 1st time at 17 and has been married 5 times. He fathered 3 children.

Under cross-examination, Miller admitted Sampson now has a new girlfriend and plans to marry.

A 1977 Bridgewater State Hospital evaluation labeled him an "anti-social personality" with "no significant mental illness."

A 1994 New Hampshire prison evaluation found Sampson engaged in "manipulative suicide attempts" and was angry and resentful. Jurors were shown 3 sets of photos of Sampson after beatings from other inmates. He spent 16 years in prison prior to the 2001 murders.

Boston Globe

Sampson defense to make case

A judge has ruled that prosecutors have presented enough evidence aboutthe cruelty of Gary Lee Sampson's crimes to let a jury decide whether heshould be executed or sentenced to life in prison for carjacking andkilling 2 strangers who had stopped to give him a ride.

Today, defense lawyers will begin presenting evidence in US District Courtin Boston in an effort to convince jurors that Sampson's life should bespared because he's mentally ill and was abused as a child. They'll alsofocus on Sampson's offer to turn himself in to the FBI before hismurderous rampage, and his eventual surrender to police after thekillings.

"As a child, Mr. Sampson was the subject of verbal and emotional abuse andmay have been physically abused," Sampson's lawyers wrote in a courtfiling detailing 22 "mitigating" factors that they want to present tojurors. "Mr. Sampson is remorseful for his conduct."

Sampson, 44, a drifter who grew up in Abington, pleaded guilty inSeptember to federal charges of carjacking and killing Jonathan Rizzo, 19,of Kingston, and Philip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton, after the 2 men pickedhim up hitchhiking on separate days in July 2001. Sampson also faces statecharges in New Hampshire for killing Robert "Eli" Whitney, 59, ofPenacook, N.H., after breaking into a vacation home.

Anticipating the defense phase of the case, Rizzo's father, Michael, whohas been attending the trial every day with his wife, Mary, and otherrelatives, said, "I think this is going to make us more frustrated andangry to have to listen to people depict him as a good guy who had thingsgo wrong in his life."

But Rizzo said he was pleased that the judge had agreed to let the jurydecide Sampson's fate.

In a series of rulings over the past week, US District Judge Mark L. Wolfrejected defense arguments that the government had failed to presentenough evidence to let jurors even consider whether Sampson was eligiblefor the death penalty.

Yesterday, the judge ruled that jurors may consider whether Sampson wouldpose a danger in prison if sentenced to life, based on evidence that hetried to escape from a state prison in 1988, has made threats to prisonguards since his arrest 2 years ago, and has been caught in prison withhand-fashioned weapons.

The judge ruled that jurors also may decide whether Sampson's crimes wereso heinous, cruel, and depraved that he should be executed.

Wolf also ruled that jurors may conclude, but aren't required to, thatprosecutors proved additional aggravating factors, including: that Rizzo'smurder was premeditated; that McCloskey was particularly vulnerablebecause of failing health; and that Sampson killed both Rizzo andMcCloskey primarily so they wouldn't be witnesses against him.

However, Wolf refused a request by prosecutors to take jurors to view thecrime scenes in Marshfield and Abington, where Sampson killed McCloskeyand Rizzo.

Even if Sampson does not testify, a series of lengthy confessions he gaveto police after his arrest on July 31, 2001 have provided some of the mostpowerful evidence in the case.

"I killed two people in Massachusetts . . . for vehicles," Sampson told aVermont State Police trooper after calling 911 and surrendering.

"It's sick. That's why I called."

In a matter-of-fact tone, Sampson provided graphic details of the murders,describing how McCloskey picked him up hitchhiking in Weymouth on July 24,2001 and he forced him at knifepoint to drive to a secluded area inMarshfield. After leading the retired gas company worker deep into thewoods, Sampson tied him up and stabbed him 24 times.

Sampson also confessed that three days later, he forced Rizzo, a collegesophomore, to drive him from Plymouth to Abington, where he led Rizzo intothe woods, tied him to a tree, and stabbed him 15 times.

After stealing Rizzo's Volkswagen Jetta, Sampson drove to Meredith, N.H.,where he broke into a home on Lake Winnipesaukee and strangled Whitneywhen he arrived to mow the lawn.

In a taped confession played for the jury, Vermont State Police LieutenantRay Keefe said to Sampson, "None of your victims did anything to you?"

Sampson answered, "No."

Keefe said, "Nobody provoked you . . . they're senseless, vicious murders,right?"

Sampson said, "I'm a [expletive] piece of [expletive]. Simple as that.I've got something wrong with me and I had to do something about it."

Boston Globe

Family Members Describe Pain of Murders in Sampson Death Penalty Trial

Prosecutors rested their case Thursday in Gary Sampson's federal death penalty trial, but not before the jury heard emotional statements from family members of Sampson's victims.

Some jurors appeared to be fighting back tears as Mary Rizzo described how her 19-year-old son, Jonathan, called her from college 4 or 5 times a week and every time he saw a rainbow.

When she told them about how she missed a chance to give him one last hug, some jurors openly wept.

Rizzo's emotional testimony came as prosecutors wrapped up their case against Sampson, a drifter who has pleaded guilty to killing Rizzo and 69-year-old Philip McCloskey days apart during a weeklong killing spree in July 2001.

The jury will decide whether Sampson should be sentenced to life in prison or executed. Sampson faces separate state charges in New Hampshire in a 3rd murder he has confessed to committing the same week.

Jurors heard from a half dozen family members of Rizzo and McCloskey during "victim impact" testimony.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf warned the jury against allowing the emotional testimony to unduly influence their decision about whether Sampson should receive the death penalty.

"You may not base the decision on undue sympathy and prejudice," Wolf said.

Three of McCloskey's adult children described his love of family, his devotion to his autistic son, and health problems he developed after he retired several years before he was murdered.

"He was always saying how important family is. He regretted not having a lot of time when we were growing up," said Charlene McCloskey, 30, the 2nd-youngest of McCloskey's 6 children.

Sampson showed no visible emotion and looked down at the defense table during much of the testimony.

The jury will begin hearing the defense case on Dec. 2, after a weeklong Thanksgiving break.

Massachusetts does not have a state death penalty statute, so prosecutors charged him under a federal law that allows the death penalty when a murder is committed during a carjacking. Sampson has admitted carjacking Rizzo and McCloskey.

(source: Associated Press) - November 20, 2003

Witness Says Sampson Tried Prison Escape----Prosecutors Push Case for Execution

In a bid to convince jurors that admitted killer Gary Lee Sampson shouldbe executed because he'd remain a danger if sentenced to life in prison,federal prosecutors yesterday called as a witness a former guard who saidSampson tried to escape from a New Hampshire prison in 1988 by cuttingthrough an air duct and crawling toward freedom.

The retired guard, Frederick Brosseau, said prison authorities were warnedof the plot and that he was waiting with a shotgun when Sampson -- whocould be heard chipping cement -- emerged from the ventilation system intoan empty cell block being renovated.

"The only thing between him and the outside world was me," Brosseautestified in US District Court in Boston. He said that Sampson, who wasserving time for theft, apparently had discovered that a section of prisonwall had been torn down as part of the renovation project and couldprovide a way out.

2 other prison guards testified yesterday that Sampson was caught with"shanks," pieces of metal that had been sharpened into weapons, in hiscell in 1992, when serving time at a New Hampshire state prison, and in1994 while in prison in Connecticut.

During cross-examination by one of Sampson's lawyers, David A. Ruhnke,both guards acknowledged that it was common for shanks or other handmadeweapons to be seized from inmates.

Sampson, 44, who grew up in Abington and spent nearly 16 years in prisonfor various crimes, pleaded guilty in September to carjacking and killingPhilip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton, and Jonathan Rizzo, 19, of Kingston,after they picked him up hitchhiking on the South Shore on separate daysin July 2001. He also faces charges in New Hampshire for the slaying ofRobert "Eli" Whitney, 59, of Penacook, N.H.

The federal jury in Boston will decide whether Sampson should be executedunder the federal death penalty statute or sentenced to life in prison.

Jurors have heard several hours of tapes, including more played yesterday,in which Sampson confessed after his arrest on July 31, 2001, to the 3slayings, another carjacking in which the motorist escaped, and 5 bankrobberies in North Carolina.

Recounting how he forced McCloskey at knifepoint to drive him toMarshfield, where he led him into the woods and tied him up, Sampson toldVermont State Police Lieutenant Ray Keefe, "He tries to fight me. I endedup stabbing him."

Sampson said he stabbed McCloskey in the back first, then repeatedly abouthis body. "He says, `Ah, I'm dying,' and then I slit his throat . . .,"Sampson said.

Later, Sampson told Keefe that the killing of McCloskey on July 24, 2001,and Rizzo three days later were both premeditated so he could steal theircars. He admitted forcing Rizzo to drive to Abington, where he led theteenager into the woods, tied him to a tree, slit his throat, and stabbedhim.

Sampson said he drove to North Conway, N.H., in Rizzo's blue VolkswagenJetta to look for Sampson's family, only to discover they all had movedaway.

He said he encountered women along the way, but would never hurt a woman"because of my mother, that's why . . . I love my mother."

Sampson said his father "used to beat the [expletive] out of me. But Ilove him, too."

Sampson said he also went to his former wife's home in Madison, N.H., totry to find his 3-year-old son, but they weren't home, either.

Sampson said he quickly left because he feared his former father-in-lawwould call the police.

"I needed to see my kid before I ended up where I am now, or dead,"Sampson said. "And I wish I was dead for what I've done. But, I won't takemy own life. Somebody else is gonna have to do that. And there will betime for that in prison, no doubt."

(source: Boston Globe) - November 20, 2003

Judge rules Sampson death penalty case can proceed

A judge ruled Monday that the federal death penalty case against confessed killer Gary Sampson can move forward because prosecutors have presented enough evidence to support their claim that the killings were especially heinous, cruel and depraved.

Sampson, a drifter who grew up in Abington, has pleaded guilty to killing Philip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton, and Jonathan Rizzo, 19, of Kingston, during a weeklong crime spree in July 2001.

A jury is being asked to decide whether he should receive life in prison or be executed for his crimes.

Prosecutors wrapped up their case last week after nine days of testimony.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled Monday that the prosecution had presented enough evidence to satisfy the Federal Death Penalty Act, which requires that prosecutors show at least one so-called "aggravating" factor in the killings, as described under the law.

Wolf said the prosecution has shown that the murders of both men included serious physical abuse over and above what was needed to kill them, satisfying 1 of 2 possible definitions of especially heinous, cruel and depraved.

He cited Sampson's confession that he stabbed McCloskey 24 times and slit his throat after he said, "I'm dying." He also cited Sampson's admission that he tied Rizzo to a tree and stabbed him 15 times.

The defense is expected to begin presenting its case on Dec. 2.

Associated Press

Judge rules Sampson death penalty case can proceed

A judge ruled Monday that the federal death penalty case against confessedkiller Gary Sampson can move forward because prosecutors have presentedenough evidence to support their claim that the killings were especiallyheinous, cruel and depraved.

Sampson, a drifter who grew up in Abington, has pleaded guilty to killingPhilip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton, and Jonathan Rizzo, 19, of Kingston,during a weeklong crime spree in July 2001.

A jury is being asked to decide whether he should receive life in prisonor be executed for his crimes.

Prosecutors wrapped up their case last week after nine days of testimony.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled Monday that the prosecution hadpresented enough evidence to satisfy the Federal Death Penalty Act, whichrequires that prosecutors show at least one so-called "aggravating" factorin the killings, as described under the law.

Wolf said the prosecution has shown that the murders of both men includedserious physical abuse over and above what was needed to kill them,satisfying 1 of 2 possible definitions of especially heinous, cruel anddepraved.

He cited Sampson's confession that he stabbed McCloskey 24 times and slithis throat after he said, "I'm dying." He also cited Sampson's admissionthat he tied Rizzo to a tree and stabbed him 15 times.

The defense is expected to begin presenting its case on Dec. 2.

Associated Press

Sampson is Alleged to Have Threatened Plymouth Guards

Admitted killer Gary Lee Sampson threatened to attack guards and escape from the Plymouth jail last year after officials reduced the number of visits for inmates to one a week because of state budget cuts, according to testimony yesterday at Sampson's federal death penalty trial.

Ralph Mattivello Jr., a corrections officer at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility, where Sampson had previously been held without bail while awaiting trial, said Sampson warned him on March 26, 2002, that he was angry and might escape if he wasn't transferred to the state's maximum security prison in Walpole.

Sampson boasted that he had escaped from other places in the past, according to Mattivello, and said, "I'm a killer. If I have to slice someone I will. . . . I have a short fuse with nothing to lose."

The testimony came during the 8th day of Sampson's sentencing trial before jurors in US District Court in Boston who will decide whether he will be executed or sentenced to life in prison for carjacking and killing 2 Massachusetts men in the summer of 2001.

Sampson, 44, who grew up in Abington, pleaded guilty in September to carjacking and killing Philip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton, and Jonathan Rizzo, 19, of Kingston, on different days during a weeklong series of crimes in July 2001. He is also charged in New Hampshire with killing a 3rd man, Robert "Eli" Whitney, 59, of Penacook, during the same week.

In an effort to convince jurors that Sampson would remain a danger even in prison, prosecutors yesterday called Mattivello and several other jail guards to testify about Sampson's sometimes-menacing behavior since he surrendered to police in Vermont on July 31, 2001.

After Sampson was brought back to Massachusetts to face trial, he became confrontational immediately after arriving at the Plymouth jail on Aug. 2, 2001, according to Sean Sullivan, a booking officer who strip-searched Sampson on that day to make sure he had no weapons.

Sullivan told jurors that Sampson warned, "If anybody tries to come at me, I will take their life, too. If anybody spits at me, I will bite them in the face. So what? I'm a murderer."

Captain Anton Moniz told jurors that later that night he was escorting Sampson to a desegregation unit at the jail when Sampson told him, "You will not have any problems with me, but if an officer [expletive deleted] with me I have no problem taking his life."

During cross-examination by one of Sampson's lawyers, Stephanie Page, Moniz acknowledged that during Sampson's "honeymoon period" at the jail, guards took extra security precautions around him -- including wearing helmets with face shields and tactical jumpsuits while guarding him during his recreation time.

4 days after he arrived at the Plymouth jail, Sampson was found with a plastic spoon that had been sharpened into a knife. He said he had fashioned the weapon "to protect himself," another guard, Lieutenant Edward Bombardier, testified yesterday. As a result of that infraction, Sampson was placed in isolation for 10 days and his canteen privileges were revoked for 6 days.

Sampson's trial was delayed for 3 1/2 hours yesterday as US District Judge Mark L. Wolf privately questioned each of the 12 jurors and 6 alternates, while a defense lawyer and prosecutor were present. The judge didn't reveal publicly what prompted the interviews.

(source: Boston Globe) - November 20, 2003

Witness Says Hitchhiking Killer Seemed 'Trustworthy'---Vacationer Met Sampson at Campground

Even as Gary Lee Sampson was in the middle of a murderous crime spree, heseemed friendly while hitchhiking from Massachusetts, where he had killed2 men, to New Hampshire, where he would kill a 3rd, according to testimonyyesterday at his federal death penalty trial.

"He was very calm and mellow," John Dorion, a father of 6 from Allston,testified yesterday in US District Court in Boston. Dorion was staying ata campground in North Conway, N.H., with three of his sons when they metSampson on July 29, 2001. "He seemed like he was trustworthy."

Dorion said he and Sampson chatted for about an hour as they watcheddozens of thrill-seekers, including Dorion's 2 oldest boys, jump off a30-foot bridge into the water.

When Dorion confided that he was afraid to jump, he said Sampson, who wassipping a Budweiser, told him that "it would be okay. If anythinghappened, people would jump in, including him, to help me."

Sampson claimed to be a retired fighter pilot who was wounded duringOperation Desert Storm and told Dorion he had a job lined up with the CIA"to go overseas to the Middle East and lose his identity."

When Dorion commented that Sampson's lifestyle was better than his ownbecause he was single and could travel whenever he wanted, Sampsonexpressed regret about not being married with children and said having afamily was the best lifestyle of all, Dorion testified.

Even though Dorion acknowledged that he didn't really believe Sampson'sCIA claims, he said he trusted him enough that he would have given Sampsona ride if he'd asked him.

Sampson left but returned later, saying he didn't want to leave withoutjumping off the bridge, said Dorion. He said that Sampson dove into thewater twice, head first.

Sampson, 44, who grew up in Abington, pleaded guilty in September tocarjacking and murder charges in the slayings of Philip McCloskey, 69, ofTaunton, and Jonathan Rizzo, 19, of Kingston. He also faces charges in NewHampshire for the slaying of Robert "Eli" Whitney, 59, in Meredith, N.H.

A federal jury in Boston, which began hearing evidence last week, willdecide whether Sampson should be executed or sentenced to life in prison.

Prosecutors have argued that Sampson should be put to death because of theheinousness and cruelty of his crimes, while defense lawyers will try toconvince jurors that Sampson is mentally ill and his life should bespared.

Sampson confessed that after McCloskey picked him up hitchhiking inWeymouth on July 24, 2001, he forced him to drive to a secluded area inMarshfield, where he tied him up and stabbed him 24 times. The next day,Sampson took a taxi to Plymouth, where he spent a couple of days.

A laborer at Myles Standish State Forest in Plymouth testified yesterdaythat he called his superiors to remove Sampson from the park at closingtime on July 27, 2001. "I just felt weird about him," the worker, JosephBarrett, testified.

Barrett, 23, said he had seen Sampson disappear into the woods for severalhours after being dropped off at College Pond, located inside the park, bysomeone in a red pickup truck. Later, according to Barrett, Sampson toldhim several lies, including that he worked for the CIA.

When an Environmental Police officer arrived to escort Sampson from theforest, Barrett said, Sampson came up to him with "a sadistic smile,"snickered, and said, "I'm very glad you don't trust people."

A park ranger, Kathleen Akin, acknowledged that reports filed by otherpark officials stated that Sampson appeared to have "psychiatricproblems," but she testified, "I didn't observe any problems . . . hewasn't threatening."

After Akin's husband, an Environmental Police officer, gave Sampson a rideto the edge of the forest in his cruiser, another man, Joseph DeSisto,gave Sampson a ride "because he was hitchhiking on a very dangerous roadwith no sidewalks," DeSisto testified yesterday.

DeSisto, a muscular man who played college football, said Sampson told himthat he'd been kicked out of the park and had no money, credit cards, oridentification because he'd lost his wallet at the park.

"I felt bad for the guy," said DeSisto. Sampson told him he wanted to goto New Hampshire and so DeSisto drove him to a Plymouth bus stop. DeSistosaid he felt "inept" because Sampson appeared to be "in need" and hedidn't have any money to give him for a bus ticket.

Later that night, Sampson was hitchhiking in Plymouth when Rizzo pickedhim up. Sampson has confessed to forcing the teenager to drive toAbington, where he tied him to a tree in the woods, slashed his throat,and stabbed him repeatedly. Four days later, Sampson broke into a vacationhome in Meredith, N.H., and killed Whitney when he arrived to mow thelawn.

(source: Boston Globe) - November 13, 2003

Death Debated for a Confessed Killer---U.S. Attorneys Push for Capital Punishment in Massachusetts, a State that Bars Executions.

In a case that has fueled the debate over capital punishment in Massachusetts, federal prosecutors on Wednesday asked a jury to impose the death penalty on a 44-year-old drifter who confessed to murdering 3 good Samaritans.

Gesturing toward Gary Lee Sampson, Assistant U.S. Atty. George Vien told the jury: "This man sitting right here in the blue shirt is a cunning, manipulative, cold-blooded killer who preyed on the good-hearted.

"He sucked them in by dressing up nicely and pretending to be a traveler in need," Vien said in his opening statement. "He killed all 3 of his victims simply for their cars."

But David Ruhnke, a New Jersey attorney who specializes in representing defendants who face the death penalty, portrayed his client as "a mentally diseased man" who tried to stop his 2001 killing spree before it began by calling the FBI and offering to turn himself in. Ruhnke said Sampson waited for federal authorities at the appointed time and place, but they never showed up.

"The correct verdict is to send Gary Sampson to disappear into a maximum-security prison for the rest of his life, based on common sense and mercy," Ruhnke said.

"We are presenting the case for life in this courtroom," he said, "as the government presented its case for death."

Sampson pleaded guilty in September to killing Philip McCloskey, Jonathan Rizzo and Robert Whitney during a 3-day carjacking spree in July 2001.

Federal authorities in Massachusetts claimed jurisdiction over the case because of a law passed by Congress in 1994 that made carjackings resulting in a victim's death a federal capital offense.

The state of Massachusetts declared capital punishment unconstitutional in 1984. 11 other states - 4 of them in New England - also bar executions.

2 other federal death penalty cases in Massachusetts since 1994 have resulted in life sentences. Repeated attempts to legalize capital punishment here have been voted down by the state Legislature.

Death penalty opponents contend the federal government seized upon the grisly, high-profile Sampson case as a vehicle to rouse support for reinstituting the death penalty in Massachusetts.

"That's what I am sure they are trying to do," said Martina Jackson, head of the Massachusetts Anti-Death Penalty Coalition. "It's a foot-in-the-door: first the federal government, then the state government. Once they prove that a jury in Massachusetts might vote for the death penalty, they will move to bring it back in this state."

The case is so sensitive that Judge Mark Wolf and attorneys for both sides spent 6 weeks interviewing more than 700 prospective jurors before selecting 8 women and 4 men, plus 6 alternates. Wolf spent nearly 2 hours Wednesday instructing the jury on the intricacies of federal death penalty law.

"The law is based on the presumption that death is a more severe sentence than life in prison," he said. "You must accept this. If you have a personal opinion that life in prison would be a worse fate than death, you must put that opinion aside."

To impose the death penalty, the jury must reach a unanimous verdict, Wolf said.

The controversy in the case is complicated by the fact that Sampson telephoned the Boston office of the FBI and offered to surrender before killing his 3 victims. William H. Anderson, the clerk who took the call, originally told investigators that he had not received a call from Sampson.

In March, Wolf sentenced Anderson to 6 months in federal prison for lying to the investigators after phone records proved Sampson had indeed placed the call.

"The FBI screwed up," Vien told jurors.

Prosecutors Wednesday played a graphic audio recording in which Sampson confessed to robbing five banks in North Carolina before returning to his hometown of Abington, Mass., which is south of Boston. On the tape, Sampson said he picked out a bank to rob in Abington, but instead, "I ended up killing somebody."

His 1st victim was McCloskey, a 69-year-old retired father of five who had survived heart bypass surgery and prostate cancer. McCloskey had been driving to a cousin's house when he stopped and picked up a well-dressed hitchhiker, Sampson. Sampson forced McCloskey to a remote, wooded area. After stabbing him multiple times, Sampson said on the tape, "I slit his throat. Why, I do not know."

Next he killed Rizzo, a 19-year-old college student working at a fish restaurant during summer break. Sampson led his victim to a secluded spot and tied him to a tree.

"I sprayed him with Off [insect repellent] to make him think I wasn't going to kill him," Sampson said. But he stuffed Rizzo's own socks in his mouth to keep him from calling out, then stabbed him to death. Sampson then drove Rizzo's car to a lakeside resort community in New Hampshire. He broke into what looked like an empty house, but was surprised when Whitney, a neighbor who was caring for the house, appeared.

"He struggled, he was pretty strong," Sampson said on the tape. "The man died slow."

Ruhnke said Sampson should not be executed because he suffers from bipolar disorder. Ruhnke also argued Sampson's life should be spared because he tried to surrender to federal authorities and confessed to his crimes.

"Based on reason, mercy and justice," Ruhnke told the court, "it is time for the killing to stop."

(source: Los Angeles Times) - November 7, 2003

Jury Hears Sampson Confess Murders---'I'm Not a Sadist,' he Says in Police Tape

The federal death penalty case against Gary Lee Sampson began yesterdaywith a rambling confession from the admitted killer, who methodicallydescribed how he stabbed an elderly man and a college student and thendecided to strangle a 3rd man so he wouldn't get bloody. All because hewanted to steal their cars.

"I'm not a sadist. I'm just a sick murderer," Sampson told police duringthe 82-minute tape played yesterday for jurors who will decide whether the44-year-old drifter who pleaded guilty last month to federal carjackingand murder charges should be executed or sentenced to life in prisonwithout parole.

Sampson, who grew up in Abington, sat between his lawyers appearing pastyand pudgy in a blue dress shirt and gray slacks, as Assistant US AttorneyGeorge Vien flashed on a video screen a photo of Sampson as he looked whenhe was arrested. Vien told jurors that Sampson had chosen victims he couldoverpower, asking the panel of 12 men and women to "notice hismuscularity."

Holding a 5-inch steel knife over his head, Vien told jurors that Sampsondressed up to go hitchhiking on the South Shore. When Philip McCloskey andJonathan Rizzo picked him up on different days in July 2001, "he repaidthat kindness by taking this razor-sharp folding knife and plunging itinto their bodies over and over again," Vien said.

Defense lawyers painted a different portrait, showing jurors a schoolphotograph of a smiling Sampson when he was 11. But even back then,defense attorney David Ruhnke said, Sampson was suffering from mentalillness and drank alcohol and smoked marijuana in elementary school. Hesaid Sampson is bipolar and began taking medication for his condition lastmonth.

Describing Sampson as a mentally ill man who "recognized the enormity ofhis crimes" and accepted responsibility by surrendering to police andconfessing, Ruhnke told jurors, "At the end of this case, it is our job toconvince you that there has been enough killing already and that it shouldstop with your verdict." If jurors vote to execute Sampson, it would bethe first time that anyone has been executed under the federal deathpenalty law in Massachusetts, which doesn't have its own death penalty.All 12 jurors must agree on the death penalty in order for US DistrictJudge Mark L. Wolf to order Sampson's execution. If just 1 juror votesagainst the death penalty, Sampson will be sentenced to life in prison.

Ruhnke focused on a telephone call Sampson made to the FBI's Boston officeon July 23, 2001, the day before he set off on the series of killings,announcing that he was wanted for 5 bank robberies in North Carolina andthat he wanted to surrender. Sampson said he waited 2 hours, but the FBInever showed up.

An FBI clerk who initially denied taking the call eventually admitted thathe had inadvertently disconnected Sampson, and the clerk was sentenced to6 months in prison for lying under oath.

"You can bet if the FBI hadn't screwed up, these crimes might never havetaken place," said Ruhnke, telling jurors that Sampson went "over theedge" and didn't come back until 6 days later when he called 911 tosurrender after breaking into a Vermont vacation house.

The prosecution used Sampson's own chilling and graphic confession to tryto convince jurors that he deserves death and would pose a danger toguards, inmates, doctors, or others he might encounter if kept alive inprison. Some 40 relatives of Sampson's victims filled the courtroom, manyquietly sobbing as Sampson described in his taped confession how he killedMcCloskey, Rizzo, and a 3rd man, Robert "Eli" Whitney, after tying them upand insisting he was just a bank robber who wanted their cars to make aquick getaway. Whitney was killed in New Hampshire, and Sampson is notcharged with the crime in this case.

McCloskey, 69, of Taunton, who had survived prostate cancer and heartbypass surgery, picked up Sampson hitchhiking in Weymouth on July 24,2001. Sampson described how he ordered McCloskey to drive to Marshfield,where he walked him up a hill and into the woods. The "spunky old man"struggled, but Sampson said he tied his wrists with rope and then stabbedhim more than 20 times.

"Why? I do not know," said Sampson, adding that he robbed McCloskey, butwas thwarted in his efforts to steal his minivan because it had a killswitch and wouldn't start.

Three days later, Sampson said he walked to Manomet and then hitchhiked aride to the Myles Standish State Forest with "the most beautiful blondgirl." He said he didn't attack the woman or others he encountered becausehe had never hurt a woman.

After being escorted out of the park at closing by police, Sampson went tothe Plymouth waterfront and was hitchhiking when he was picked up byRizzo, a 19-year-old sophomore at George Washington University who washome in Kingston for the summer and working as a waiter in Plymouth.

"I looked presentable. . . . I looked like a yuppie," said Sampson, addingthat almost as soon as Rizzo offered him a ride, he pulled a knife.Sampson said he forced the teenager to drive him to Abington, where hewalked into the woods and tied him to a tree.

"I sprayed him with Off to make him think that I wasn't gonna kill him,"Sampson said. "It was premeditated. I planned on killing him. I needed thevehicle for a long period of time."

Sampson said, "I gagged him with his own sock and then I slit his throat,stabbed him in the chest, in the neck, and killed him quickly."

After stealing Rizzo's Volkswagon Jetta, Sampson drove to New Hampshireand broke into a house on Lake Winnipesaukee in Meredith on July 30. Anunsuspecting Whitney arrived to mow the lawn for the owner of the home.

Sampson said he tied Whitney to a chair after a brief struggle over theknife and then slowly strangled him with a rope.

"I didn't want no more blood on me," said Sampson.

(source: Boston Globe) - November 6, 2003

Penalty Phase Begins in Sampson Case----Jurors to Decide if Killer Should Die

This morning, 12 men and women will take their seats at the federal courthouse in Boston to begin considering whether admitted spree killer Gary Lee Sampson deserves to die for his crimes.

In a state without the death penalty, it will be the second time in 3 years that federal prosecutors have asked a jury of ordinary citizens to impose the ultimate punishment, a dynamic which makes state officials uncomfortable and threatens to overshadow the death penalty commission established by Governor Mitt Romney as he seeks to reinstate capital punishment.

By seeking the death penalty, federal prosecutors in the Sampson case and a handful of others -- under orders from the US Justice Department -- are sidestepping the debate on Beacon Hill and effectively bringing back the death penalty.

That concerted federal effort frustrates members of the state Legislature, who have voted 3 times against reinstating the death penalty in recent years -- in 1997, 1999, and 2001.

"The Massachusetts Legislature has made it quite clear that they're not in support of the death penalty for state crimes," said state Representative Eugene L. O'Flaherty, a Chelsea Democrat and the House chairman of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary.

Romney said he wants to find if there is an "airtight" way to apply the death penalty, and win the support of legislators like O'Flaherty and House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, who began as supporters of the death penalty but changed positions because of the possibility of innocent people being executed.

Romney's effort comes at the same time that US Attorney General John D. Ashcroft has ordered federal prosecutors to seek capital punishment more often.

As a result, more Massachusetts juries than at any time in recent memory will be given the chance to mete out the death penalty, and they will be doing so in the kind of brutal murder cases normally heard in state court.

"The jury, to some extent, represents the conscience of the community," said former US attorney Donald K. Stern, a President Clinton appointee who presided over the state's last federal death penalty trial 2 1/2 years ago. "If over time there are several cases where federal juries impose the death penalty, it would provide ammunition for those who want to impose the death penalty for state crimes."

During 8 years as the top federal prosecutor in Massachusetts, Stern only once sought the death penalty, against Kristen H. Gilbert, a nurse who was ultimately convicted of murdering four patients at a Veterans Affairs Administration Medical Center in Northampton. The jury in that case voted, 8-to-4, in March 2001 to spare Gilbert the death penalty.

In federal death penalty cases, the jury must vote unanimously for a death verdict to be imposed.

Gilbert's case fell under traditional federal jurisdiction, because the murders took place in a US government facility.

But state prosecutors had already brought murder charges against Sampson when Michael J. Sullivan took the case into the federal system when he became US attorney in the fall of 2001. Because Sampson had committed a carjacking, his murder spree qualified as a federal offense.

"It is both wrong and offensive when it's out-and-out a state case, but for the desire to exact the death penalty," said William J. Leahy, chief counsel for the state's public defender office, the Committee for Public Counsel Services.

Besides the Sampson case, Sullivan announced in September that he would seek the death penalty against two gang members accused of murdering a rival at Boston's Caribbean Carnival in August 2001. And last month, he unsealed a federal murder indictment against another gang member which could carry a death sentence. All three cases could have been tried in state courts, where the defendants would have faced a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole.

The Sampson case makes a particularly compelling example for advocates on both sides of the death penalty debate.

For death penalty supporters, Sampson's trial offers a stark opportunity to showcase the appropriate use of the death penalty. Prosecutors have argued in court that "a sentence of death is justified" in light of the "heinous, cruel, and depraved" nature of Sampson's crimes.

But state prosecutors, such as District Attorney Daniel F. Conley of Suffolk County, are concerned with the impact that federal death penalty trials will have on the law enforcement climate in Massachusetts, where prosecutors, politicians, and community leaders have forged a productive and pragmatic relationship.

"I come at it from a practical point of view," Conley said. "People disagree on capital punishment, and I worry that decisions made in Washington, D.C., will impact the partnerships we've worked so hard to build. It's too divisive."

Legally, what federal prosecutors do in the District of Massachusetts has no bearing on the state's death penalty law. But as the Justice Department increases the frequency with which it brings death penalty cases here, possible death penalty verdicts could put pressure on the Legislature, state lawmakers say.

"There are probably political overtones to it," said state Senator Robert S. Creedon Jr., a Brockton Democrat and cochairman of the Legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary.

Creedon said he worries that federal death penalty trials could skew the state's political debate over capital punishment, and create inequities between killers like Sampson and equally violent murderers who by happenstance do not fall under federal jurisdiction and, therefore, never face the death penalty.

The penalty phase of Sampson's case is expected to take at least 6 weeks. Massachusetts Citizens Against the Death Penalty held a vigil outside the federal courthouse in South Boston this week and plans to organize protests every Thursday for the duration of the trial. "I'm always worried," said Martina Jackson, the group's executive director. "They're going to try to bring the death penalty in the back door if they can't get in the front door."

(source: Boston Globe) - November 5, 2003

Jury Won't See Video Tribute to Sampson Murder Victim

Jurors deciding whether killer Gary Lee Sampson deserves death won't see amemorial videotape about his youngest victim or hear a mother's chillingpremonition of her son's murder.

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf yesterday barred prosecutors frompresenting those details and anything else during the federal deathpenalty case that could lead jurors' sympathy to override reason, he said.

Federal prosecutor Frank Gaziano argued jurors should be able to learnabout the dream as an example of the "exceptionally close relationship"Mary Rizzo shared with her son, Jonathan, who was 19 when Sampsoncarjacked his Jetta and stabbed him.

Days before Rizzo was killed on July 27, 2001, his mother had a nightmareabout losing someone she loved. She discussed the terrifying dream withher son over lunch and said she'd never survive the loss of him or herhusband.

"You're stronger than you think," Jonathan told her, according to detailsrevealed yesterday.

When she learned her son was dead, Mary asked police to cover his bodywith his Boston College High School blanket. "She did not want him to becold," said prosecutors, who wanted to show a picture of the blanket tothe jury.

Wolf said the BC blanket would be improper and noted "we have asignificant number of Catholics on the jury."

When Wolf threw out a 30-minute videotape of Rizzo's life prepared by hisfriends and accompanied by the music of the Beatles and James Taylor, MaryRizzo left the courtroom.

The judge said, "This is horrible to be talking this way - to be soclinical." But he later said he was dedicated to protecting "thefundamental fairness of the trial" under federal precedents set by theSupreme Court.

Wolf said the Rizzo family and victim Philip McCloskey's family can offerlimited victim impact statements. But he ruled that the children ofSampson's third victim, Robert ``Eli'' Whitney, may not testify becauseWhitney's murder in New Hampshire is not charged in the Massachusettscase. Jurors will be shown crime scene photos from all 3 murders.

Sampson, 44, has admitted to the killings and faces the penalty phase nextweek. The judge moved opening arguments to Tuesday.

(source: Boston Herald) - October 31, 2003

7 of 12 Jurors in Sampson Case Say They Support Death Penalty

The majority of the jurors who will decide whether Gary Lee Sampson becomes the 1st person in Massachusetts to be executed said they favor the death penalty but could vote for a life sentence if the facts of the case warranted it.

7 of the 12 jurors said they support capital punishment, while the other 5 said they had no definite opinion, according to juror questionnaires released yesterday.

"I think that it would be difficult to determine whether a person should be executed, but I don't think I have a strong opinion of whether it is appropriate or not," wrote a 37-year-old mother of 2 who works for an investment company. She added that, in some instances, it might be "a necessary punishment."

When asked for her thoughts on the case, the same juror wrote, "My thoughts were that it was a horrible crime and that I was glad the person was not free to continue the crimes. I felt sorry for the victims and the families."

1 juror, a 31-year-old father and supervisor at a food company, said the death penalty "should be administered only in extreme circumstances."

The 12 jurors, along with 6 alternates, will begin hearing evidence Monday in US District Court in Boston against Sampson, 43, a drifter who returned home to Abington in July 2001 and went on a carjacking and killing spree. He has pleaded guilty to the slayings of Philip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton, and Jonathan Rizzo, 19, of Kingston. Sampson is also charged in New Hampshire with the murder of Robert Whitney, 58, of Concord, N.H.

It's now up to the jury to decide Sampson's fate: death, or life in prison with no chance of release. The jury ranges in age from 23 to 59.

US District Judge Mark L. Wolf, who is presiding over the case, released the jury questionnaires yesterday after deleting the names and addresses of those who were selected.

The panel of eight women and four men includes five practicing Catholics, one nonpracticing Catholic, a Methodist, a Jew, and four who reported they follow no religion. All told the court their religious beliefs wouldn't impact their decision on whether to vote for the death penalty.

While some of the jurors said they had heard about Sampson's case and even had some initial impressions about him, they all agreed they could be fair.

"Mr. Sampson appears to have no feelings of remorse and almost looks as though it is a joke!" wrote a 58-year-old legal secretary when asked for her thoughts when arriving at court.

A 23-year-old juror, who said she lived only about 10 minutes from the Plymouth waterfront, where Rizzo had been when he was carjacked by Sampson, wrote: "I couldn't believe it happened so close to home. Being a psych major, I wondered what made [Sampson] snap. . . . I remember being horrified that he could kill such random people."

(source: Boston Globe)

Jury Selected to Weigh Death for Sampson

A jury of 8 women and 4 men from Eastern Massachusetts was chosenyesterday to decide whether confessed killer Gary Lee Sampson shouldreceive the federal death penalty.

The all-white jury, along with three women and three men serving asalternates, were picked from a pool of more than 500 during an intensivethree-week process of questionnaires and interviews in federal court inBoston.

Opening arguments are set for Monday.

The prosecution and the defense sparred yesterday about the elimination ofblack candidates from the jury, but U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolfruled neither side removed jurors solely for their race.

Federal prosecutors rejected two black females. One had been a mentalhealth worker and the other asked to be excluded. Sampson's defense usedits challenges to reject black men.

Sampson has admitted to killing three strangers during 6 days in thesummer of 2001, after a string of bank robberies in North Carolina. Hisvictims were Philip McCloskey, 69, of Taunton; Jonathan Rizzo, 19,ofKingston; and Robert "Eli" Whitney, 58, of Concord, N.H.

Sampson's attorneys yesterday asked the judge to prevent prosecutors fromshowing photos of the murdered men, arguing the crime scene pictures areprejudicial.

The defense also objected to prosecutors presenting any information aboutSampson's "future dangerousness" in prison. He will serve life with noparole if the jury rejects execution. Prosecutors have asked the judge notto allow Sampson to show jurors three defense letters sent to his elderlyparents seeking help to spare his life. His parents sent back his personalletter unopened last year.

(source: Boston Herald) - October 28, 2003

Man facing possible death sentence gets life in prison

A man who faced the possibility of a federal death sentence after beingconvicted in a drug-related slaying will instead spend the rest of hislife in prison, a jury decided Thursday.

Michael Ostrander, 25, was convicted last week of murder in connection todrug trafficking and murder in connection to a violent crime. He wasexpected to be sentenced Jan. 8 on a 3rd count, conspiracy with intent todistribute narcotics.

Ostrander and his brother, 29-year-old Robert Ostrander, were charged inthe death of Hansle Andrews. Acting on a tip, FBI agents found the22-year-old victim's body in July 2001, buried about 6 feet deep in aheavily wooded area of the Manistee National Forest.

Prosecutors said Andrews, who lived in Kalkaska County, earned money byworking construction jobs in the Traverse City area and by selling drugs.

Robert Ostrander's trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 17.

Although capital punishment is outlawed in Michigan, prosecutors areseeking the death penalty against the Ostranders under a law that makes itavailable for murder cases tried in federal court, especially when akilling is linked to drug trafficking or occurs on federal property.

(source: Associated Press) - October 9, 2003

Verdict reached in death penalty trial

In Grand Rapids, just before 2 p.m., a federal jury decided the fate ofMichael Ostrander, a Cadillac man convicted for his role in the shootingdeath of Hansle Andrews.

On day 2 of deliberations, the jury decided Michael Ostrander will spendthe rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole. Andrews'body was found in a heavily wooded area of the Manistee National Forest inJuly of 2001.

The same jury found Ostrander guilty. Robert Ostrander, Michael's brother,is also facing the death penalty for Andrews' murder. Prosecutors say heshot Andrews 3 times in the woods, then took his money to help fund hisdrug business.

His trial is set to begin next month. Capital punishment is outlawed inMichigan. But the death penalty is an option under the law for drugrelated murder cases. You may recall West Michigan's 1st death penaltycase in federal court. Last March, a jury sentenced Marvin Gabrion todeath row for killing Rachael Timmerman. Her body was also found in theManistee National Forest.

(source: WOOD-tv news) - October 9, 2003

Ostrander faces death penalty in Federal court

West Michigan's 2nd death penalty case in federal court history is takingplace. Michael Ostrander has already been found guilty of shooting andkilling a man. Now, a jury will decide if he lives or dies.

The murder Michael Ostrander's convicted of happened in Selma Township,near Cadillac. Federal prosecutors say he and his older brother, Robert,shot Hansel Andrews to death in August of 2000.

Prosecutors say all three were involved in a circle of drugs. They sayRobert Ostrander shot Andrews 3 times in the woods, then took his money tohelp fund his drug business. A jury convicted Michael last week forhelping with the murder.

Unlike most murder cases in Michigan, both brothers are fighting for theirlives. In 1994, Congress expanded the number of crimes that can beprosecuted in the federal system under the death penalty. Including caseslike this, shooting deaths committed in connection with a drug operation.

It can be troubling, says Professor James Houston of Grand Valley StateUniversity, for states like Michigan that don't have the death penalty.

"The citizens of Michigan have clearly indicated they do not want toinstitute the death penalty, there may be some kind of obligation for theU.S. attorney to abide by these wishes," says Houston.

But there's no sign that state law will begin to be a factor, asWashington decides which federal cases can be punished by death.

"It's a thorny issue and one that's not going to be resolved quickly,"says Houston.

In the penalty phase of this case could wrap up and go to the jury onWednesday. The defendant's brother, Robert, will begin his trial onNovember 17th in federal court.

(source: WOOD-TV news) - October 8, 2003

Prosecutors seek death penalty for Cadillac man

Michael Ostrander and his brother Robert were charged in the shootingdeath of Hansle Andrews. His body was found in a heavily wooded area ofthe Manistee National Forest in July of 2001.

The jury found Michael Ostrander guilty. Today, that same jury is decidingwhether he should get the death penalty or spend the rest of his life inprison.

Capital punishment is outlawed in Michigan, but prosecutors are seekingthe death penalty under a law that makes it available for murder casestried in Federal court.

(source: WOOD-TV) - October 7, 2003

US mulls seeking death of convict----Reviews life term in Curley murder

Federal prosecutors in Boston have asked US Attorney General John D.Ashcroft to consider filing a death penalty charge against Charles Jaynes,one of two men convicted in the 1997 kidnapping and murder of 10-year-oldJeffrey Curley of Cambridge.

If the request is approved, it would be the first time since the federalDeath Penalty Act was enacted in 1988 that capital punishment had beensought against someone already serving a life sentence imposed by a statecourt in the same case, legal observers said.

US Justice Department officials recently briefed Curley family members onthe plan, telling them that Ashcroft's decision is expected soon and thata grand jury might be convened this fall.

The federal death penalty statute covers crimes in which death resultsafter a defendant crosses state lines to have sexual relations with achild under 12.

The victim's father, Robert Curley Sr., said yesterday that he does notsupport the effort to bring such a federal charge, although he saidJeffrey's mother and the boy's two brothers are enthusiastic.

"I was kind of overruled," Curley said of the family's reaction. "I'm notgoing to go out there holding rosary beads and holding a sign for Jaynes.But, again, I'm against the death penalty, and they know that."

Massachusetts does not have a death penalty. Efforts to reinstate capitalpunishment in the state became a divisive campaign issue in the 1998gubernatorial race. A year before, a measure to reinstate the penalty inMassachusetts failed by one vote in the House of Representatives.

Prosecutors at the US attorney's office in Boston declined to commentyesterday on developments in the case.

However, Curley and lawyers familiar with the effort by federalprosecutors said that US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan, First Assistant USAttorney Gerard T. Leone Jr., and Middlesex District Attorney MarthaCoakley have been in contact with the Curley family since midsummerregarding the possible pursuit of a death sentence.

Curley said that Leone called him Saturday to report that witnesses in thecase were being interviewed.

Although such a trial would be highly unusual, even lawyers who oppose thedeath penalty conceded yesterday that the government is within its rightsto pursue the case, because state and US courts are separate, sovereignjudicial entities.

Jaynes, 28, and Salvatore Sicari were convicted in 1998 in separate trialsin Curley's death. Sicari, who received a sentence of life without parolefor 1st-degree murder, confessed to police and testified that Jayneskilled the boy by sticking a gas-soaked rag in his mouth after he refusedthe man's sexual advances. Curley's body was placed in the trunk ofJaynes's car, stuffed in a plastic container, and then dumped into asouthern Maine river. At their trials, each blamed the other for themurder.

Jaynes was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life inprison with the possibility for parole after 23 years. Federal prosecutorsare reviewing the case, in part, because Jaynes drove from his apartmentin Manchester, N.H., to Cambridge the day Curley was killed.

Robert Jubinville, an attorney who represented Jaynes during the trial,said he had not heard of the effort to seek the death penalty for hisformer client.

"That's so goofy," he said. "It was clear to me, when I tried the case,that Sicari was the one who committed the crime."

The charge being considered for Jaynes was one of 60 new offenses added tothe list of federal capital crimes in 1994, when the Death Penalty Act wasexpanded.

Curley said he was told, and a lawyer confirmed, that Ashcroft

Death penalty foes rap Ashcroft----Seen to be expanding capital punishment

Critics of the federal death penalty have accused US Attorney General John Ashcroft of using the law to target defendants in states like Massachusetts that don't have capital punishment in a bid to "nationalize" the death penalty.

The criticism came this week as it was revealed that federal prosecutors in Boston, with Ashcroft's endorsement, will seek the death penalty for 2 Dorchester gang members charged with murdering a rival at the city's Caribbean Carnival 2 years ago. It is the 3rd time the federal death penalty has been sought in Massachusetts, and the 2nd case brought during Ashcroft's tenure.

"It appears to be a strategy to ensure that the federal death penalty is widely applied throughout the country without regard to the attitudes and beliefs and policies of the people in each state," said David Bruck, a South Carolina attorney with the Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project. "I think it reflects a determination to nationalize capital punishment, which has always been treated as a local matter."

Since his appointment in February 2001, Ashcroft has authorized the federal death penalty for 93 defendants, including 37 cases in which local federal prosecutors had recommended against it, according to the Death Penalty Resource Counsel. 7 of those cases were in states that don't have the death penalty.

By contrast, his predecessor, Janet Reno, overruled federal prosecutors in states that don't have the federal death penalty 6 times in 5 years.

Ashcroft agreed with prosecutors in declining to seek the death penalty in 258 cases, according to the Resource Counsel.

Ashcroft also dropped regulations enacted by Reno, which had prohibited federal prosecutors from seeking the federal death penalty solely because the state where a crime occurred didn't have the death penalty.

Donald K. Stern, former US attorney for Massachusetts under Bill Clinton, said the message from Reno had been, "Don't come to us where the only justification for seeking the death penalty was because if the case was tried in the state courts it would mean life in prison."

By dropping that regulation, according to Stern, Ashcroft has signaled prosecutors that it's "fair game" to pull a state case into federal court in a bid to win a death sentence.

"My sense is he seems more intent in evening out the geographical statistics and also taking a very close look at the recommendations of US attorneys in states that have no death penalty," said Stern, who now practices at the Boston law firm of Bingham McCutchen.

A study in 2000 criticized the US Department of Justice under the Clinton administration for its "geographical lumpiness" because many of the federal death penalty cases originated in states, such as Texas and Oklahoma, where most state death penalty cases are tried, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.

Since taking over as attorney general, Ashcroft has authorized the federal death penalty against 12 defendants in states that don't have a state death penalty: three in Massachusetts, one in Vermont, 6 in Michigan, one in Iowa, and one in West Virginia. In 7 of those cases -- in Vermont and Michigan -- Ashcroft overruled federal prosecutors who recommended against the death penalty, according to statistics compiled by the Resource Counsel.

Ashcroft also overruled federal prosecutors in New York -- a state which has rarely used the state death penalty -- in 10 out of 12 cases in which he sought the federal death penalty, according to the Resource Counsel.

Officials could not be reached yesterday at the US Department of Justice, which remained closed because of Hurricane Isabel.

Michael J. Sullivan, the US attorney for Massachusetts and a death penalty proponent, yesterday refused to discuss the federal death penalty and would not say whether he had recommended to Ashcroft that the death penalty be sought in the Dorchester gang case.

But Sullivan has publicly supported the death penalty for Gary Lee Sampson, who pleaded guilty to killing two men during a carjacking spree in July 2001. Jury selection began this week in federal court for a trial on whether Sampson should be executed or sentenced to life in prison.

In the same courthouse yesterday, Darryl Green, 26, and Branden Morris, 20, pleaded not guilty to charges of murder in aid of racketeering.

The pair, alleged members of the Esmond Street Crew in Dorchester, are charged with killing 23-year-old Terrell Gethers to protect their crack cocaine and marijuana ring. Three other men charged in the case but not facing the death penalty, Jonathan Hart, Edward Washington, and Torrance Green, pleaded not guilty to charges that they engaged in violence to protect their drug-dealing business from rival gang members.

Lawyers for the defendants who are facing the death penalty asked that their Jan. 12 trial be postponed.

"This caught a lot of us flat-footed," David Hoose, who represents Morris, told the judge. Hoose represented nurse Kristen Gilbert in the state's only other death penalty prosecution. Gilbert was convicted in 2001 of murdering 4 patients in a Northampton veteran's hospital and was sentenced to life in prison, rather than death, in a case that predates Ashcroft.

After yesterday's arraignment, Melvin Norris, another lawyer representing Morris, criticized prosecutors for their hard stance. "A 20-year-old kid facing the death sentence," he said. "It's obscene."

Hart, the only defendant not in custody, said he was fearful for his codefendants facing the possibility of death. "I just pray for them and hope everything turns out good," he said.

The federal Death Penalty Act, which was enacted in 1988, authorized capital punishment for murders that were committed in the course of a drug conspiracy. In 1994, the law was expanded to allow federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty for some 60 offenses, including murder in aid of racketeering and murder during a carjacking.

To date, 3 people, including Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, have been executed as a result of the law and 24 inmates are now on federal death row, including 1 from a state that doesn't have the death penalty, Michigan.

While local federal prosecutors make recommendations to the attorney general on whether to seek the death penalty, defense lawyers are given a chance to argue against it. Ultimately, Ashcroft decides whether to seek the death penalty.

Ashcroft has also enacted a policy requiring federal prosecutors to get his approval before entering into plea negotiations that would allow defendants to avoid the federal death penalty. In February, Ashcroft voided a plea deal in New York that allowed a murder suspect to avoid the death penalty in exchange for his cooperation against others.

Seeking the death penalty is one thing; getting a jury to impose it is something else entirely, according to statistics. Of the last 21 federal death penalty cases, jurors refused to impose the death penalty in 20 of them.

(source: Boston Globe)

Death Comes to Town

In the last few years, there has been a flurry of legal and politicalactivity concerning the death penalty. Consider:

The US Supreme Court has grappled with such issues as the execution ofminors and the mentally retarded. The justices have also ruled that adefendant's eligibility for the death penalty must be resolved by a jury,causing the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to invalidate thejudge-determined death sentences of 119 convicts in several Westernstates. The court has also wrestled with the thorny issues of whatconstitutes competent representation at the sentencing stage of a capitaltrial and what to do about apparently racially discriminatory juryselection practices by state prosecutors.

The availability of DNA-matching techniques has resulted in several deathrow inmates being freed from prison. The Florida Legislature has passed alaw offering DNA tests to most inmates on death row, and there is a raceon to complete the tests before the program's deadline. In a remarkabledevelopment, then-governor of Illinois George Ryan declared a moratoriumon all executions and then commuted all the death sentences in the stateon the grounds that the criminal justice system was too plagued by error,corruption, and arbitrariness to have confidence in those sentences.

The capital punishment debate has also taken on an internationaldimension, both with respect to the aftermath of Sept. 11 and also thereluctance of nations to sign treaties with the United States because ofits continued use of the death penalty.

Finally, after decades of intense debate about whether capital punishmentdeters murder, fueled on both sides by old studies that used ancient dataand questionable statistical techniques, a handful of new studies, usingrecent data and state-of-the-art statistical analysis, has derived asubstantial deterrent effect.

For example, a study conducted by 3 researchers at Emory University foundthat at the margin, each additional execution deters approximately 18murders. So death penalty opponents can no longer smugly declare thatcapital punishment is ineffective and end the debate there. We must onceagain wrestle with the question of whether the death penalty is ethicallyjustified given that it might actually be working.

Most of us in Massachusetts have been living in blissful ignorance of thisrecent turmoil. Since state law does not permit capital punishment, therehave been no death penalty cases to incite passions or generate debate. Wedid get close once, in 1997. After a strong majority of the voters of theCommonwealth supported a ballot initiative in favor of capital punishment,the measure failed in the Legislature by one vote when Representative JohnSlattery, a Peabody Democrat who had initially supported the bill, changedhis mind and voted against the final version. As such, we have not beenforced to confront the realities of the death penalty head-on as jurors.Until now.

Gary Lee Sampson recently confessed and then pleaded guilty to the murdersof two Massachusetts men. Since the crime involved kidnapping, Sampson wascharged in federal court. While he has pleaded guilty, his sentence hasyet to be determined. For our purposes, two facts are paramount: Underfederal law, Sampson can receive the death penalty, and the sentencinghearing is being held in US District Court in Boston using local jurors.This means that 12 Massachusetts citizens will have the awesomeresponsibility of deciding whether Gary Sampson should be executed for hiscrimes.

We owe it to ourselves to have an open and informed public debate aboutcapital punishment; Sampson will not be the last murderer whose fate isresolved by the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Over the last decade, and accelerated under the current administration,the federal government has steadily been expanding the set of crimes forwhich one can receive the death penalty. In addition, Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft has been aggressively seeking the death penalty for federalcrimes whenever possible, even overruling decisions of US attorneys to thecontrary. The recent Patriot Act and proposed amendments further expandthe set of capital offenders, even to some individuals who do notthemselves participate in murder.

These developments will eventually lead to future capital cases beingtried before Massachusetts juries. We should be ready.

(source: Op-ed; Edward P. Schwartz, who teaches about capital punishmentand juries at the Boston University School of Law, Boston Globe)

Sampson admits guilt, puts fate in jury's hands

In a rare gamble, admitted killer Gary Lee Sampson pleaded guilty infederal court yesterday to carjacking and murdering 2 Massachusetts men inthe summer of 2001, bypassing a trial and heading straight to thepunishment phase of his death penalty case.

Sampson is the 1st person in the country to plead guilty in a federaldeath penalty case and let a jury decide directly whether he should liveor die, death penalty specialists said. Jury selection will begin nextweek in US District Court in Boston.

The prosecution's case will now focus on the heinousness of Sampson'scrimes in a bid to convince a jury that he deserves to die. Sampson'slawyers will ask jurors to consider mitigating factors, such as hisremorse and mental illness, and sentence him to life in prison instead.

In an hourlong hearing yesterday, Sampson admitted murdering Philip A.McCloskey, 69, of Taunton, and Jonathan Rizzo, 19, of Kingston, in July2001 after commandeering their cars. He is charged separately in NewHampshire with the murder of Robert Whitney, 58, of Concord, N.H.

"Yes, your honor, I did," Sampson answered calmly when asked by USDistrict Judge Mark L. Wolf if he had committed the 2 murders inMassachusetts.

As Sampson, 43, spoke, relatives of his victims wept quietly in thegallery. They had arrived for what they believed was a pretrial conferenceand were stunned by Sampson's change of plea.

"He's not only guilty, but he's a coward asking for mercy and begging forhis life," said Rizzo's father, Michael. "I'm sure my son did the samething. But he wasn't shown any mercy."

McCloskey's son, Scott, said he's relieved that there is now no chancethat Sampson will go free. "This is obviously good," he said. "He's goingnowhere. Whether he gets the death penalty is another story. He deservesit for what he did to my father and Jonathan."

Prosecutors wouldn't comment on Sampson's change of plea. Defense lawyerswould say only that Sampson has always admitted his guilt.

"From the day he turned himself in, he never denied his guilt and hasalways accepted responsibility for what he did," said defense attorneyDavid Ruhnke.

Sampson's lawyers hope to persuade jurors that he never meant to killanyone, focusing on his phone call to the Boston office of the FBI the daybefore McCloskey was killed. When he called the FBI on July 23, 2001,telling a clerk that he was wanted for bank robberies in North Carolinaand wanted to turn himself in, the clerk who answered the phone, WilliamAnderson, accidentally disconnected the call.

Legal specialists said that in a case in which the defendant hasconfessed, it may make sense to skip the guilt phase of the trial.

"Where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt, by contesting guilt thedefense can lose credibility," said Kevin McNally, a Kentucky lawyer whocoordinates the defenses of those charged under the federal death penaltylaw.

Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Centerin Washington, D.C., said federal murder defendants almost always go totrial unless they're offered a deal, which Sampson was not. "It is veryrare that someone would not take the best number of shots, so to speak, atwinning, without something in exchange," Dieter said.

Only twice, according to death penalty specialists, have defendants infederal murder cases pleaded guilty. In 1994, Todd Moore pleaded guilty tomurder in Norfolk, Va. But his punishment -- life in prison -- was decidedby a judge, not a jury.

In 1998, David Paul Hammer pleaded guilty halfway through his murdertrial. A Pennsylvania jury later sentenced him to death.

In the only other Massachusetts federal death penalty case, nurse KristenGilbert opted to be tried for killing four patients in a Northamptonveterans hospital. Unlike Sampson, however, Gilbert always proclaimed herinnocence, said her lawyer, David P. Hoose. A jury convicted Gilbert andthen sentenced her to life in prison.

In Sampson's trial, prosecutors will try to convince jurors that Sampson'scrimes and criminal history are so egregious they cannot be outweighed bymitigating factors. A unanimous verdict is needed to sentence him todeath. Sampson told investigators he was looking for a bank to rob on July24, 2001, when he grew tired of walking and decided to hitch a ride.McCloskey, a retired gas company employee, picked him up in Weymouth.

Sampson said he forced McCloskey to drive to a wooded area in Marshfieldand had to kill him because he wouldn't give him his van. He said hestabbed McCloskey more times than he could remember. Prosecutors saidMcCloskey was stabbed 20 times.

3 days later, Sampson went to Plymouth, where he again looked for avehicle to steal. Rizzo, a George Washington University student working asa waiter for the summer in Plymouth, picked him up. Sampson toldinvestigators he forced Rizzo at knifepoint to drive him to Abington,where Sampson was camping. Sampson told police that he tied him to tree,gagged him, slit his throat, and stabbed him in the neck and chest.Sampson's lawyers have said they will present evidence of mental illness,but haven't specified the nature of the illness. A relative of Sampson'shas said in the past that he was once diagnosed with schizophrenia.

(source: Boston Globe) - Sept 10, 2003

Sampson pleads guilty, could still face death penalty

Accused spree killer Gary Sampson pleads guilty to federal charges that hemurdered 2 Massachusetts men after carjackings.

Sampson entered the pleas today before federal judge Mark Wolf in Boston.The judge said the case would now go directly to the sentencing phase,where a jury will decide whether Sampson should get life in prison or beput to death.

Sampson was scheduled to go on trial next week for the July 2001 carjackkillings of 69-year-old Philip McCloskey of Taunton and 19-year-oldJonathan Rizzo of Kingston. Prosecutors are seeking the death penaltyunder the federal carjacking statute.

Massachusetts does not have a state death penalty.

Sampson -- formerly of Abington -- was also accused of killing 58-year-oldRobert Whitney of Concord, New Hampshire, during the week-long crimespree. His attorneys have argued that he should not be given the deathpenalty because he is mentally ill and showed remorse by turning himselfinto police.

(source: Associated Press)

Death Penalty Still Sought in Ostrander Murder Case

In Grand Rapids, a plea agreement that could have spared Michael Ostranderthe death penalty has been denied by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"It is our understanding that that is the case, but we haven't seenanything official on it," said Lt. Martin Dahlstrom of the Wexford CountySheriff's Department.

Details of the plea agreement were not released.

The U.S. Department of Justice does not comment on pending cases,according to department spokesperson Monica Goodling.

Capital punishment is not legal in Michigan but is an option in the caseof Ostrander and his brother, Robert, because it is being tried as afederal case.

The men are accused of murdering Hansle Andrews of Kalkaska. His body wasdiscovered in July 2001 on federal land in a remote area of SelmaTownship.

FBI agents allege a drug trafficking operation, which authorities believedelivered marijuana and cocaine in Cadillac and other Michigan towns, wasthe direct cause of Andrew's death and is the basis for the federalcharges.

In August 2001, FBI agents testified in federal court that MichaelOstrander had confessed to killing Andrews with his older brother.

Michael Ostrander allegedly told FBI agents that he and his brother hadlured Andrews to a remote location, promising to sell him marijuana at adiscounted price. Robert Ostrander then allegedly shot Andrews 3 timeswith a pistol and buried him in a pre-dug grave.

Barbara Comstock, director of public affairs at the U.S. Department ofJustice, said there is a process for seeking the death penalty.

"A process is designed to ensure consistency and fairness in theapplication of the death penalty in all the U.S. Attorney districts acrossthe country," she said in a statement.

Comstock added that people involved in death penalty cases have thebenefit of reviewing the precedent set by similar cases nationwide, whichallows for consistency in capital punishment sentences.

Calls to the U.S. Attorney General's office and Michael Ostrander'sattorney were not returned.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Tim VerHey said he could not comment on any pleanegotiations but he did confirm Michael Ostrander's trial will begin Sept.29.

Jury selection is scheduled to begin Wednesday, VerHey said.

Robert Ostrander's trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 3, he said.

(source: Cadillac News) - August 30, 2003

Ashcroft Spurns Staff, Insists on Death Penalty

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, a firm advocate of the death penalty,rejected a deal that would have spared the life of a Cadillac man inexchange for a guilty plea in a drug-related murder, according to sourcesfamiliar with the case.

Michael Ostrander was willing to plead guilty, accept a long prison termand help authorities by testifying against his brother, the allegedgunman.

But Ashcroft vetoed the recommendation of his local prosecutors and toldthem to go to trial next month in federal court in Grand Rapids.

The decision means a jury could order a death sentence if Ostrander, 25,is convicted of killing Hansle Andrews of Kalkaska.

More than 100 people, mostly from the Grand Rapids area, were summoned tothe courthouse today to fill out questionnaires, the 1st step in picking ajury for a trial that starts Sept. 29.

"The most serious and difficult decision any jury may ever be asked tomake is whether or not the death penalty should be imposed in a particularcase," U.S. Chief District Judge Robert Holmes Bell said in a videoprepared for prospective jurors.

Andrews, 22, worked construction jobs in northern Michigan but also soldmarijuana and cocaine. Prosecutors say he was tricked into believing thathe would accompany Michael Ostrander's brother, Robert, on a trip to GrandRapids to buy drugs in August 2000.

Instead, Andrews was shot 3 times and robbed in a forest outside Cadillac,according to the government.

Michael Ostrander has told the FBI that he distracted Andrews while hisbrother fired the shots. About a year later, in July 2001, the victim'sbody was unearthed in the Wexford County woods.

The U.S. Attorney's Office has much evidence against Michael Ostrander,including his statements to the FBI and the testimony of accomplices.

Earlier this summer, he agreed to a tentative deal: Plead guilty to murderand face a maximum sentence of about 30 years in prison. A potential deathpenalty would be scratched. He also would be required to testify againstRobert Ostrander, 29, whose trial is set for November.

But the agreement still needed the blessing of the U.S. Justice Departmentin Washington. Only the attorney general -- the nation's No. 1 lawenforcer -- can authorize federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty,and only he can withdraw it.

The response from Ashcroft: No deal.

Although no one was willing to be identified in this story, severalsources, including members of the Ostrander family and the victim'sfamily, confirmed that decision for The Press. The Justice Department didnot return a phone call seeking comment.

"It's completely mystifying," said Kevin McNally, a lawyer in Kentucky whotracks death-penalty cases for defense attorneys and advises federaljudges.

"If a trial-level prosecutor feels he can use another witness to shore upa case, how do you overrule that decision a thousand miles away?" heasked. "(Ashcroft) has famously done this before. Prosecutors arescratching their heads."

Indeed, Ashcroft has rejected plea agreements in federal death-penaltycases elsewhere, most notably in New York, where a defendant was willingto plead guilty and share information about a deadly ring of drug dealersin exchange for a life sentence.

Mary Jo White, the former chief federal prosecutor in Manhattan, told TheNew York Times: "It's very, very dangerous on its face, and it'stroubling, because it doesn't make sense from a law-enforcementperspective."

The Ostranders would never face the death penalty in a Michigan courtbecause the state outlawed it in 1846.

But the brothers are being prosecuted in federal court, where the law issignificantly different. Congress has made the death penalty available formurder, especially when a homicide is linked to drug trafficking.

Federal authorities quickly joined the investigation when Andrews turnedup missing in 2000. His pickup truck was discovered in Las Vegas.

Wexford County officials have said they had no problem letting thegovernment take control, especially when it can use grand juries toinvestigate crimes. Witnesses who don't cooperate can be hauled before ajudge and held in contempt.

Bell, the judge, is telling prospective jurors that the 1st of 2 Ostrandertrials could last a month.

"This will not be a short case. ... It is often said that with theexception of service in the armed forces, there is no other duty ofcitizenship more important than jury service," Bell said on the video.

This will be West Michigan's 2nd death-penalty trial. In March 2002, afederal jury in Grand Rapids sent Marvin Gabrion to death row for killinga woman in Manistee National Forest. He is in prison in Terre Haute, Ind.,while attorneys work on an appeal.

That trial cost taxpayers well over $1 million, including thetaxpayer-funded defense for Gabrion.

(source: The Grand Rapids Press, Aug. 28)

Death penalty still an option

Gary Lee Sampson, an accused murderer who allegedly went on a killingspree that left three people dead, reached a major obstacle in his pursuitto declare the federal death penalty unconstitutional.

On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Mark L. Wolfe refused to rule thatthe federal death penalty law is unconstitutional in Sampson's case,setting the stage for the trial to begin on Sept. 18. In his 127-pagedecision, Wolfe answered the objections raised by Sampson's attorneysconcerning the death penalty.

Sampson is facing federal charges on two counts of car-jacking whichallegedly resulted in the murders of Philip A. McCloskey, 69, of Taunton,and Jonathan Rizzo, 19, of Kingston. Sampson is also facing separatecharges for killing Robert Whitney, 58, of Concord, New Hampshire.

In June, Sampson's defense attorneys filed a 120-page legal brief arguingthe death penalty is administered "in a fundamentally arbitrary andcapricious manner," amounting to cruel and unusual punishment whichviolates the constitution. They also argued the law sometimes leads to thekilling of innocent people and imposes death sentences on the bias of raceand geography.

"Although Sampson raises at least one serious issue, each of his 13 claimsis either without merit or not ripe for resolution," stated Wolfe."Therefore his motions to dismiss the death penalty charges and forcertain other relief are being denied."

Wolfe stated the court already rejected a claim by Sampson that theSupreme Court's 2002 decision in the case of Ring vs. Arizona renders theFederal Death Penalty Act unconstitutional and also rejected a relatedclaim that he has a right to plead guilty and be sentenced to life inprison without parole.

"Only the Supreme Court can reverse it's prior decision that the deathpenalty is not inherently cruel and unusual punishment," stated Wolfe.

While he rejected Sampson's claims that the death penalty isunconstitutional, Wolfe contended there is mounting evidence that innocentindividuals have been sentenced to death.

A federal grand jury will decide whether Sampson is innocent or guilty. Ifhe is convicted, the jury will then decide whether he lives or dies andmust weigh aggravating and mitigating factors surrounding the crimes.

Officials said the fight is not expected to be about guilt or innocence,but whether Sampson should receive the death penalty. Sampson's defenseattorneys are planning to argue while their client allegedly committed themurders, he shouldn't get the death penalty. Prosecutors are planning toargue the death penalty is the only sentence that fits the viciousness ofSampson's alleged crimes.

Prosecutors will list the aggravating factors that would warrant the deathpenalty if Sampson is convicted of the 3 crimes including the claims thathe conducted the brutal murders in a "heinous, cruel and depraved mannerby torture" which required "substantial planning and premeditation."

Defense attorneys stated they are planning to paint Sampson as a troubledman who tried to turn himself into police before he allegedly committedthe murders. One of those attorneys, David Ruhnke, explained his clientcalled the FBI from an Abington pay-phone to turn himself in before goingon the alleged killing spree. Sampson said at that time he identifiedhimself as a bank robbery suspect from North Carolina and asked to bepicked up. He claims he waited several hours and nobody ever came to gethim.

Initially, FBI workers on duty that day said they'd never received a phonecall from Sampson. After a thorough Justice Department investigation, FBIworker William Anderson, who was filling in on the switchboard the daySampson called, admitted he took the phone call but accidentallydisconnected Sampson.

According to court documents, Sampson's defense team has already informedWolfe they may ask the jury to spare Sampson because he is "mentallydefective." A battery of psychological tests is planned for use during thepenalty phase.

This case is only the 2nd in which federal prosecutors in Massachusettshave sought the death penalty. In March 2001, a federal jury inSpringfield spared nurse Kristen Gilbert from the death penalty. She wascharged with killing 4 of her patients.

(source: The Mariner) – August 18, 2003

Federal jury rejects death sentence, gives man convicted of murder life inprison

In Detroit, a federal jury that found an alleged gang member guilty ofmurder and cocaine trafficking spared him the death penalty Thursday.

John Bass, 34, was sentenced to life in prison without parole, said GinaBalaya, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office. Prosecutors hadpursued the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in their bid to putthe man on death row.

Bass was found guilty Monday of cocaine trafficking and murdering a hitman who killed his half brother in 1996. Federal prosecutors said Bass hadarranged to have his brother killed, then engineered the hitman's death aswell.

He had been charged in 1997, but the case was slowed by a dispute overwhether blacks were unfairly being targeted for federal death penaltyprosecution.

In June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned lower court rulings andruled that the federal government could seek the death penalty in Bass'scase.

The U.S. attorney general decides when to seek the death penalty in afederal case. Janet Reno decided to seek it against Bass during theClinton administration.

Michigan has not had a death penalty since 1846, but federal law does. Thelast execution in the state was in 1938, when Anthony Chebatoris washanged for killing a truck driver while robbing a federal depository inthe state.

(source: Associated Press) – August 15, 2003

Puerto Rican Prosecutors Weigh Retrial

Puerto Rico's secretary of justice is considering whether to retry 2reputed gang members acquitted in a controversial capital trial in federaldistrict court in San Juan, according to the secretary's spokeswoman.

It was the 1st capital trial held in the commonwealth since it outlawedthe death penalty in 1929. Puerto Rico's constitution, ratified byCongress in 1952, provides: "The death penalty shall not exist."

The trial, which ended on July 31, had been widely opposed by PuertoRicans. They believe that the federal government trampled on thecommonwealth's sovereignty when it charged a capital crime.

The defendants, Hector Oscar Acosta-Martinez and Joel Rivera-Alejandro,were accused of the 1998 kidnapping and murder of a grocer. Theoriesabound as to why they were found not guilty.

"On every public corner, you hear both that there was no credibleevidence, and that every John Doe and his mother believe that they wereacquitted because it was a capital murder case," said Antonio Fernos,senior professor of constitutional law at the Inter-American University ofPuerto Rico School of Law.

Acosta-Martinez's attorney, Hector Deliz of San Juan's Deliz, Pedrosa &Hernandez, said the prosecution's case was weak. Its chief witness was anadmitted drug addict who had agreed to cooperate with the government inexchange for a reduced sentence, he said.

TEXAN IN THE SPOTLIGHT

Zulma Raices, director of communications for Puerto Rico's secretary ofjustice, said, "The justice minister has asked the U.S. Department ofJustice to send over the files in order to determine whether to filecharges here or not."

The files had not yet been received. If retried, the defendants would notbe subject to the death penalty.

Deliz said Bert Garcia, the U.S. Attorney in Puerto Rico, had requestedthat the justice minister look into the possibility of retrying the men."Garcia is a Texan, not a Puerto Rican," Deliz said. "He does notunderstand our people's opposition to the death penalty. Now he wants ourlocal justice department to serve as a microwave to cook over whatever wasleft raw by his prosecution."

Garcia could not be reached for comment. His spokeswoman confirmed thatGarcia had made the request.

Whether retrying the men would trigger the U.S. Constitution's doublejeopardy clause will surely be a subject of debate, but the U.S. SupremeCourt has generally allowed successive prosecutions by separatesovereigns.

Fernos and other experts are expected to testify on Sept. 26, on behalf of3 defendants fighting extradition to Pennsylvania for crimes that couldsubject them to the death penalty.

The defendants' attorney, Legal Aid lawyer Luis Russi, will argue that theextraditions violate international legal principles and the commonwealth'sconstitution. It will be the first time defendants in Puerto Rico havefought extradition on these grounds, Russi said. Officials of Puerto Ricotake the position that extradition is a U.S. constitutional mandate.

The murder charges against the men who face extradition -- JuanMartinez-Cruz, Abimael Casiano-Fernandez and Edwin Cuello -- areunrelated.

(source: National Law Journal) – August 15, 2003

Man convicted in murder case faces death penalty

A man convicted of 1st-degree murder could become the 1st person toreceive the federal death sentence in eastern Michigan in more than 50years.

A federal jury deliberated for 14 hours over 3 days before finding JohnBass, 34, guilty Monday of cocaine trafficking and murdering the hit manwho killed his half brother in 1996.

Federal prosecutors said Bass, who ran the "Dog Pound" gang, arranged tohave his brother murdered, then engineered the killer's death as well.

Michigan has not had a death penalty since 1846. But federal law does havea death penalty, and prosecutors are seeking it more frequently underAttorney General John Ashcroft.

Federal prosecutors, defense attorneys and members of Bass' family wouldnot discuss the verdict with the Detroit Free Press.

U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow ordered the jurors to return Wednesdayto hear more testimony to determine Bass' sentence. Defense lawyers willpresent witnesses and Bass may take the stand as well, The Detroit Newsreported. Bass faces life in prison without parole or death.

Bass was charged in 1997, but the case had been slowed by a dispute overwhether blacks were unfairly being targeted for federal death penaltyprosecution.

In June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned lower court rulings andsaid the federal government could seek the death penalty for Bass.

Last year, a U.S. District Court jury in Grand Rapids sentenced MarvinGabrion to death row for killing a woman in the Manistee National Forest.

The last execution in Michigan was in 1938, when Anthony Chebatoris washanged for killing a truck driver while robbing a federal depository inMidland.

(source: Associated Press) – August 12, 2003

Kidnapping suspects could face death penalty

2 kidnapping suspects who appeared in federal court in Green Bay onThursday could become the first defendants charged in Wisconsin's EasternDistrict Court to face the death penalty.

Appearing before Federal Judge William Griesbach, 2 New Jersey residents -Malkit Singh and Ekabal Busara - pleaded not guilty to 2 counts ofkidnapping.

According to a criminal complaint, the men drove to Wisconsin in March tofinalize a business transaction with a Manitowoc County man. When thebusiness deal went sour, the defendants allegedly abducted the man, beathim with a dumbbell and dumped his body in a New Jersey grave. Thecomplaint also charged the men with kidnapping and assaulting the employeeof a Francis Creek convenience store.

In July, a grand jury indictment found the men eligible for the deathpenalty. At the Thursday hearing, federal prosecutors said it could bemonths before the U.S. Attorney General decides whether to seek the deathpenalty. In the meantime, prosecutors will confer with defense attorneysto see if there are any mitigating factors.

This is the 1st case filed in Wisconsin's U.S. Eastern District Court thatis eligible for the death penalty. Until the U.S. Attorney General makes afinal determination, the maximum penalty faced is life in prison.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Erica O'Neil said because of the complex nature ofthe case, the court isn't bound by the 70-day speedy trial rule.

Griesbach refrained from setting a trial date. He said the parties shouldfile any motions by Sept. 5.

(source: Green Bay News-Chronicle) – August 11, 2003

Death-penalty cases in Puerto Rico get stay of execution

The not-guilty verdict sent relatives of the 2 men jumping for joy.

Hector Acosta Martinez's and Joel Rivera Alejandro's prayers were answered.The federal jury could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that theyhad a hand in kidnapping, killing and dismembering a local businessman n1998.

Aside from the horrific details of the crime, the prosecution of adeath-penalty case was notorious on an island where capital punishment isexpressly banned in its constitution. This was the first death-penaltycase to go before a jury in Puerto Rico since the U.S. Congress reinstatedcapital punishment for federal crimes two decades ago.

"The death penalty doesn't belong in Puerto Rico," Martnez's lawyer,William Matthewman, said shortly after the verdict was read. "It's likepouring oil on one of your beaches."

This was seen as a test case, so now the test will have to wait.

The verdict does not mark the end of the men's personal saga, although ithas delayed the legal face-off over the federal government's push to putislanders on death row.

Instead of being released, the men were transferred to another prisonuntil othercharges against them are sorted out.

U.S. Attorney Humberto Acosta referred the matter to Puerto Rico JusticeSecretary Anabelle Rodrguez, who was quick to snap it up, saying, "Therehas been a murder that cannot go unpunished."

"We plan to act in this case to the full extent of the law so that thoseresponsible for the death of businessman Jorge Daz Hernndez answer fortheir actions," Rodrguez said in a written statement.

To defense lawyers who bashed prosecutors for making this a federal casein order to seek the death penalty, the move to have local authoritiesseek punishment was ironic. Since the victim was a businessman, federalprosecutors charged the men under the 1974 Hobbs Act, which makes itunlawful to interfere with interstate commerce by extortion or violence.

Because the victim was a convenience-store owner who made most of hismoney through illegal numbers running, defense lawyers said prosecutorswere grasping at straws. Their repeated questions to the judge indicatedthe jury also seemed to have trouble with the concept.

Observers say the government's unreliable star witness, a former drugaddict who changed his story several times, and the lack of forensicevidence tying the pair to the killings made for a weak case. And four menhave already pleaded guilty to the kidnapping and murder and are awaitingsentencing, so justice is being done.

"This does not happen very often," Matthewman told El Nuevo Da newspaper."Usually a federal prosecutor accepts the verdict of a jury because that'show the system works. They're just mad because they lost. They need tolearn to get over it."

The constitutional battle is on hold.

The defendants' lawyers had argued that the federal push to seek the deathpenalty in Puerto Rico not only violates its constitutional ban on capitalpunishment, but also infringes on the island's autonomy in itscommonwealth relationship with the United States.

A federal judge in Puerto Rico agreed, but an appeals court revoked hisdecision last March, ruling that Puerto Rico was subject to federal law.The U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't rule on the controversy, saying no one hadbeen convicted and sentenced to death yet.

So all sides wait for the next round. 2 more death-penalty cases aremaking their way through the courts. Activists opposed to capitalpunishment on moral, religious or political grounds are getting theircampaigns ready.

But some question whether the legal test will ever come. The verdictfueled some talk that the moral and political implications of handing downthe death penalty weighed heavily in thejurors' minds. Garca refused toread anything into the verdict. "We will never know why the jury returnedthis decision," he said.

It fueled speculation that the juries on the island may never unanimouslysend a fellow Puerto Rican to their death.

"They can't just impose things like this on a people, force it down ourthroats," said an irate listener on a radio talk show that analyzes thenews. "We have a constitution that prohibits the death penalty, and youhave to respect the wishes of the people."

(source: Orlando Sentinel) – August 11, 2003

U.S. court in Detroit hears possible death penalty case

Opening arguments were to begin today in what could be the federalgovernment's first death penalty case in eastern Michigan in 65 years.

John Bass is charged with 2 drug-related murders and supplying crackcocaine from Detroit to Canton, Ohio.

In 1989 in Detroit, Bass and his brother, Patrick, began a street gangcalled the Dog Pound, so named because its members had as many as 30 pitbulls, the government says. They sold crack cocaine in Detroit, Pontiacand Canton, Ohio, the indictment says.

Bass arranged for his brother's murder to "eliminate a rival and takecomplete control over the combined drug operations," the government'sindictment says.

At least 6 people are awaiting trial in Michigan on charges that couldbring the death penalty.

Milton "Butch" Jones, Raymond Canty and Eugene Mitchell are to go on trialthis fall before U.S. District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. The three arecharged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and with the killing ofthree people.

In 1846, Michigan became the first English-speaking government to outlawcapital punishment, except for treason, on state charges. Only two peoplehave been sentenced to die in Michigan since then, both for federalcrimes.

The last execution in Michigan was in 1938, when Anthony Chebatoris washanged for killing a truck driver while robbing a federal depository inMidland. Marvin Gabrion was sentenced to death in March 2002 for the deathof a 19-year-old whose body was found floating in a lake in the ManisteeNational Forest. His appeal is pending.

Robert and Michael Ostrander of Cadillac await trial in the drug-relatedslaying of Hansel Andrews of Kalkaska. They could be sentenced to deathbecause the death occurred on national forest land.

The Justice Department's death penalty committee met last month to decidewhether to seek the sentence against Thelmon Stuckey III, who faces trialin 1996 death of former Detroit Police Officer Ricardo Darbins, asuspected drug dealer. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft will make thefinal decision.

(source: The Detroit News) – August 1, 2003

Acquittal in Puerto Rico Averts Fight Over Death Penalty

Jurors in a closely watched federal death penalty case in Puerto Ricoacquitted the 2 defendants yesterday, elating many Puerto Ricans who hadbitterly opposed the trial and accused the Justice Department of callouslybetraying their culture and constitution, which outlaws capitalpunishment.

The jury of 7 men and 5 women cleared the men, Joel Rivera Alejandro andHector Oscar Acosta Martinez, of all charges after 3 days of deliberation.Mr. Alejandro and Mr. Acosta Martinez had been accused of shooting todeath and dismembering a grocery store owner in February 1998 afterkidnapping him and not receiving the $1 million ransom they demanded. The2 men were released from federal custody after the acquittal, whileseveral dozen of the men's relatives wept in the courtroom after theverdicts were read.

The jury had been sequestered since Tuesday, and it was not immediatelyclear whether questions about the federal government's right to havejurisdiction in the case affected their decision. The jury had sent outseveral questions to the judge, Hector Laffitte, about one of the charges- conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce - that the JusticeDepartment had used in its attempt to get jurisdiction over the case.

William D. Matthewman, a lawyer for Mr. Acosta Martinez, said last nightthat the acquittal was a blow to the Justice Department's attempts toadminister the death penalty even in regions that oppose or outlaw it fornonfederal trials. In addition to Puerto Rico, 12 states and the Districtof Columbia do not have the death penalty.

Under Attorney General John Ashcroft, the department has been seeking thedeath penalty more often and in more places than earlier administrationshad, and officials in Washington regularly override local recommendationsnot to seek the death penalty. The idea, Justice Department officials havesaid, was to treat those charged with serious crimes similarly regardlessof where the crime took place.

"Imposing the death penalty in Puerto Rico is like pouring oil on one oftheir beautiful beaches," Mr. Matthewman said in a phone interview. "It'sunnecessary, and the federal government has been dealt a severe blow intheir attempt to nationalize the death penalty."

Mr. Matthewman added, however, that he believed the jury acquitted thedefendants primarily because of a lack of evidence. For example, he said,none of more than 200 DNA samples collected from the crime scene matchedhis client.

Attempts to reach Gov. Sila Calderon of Puerto Rico, who has said shevigorously opposes the death penalty but who was reluctant to interveneduring the trial, were unsuccessful last night. Charles Miller, aspokesman for the Justice Department, said the department had no comment.

Eudaldo Baez Galib, a Puerto Rican senator who is the chairman of theSenate's judiciary committee, said that the verdict rendered the deathpenalty debate on the island moot, at least for now.

"It would have been interesting to see if they were found guilty," Mr.Galib said. "Then we would have had an issue on our hands."

Some Puerto Rico residents yesterday suggested the trial was just thelatest reason why the island should seek independence. The controversyover the death penalty case came just months after the United States Navyshut down its bombing range on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, whichfor years had been a major source of friction between Puerto Ricans andthe United States federal government.

Puerto Rico abolished capital punishment in 1929 and has not had anexecution since 1927, when a farm worker found guilty of beheading hisboss with a machete was hanged.

Polls also have found that much of the heavily Catholic population opposesthe death penalty on religious and moral grounds.

On the other hand, politicians who advocate Puerto Rican independencereceived only 5 % of the vote in the most recent elections. The island's 4million residents are American citizens, but they have no votingrepresentation in Congress and cannot vote in presidential elections.

(source: New York Times) – August 1, 2003

3 charged in rail car deaths of 11 immigrants

In Des Moines, 3 men were charged today with smuggling 11 immigrants whosebadly decomposed bodies were found in a railcar in Iowa last fall.

Federal prosecutors announced the 27-count indictment at a news conferencein front of a grain car today -- the 1st charges to result from thesmuggling operation.

Prosecutors said Juan Fernando Licea-Cedillo, 26, Rogelio Hernandez Ramos,38, and Guillermo Madrigal Ballisteros, 45, with charged with conspiringto smuggle the immigrants into the United States. Charges also includeharboring illegal immigrants for financial gain.

Licea-Cedillo was in custody on an unrelated federal charge. Warrants hadbeen issued for Hernandez and Madrigal, prosecutors said.

If convicted, each of the three could face the death penalty or life inprison.

Also charged was a conductor with the Union Pacific Railroad, ArnulfoFlores, 33, of Kingsville, Texas. He was accused of being paid byLicea-Cedillo for information about trains heading out of the Rio GrandeValley.

He also was charged with conspiring to transport illegal aliens forfinancial gain where death resulted. He was arrested today in McAllen,Texas, and made an initial court appearance, authorities said.

Workers cleaning railcars at a grain elevator in Denison, about 50 milessoutheast of Sioux City, found the bodies of the immigrants Oct. 14, 2002.They had been trapped in the railcar for at least 4 months.

The rail car had left the Mexican border city of Matamoros the previousJune, was stored in Oklahoma for several months and then was hauled toIowa.

(source: Associated Press) – August 1, 2003

Federal charges bring chance for death penalty in kidnappings

Upgraded federal charges against 2 men accused of involvement in a pair ofkidnappings could mean the possibility of a death-penalty case in GreenBay.

Malkit Mike Singh and Ekabal "Paul" Busara face charges of kidnappingresulting in death, a federal charge that could mean life imprisonment ordeath, according to U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic.

They are facing trial in federal court in Green Bay.

The two men previously faced charges of kidnapping and conspiracy, but afederal grand jury in Milwaukee upgraded those charges, Biskupic announcedWednesday.

The charges stem from an incident March 2 in Francis Creek in ManitowocCounty.

Singh, 27, of Brigantine, N.J., and Busara, 29, of Fairfax, Va., went tothe home of Waheed Akhtar that day for the purpose of finalizing abusiness deal with him and ended up beating him with a 10-pound dumbbell,according to the indictment. They bound him, wrapped him in a blanket andtarp and loaded him in a car while they cleaned up blood and removed otherevidence from Akhtar's home, the indictment says.

Then the 2 suspects went to Akhtars business, the Fun-N-Fast conveniencestore, on Interstate 43 just outside of Francis Creek, where theyassaulted Akhtar's nephew, Mukaram Iqbal, and forced him into the samevehicle with Akhtar, the indictment says.

The 2 suspects allegedly drove both men to New Jersey, where they buriedAkhtar's body in a shallow grave. They allegedly had left Iqbal alone in amotel room near Atlantic City, allowing him to flee and call police.

It is not clear where Akhtar was when he died, and murder chargestypically are handled by state prosecutors, not federal, according toFrancie Wendelborn, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice inMilwaukee.

Kidnapping resulting in death typically carries a maximum sentence of lifeimprisonment, but the Department of Justice could recommend seeking thedeath penalty, Biskupic said. It would be up to Attorney General JohnAshcroft whether prosecutors would indeed seek the death penalty, Biskupicsaid.

U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach and a jury selected from theGreen Bay district of federal court would ultimately decide the case.

Meanwhile, along with upgrading charges against Busara and Singh, thefederal grand jury in Milwaukee issued an indictment against 3 New Jerseypeople for allegedly giving false information to police investigating thekidnapping cases.

Aeyoung Kim, 46, of Ventnor; Christina Colosimo, 26, of Galloway; and JoseEstrella, 47, of Atlantic City, allegedly made false statements to policeduring the investigation of Busara and Singh. The indictments claim thatthe 3 knew more about Singhs and Busara's whereabouts and activities thanthey admitted to police during the investigation.

All 3 are scheduled to appear in Green Bay's federal court on Aug. 22.

(source: Green Bay Press-Gazette) – July 31, 2003

Ashcroft Imposes Death Penalty in Puerto Rico---Demanding Death Across theBoard

Once again the death penalty is prowling around the halls of justicelooking for work.

Found in the interstices of the local papers was a story that Puerto Ricois the latest beneficiary of Mr. Ashcroft's gentle importuning on behalfof the friend on whom he relies to dissuade criminals from doing the sortsof things that give the death penalty license to continue with its life'swork.

Mr. Ashcroft's penchant for overriding his own U.S. attorneys andmandating that they seek the death penalty even when they, in theirconsidered wisdom, have concluded that it is not appropriate in a givencase, is well known. According to the Federal Death Penalty ResourceCounsel, there have been 30 cases in the last two years in which Mr.Ashcroft overrode the judgement of local U.S. attorneys and demanded thedeath sentence. In at least 1 or 2 cases the demand was made after theU.S. attorneys had already agreed to a plea bargain for a lesser sentence.(Former Attorney General, Janet Reno, by contrast, only overrode localprosecutors 26 times in 8 years.)

According to the death penalty's spokesperson, Barbara Comstock, Mr.Ashcroft wants to establish "one standard" for death sentences andeliminate the present disparity between states. New York and Connecticut,for example, despite being the home of many of our most enlightenedcitizens, execute fewer people than places like Virginia and Texas. In aperfect world those states would execute the same number of criminals asthose 2.

John Muhammad and Lee Malvo, the snipers who terrorized the Washington,D.C. area for most of October, were examples of Mr. Ashcroft's interest inthe death penalty's welfare. The shootings started in Montgomery County,Maryland, and ended there with the arrest of the two men. That was anunfortunate coincidence, as far as Mr. Ashcroft was concerned, becauseMaryland had a moratorium on hiring Mr. Ashcroft's friend and before theexistence of the moratorium, had permitted the death penalty to work itswill on only three people in the preceding twenty-five years, a dismalrecord indeed from the perspective of the death penalty and Mr. Ashcroft.(He helped the death penalty in that case by taking steps that resulted inmoving the trial to Virginia whose enthusiasm for the death penalty isexceeded only by that of Texas.) Having worked his magic in Maryland, Mr.Ashcroft has now turned his attention to Puerto Rico. That benighted placewhich is less sophisticated than its cousins on the mainland, enacted aconstitution in 1952 that has this bizarre sentence: "The death penaltyshall not exist." That is a palpably absurd statement and one which thedeath penalty finds demeaning. Everyone knows it both exists and performsa useful function. People know what the Puerto Ricans meant is that theydon't want the death penalty to take up residence in their fair island.For them the attorney general has news. His friend exists in Puerto Riconotwithstanding the Puerto Rican constitution.

A federal trial is taking place in Puerto Rico as this is written in whichthe Justice Department wants to enlist the aid of the death penalty whenit's time for punishment. According to a report in the New York Times,everyone from local politicians, to lawyers, scholars and just plain folkhave denounced the trial. They call it a betrayal of their constitutionwhich was approved in its entirety by the U.S. Congress in 1952.

The Justice Department didn't see it that way. Court filings by the U.S.attorney say that federal criminal laws override local laws irrespectiveof their genesis. The law establishing Puerto Rico says, among otherthings, that federal laws that are "not locally inapplicable" are in forceon the island. Whether that prevents the death penalty from plying itstrade is a matter of conjecture and inconsistent decisions.

Commenting on a Puerto Rican capital case being tried in front of him someyears ago, Salvador E. Casellas, a federal judge said: "It shocks theconscience to impose the ultimate penalty, death, upon American citizenswho are denied the right to participate directly or indirectly in thegovernment that enacts and authorizes the imposition of such punishment."The First Circuit in Boston said it understood that Puerto Ricans were notfriends of the death penalty but nonetheless permitted it to compete inthe trial saying the argument about the death penalty is "a political one,not a legal one."

William Matthewman is the lawyer representing Acosta Martinez, thedefendant in the case now being tried. He is under court order not todiscuss the case. In his only reported public comment he said: "It seems awaste of time and resources for the federal government to go into anyjurisdiction where it's not wanted." Mr. Matthewman has not met JohnAshcroft.

As observed above, Mr. Ashcroft likes nothing better than to go into ajurisdiction where he's not wanted, if in so doing he's helping out thedeath penalty. That has not, however, been as helpful to his friend as hemight have hoped. The Death Penalty Information Center reports that from1988 to 2000, 46% of the federal capital trials resulted in deathsentences. Since John Ashcroft has been attorney general, only 15% of thecapital trials have produced that result. Juries in 15 of the last 16cases tried have declined to impose the death penalty. That might tell themeddlesome Mr. Ashcroft something were he listening.

(source: Christopher Brauchli is a Boulder, Colorado lawyer; inCounterpunch) – July 24, 2003

Prosecutors describe series of slayings---Papers detail deadly path ofGary Sampson

A wary Environmental Police officer escorted Gary Lee Sampson out of aPlymouth state forest on July 27, 2001, the day after his 1st victim hadbeen discovered just a few towns away, according to newly released courtdocuments.

Although Sampson was wanted on federal bank robbery charges, the officernever checked for warrants, and Sampson was not arrested. Prosecutors sayhe killed his 2nd victim later that day.

The court documents provide chilling details of a weeklong series ofcrimes and a confession prosecutors say Sampson gave investigators when hefinally turned himself in.

Sampson, 43, who is scheduled to stand trial Sept. 15 in US District Courtin Boston, could face the death penalty in the slayings of PhilipMcCloskey, 69, of Taunton and Jonathan Rizzo, 19, of Kingston.

A 3rd alleged victim, Robert Whitney, was killed in New Hampshire, butprosecutors say they hope to introduce evidence of Whitney's slayingduring the penalty phase of the trial.

According to the federal prosecutors' trial memorandum, Sampson visitedthe Myles Standish State Forest in Plymouth on July 27, the day afterMcCloskey's body was found in the woods off Route 3A in Marshfield.

A Myles Standish attendant grew suspicious when Sampson told him he was onmilitary leave and about to embark on a covert operation for the CIA. Theforest worker called his superiors, according to the memorandum, and agroup of employees, including a ranger and an Environmental Policeofficer, confronted Sampson.

Sampson, who called himself Wayne Sampson, said he could not produceidentification because his wallet had been stolen. He asked the officer,Robert Akin, whether he had powers to arrest.

The officer, who has full police powers, ordered Sampson into his markedpolice cruiser and escorted him to the park exit. Later that day, Sampsonkilled Rizzo, a college student who had given him a ride, according to thestatement Sampson later gave police.

If the Environmental Police officer had entered Sampson's name into anational criminal database, he would have found that Sampson was wanted inconnecton with a bank robbery in North Carolina.

Lawyers for Sampson, who say they will not contest his guilt at trial, saythat officials at the Myles Standish State Forest did not think thatSampson was a criminal, but that he was mentally ill. His lawyers havesaid they will present evidence of mental illness in arguing he should notreceive the death penalty.

State officials would not comment on Sampson's conversation with Akin,because "this officer may be called as a witness," said Felix Browne,spokesman for the state's Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.

In his statements to police, Sampson said he told his victims he wasrunning from authorities in North Carolina, where he was wanted for 5 bankrobberies.

Sampson promised his victims that he would not hurt them, telling them hewas only interested in their vehicles. He even sprayed Rizzo with insectrepellent as he tied him to a tree to convince him that he wasn't going todie, Sampson told investigators.

Sampson said he was looking for a bank to rob in Weymouth or Braintree onJuly 24 when he grew tired of walking and decided to hitch a ride.McCloskey, 69, a retired gas company employee from Taunton, picked him upin Weymouth, said Sampson.

On July 31, 2001, Sampson described the encounter to Vermont State PoliceDetective Sergeant Ray Keefe, saying: "So, he picks me up. A littlestrange, I don't know, but who am I to say strange? Hell, I'm robbingbanks and killing people."

Sampson said he forced McCloskey to drive to a wooded area in Marshfield,where, he told investigators, he didn't intend to kill him, just take hisvan. But the "spunky old man" fought back, and Sampson said he stabbedMcCloskey more times than he could remember.

Sampson said he could not steal the van because it had a kill-switch thatdeactivated the ignition.

On July 27, Sampson made his way to Plymouth, where he said he againlooked for a vehicle to steal. He told two Massachusetts State Policeofficers Aug. 1, 2001, of thinking: "I've already committed one murder.I'll steal a vehicle. Then I'll kill them if I have to."

Rizzo, a George Washington University student working as a waiter at aPlymouth restaurant for the summer, picked Sampson up as he headed home toKingston. "He told me his life story," Sampson told investigators. "Hetried to show me a picture of his girlfriend, and I wouldn't let him."

Sampson said he forced Rizzo at knifepoint to drive him to Abington,Sampson's hometown. There, he tied Rizzo to a tree with yellow rope andstabbed him to death, he said.

"Was he pleading for his life?" an investigator asked.

"All 3 of my victims," Sampson answered.

After killing Rizzo, Sampson said he pulled out a bottle of Sprite, whichhe said he always carried, and cleaned himself up. "I drove around toalmost every . . . hotel in this area, and they were booked," he said.

David Ruhnke, one of Sampson's lawyers, said the government's documentprovides only a piece of the story. It makes no mention of Sampson's callto the FBI in which he allegedly tried to turn himself in before thekilling began. "It's like the call never happened," Ruhnke said.

(source: Boston Globe) – July 17, 2003

Ashcroft could bring his death mission to Minnesota

There hasn't been an execution in Minnesota since 1906, but if Richard A.Oslund looks outside his cell, he might see the specter of U.S. AttorneyGeneral John Ashcroft holding a syringe.

Oslund has been indicted in the 1998 killing of armored car guard BillyStrelow outside the Bloomington Target store.

Oslund, who has spent much of the past decade in state prisons, suddenlyis facing a federal murder charge. And that means Minnesota is looking atthe real possibility of hosting a capital punishment case for the 1st timesince William Williams was hanged almost a century ago.

Jerry Strauss, Oslund's attorney, said he believes that Ashcroft will pushfor the death sentence to be applied if his client is found guilty.

"It makes for a difficult day when you're an attorney and your clientlooks at you and asks, 'What's the worst I'm looking at?'" said Strauss."And you have to answer, 'You're looking at six feet under.'"

Many, including Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner, believe this casewill be all about Ashcroft's desire to apply the death penalty in statessuch as Minnesota where it's not on the books.

Typically, she said, murder cases are tried at the state level, meaningthat this case would be tried in Hennepin County District Court.

The feds are justifying taking this case because Brinks is involved ininterstate commerce. But usually federal authorities don't stretch so farfor a murder case. Most often federal murder cases involve drugs, gangs ororganized crime where stiff federal laws can be used to induce witnessesto cooperate.

"If the goal is not the death penalty," Gaertner said, "I'm not sure Iunderstand the federal interest in the case."

Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar said only that she had beennotified about the case by federal officials last week.

Others familiar with the way the relationship between the JusticeDepartment in Washington and local federal prosecutors traditionally hasworked and the way it operates now, agree with Gaertner: Things havedramatically changed since Ashcroft.

Unlike those before him, he has overruled federal prosecutors whorecommended against pushing for the death penalty.

That means that Tom Heffelfinger, Minnesota's U.S. attorney, will not havethe same voice his predecessors had. (Heffelfinger said he would not addto comments he made on Tuesday, when Oslund's indictment was announced.)

"It's political with Ashcroft," Strauss said. "I don't think it is withHeffelfinger. He's not vindictive and he's not political. But you can'tseparate him from Ashcroft. Ashcroft's the boss."

Those familiar with the Justice Department also say that before Ashcroft'stenure, the U.S. attorney general generally avoided seeking the deathpenalty in states that didn't have capital punishment. And they believethat Ashcroft is particularly interested in trying capital cases in thosestates.

In some ways, Oslund and this case offer Ashcroft an easy target. Thecrime was brutal. Although Oslund's attorney says he denies allallegations related to the Strelow killing, his record is crime-filled.And he's white, meaning he doesn't add to the messy statistical situationthat people of color are far more likely to be on the receiving end of asyringe than whites.

If he is on a mission, Ashcroft also might find Minnesotans more receptivenow because of a recent spate of particularly awful killings. Althoughpolls over the years have shown that Minnesotans support capitalpunishment, the legislature has never acted, and there has been no realpublic outcry.

And of course, we could tell ourselves that although Minnesotans would bejudge and jury, the actual execution would be carried out by the feds, ina far-away Indiana prison.

"Regardless of the polls, regardless of how you feel about the deathpenalty, this is an affront to our state's polcies and culture," Gaertnersaid.

An affront because the feds -- pushed by Ashcroft -- would be trumping astate policy that has endured since William Williams was buried almost acentury ago.

(source: Doug Grow, Minneapolis Star Tribune) – May 8, 2003

Facing a Jury of (Some of) One's Peers

The right to a trial by a jury of one's peers lies at the heart of theAmerican legal system - except when it comes to the death penalty.

The jury hearing the 1st capital trial in Puerto Rico in a generation, forexample, does not reflect the island's population in 2 important ways.

The case is in federal court, and potential jurors not fluent in Englishare excluded from all federal trials nationwide. In Puerto Rico, thatmeans that 2/3 to 3/4 of the island's residents cannot serve.

And because prosecutors are seeking to execute the 2 defendants, who areaccused of kidnapping and murder, potential jurors who said they wouldnever impose the death penalty were automatically rejected. That secondrequirement excludes, according to somewhat dated studies, 11 % to 17 % ofpotential jurors nationwide. In Puerto Rico, which has no death penaltyand where the federal government's pursuit of capital charges in thepending trial has provoked widespread outrage, the percentage is probablyhigher.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, whichhears all federal appeals from Puerto Rico, has upheld the languagerequirement, finding that its importance outweighs the distortions in thejury pool it produces. It is not clear, in any event, which side thedistortions might favor in criminal cases.

But death qualification, as the 2nd requirement is known, is a differentmatter. It has been shown to produce juries that are notably friendlier toprosecutors than jurors in murder cases where the death penalty is notsought.

Studies have shown that juries in capital cases are more likely to believethat a defendant's failure to testify indicates guilt, more hostile to theinsanity defense, more mistrustful of defense attorneys and less concernedabout the possibility of convicting innocent people than a random sampleof the population.

Death qualification has other consequences, too.

"There is a major bleaching of juries," said Samuel R. Gross, a lawprofessor at the University of Michigan. "Many more African-Americans areexcluded than whites. The biggest demographic predictor of attitudestoward the death penalty is race."

The exclusion of jurors opposed to the death penalty, Justice ThurgoodMarshall wrote in a 1986 dissent, "allows the state a special advantage inthose prosecutions where the charges are most serious and the possiblepunishments the most severe."

The Supreme Court took a tentative step toward forbidding such questioningin 1968. The court reversed a death sentence imposed by a jury selected bya judge who had excluded everyone who had any qualms about the deathpenalty.

"Whatever else may be said of capital punishment," Justice Potter Stewartwrote for the majority, "it is at least clear that its imposition by ahanging jury cannot be squared with the Constitution."

But the court still allowed the exclusion of jurors who categoricallyoppose the death penalty, citing the need for more research on the effectof such exclusions.

"That was an invitation to go do empirical research, and it was aninvitation that was met with a vengeance," said Franklin E. Zimring, a lawprofessor at the University of California at Berkeley, and the author of"The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment" (Oxford University,2003).

The resulting studies showed a powerful correlation between attitudestoward the death penalty and receptiveness to evidence of defendants'guilt. "It's a situation where we were embarrassed by knowledge,"Professor Zimring said. "It was a wonderful example of legal empiricalresearch being too good for the court."

In 1986, the court in essence withdrew its invitation. Justice William H.Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said that, on reflection, socialscience could add nothing to the relevant legal analysis. TheConstitution, he said, forbids only the exclusion of distinctive groupslike blacks and women. Barring groups of people defined only by sharedattitudes is permissible.

Justice Rehnquist rejected alternatives that might have addressed someconcerns, like separate juries for the guilt and penalty phases of a trialor a single jury with extra jurors who could be weeded out based on theirattitudes toward executions if a penalty phase was needed. The SupremeCourt has since held that jurors who say they would automatically imposethe death penalty for some crimes may also be excluded.

The ability to screen jurors may invite prosecutorial gamesmanship,tempting prosecutors to charge cases as capital crimes solely to produce afriendlier jury.

In his 1986 dissent, Justice Marshall noted that it was all but impossibleto prove that a prosecutor had engaged in this sort of "tactical ruse."Though facts suggesting the tactic have been present in at least ahalf-dozen cases, no court has overturned a conviction on this ground.

Juries are returning fewer death penalties these days. The number ofpeople entering death row in 2001 was 155, the smallest since 1973. Finalstatistics for 2002 have not yet been compiled, but legal experts expectthe trend to hold.

That does not, however, allay all concerns about the distorting effects ofdeath qualification of a jury. To the contrary, said Jamie Orenstein, aformer federal prosecutor, "one of the basic ideas about the death penaltyis that it's supposed to reflect the moral judgment of the community."Excluding opponents of the death penalty from capital juries makes gaugingthat moral judgment more difficult.

"It's a genuine dilemma," said Professor Zimring. "If you gave capitaldefendant a representative jury, you couldn't produce a death penalty."

(source: New York Times) - July 20, 2003

Puerto Ricans Angry That U.S. Overrode Death Penalty Ban

This island, it is safe to say, hates capital punishment.

'It has not had an execution since 1927. It outlawed the practice 2 yearslater and wrote this antipathy into its Constitution in 1952: "The deathpenalty shall not exist."

That is why a federal trial here, in which the Justice Department isseeking the execution of 2 men accused of kidnapping and murder, has leftmany Puerto Ricans baffled and angry.

Local politicians, members of the legal establishment, scholars andordinary residents have denounced the trial, now in its 2nd week. Theycall it a betrayal of the island's autonomy, culture and law, inparticular its Constitution, which Congress approved in 1952 as part ofthe compact that created Puerto Rico's unusual and frequently uneasyassociation with the United States mainland.

Not even relentless daily testimony about the gory crime - the kidnappedman was shot and dismembered - has softened the outrage voiced by manyhere.

"Although we are talking about some facts that are very gruesome, thepeople of Puerto Rico do not approve in any way of capital punishment,"said Arturo Luis Dvila Toro, the president of the Puerto Rico BarAssociation.

"If the people of Puerto Rico decide that capital punishment cannot beused, even in federal prosecutions, it is against the Compact of 1952,"Mr. Dvila Toro said. "How can I explain that my Constitution is notrespected by the nation that teaches us how to live in a democracy?"

People here associate capital punishment with the military governmentinstalled by the United States in 1898, after it took Puerto Rico fromSpain in the Spanish-American War. That government executed 2 dozen mostlypoor and illiterate people before the island outlawed the death penalty.

Puerto Rico is also heavily Roman Catholic, and polls show that manyresidents oppose capital punishment on religious and moral grounds. Duringthe protracted jury selection for the current trial, many potential jurorswere rejected because they said they could never impose the death penalty.

Opponents of the prosecution say they are most offended by what they seeas an affront to Puerto Rico's legal autonomy.

A Justice Department spokesman had no comment. In court papers,prosecutors have said that federal criminal laws override local laws,whether they are statutes, state constitutions or the Puerto RicanConstitution.

The law establishing the Puerto Rican commonwealth said federal laws thatwere "not locally inapplicable" were valid on the island. That phrase,with its ambiguous double negative, has given rise to inconsistentdecisions.

In 2000, a federal judge here threw out the capital charges against the 2defendants in the current trial, Joel Rivera Alejandro and Hector OscarAcosta Martinez. The judge, Salvador E. Casellas, noted that Puerto Ricanshave no vote in presidential elections and have only a single, nonvotingrepresentative in Congress.

"It shocks the conscience," Judge Casellas wrote, "to impose the ultimatepenalty, death, upon American citizens who are denied the right toparticipate directly or indirectly in the government that enacts andauthorizes the imposition of such punishment."

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, whichhears all appeals of federal cases from Puerto Rico, reversed JudgeCasellas's decision in 2001 and reinstated the capital charges.

"We fully accept the strength of Puerto Rico's interest and its moral andlegal sentiment against the death penalty," the appeals court said. Butthe commonwealth's argument, it continued, "is a political one, not alegal one."

A different judge, Hctor Laffitte, is supervising the trial. He hasinstructed the lawyers in the case not to talk about it in public, andWilliam D. Matthewman, who represents Mr. Acosta Martnez, had only ageneral comment.

"It seems a waste of time and resources," Mr. Matthewman said, "for thefederal government to go into any jurisdiction where it's not wanted."

A key witness in the case is Jos Prez Mojica, a former heroin addict. OnMonday, Mr. Prez Mojica testified that he had briefly guarded thekidnapped man, Jorge Hernandez Diaz, acted as a lookout in exchange for 5bags of heroin and $65, supplied the ax with which his body was hackedapart and helped to dispose of his remains. But he said he did notparticipate in concocting the plan or in the killing and mutilation.

Mr. Perez Mojica, 25, said he had agreed to testify against the 2defendants to avoid life in prison, the harshest penalty under PuertoRican law. Asked whether he also feared what Mr. Matthewman called "thefederal death penalty," he seemed confused but allowed that he was noteager to be executed, either.

Although Mr. Perez Mojica pleaded guilty to his role in the kidnappingmore than 4 years ago and has been in prison since, he will not besentenced until the trial is over. He faces up to 20 years.

Justice Department guidelines allow capital charges to be filed only wherethe federal interest in the prosecution is more substantial than the localone.

In the Clinton administration, the guidelines took account of localopposition to the death penalty. 12 states and the District of Columbiaalso do not have the death penalty.

"In states where the imposition of the death penalty is not authorized bylaw," the guidelines said, "the fact that the maximum federal penalty isdeath is insufficient, standing alone, to show a more substantial interestin federal prosecution."

The Justice Department eliminated that provision in revised guidelinesissued in 2001. Legal experts say that move implies that parts of thecountry that forbid the death penalty locally are more likely to have itsought for federal crimes.

"It was a political decision to remove that sentence," said Rory K.Little, a professor at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco and aformer Justice Department official who served under Attorney General JanetReno in the Clinton administration. "The Reno Justice Department was muchmore willing to listen to local assessments."

The current Justice Department has been seeking the death penalty moreoften and in more places than earlier administrations had, and officialsin Washington regularly override local recommendations not to seek thedeath penalty.

Department officials say these trends reflect an effort to treat peoplecharged with serious crimes similarly, no matter where the crimes werecommitted.

Federal prosecutors are now also taking more cases to trial rather thanaccepting plea deals. In 16 recent federal capital trials, juries rejectedthe death penalty 15 times.

Gov. Sila M. Calderon of Puerto Rico said through a spokesman that she was"totally and absolutely against the death penalty because of ethical andmoral reasons."

Ms. Calderon added that it would be inappropriate for her to comment onthe trial while it is under way or to speculate about whether she wouldseek clemency if the defendants were sentenced to death.

Kenneth McClintock, a Puerto Rican senator and a member of the oppositionNew Progressive Party, said that accepting federal capital prosecutionswas a price of association with the mainland.

"In general, Puerto Ricans are massively against the death penalty," Mr.McClintock said, adding that he opposes it as well. "But so long as youhave a federal law, it should apply uniformly. We should not be asking foran exclusion for Puerto Rico.

Mr. Perez Mojica, the informant, sat in front of a Puerto Rican flag as heanswered questions through a translator on Monday. The American flag wastucked in a far corner of the courtroom.

The translation into English seemed superfluous if not comic to manypeople in the courtroom, whose Spanish was mostly better than theirEnglish.

Judge Laffitte, who occasionally corrected the translator, tried toexplain the importance of preparing a clear written transcript in English.

"This is a sensitive and important case," he said in court on Monday, andhe wanted to be sure that the appeals court judges in Boston understoodwhat had gone on during the trial.

(source: New York Times)

Death-Penalty Debate Goes to Heart of Puerto Rico's Status

The sordid tale played out for a jury in a federal courtroom last week isanother example of how the constitutions of the United States and PuertoRico can collide even over a seemingly unworthy cause.

This one is more than a blip on the island's gruesome-crime radar screen,because the two men on trial for kidnapping and cutting businessman JorgeHernndez Daz into pieces face the death penalty. And civic and religiousleaders, human-rights activists and others are determined that even if theaccused are found guilty, their lives will be spared.

Puerto Rico's constitution bans the death penalty. And since the federaldeath penalty was re-established in 1988, this is the 1st of the 59federal capital-punishment cases authorized for the island to reach ajury.

And there's the rub. It's another clash of constitutions or wills betweenPuerto Rico and the United States. Like the 4-year controversy about theU.S. Navy's bombing exercises on the island of Vieques. Or the legalface-off on whether Puerto Ricans on the island should be able to vote forthe president who can -- and does -- send them to war.

This clash once again goes to the heart of Puerto Rico's perennialpolitical-status problem. Should Puerto Rico, as a U.S. territory with aunique "commonwealth" relationship with Washington, be subject to afederal mandate on capital punishment that is expressly prohibited in itsown constitution? It's a constitution that was not only approved by theisland's voters in 1952, but ratified by Congress, which left the banintact.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this year that Puerto Rico is subject tofederal law. Lawyers argued that given the degree of the commonwealth'sautonomy, Puerto Rico's constitutional ban prevented prosecutors fromseeking the death penalty. Some also said it was a case of imposing a lawthat Puerto Ricans had no hand in creating because the island has novoting representation in Congress.

The commonwealth's critics say this proves the island's political status-- painstakingly forged and ultimately approved in 1952 after Congressflatly rejected statehood and independence as options -- is little morethan a "dressed-up colony."

Even the commonwealth's defenders who lead the governing PopularDemocratic Party concede that this newest controversy exposes reasons whythey must push for more self-governing powers.

"This is a good example of those federal laws that apply to Puerto Ricothat infringe on our culture, our laws and our customs," Gov. Sila Caldernsaid. "It should be one of the aspects that must be improved when thedevelopment of commonwealth is under way."

Pascual Ramos was the last person executed on the island in 1927, hangedfor cutting off his boss'shead with a machete. Capital punishment wasabolished two years later, but by then 23 people -- mostly illiterateand/or black -- had been executed since U.S. troops invaded Puerto Ricoduring the Spanish-American War in 1898.

In the latest case, businessman Hernndez Daz was abducted at gunpoint Feb.11, 1998, in front of his convenience store southeast of San Juan. He wasshot in the head, chopped into pieces, stuffed in garbage bags and dumpedon an isolated road now known as the "road of death."

According to testimony, the victim was an illegal-numbers runner; his sonwas a former drug trafficker who beat his wife; and the government's starwitness was a heroin addict who may have been high when he helped cut upthe body.

The sickening tale aside, death-penalty opponents say they will campaignheavily to get politicians to push Congress to exempt Puerto Rico from themandate. They also are making their case to global commissions, arguingthat U.S. imposition of capital punishment on Puerto Rico isdiscriminatory and illegal under international law.

"We can transfer that successful work building coalitions to get the U.S.Navy out of Vieques to this struggle," said Fermn Arraiza, an attorneywith the Citizens Committee Against the Death Penalty. "We have to changethis before we can solve the deeper problem of the status of Puerto Rico."

Some say there is precedent. Prisoners-rights advocate Trina Rivera de Rosrecalled how islanders campaigned in New York in the 1960s to keep fellowPuerto Rican Salvador Agrn, known as the Capeman, from being executed whenhe was a teenager. His life was ultimately spared.

"You don't have to do a lot of convincing about what's wrong with thedeath penalty," she said. "You just have to have some self-respect."

(source: Orlando Sentinel)

Puerto Ricans Accuse U.S. of Imposing Capital Punishment

It was a kidnap-ransom plot that went bloodily awry. And with its twoalleged ringleaders in custody and potentially facing the death penalty,it is quickly becoming the newest point of friction between Puerto Ricoand the United States.

The last person sentenced to die on this Caribbean island was a farmworkernamed Pascual Ramos, who beheaded his boss with a machete; he was hangedin 1927 for his crime.

2 years later, Puerto Rico's legislature -- like those throughout much ofLatin America -- outlawed the death penalty. The 1952 constitution, whichdefined Puerto Rico's status as a self-governing commonwealth associatedwith the United States, reiterated the unconditional ban on capitalpunishment.

But now, because of a legal interpretation that has them being triedbefore a federal jury, two reputed Puerto Rican gang leaders could besentenced to death by lethal injection.

MARKET OWNER KIDNAPPED

The situation has given rise to a grassroots protest movement and broughtobjections from some islanders that the United States is behaving like asemicolonial ruler.

"We don't believe in capital punishment, and they are trying to impose iton us," said Arturo Luis Davila Toro, president of the Puerto Rican BarAssociation.

According to U.S. authorities, Hector Oscar Acosta "Gordo" Martinez, JoelRivera Alejandro and several others kidnapped a minimart owner named JorgeHernandez Diaz at gunpoint on the night of Feb. 11, 1998, from a citysoutheast of San Juan. They demanded a ransom of $1 million and warned thefamily not to contact authorities.

When the abductors learned the police were investigating Diaz's abduction,the grocer was shot and dismembered with an ax, his body parts placed intrash bags and dumped along a road, authorities said. The 2 allegedringleaders, who were arrested and are being held in a federal detentioncenter near San Juan, were indicted under a 1994 law passed by Congress toextend a possible capital sentence to a wider number ofcrimes.

"You're talking about brutal defendants who murdered and beheaded thisbusinessman," U.S. Justice Department spokesman Jorge Martinez said inWashington, D.C. "Obviously, this is a capital case. And if the juryconvicts and decides on that type of punishment, it will be carried outaccordingly."

Jury selection for the trial, to be held in U.S. District Court in SanJuan, began last week. If jurors find the defendants guilty and vote forcapital punishment, the sentences would be carried out at the federalpenitentiary in Terre Haute, Ind. -- where 2 years ago this month,Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was fed a lethal stream of drugsthrough a needle inserted in his right leg.

But some people in Puerto Rico, who are questioning whether the defendantsbelong in federal court at all, want the trial to become another rallyingpoint for demanding a change in the island's status --just like thesuccessful struggle to shut down the U.S. Navy's bombing range at Viequesisland. After a 4-year campaign that landed more than 1,200 protestersbehind bars, the Navy has abandoned the lands it had held since World WarII.

"Vieques was a tremendous experience for our country and proved -- notonly in Puerto Rico, to our own people, but internationally -- the powerof civil society, (that) without using violence . . . there can bechange," said Juan Pablo De Leon, a professor of social sciences at SacredHeart University in San Juan.

TRIAL A POLITICAL GRAB BAG

As president of a citizens' committee opposing capital punishment, De Leonis planning to take the dispute over the San Juan trial before the UnitedNations. He also hopes the popular backlash will become so great thatPuerto Rico's elected leaders will lobby Congress to exempt the islandfrom the 1994 Federal Death Penalty Act.

"Behind this case is the reality of the relationship between Puerto Ricoand the United States," he said.

The trial, being held before Chief U.S. District Judge Hector Laffitte,has become a political grab bag for advocates of continued commonwealthstatus and those who dream of Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state.

Puerto Rico's top elected official, Gov. Sila Calderon, a proponent of thecommonwealth, said the murder case demonstrated there must be furtherreforms in the U.S.-Puerto Rican relationship to end the application offederal laws "that infringe on our culture, our own laws and our customs."Calderon has refused to give her views about the upcoming trial but hassaid she is an unconditional opponent of the death penalty, which shetermed immoral.

Kenneth McClintock, a member of the opposition New Progressive Party and a3-term island senator, is also a foe of capital punishment. But he viewsthe trial as yet another reason to press for statehood.

"We're part of the U.S., and all federal laws apply to Puerto Rico,"McClintock said. "You can't be accepting Pell grants with one hand andopposing the application of federal laws you don't like with the other. Itall comes in a package. If people like me don't like the death penalty, weneed to work for statehood, get two senators and 6 representatives in theCongress and vote for the repeal of the death penalty law."

For advocates of Puerto Rican independence, who garnered 5 % of the votein the most recent elections, the trial will be yet another argument forsevering all legal and political ties with the United States.

With polls showing most people on this predominantly Roman Catholic islandfirmly opposed to the death penalty, jury selection is expected to take 2to 3 weeks -- with each of the 159 potential panelists being questioned, 1by 1, in the judge's conference room with lawyers for the government andthe defense present. Laffitte already has rejected a petition to bartestimony from the main prosecution witness because, defense attorneysclaim, he is a drug addict and gave information to the police underduress.

Anabelle Rodriguez, the commonwealth's secretary for justice, said U.S.government officials still hadn't explained to her why they were seekingthe death penalty against the 2 defendants.

"When you have a dual judicial system, like we do in Puerto Rico, thesethings happen," Rodriguez said. "This is one of the areas where, in thefuture, we may seek an accommodation so these things can't happen again.It's very important Puerto Ricans see their constitution respected."

(source: Los Angeles Times)

Case could bring death penalty trial

The 1st death-penalty trial in Minnesota in nearly a century could followthe federal indictment of a Rosemount man who is accused of murdering aBrinks armored car guard during a robbery in 1998.

Richard Ashton Oslund, 28, is accused of killing Billy Strelow, 41, whowas gunned down while carrying two bags of cash and receipts to a Brinkstruck that was parked in front of a Target store in Bloomington on Nov.22, 1998.

Oslund was charged Tuesday with using a firearm to commit murder duringthe commission of a federal crime an offense that carries the possibilityof a death sentence. By law, robbery of an armored car is a federaloffense involving interstate commerce. Oslund also was charged in the3-count indictment with robbery and being a felon in possession of ahandgun.

Statements by a federal prosecutor Tuesday strongly suggested the deathpenalty will be sought.

Billy Strelow's widow, Lisa, said the news of an arrest brought a mix ofemotions.

"It's a joy, and it's a kind of sadness," she said. "When I heard about ittoday, I felt just like I did when I heard Billy was shot."

The robbery and shooting in 1998 was particularly shocking because it tookplace on a Sunday afternoon, just a few yards in front of the entrance toa Target store in Bloomington.

Dozens of shoppers witnessed the crime, which investigators called an"execution-style" killing by a lone gunman who fired at least six shotsbefore grabbing a cash bag and fleeing.

"This has been almost 5 years ago, but you still park these things in thatdeep subconscious," said Murray Williams, then a manager at the Targetstore and one of the first people to rush to the fatally wounded Strelow."It catches up to you again and again."

Bloomington police and FBI agents worked the case for 4 years. It wasfeatured on television's "America's Most Wanted" on Dec. 11, 1999, and areward of $115,000 was offered.

Strelow, a father of 2, had been working for Brinks for about nine months.The son of Erwin Strelow, a former Mille Lacs County commissioner, Strelowhad grown up in Onamia, Minn., and had served in the U.S. Army beforeworking as a welder.

He lived with his family in St. Michael, a northwest Minneapolis suburb.At the time of his death, his eldest son, Bill, was a student at DunwoodyTechnical Institute in Minneapolis, and his 2nd son, Aaron, was attendinghigh school. Strelow also left 2 brothers and a sister.

At Tuesday's news conference, U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger saidauthorization to seek the death penalty involves a report that must beprepared by a local panel after compiling facts of the case, includingvictim statements. The report is then sent to the U.S. Department ofJustice, where a capital case committee reviews it.

Ultimately, Attorney General John Ashcroft decides whether a death penaltywill be sought, Heffelfinger said.

"No decision has yet been made, obviously, by this office to seek thedeath penalty," Heffelfinger cautioned during the news conference. "Butthis office will follow procedures established by law."

Minnesota abolished the death penalty in 1911, 5 years after the lastexecution took place in the state. William Williams, the last personexecuted, was hanged in Ramsey County on Feb. 13, 1906.

In recent decades, federal laws allowing the death penalty have expandedand local legal experts predicted that it was only a matter of time beforea case would be prosecuted in this state.

If convicted and sentenced to death, Oslund would likely be executed atthe federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind., where Oklahoma City bomberTimothy McVeigh was killed by lethal injection.

Oslund's lawyer, Minneapolis attorney Jerry Strauss, declined to comment.Assistant U.S. Attorney Nate Petterson has been assigned to prosecute thecase before Chief U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum.

The manner in which Oslund was arrested suggested that the case againsthim had been in preparation for some time. A grand jury handed up a sealedindictment on Monday, one day before Oslund was scheduled to be releasedfrom Stillwater Prison after completing a sentence for a state conviction.

Oslund was taken into custody as soon as he walked out of the prisonTuesday. He was immediately taken before a federal magistrate who orderedhim held without bond until an appearance on May 20.

Oslund's lengthy prison record indicates he was on parole at the time ofthe alleged murder, having been released on Nov. 5, less than 3 weeksbefore the shooting.

According to state records, he had been in and out of prison on a series of paroles and parole violations since 1994, when he was convicted and sentenced for drug and burglary offenses.

In January of 1999, less than 2 months after Strelow's death, Oslund was arrested again for a parole violation. He went through a series of incarcerations and paroles until May 2000, when his sentence expired and he was discharged.

But by September 2001, he was back in prison again after being convicted of making terroristic threats and fleeing an officer. He was due to be released Tuesday after completing that sentence.

At Tuesday's news conference, Bloomington Police Chief John Laux and FBI Special Agent in Charge Deborah Pierce lauded the dogged efforts of agents and officers in pursuing the case. They declined, however, to identify the investigators or give details of their work.

But Laux said the indictment of Oslund demonstrated one thing: "We don't forget and we don't quit," he said.

(source: Pioneer Press) – May 7, 2003


Project Overview | Execution Calendar | Juveniles | Foreign Nationals | Mental Retardation
Mental Illness | Brief Bank, General Resources & Statistics | Training & Events | Externships

Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Web Development and Maintenance by:
webbuoy logo and link