Hide Article Text (OCR)
DEATH PENALTY— - COMtl I'l** t' * ' •’jobs at that time, if the results of a poll taken in December 1984 are an indication.The same organization of district attorneys reported a poll of prosecuting attorneys revealed that 93 percent of them were opposed to reconfirmation of the trio of justices. District attorneys are not necessarily reflective of the voting public, but the figures during the 1978 vote to reinstate the death penalty speak for themselves. The vote was 4.5 million for the measure, 1.8 million opposed. A poll conducted in 1981 by the same association showed 78 percent of those members of the public who were polled, favored the death penalty.Despite the clear message from the voters, the district attorneys association maintains the Supreme Court is deliberately thwarting the will of the people From the white paper:“As it has pursued an agenda of picking the death penalty law apart bit by bit, the Bird Court has slowed to a snail’s pace in hearing and deciding the automatic appeals that come before it.”And the reasons for some of the decisions to overturn death penalties are at best puzzling, at worst outrageous.For example, consider two cases wherein the court appears to have ruled exactly opposite from its previous ruling. The synopses of the cases are contained in the aforementioned white paper.The first case involved Douglas Stankewitz, who with friends in 1978 kidnapped a woman from a parking lot in Modesto. They wanted to use her car to drive to Fresno. When they arrived in Fresno, Stankewitz put a gun to the woman’s head, shot her and laughed about it. He was sentenced to die, and four years later the Bird Court ruled on his automatic appeal. The conviction was reversed.It seems Stankewitz wanted his attorney to defend him by claiming he didn’t shoot the victim; the attorney insisted on a psychiatric defense, and the trial judge refused to substitute a new lawyer who would follow Stankewitz’s strategy.The Supreme Court said in its reversal that by forcing Stankewitz to keep a lawyer “... with whom he had become embroiled in irreconcilable conflict is to deprive him of the effective assistance of anycounsel whatsoever.”That might sound all right — until you consider the case of Ronny Mozingo.Mozingo was sentenced to die for raping his stepmother and then hog-tying her with electrical cord m such a way that she would strangle herself as her legs tired and drooped. Mozingo positioned himself so that the dying woman would have to watch him for the entire painful time she slowly choked to death. The victim managed to turn her face away from her killer as she took her last breath, and Mozingo reportedly later expressed disappointment at missing her dying moment.Mozingo’s attorney wanted to present a psychiatric defense. Moz-ingo insisted on an alibi defense. The attorney abided by his client’s wishes. The conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court because the attorney did as Mozingo wished.In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that Mozingo'.s luwver was incompetent for complying with his client’s desires, and Stankeuit/ s lawyer was incompetent for not complying with his client’s wishes The unclear decisions by the state Supreme Court have served to confuse district attorneys throughout the state — including Mi Doi ado County District Attorney Ron Tepper.“What I have a problem with is their reluctance to fur nish guidance to tell us what the rules are so we can play the game,” Teppei said “We’re forced to deal with ‘hyper-technicalities’ and we still don't know what to do to avoid errors. We’re working in a vacuum, wailing to be told what is and is not appropriate.”Although extreme care is exercised by Tepper in trying capital cases, it seems there always arise alleged grounds on which to over turn the death sentence. In the Karis case, for example, defense at tomey Steve Tapson told the trial judge that jury misconduct had or curred because one juror went to a library and asked for books bv a psychologist who had testified during the case There were im book , by that author, but nonetheless the defense charged misconduct Another juror looked up the meaning of a word used m the case another example of misconduct, Tapson charged “The trial judge laughed at us (the defense team i,“ Tapson told the Democrat. But will Bird and the other justices have the same sense of humor?The Supreme Court justices weren’t laughing when thev rev etsed the death sentence of Ronald Lanphear. Impropriety in the jm v selection led to that decision.Lanphear was convicted of a 1978 murder that occurred after he and his girlfriend journeyed to California from South Dakota, where Lanphear had just escaped from jail. The trip was funded through various crimes, but there came a point where the pair were at a California rest stop and were out of money, having gambled it away in Las Vegas. A man pulled mto the rest stop and Lanphear asked foi a ride. Unfortunately the man agreed.The man was shot to death by Lanphear, then dumped into the desert and shot two more times.Lanphear was sentenced to die. Although Bird and the majority oi justices had determined that Lanphear received a fair trial, they reversed the death sentence because during the jury selection, two prospective jurors used a certain word when they were asked by the judge whether they had such beliefs that they could never take part in deliberations that might result in a death penalty. Under state law if someone feels he would always vote for a death penalty, or alway swould not vote for a death penalty, he must be excusedIn this case, two jmois fepiu d to tin* judge s qu» *'»:lt;=--believe I could Ibey were * v. u i d lh«* Bud 1 out1 p ' the word believe ' wax equivot a! md mlt; ml that i'i - !some tli( umsUru e where ti»* jui oi possibly tould h- ! o a penalty case therdoie, the two rn-%pelt;tuc mini d lt;• been excused death p* naltv lev.?sed In death pcnaltv lt;o a s tht Hint hum lt;nmatmn lo m n • peal has grown a-.tionnuiiuillv under Uk Bud ( uurt ,f11 'white paper it now tales the mail an average I 1 14i d ' tnal court judgment to dec 'Mon on th* app'u! '1 ha1 m« in sentlt;*tilt; ed to dm (ic f 5 lt;u\ won t l now \ hothlt; I U 1upheld or ov* rtum* d lor a'mii t lour vi a'‘ u'd im-'i ' •even long* i d* lav Id mu I louit ki didltp'n I'-last I-ebi uai 1 d 1 -UD d v I ' ' 1moni Uk white paplt; i 'j Ik ei!Vlt; t of the ' siureaMng-U ,e isgomg4b •» -telling JheSupiMin ( our • r lt;11 ■ s ibo'jt • 40 i topi 1pr-i JU1I and dlt; lt;' 1' I'M! I.! ! 1 i MO'1!)' IM '’'of'ptdlxwen sent to lhlt; Sup! MU', 'out l li w' Llld stij! 1, l I '2103 for the i nMis vtalU d befni! the m :it I j b* luudL o lt;uthei words eveiv Death Low ouin te wd1 havi (In d o' i1 the ( ulilorma Suprerm ( ourt iMidt's, d'OMonBecause the lt;1 * * a ts an-1 -I* i 'M'i- ' di d m th* n;seem almost unbelnw iblc the Demin rat cad'-d th«- ( rdr 1 Attorn ws Assoc i it'on to find out \! he tier tin I *■ hni !,te' by Bud suppotU's th d tin whit jMpt' roul vv lt;s ri 'Bill Wood, du* do-ii n1 I O'th i -i 1 it-'son had complain'd that tin i« p,iTt wa to hir'd inof some mm dew \o i d ai mlt; m • 'v • Ml‘» 'u 1 ’ f tion ' Wood biii11Conning soon! Back to Schoo special editionSAFE AND SECUREWITH SIREN LIGHT
Newspaper Details
Placerville Mountain Democrat
Placerville, California, US
Fri, Aug 09, 1985
Page 34
Full Page
Clipped by
Lake C.
IN, USA 30 Jul 2020
Other Publications Near Placerville, California
Placerville Mountain Democrat
Placerville Mountain Democrat and Times
Mountain Democrat and Placerville Times
Mountain Democrat
Weekly Mountain Democrat
