Issue 318
January 7, 2005

INDEX

Articles

v     20 Wackiest Courtroom Moments of 2004

v     He’s accused in 14 attacks, but still free by Carlos Sadovi

v     Prosecution Concludes Case in Terror Trial by Julia Preston

v     When the Weight of the Evidence Shifts by Bob Herbert

v     Death sentences, executions decline by Steve Mills

 

 

 

The following article appeared on CourtTV.com on December 31, 2004:

 

20 Wackiest Courtroom Moments of 2004        

Court TV 

           

            1 The same day a judge denied cameras in the courtroom during Robert Blake's murder trial, the veteran actor gave media crews something to shoot. The "Baretta" star grabbed a street musician's guitar outside the courthouse and spontaneously belted out a rendition of "Over the Rainbow." 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            2 Convicted killer Sante Kimes may have been heartbroken that her once-loyal son testified against her, but it didn't prevent her from trying to soften the blow. During Kenneth Kimes' testimony, prosecutors introduced a note the son allegedly wrote that read, "Please understand I have to do it or they will kill you and me." But Kenneth laughed off the note as a forgery, and minutes later the judge caught Sante trying to slip the piece of evidence up her sleeve.

          

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            3 Was there a non-wacky courthouse moment for Courtney Love this year? Still, if we have to pick just one, it's the impromptu media interview from the women's room at the New York courthouse where she was arraigned on assault charges. The troubled rocker delivered a wide-reaching rant about ex-boyfriend Jim Barber, actor Russell Crowe, and her late husband Kurt Cobain's Nirvana bandmates, Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic. "You do not sleep with married men," Love advised onlookers.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            4 A Georgia prosecutor used full poetic license during his closing argument in the murder trial of Julia Lynn Turner, who was accused of poisoning her husband with antifreeze. Prosecutor Patrick Head recited a poem entitled "The Poisoner," which was projected onto a screen above Turner's mug shot. As the word "GUILTY" flashed across Turner's face, the prosecutor read, "I'm a different kind of killer as you can see. I'm a poisoner, can you catch me?"

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            5 As if the retrial of two ex-lovers for the murder of Vegas casino tycoon Ted Binion needed more drama, during his closing argument, defense attorney Tony Serra shouted, hissed, roleplayed, sang and at one point compared casinos to palaces and Binion to a "demigod," exclaiming, "Hail Caesar! We will find an assailant. The head must be brought forth and placed on a stick by dusk!" His client, Rick Tabish, was acquitted.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            6 After his arraignment on child-molestation charges, pop icon Michael Jackson entertained his crowd of supporters - and irritated court officials - when he jumped on top of his black SUV limo, blew kisses and, of course, danced.

          

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            7 Philandering electrician Daniel Pelosi, while on trial for murdering millionaire Ted Ammon, turned to his family in the courtroom and loudly announced that he was going to testify, astonishing everyone including his lawyers, prosecutors and even the judge, who said, "Are you kidding me?"

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            8 While jurors in Scott Peterson's murder trial deliberated, a boat similar to the one prosecutors say he used to dump his wife's body suddenly appeared in a lot near the courthouse. Both the lot and the boat, which contained a dummy that had been used in defense testing, belonged to defense attorney Mark Geragos. The stunt prompted an outcry from Laci Peterson's family and friends. Overnight, observers brought flowers and candles, turning the boat into an impromptu memorial site for the slain mother and her unborn son.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            9 Brian David Mitchell, who is accused of kidnapping Elizabeth Smart, broke into a Christmas hymn in the middle of a court hearing in Salt Lake City. After listening to the tune for 40 seconds, the judge tossed Mitchell from the courtroom and ordered a new round of competency evaluations.

            10 Oklahoma judge Donald Thompson was accused of using a male enhancement pump beneath his robe while sitting at the bench during numerous legal proceedings, including a murder trial. After the 57-year-old judge was caught in the act by a clerk and trial witnesses, the state's attorney general sought his dismissal from the bench.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

           

            11 Robert Durst appeared stunned at being acquitted of murdering his elderly neighbor, especially after admitting to chopping up the body. But he had to have been nearly as shocked when he heard the bond his trial judge set for the remaining - and relatively minor - bail-jumping charge against him: $3 billion - the highest in Texas history. A higher court later lowered the amount.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            12 Celebrity pals made notable appearances at Martha Stewart's stock-fraud trial in February, but perhaps none as memorably, or endearingly, as Bill Cosby. The comedian and Jell-O spokesman came supplied with boxes of quick-mix dessert for the defense team.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            13 Attorney David Fink went on the attack, literally, during a deposition in a contract-dispute case in May at a New York courthouse. In response to being called a "mad-dog lawyer," Fink began barking like a dog at one witness. He was fined $8,500 for misconduct and harassment of opponents. 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            14 Actress Lara Flynn Boyle, who portrayed a hard-nosed prosecutor on "The Practice," turns out to be something of a Court TV fan. During deliberations in Scott Peterson's murder trial, she sent an e-mail to the network weighing in on the case. She signed it "Frey Peterson," a reference to Peterson's mistress, Amber Frey.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            15 Convicted sniper John Allen Muhammad complained to a judge in September that his jailers refused to let him wear underwear. "How does it make the courtroom safe with me coming in, no T-shirt, no underwear, no socks?" he said.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            16 When a South Carolina couple sought to keep a Pennsylvania squirrel named Nutkin as a pet, Senior Judge Joseph Hudock not only allowed it, but took the time to recount Nutkin's early years in his 11-page opinion: "Then one day tragedy struck: Nutkin fell from her tree nest! Dark clouds began to gather."

           17 In ruling that Pennsylvania's drunk-driving laws can't be enforced on people on horseback, the state Supreme Court had only one dissenting judge, Michael Eakin, who phrased his dissent in a poem inspired by the "Mister Ed" theme song:

            "A horse is a horse, of course, of course,

            but the Vehicle Code does not divorce

            its application from, perforce,

            a steed as my colleagues said.

            'It's not vague,' I'll say until I'm hoarse,

            and whether a car, a truck or horse

            this law applies with equal force,

            and I'd reverse instead."

          

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            18 In October, Texas judge Faith Johnson welcomed a former fugitive back to her courtroom with balloons, streamers and a cake before sentencing him to life in prison. "We're so excited to see you," Johnson told the man, who had been convicted in absentia of aggravated assault after he disappeared a year ago. "We're throwing a party for you." 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            19 After pleading guilty to aggravated assault on St. Patrick's Day, Ray Mason called out to the judge at a Texas courthouse: "Hey, judge, look at this." Mason then dropped his pants and mooned the judge, who promptly tacked on another six months to Mason's eight-year sentence.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

          

            20 Walt Disney World worker Michael Chartrand was accused of groping a 13-year-old girl while wearing a Tigger costume. To illustrate how difficult it would be to tell where one's hands - or paws - were while wearing the outfit, Chartrand's defense lawyer brought Tigger's head to court and tried it on. Jurors acquitted Chartrand of molestation charges.

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

The following article appeared on nytimes.com on January 4, 2005:

 

He's accused in 14 attacks, but still free

Cases dropped when suspect fails to show

 

By Carlos Sadovi

           

            Diane Vonneedo remembers the "death stare" in Donald Cook's eyes just before his thick fist crashed into her left eye, shattering bone and threatening her eyesight.

 

            Rachel Mentink never even made eye contact with Cook before he allegedly drilled his fist into her stomach. Though three years have passed, she still stashes a pocketknife in her purse and fears walking through the Loop.

 

            Cook allegedly slugged Beth Weber in the neck two years ago at 200 N. Dearborn St. It was four months before she lost her fear of other pedestrians.

 

            Since 1990, Cook, a stocky homeless man who has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, has been charged with attacking 14 people, racking up 29 arrests, mostly for battery, trespass and disorderly conduct.

 

            While Cook has been convicted twice of misdemeanor battery, in 1998 and 2001, the legal system has done little to stop him, a Tribune review of court documents shows. The system is simply ill-equipped to deal with mentally ill offenders who do not get lasting psychiatric help, prosecutors and police say.

 

            Though prosecutors have repeatedly charged Cook with misdemeanors, the charges were dropped when he or the victims failed to show up in court.

 

            In some cases, victims told the Tribune they were never given a court date. In others, the victims say they came to court only to be told that charges against Cook were being dropped because he could not be found.

 

            In the last year alone, Cook, 47, has allegedly attacked four women, the most recent three attacks occurring in October and November on Michigan Avenue along the Magnificent Mile.

 

            At least 17 times Cook has been institutionalized, stabilized with medication, then released to the streets, records show.

 

            "The reason that people can't get into a mental health hospital is that we don't have enough beds. We don't have a well-funded and coherent mental health system," said Mark Heyrman, chairman of public policy for the Mental Health Association of Illinois.

 

            Heyrman, a professor specializing in mental health law at the University of Chicago, said services for outpatient treatment are lacking. And once the mentally ill hit the street, supervision is non-existent, he said.

 

            Chicago police say there is not much they can do. Sgt. Keith Mayo, of the Near North District, who is liaison to the Michigan Avenue Chamber of Commerce, said Cook is well-known by area merchants.

 

            "We can't force him to take his medication," Mayo said.

 

            Of all of Cook's cases, only one, the attack against Vonneedo, a traffic-control worker, drew a felony charge.

 

            Cook was found not guilty by reason of insanity, court records show, and he was institutionalized for more than two years while the case wound its way through the courts.

 

            In many cases, he was released within days, according to court records.

 

Combat boots

 

            On Oct. 25, Cook came out of an alley on North Michigan Avenue and approached Jada Garner, 26, who was leaving her job at a marketing research company. Wearing combat boots, he allegedly kicked Garner's right leg from under her, knocking her to the ground.

 

            About a month later, a court clerk called Cook's name as one of nearly 200 people charged with petty crimes that morning in Misdemeanor Court at Belmont and Western Avenues.

 

            Judge William O'Malley peered up over his reading glasses expectantly, looking over the rows of people crammed on benches in the courtroom. But as usual, according to court records, Cook was a no-show. The prosecutor dismissed the case using a legal maneuver called SOL, which stands for "stricken off with leave to reinstate."

 

            A warrant was then issued for Cook's arrest.

 

            Theoretically, prosecutors could reinstate the charge once Cook is arrested. In practice, however, that has never happened.

 

            Of the nine cases that were dropped, not one was reinstated when Cook was arrested on subsequent charges.

 

            As it happened, Cook did not show up in the Garner case because he was in a different courtroom that day being sentenced on a trespassing charge. The Misdemeanor Court system did not tell one judge the defendant was in another judge's courtroom.

 

            On Dec. 9, Cook finished his sentence for the trespassing case and walked out of Cook County Jail near 26th Street and California Avenue dressed in a dirty corduroy jacket and khakis.

 

            `That wasn't me'

 

            Cook, who said he was living at a hotel on the West Side, denied ever attacking anyone or missing any court dates.

 

            "That wasn't me," he said. "I haven't been charged with battery. ... Yeah, I've been charged with battery, but I don't know what you're talking about."

 

            He ended the conversation and climbed alone onto the California Avenue bus.

 

            Tom Stanton, a spokesman for the Cook County state's attorney's office, said the latest case against Cook was dropped because the victim did not show up in court.

 

            "Certainly should the victim want to reinstate those charges, we would do so at her request," Stanton said.

 

            He said the office could not track down records to indicate why Cook's previous cases had been dismissed because of the thousands of misdemeanor cases handled each year.

 

            In interviews, however, three alleged victims said they showed up in court only to be told that charges were being dropped.

 

            Harrison Speakes, an off-duty Chicago police sergeant working security at the old main Chicago Public Library, alleged Cook hit him in the face in 1990. He said he showed up in court, but Cook did not.

 

            "This guy didn't come to court; all they did was issue a warrant for his arrest," Speakes said.

 

            In 2001, Cook was charged with battery for allegedly spitting hot coffee into Adrienne Brown's face and threatening her.

 

            Brown, who was then working for an accounting firm, said she went to court, but after Cook failed to show, charges were dropped.

 

            "They said, `We don't know how to catch up to him.' They said, `We're going to have to dismiss the case,'" Brown said.

 

Case never called

 

            Three months later, Weber was allegedly knocked down by Cook at Dearborn and Lake Streets.

 

            "He just shot his arm out and punched me in the neck," Weber said.

 

            When she came to Misdemeanor Court a month later, court officials never called the case. Prosecutors told her he had been found unfit for trial, she said.

 

            Records show her case was dismissed, but there is nothing in the records to indicate that he was institutionalized in 2002.

 

            "`You were girl No. 3,'" Weber recalls prosecutors saying to her. "I'm not sure you ever get over this; it makes you feel vulnerable."

 

            Cook's legal history has left his alleged victims frustrated.

 

            "Why is this man continually let out on the street?" Vonneedo said.

 

            She was attacked while directing traffic at 8:30 a.m. on Aug. 11, 1998, at Clark and Harrison Streets. Cook went up to her and pointed to a man he said was harassing women. As she turned to look, his fist smashed into her face, fracturing the bone around her eye.

 

            These days, Vonneedo warns her colleagues by radio if she sees Cook walking toward their intersections.

 

            "I know when he takes his medication," she said. "When he doesn't, he has that death stare."

 

            Doctors have struggled to control Cook's behavior through medication, records show, but he doesn't always take it or show up for outpatient treatment.

 

            Cook was evaluated in 2001 after he groped a 25-year-old woman in the 600 block of North Clark Street while dressed in a Superman costume.

 

            A psychologist for the Cook County Court's Forensic Clinical Services Division warned that he should not be allowed to return to the streets but said medication could help him within a year.

 

            The psychologist, Susan Messina, wrote that Cook suffered from "schizophrenia, paranoid type" and was "delusional, irritable and evidenced very little insight into his behavior. The defendant is considered a danger to others and subject to involuntary admission in a secure psychiatric facility."

 

Violating probation

 

            Yet, he was released and five months after the evaluation, Cook was charged in another street attack, records show.

 

            On Jan. 15, 2002, a judge convicted Cook of the groping attack on Clark Street and sentenced him to two-years' probation.

 

            Within five months, Cook violated the conditions of his release by racking up four arrests.

 

            According to Messina's report, Cook said he hadn't held a job since 1990, when he worked in a New York hospital cafeteria.

 

            He said he had plans to start a men's magazine called "Bumble Bee." He was an art student for two years, he said.

 

            "That's how I'm gonna start Bumble Bee Magazine. I'm an expert at drawing nude models. I'm going to do pornography," he told Messina.

 

            Cook was arrested eight times in 2004, and he's spent 33 days total in Cook County Jail, said Bill Cunningham, a Cook County sheriff's spokesman.

 

            While O'Malley would not discuss Cook's case, he believes there is a need for more social agencies to deal with people such as Cook.

 

            O'Malley suggested setting up a division in Misdemeanor Court to handle cases involving people with mental illness.

 

            In May, a Mental Health Court began to handle cases of mentally ill inmates who are charged with non-violent felony crimes in Cook County.

 

            The pilot project, which has targeted 50 inmates, aims to get them back into counseling and on medication, officials said.

 

            "It's a social problem, and it becomes a criminal problem," O'Malley said. "There is nothing set up in the social services agencies to help the defendants, and they are returned to the street. [They] fall through the cracks."

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

Prosecution Concludes Case in Terror Trial

 By Julia Preston

  

           A federal prosecutor yesterday wrapped up the government's case against Lynne F. Stewart, a lawyer accused of aiding terrorists, by charging that she had released a bellicose statement to the news media on behalf of an imprisoned client because she secretly wanted to help violent militants overthrow the Egyptian government.

 

            The prosecutor, Andrew Dember, an assistant United States attorney, assailed the basic tenet of Ms. Stewart's defense: that she had conveyed messages to the news media from her client as part of a legal strategy to secure his eventual release from jail. The client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, an Egyptian Islamic cleric who is blind, is serving a life sentence in federal prison for a failed plot to bomb the United Nations building, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and other New York sites.

 

            "None of the things that Stewart did in this case has anything to do with any legal matter, nothing to do with being a lawyer," Mr. Dember thundered to the jury, concluding an unusually long closing argument that lasted two and a half days.

 

            Ms. Stewart was dealing with "illegal matters, not legal matters," he charged.

 

            The case centers on a statement Ms. Stewart gave to a reporter after visiting Mr. Abdel Rahman in jail in May 2000, in which the sheik said he was withdrawing his support for a cease-fire his followers in Egypt had observed since 1997. Ms. Stewart had agreed in writing to prison rules that barred her from helping the sheik communicate with the press.

 

            To make his point, Mr. Dember replayed for the jury, in Federal District Court in Manhattan, an excerpt from a television interview Ms. Stewart gave in 2002, a few weeks after her arrest, to Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. After many weeks of presenting the government's main evidence - secret F.B.I. audio and video recordings of telephone calls and meetings involving Ms. Stewart and two co-defendants - prosecutors had introduced the interview video at the end, almost as an afterthought.

 

            In the interview, Ms. Stewart acknowledged that she had agreed not to convey messages from the sheik to the news media. She also said the sheik's best hope for getting out of his American jail would be a seizure of power by his party in Egypt, which could then negotiate a prisoner exchange to bring him home.

 

            Mr. Dember charged that Ms. Stewart knew that many of the sheik's followers were designated as terrorists and might jump at the chance to return to war in their country. "She had all the power in the world to stop it," Mr. Dember said of the sheik's message to his followers. "But she didn't want to stop it."

 

            Ms. Stewart remained composed at the defendants' table, at times even looking amused. Noting during a break that her chief lawyer, Michael E. Tigar, will begin his closing arguments as early as tomorrow, she said, "Just wait!"

 

            Mr. Dember asserted that it was "nonsense" for Ms. Stewart to say that the sheik's news release was part of her plan to persuade Egypt to let him return home to serve out his sentence there. The prosecutor pointed out that United States and Egyptian officials would be unlikely to send the sheik back to his country when he was supporting renewed violence there.

 

            Mr. Dember provided only vague details when it came to demonstrating connections between Ms. Stewart and the activities of a co-defendant, Ahmed Abdel Sattar, who dealt extensively by telephone with militants who were labeled terrorists by the United States. The prosecutor acknowledged that Ms. Stewart, in dozens of hours of secretly recorded phone calls, never said she undertook any action to promote violent revolution in Egypt.

 

            Instead, he based his allegations heavily on general statements Ms. Stewart had made supporting what she called revolutionary violence in apartheid South Africa and against the government of Israel.

 

            Mr. Dember aimed some of his most intense anger against the other co-defendant, Mohamed Yousry, an Arabic interpreter who translated the sheik's conversations for Ms. Stewart and read letters and newspapers to the cleric.

 

            "He had all the power to say, 'No!' " Mr. Dember said, raising his voice, about Mr. Yousry's role in translating the sheik's cease-fire message.

 

            Beginning his summation in the afternoon, a lawyer for Mr. Yousry, David Stern, said his client had always followed the guidance of Ms. Stewart and other lawyers. "He honestly believed that what he was doing was not criminal," Mr. Stern said. "His only job was to translate."

 

            Mr. Stern showed the jury that Mr. Yousry had once referred to the sheik and his followers as "garbage," and had repeatedly rejected the sheik's political views. Mr. Stern played a video excerpt of a prison meeting where Mr. Yousry had questioned the sheik about an edict issued under his name that called for the murder of Jews.

 

            "None of your business!" the sheik had barked contemptuously at Mr. Yousry.

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

The following article appeared on nytimes.com on January 3, 20005:

 

When the Weight of the Evidence Shifts

by Bob Herbert

 

Steven Cohen is a former federal prosecutor who has become all but obsessed with a case in New York in which he believes two men are serving long prison sentences for a murder they didn't commit.

 

            A former New York City detective, Robert Addolorato, actually seems tormented by the case. He also believes the prisoners are innocent.

 

            Neither of these men are soft on crime. But they insist that in this particular case, the authorities fouled up. Mr. Cohen was adamant. "They've got the wrong guys locked up for this murder," he said.

 

            In the early morning hours of Nov. 23, 1990, two bouncers were shot at the old Palladium nightclub on East 14th Street in Manhattan. One of the bouncers died. A couple of hapless young guys, David Lemus and Olmado Hidalgo, who most likely did not know one another, who didn't even speak the same language (one spoke only English and the other only Spanish), and who insisted they were not at the club when the shooting occurred, were arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

 

            The arrests had not been made immediately. Mr. Lemus was picked up nearly two months after the shooting, and Mr. Hidalgo nearly a year after. Prosecutors told a jury that the two men had gotten into an altercation with the bouncers, and had shot them after a "friend" of the defendants, Jose Figueroa, had unsuccessfully tried to mediate the dispute.

 

            Mr. Cohen and Detective Addolorato had no particular interest in the Palladium matter. But in the course of their own investigation of a drug and extortion gang they essentially "solved" the Palladium case. (Mr. Lemus and Mr. Hidalgo were already in prison.) A gang member named Joey Pillot admitted that he and a buddy named Thomas Morales had been responsible for the murder, that Mr. Morales was the actual shooter, and that neither Mr. Lemus nor Mr. Hidalgo was involved.

 

            A wealth of evidence has since been marshaled to support that account. Several witnesses have bolstered or corroborated Mr. Pillot's version of the shooting. The prosecution's theory about what happened that night suffered a severe blow when it was learned that Mr. Figueroa, the "friend" who was supposed to have been acting as a mediator, was nowhere near the Palladium when the shooting occurred. He was in prison.

 

            A man who resembled Mr. Figueroa, Richard Feliciano, was at the scene. According to court papers filed by defense lawyers, Mr. Feliciano "has indicated that he was, in fact, the mediator, that he witnessed the shooting and that Morales, and not Mr. Lemus and Mr. Hidalgo, shot the bouncers."

 

            Lawyers for Mr. Lemus and Mr. Hidalgo have pressed hard for a new trial, but have not been successful. Another appeal hearing will be held later this month.

 

            The New York Times and other news outlets have run stories raising serious questions about the case and detailing new evidence that has emerged, including Joey Pillot's confession. The forewoman of the jury that convicted Mr. Lemus and Mr. Hidalgo has also reviewed the latest evidence. She now believes the two men were innocent. But prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney's office continue to fight all efforts to have the convictions overturned.

 

            In an article that appeared in July 2000, Jane Fritsch and David Rohde of The Times wrote: "It is difficult to overturn a conviction in New York, even in the face of powerful new evidence. Trial judges and state appeals courts have always been reluctant to reverse a jury's verdict, and in 1996, Congress sharply limited the rights of defendants to take their appeals to federal court."

 

            While officials in the D.A.'s office continue to insist that Mr. Lemus and Mr. Hidalgo are guilty, there seems to be at least a little give in the foundation of their certainty. I talked about the case last week with James Kindler, the chief assistant district attorney. He said at one point, "We think that at least Morales - there's been some evidence that we had that Morales may have been involved, yes."

 

            "In the shooting?" I said.

 

            "In the shooting."

 

            That did not mean, said Mr. Kindler, that Mr. Lemus and Mr. Hidalgo were innocent. He said they could all have been involved.

 

            I then asked if the D.A.'s office had any evidence that linked Mr. Morales even remotely to the two men imprisoned for the murder.

 

            "I believe not," said Mr. Kindler.

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

The following article appeared on chicagotribune.com on December 31, 2004:

 

Death sentences, executions decline

Still, public backs capital punishment

By Steve Mills

           

            Signs of an apparent decline in the death penalty can be found in falling numbers of executions and death sentences, in court rulings in two states finding capital punishment laws unconstitutional and in the U.S. Supreme Court's renewed vigilance over the ultimate sanction.

 

            Since 1999, when a record 98 inmates were put to death across the country, the number of Death Row executions has dropped to 59 in 2004. The year even finished with no executions in December, the first time since July 1994 that such an event occurred.

 

            But the falling numbers don't tell the whole story. The death penalty still has public backing and strong proponents. On Jan. 26, Connecticut is scheduled to hold the first execution in New England in more than four decades. On that date, serial killer Michael Ross, 45, faces lethal injection in the killings of eight women in Connecticut and New York in the early 1980s.

 

            This week, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he would present to state lawmakers early next year a bill that would bring the death penalty to his state--one of a dozen in the United States without it. The measure is thought to have little chance of passage.

 

            In Virginia, long one of the nation's execution leaders, Republican gubernatorial hopeful and Atty. Gen. Jerry Kilgore has proposed eliminating the state's "triggerman" rule, so even those defendants who do not actually commit a murder can face execution.

 

            And during 2004 the federal Death Row grew by about 30 percent, from 26 condemned prisoners to 34.

 

Reshuffling of deck

 

            "It all adds up to a strong, dramatic shift, though not the end of the death penalty," said Richard Dieter, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington, D.C., non-profit group critical of how the death penalty is applied.

 

            The lack of an execution in December, traditionally a slow month for executions because of the holidays, appeared to be more a fluke this year than a sign of any trend; several prisoners scheduled to die were granted stays.

 

            Death sentences have fallen since 1998, when 300 inmates received such convictions. In 2003, the total was 144, and Dieter projects 130 for 2004.

 

            Because the declines in executions are small, it is hard to gauge their statistical significance. After all, had some of the executions scheduled for December taken place, the execution decline would have been negligible.

 

            "When you're dealing with numbers this small, those kinds of random fluctuations don't matter that much, especially with states," said Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supports capital punishment.

 

            Behind the statistics are several factors, all of them tied to new debate over the death penalty--a debate no longer focused on whether it is right or wrong but centered on questions of accuracy and fairness.

 

            That debate gained urgency in early 2000, when Gov. George Ryan declared a moratorium on executions in Illinois, and it has continued hotly as the number of Death Row exonerations steadily rises.

 

            Five Death Row inmates were exonerated in 2004. Among them: Gordon "Randy" Steidl, who had been convicted of two murders in Downstate Illinois, and Ernest Willis, who spent 17 years on Texas' Death Row for an arson murder but was released after experts determined the fire was not arson at all.

 

            "These numbers are the result of all these things," said Dieter. "It has shaken people's confidence, and there's a hesitance going forward."

Courtroom scene

 

            Dieter and others believe that juries have grown wary of imposing capital punishment verdicts and that judges increasingly are granting condemned inmates hearings on issues that, in the past, they may have done without.

 

            Scheidegger disagrees. He attributes the reduction in such convictions to the drop in the homicide rate. He also cites anecdotal evidence: claims by some prosecutors that fewer of the most heinous murders more likely to lead to death sentences are occurring.

 

            "If juries are more reluctant to impose the death penalty in those relatively few cases where there's a lingering question, that's not a problem," he said.

 

            State-by-state trends are difficult to interpret. Missouri, whose death chamber traditionally has been one of the nation's busiest, had no executions in 2004. One factor: the state's Supreme Court tipped Democratic two years ago.

 

Appeals dropped

 

            Ohio executed seven inmates in 2004, more than double its 2003 total of three and more than it has had for decades. But it, too, was a fluke. Two Death Row inmates gave up their appeals and were executed in 2004.

 

            "The common perception is because Ohio had seven, something different is happening here," said Deputy Atty. Gen. James Canepa. "We are by no means on any sort of breakneck pace in executing people."

 

            If anything has changed in Ohio it is the pace of death sentences. Since life without the possibility of parole became a sentencing option in 1996, capital punishment convictions have fallen from 10 to 12 a year to three to eight, said Canepa.

 

            "What we've seen," he said, "are less death verdicts."

 

            In New York and Kansas, state courts ruled death penalty laws unconstitutional. In New York, where restoring such punishment was a cornerstone of Gov. George Pataki's first campaign, the state has yet to execute a prisoner and the legislature does not appear eager to rewrite its flawed law.

 

            Kansas law-enforcement officials, stung by their Supreme Court's Dec. 17 decision striking down the law, have already asked the judges to reconsider. Officials may also appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

            In many ways, the death penalty is largely a Texas matter, and until its pace slows, the Lone Star State will remain the nation's leading executioner.

 

            In 2004, Texas had 23 executions--more than a third of the nationwide total. Of the nation's first 13 executions scheduled for 2005, the state accounts for nine of them, according to Dieter and Texas prison records.

 

            But the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be keeping a closer eye on Texas--and the death penalty in general. Over the past year, the justices have considered appeals from three condemned inmates in the state and appear to be frustrated with Texas-style justice.

 

            It is even hearing one case for the second time in two years.

 

Court not as tolerant

 

            "It's extraordinary what's been happening," said David Dow, a law professor at the University of Houston who represents Death Row inmates.

 

            "What you basically have," he added, "is a fairly conservative court that has been rebuking [Texas] in death penalty cases--and by fairly decisive margins.

 

            "The court seems to be less tolerant of things here," the law professor added.

 

            Still, even with the new scrutiny, Dow does not see dramatic change.

 

            "I have a sense that there's a bigger number of people interested in change," he said. "It used to be a voice in the wilderness. Now, it's a chorus of voices."

 

            Having banned the execution of the mentally retarded in 2002, the Supreme Court is considering another dramatic winnowing of the death penalty: banning the execution of juvenile offenders.

 

            That would fall in line with several public statements by justices expressing concern about how capital punishment is applied--and reflect the uneasiness expressed in public opinion polls.

 

            "Once something doesn't work, people stop using it," said Robin Maher, the director of the American Bar Association's death penalty representation project. "The public has seen so many mistakes ... it's questioning the use of the death penalty itself."

* * * * *