Post by CCADP on Aug 15, 2005 9:46:09 GMT -5
High court should delay execution
When a U.S. District Court judge says an Ohio death row inmate, just weeks
from execution, has raised issues that "deserve careful and thoughtful
attention," state prosecutors should take notice.
When the judge suggests that prosecutors "join in a request directly to
the Supreme Court of Ohio to lift its execution order, thereby giving me
the time I need before the scheduled date of execution," they should take
action.
That means bending over backwards to accommodate the court - even if
Attorney General Jim Petro is convinced of the defendant's guilt and of
the justness of the punishment.
Because the death penalty is different.
Prosecutors' first duty, even before winning a case, is to make sure every
reasonable procedure to remove doubt and ensure fairness has been
followed.
Attorney General Petro has taken a different tack in the case of John
Spirko, who was convicted of the 1982 abduction and brutal murder of Betty
Jane Mottinger of Elgin.
Mr. Spirko's execution is set for Sept. 20.
U.S. District Judge James Carr of Toledo has been asked to reopen the
federal case that reviewed the Spirko conviction. In 2000, Judge Carr
ruled in favor of prosecutors, and his decision was upheld on appeal. Now
he's weighing a request to set aside his earlier ruling on the grounds
that the state purposely had withheld evidence that helps prove the
defendant's innocence - a serious charge.
The judge said the request is not "a bad faith or frivolous contention" or
a "last moment effort to keep the hand off the switch." He said he needs
time to consider the evidence, but believes he doesn't have the power - at
least at this stage of the case - to delay the execution. Thus, the judge
suggested that the state join a request to the Ohio Supreme Court, which
sets execution dates, that it delay the execution until he can complete
his review.
Mr. Petro's office told the Supreme Court this week that it objects to any
delay. That shouldn't deter the Ohio justices from extending a basic
courtesy to a sitting judge who wants to make sure every reasonable
defense is explored before a man is put to death.
The Ohio court has almost unlimited discretion to decide when an execution
goes forward. Nothing in law requires that Mr. Spirko be put to death on
Sept. 20, or prevents the execution from being delayed for 6 to 8 weeks.
Judge Carr's statements alone provide the court with abundant reasons to
order a postponement - the fundamentally fair and decent thing to do.
(source: Editorial, Dayton Daily News)
When a U.S. District Court judge says an Ohio death row inmate, just weeks
from execution, has raised issues that "deserve careful and thoughtful
attention," state prosecutors should take notice.
When the judge suggests that prosecutors "join in a request directly to
the Supreme Court of Ohio to lift its execution order, thereby giving me
the time I need before the scheduled date of execution," they should take
action.
That means bending over backwards to accommodate the court - even if
Attorney General Jim Petro is convinced of the defendant's guilt and of
the justness of the punishment.
Because the death penalty is different.
Prosecutors' first duty, even before winning a case, is to make sure every
reasonable procedure to remove doubt and ensure fairness has been
followed.
Attorney General Petro has taken a different tack in the case of John
Spirko, who was convicted of the 1982 abduction and brutal murder of Betty
Jane Mottinger of Elgin.
Mr. Spirko's execution is set for Sept. 20.
U.S. District Judge James Carr of Toledo has been asked to reopen the
federal case that reviewed the Spirko conviction. In 2000, Judge Carr
ruled in favor of prosecutors, and his decision was upheld on appeal. Now
he's weighing a request to set aside his earlier ruling on the grounds
that the state purposely had withheld evidence that helps prove the
defendant's innocence - a serious charge.
The judge said the request is not "a bad faith or frivolous contention" or
a "last moment effort to keep the hand off the switch." He said he needs
time to consider the evidence, but believes he doesn't have the power - at
least at this stage of the case - to delay the execution. Thus, the judge
suggested that the state join a request to the Ohio Supreme Court, which
sets execution dates, that it delay the execution until he can complete
his review.
Mr. Petro's office told the Supreme Court this week that it objects to any
delay. That shouldn't deter the Ohio justices from extending a basic
courtesy to a sitting judge who wants to make sure every reasonable
defense is explored before a man is put to death.
The Ohio court has almost unlimited discretion to decide when an execution
goes forward. Nothing in law requires that Mr. Spirko be put to death on
Sept. 20, or prevents the execution from being delayed for 6 to 8 weeks.
Judge Carr's statements alone provide the court with abundant reasons to
order a postponement - the fundamentally fair and decent thing to do.
(source: Editorial, Dayton Daily News)