Wyandotte County judge dismisses death penalty challenge on procedural grounds
The American Civil Liberties Union's latest challenge to constitutionality of the Kansas death penalty is derailed when two murder defendants make deals to avoid the potential of execution, but Cassandra Stubbs, director of the ACLU's Capital Punishment Project, says the cases expose "uncomfortable truths to state prosecutors, the courts and the public about the deep flaws and injustices embedded in the death penalty system." (Allison Kite/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — A Wyandotte County District Court judge pointed to flaws in Kansas' capital punishment law in an opinion that didn't lead to findings relative to a constitutional challenge because the death penalty was taken off the table in both cases creating legal standing for the case.
Judge Bill Klapper's opinion delved into economic, fairness and psychological elements of capital punishment and examined claims the death penalty statute was biased against defendants of color, fostered trauma among families of victims who dealt with years of proceedings and promoted expenditure of millions of dollars by prosecutors pursuing a sentence the state hadn't enforced in 60 years.
The constitutional challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations came to an end once their clients accused of capital crimes no longer faced the ultimate punishment.
'The impossibility of either defendant being subjected to the death penalty causes them to lose their legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Kansas death penalty as applied to them,' Klapper's order said.
The ACLU, ACLU of Kansas, the Kansas Death Penalty Defense Unit, Democracy Forward and lawyers from Washington, D.C., law firms filed motions challenging the death penalty on behalf of Antoine Fielder, who was accused of shooting to death Wyandotte County Deputies Theresa King and Patrick Rohrer in June 2018 while being escorted to a court hearing. In exchange for prosecutors withdrawing a request for the death penalty, Fielder entered in December a plea of guilty to two counts of capital murder. He was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.
The second participant in the constitutional challenge was Hugo Villaneuva-Morales, who was accused of killing four people in October 2019 at a bar in Kansas City, Kansas. In February, prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty against Villaneuva-Morales in exchange for his waiver of the right to a jury trial. He was found guilty of murder on Wednesday.
Because both men no longer faced the potential of execution, the district court judge didn't rule on broad constitutional claims relative to the case. With addition of Fielder and Villaneuva-Morales, the ACLU has represented four clients in legal challenges to the state's death penalty.
'The evidentiary hearings have consistently exposed uncomfortable truths to state prosecutors, the courts and the public about the deep flaws and injustices embedded in the death penalty system,' said Cassandra Stubbs, director of the ACLU's Capital Punishment Project.
On Thursday, Stubbs said judicial issues brought to light in the series of legal challenges should be recognized by lawmakers in Kansas.
'We remain committed to challenging the death penalty on behalf of people facing capital charges in Kansas with the hope that state legislators will end the death penalty and make future legal challenges unnecessary,' she said.
In Wyandotte County District Court, testimony portrayed capital punishment as unconstitutional in terms of the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of equal protection rights associated with race and gender. The legal coalition challenging Kansas' death penalty law additionally asserted jury selection in capital cases, in which all jurors must be willing to impose a death sentence, was unconstitutional.
Witnesses called on behalf of Fielder and Villaneuva-Morales argued the automatic striking of prospective jurors who didn't believe execution to be a valid form of punishment was discriminatory against Black people, women and individuals with firmly held religious beliefs.
Klapper's 15-page opinion summarized evidence offered by half the 13 expert witnesses called by attorneys for the two men accused of murder. The state cross-examined most of those witnesses, but didn't present testimony. The judge said evidence presented on behalf of the two defendants 'was decidedly persuasive and well-reasoned.'
He portrayed race and gender as key elements in how prosecutors decided to pursue the death penalty and how those cases were handled by juries. In Kansas, none of 15 men sentenced to death killed a Black person despite Black males making up more than 30% of homicide victims. White females comprised 20% of homicide victims in Kansas, but cases with white female victims were most likely to lead to a death sentence.
'The factors which distinguish death sentence cases from non-death sentence cases are the race and gender of the victim, and the race and gender of the defendant,' the judge's opinion said.
Klapper drew from an expert witness for the two men who argued the legal framework for selecting jurors was 'so flawed that it does not protect racial biases in jury selection and must be reformed, a fact known to Kansans for years.'
The judge wrote that testimony indicated the 'scientific community has found no reliable evidence of the death penalty being a deterrent to homicides.'
Hearings in the case, which began in October, showed Kansas prosecutors had filed 129 capital murder cases in response to more than 4,000 homicides committed in the state since the state restored the death penalty in 1994. Prosecutors took the next step to provide formal notice the death penalty would be sought in 76 of those cases.
Of 15 men sentenced to death in Kansas, nine remained under sentences of death. Four of them were resentenced to long prison terms, while two died in prison.
'Much more difficult to measure, but most concerning is the impact continual court hearings have on the victims' families,' Klapper wrote. 'The verdict in a capital case resulting in a death sentence is not the end but only the beginning of the appellate process. Most of the Kansas death penalty cases have been pending for more than 15 years and no (inmate) has exhausted their appellate rights.
'How will families of the victims ever begin to heal and attempt the process of recovery, if that is even possible, when the legal system continues to reopen those painful wounds with each new motion?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bill limiting protests at public universities awaits Gov. Abbott's approval
The Brief A new bill, SB 2972, limiting protests on Texas public university campuses has passed both the Senate and House. The bill prohibits activities like using amplified sound during class, protesting in the last two weeks of the semester, and wearing masks to conceal identity. Critics, including the ACLU of Texas, argue the bill violates First Amendment rights. AUSTIN - A bill that passed through the Texas legislature last weekend would prohibit certain times and locations of protests on public university campuses. Critics worry the bill is in direct violation of the First Amendment, as well as the Texas Constitution. Senate Bill 2972 defines "expressive activities" in the same manner as the First Amendment and the Texas Constitution, directly citing those documents to include assemblies, protests, speeches, the distribution of written materials, the carrying of signs, and the circulation of petitions. Under the new bill, the following would be prohibited at Texas universities: Using devices to amplify sound during class hours while engaging in expressive activities. Engaging in expressive activities during the last two weeks of the semester. Camping or setting up tents on campus. Wearing a mask or other disguise while engaging in expressive activities. Lowering the U.S. flag with the intent to raise another flag. Engaging in expressive activities between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Note that these are limited and expanded upon individually within the bill's text. The Senate passed the bill 21-10 on May 14. The House passed it 97-39 on May 28. What they're saying The bill's text says it may not be construed to limit freedom of speech or expression as protected by the First Amendment or Texas Constitution. Critics wonder how this is possible, saying the bill in its entirety is an imposition of prohibitions on rights defined in those texts. Caro Achar, the engagement coordinator for free speech at the ACLU of Texas, released the following statement to that point. "S.B. 2972 threatens the free expression of all Texans, regardless of political beliefs. This bill imposes broad restrictions that allow school officials to restrict how, when, and where Texans can speak on campus — undermining the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, staff, and the general public." Dig deeper The new bill comes on the heels of recent major protests on Texas university campuses, largely related to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, as well as developments with mass deportations. At one UT Austin protest in April 2024, 79 pro-Palestine protesters were taken into custody. The university was later found to have violated several institutional rules when handling the incident. Feds to screen social media of migrants, foreign students for antisemitic activity Columbia must notify students before handing records to Congress amid antisemitism probe ICE detains U of M student at Twin Cities campus, officials say What's next SB 2972 now awaits Gov. Greg Abbott's signature. According to the ACLU, he is expected to sign it into law. If he neither signs nor vetoes the bill, it will become law without his action. The Source Information in this article comes from Texas Legislature Online, the ACLU of Texas and previous coverage by FOX 7.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Protests erupt over immigration raids in Los Angeles
Protests erupted in Los Angeles over ongoing Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in the city. Federal agents have raided multiple workplaces in the fashion district, a Home Depot and other local areas, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. Hundreds of people, including children, were detained by ICE agents on Friday at the Edward Roybal Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles, the ACLU said. ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons said in a statement Saturday, "The brave men and women of ICE were in Los Angeles arresting criminal illegal aliens including gang members, drug traffickers and those with a history of assault, cruelty to children, domestic violence, robbery, and smuggling." Large crowds began gathering near the federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles Friday protesting the immigration raids and leading to some reported clashes with authorities. Lyons said that the "violent rioters will be held accountable" and vowed that ICE will continue to make arrests. "What took place in Los Angeles yesterday was appalling. As rioters attacked federal ICE and law enforcement officers on the LA streets, Mayor Bass took the side of chaos and lawlessness over law enforcement," Lyons said Saturday. Mayor Karen Bass, meanwhile, condemned the ICE raids in a statement. "As Mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place. These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city. My Office is in close coordination with immigrant rights community organizations. We will not stand for this," Bass said. Bass told KABC that neither she nor the Los Angeles Police Department were aware that the ICE raids were going to happen. Some protesters could be seen throwing objects at vehicles and others tried to block vans from leaving on Friday, KABC reported. Shortly after 7 p.m. the Los Angeles Police Department declared an unlawful assembly, warning protesters they risked being arrested if they remained in the area. LAPD officers were seen lining the streets near the federal building, KABC reported. The LAPD said in a social media post late Friday that officers had reported a "small group of violent individuals" were throwing large pieces of concrete. "Once again, an UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY has been declared. You must leave the area. The use of less lethal munitions has been authorized by the Incident Commander," the LAPD said in the post. The Department of Homeland Security said the targeting of law enforcement in Los Angeles is "despicable." "Mayor Bass, ICE is not responsible for "sowing a sense of terror" the protestors YOU enabled are," DHS said. FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said the FBI has already made arrests for "obstructing our operations." Federal law enforcement operations will proceed as planned this weekend in Los Angeles County, U.S. attorney Bill Essayli added. -ABC News' Luke Barr and Vanessa Navarrete contributed to this report.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Government drones used in 'runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a "runaway spying operation." The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. "For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media," Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes "the allegations very seriously." Read more: Will these drones 'revolutionize' 911 response? L.A. suburb will be first to test The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. "The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private," said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. "Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?" he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to "burdensome litigation." The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. "I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property," Waldman said. "We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction." The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch "discretionary proactive investigations," the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Read more: Police drones could soon crisscross the skies. Cities need to be ready, ACLU warns Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she "became confused and worried," the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. "This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security," Schmitz said in a statement. "I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me." A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that "when we see something like that, we turn around," according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that "we don't put that in the camera footage." Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
