Robinson, Gail (DPA, 09:28 AM 12/20/02, Re: [FOSTER] UPDATE and Questi
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Approved-By: "Robinson, Gail (DPA)" <grobinson@MAIL.PA.STATE.KY.US>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:28:26 -0500
Reply-To: Ronald Foster <JJFOSTER@MAIL.ABANET.ORG>
Sender: Ronald Foster <JJFOSTER@MAIL.ABANET.ORG>
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
From: "Robinson, Gail (DPA)" <grobinson@mail.pa.state.ky.us>
Subject: | Re: [FOSTER] UPDATE and Question
To: JIFOSTER@MAIL.ABANET.ORG
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by postoffice.onu.edu id g3KESUk72409
What we relied on to request rehearing in Kevin Stanford's case ( from
denial of habeas) was the Inter- American Commission on Human Rights of the
OAS report issued in the Michael Domingues case on October 22, 2002, the day
after the habeas was denied. We also asked that the case be held pending a
decision on the Hain cert petition. Unfortunately, our rehearing petition
was denied this week.
From: Anne James [mailto:Billbett@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 10:48 AM
To: JIFOSTER@MAIL.ABANET.ORG
Subject: [FOSTER] UPDATE and Question
Update:
Silas was asking the USSC to enter an order suspending the denial
of cert. order in Foster until the Court decides if it is going to hear the
Hain case. The Application was denied on 9 December. 27 December is the
last
day Silas can file a Petition for Rehearing with the USSC. He has been
trying
to think of any possible grounds for a petition for rehearing. As you know
the threshold is very high. Any thoughts in that regard?
Anne James
Anne James
Executive Director
The International Justice Project
Tel: 703-897-7785 (USA)
Fax: 703-897-5116
www.internationaljusticeproject.org
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Silas McChare, 09:29 AM 10/16/02, Ron Chris Foster case
To: Silas McChare <SMcCharen@DANIELCOKER.COM>
From: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Subject: Ron Chris Foster case
Ce:
Bec:
Attached:
Silas:
We exchanged emails in late August as you were preparing a cert petition for Ron Chris Foster,
due by 9-30-02. I would love to have a copy of that if you could send it to me (preferably by email
attachment). I want to refer to it in a couple of law review articles I am writing. As you probably know,
the Court also has at least two other juvenile death cases on the table: Scott Hain from Oklahoma and
Kevin Stanford from Kentucky. This issue certainly is hot right now.
Thanks
Vic Streib
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Margaret \(DCR\), 11:44 AM 10/15/02, Kevin Stanford
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
From: "Margaret \(DCR\)" <mod@dcr.net>
To: <dyoung@azstarnet.com>, "Mark Thornewill" <Mthornewil@aol.com>,
"Case, Margaret" <mcase@mail.pa.state.ky.us>, <Rlmcglasson@aol.com>,
"Marc Bookman" <marcbookman@hotmail.com>, <Brian_Mendelsohn@fd.org>,
"Ed Monahan" <emonahan@mail.pa.state.ky.us>,
"Lewis, Ernie" <elewis@mail.pa.state.ky.us>,
"Rebecca DiLoretto" <rdiloret@mail.pa.state.ky.us>,
"Arnold, Tim" <tarnold@mail.pa.state.ky.us>, <Billbett@aol.com>,
"Pat Delahanty" <patrickd@mis.net>, <rfreer@amnesty.org>,
<ContactKRC@aol.com>, "Rodgers, Jimmonique™ <JRodgers@naacpnet.org>,
"Sister Christine Beckett" <president@glenmarysisters.org>,
"BOS, JOHANNA" <JBOS@lIpts.edu>, <srpastor1@aol.com>,
"Betty L. Shipp" <blshipp@juno.com>,
"Rice, Speedy" <srice@lawschool.gonzaga.edu>,
"Connie de la Vega" <delavega@usfca.edu>,
"Victor Streib" <v-streib@onu.edu>,
"Gladden, Elizabeth" <GladdenE@staff.abanet.org>,
"Frank Heft" <fheft@mail.pa.state.ky.us>, <Stef{McArdle@aol.com>,
"Jill Miller" <jemiller@chorus.net>, <jpearson@pa.state.ky.us>,
"Sherr, Jeff" <jsherr@mail.pa.state.ky.us>, "Lesa Watson" <yetto@mis.net>,
"Eileen M Cano" <eileencano@juno.com>, <abarr@emory.edu>,
<mfortunadi@emory.edu>, "Shinkyo Will Warner" <shinkyo@iglou.com>,
"Roberta Harding" <robertam@iglou.com>, <eholt@pa.state.ky.us>,
"Judy Clarke" <judyclarke@attglobal.net>,
"Freedman" <freedman99@earthlink.net>, "Kevin McNally" <kmcnally@dcr.net>,
"David" <david@brucklaw.com>, "Dick" <dick@burrandwelch.com>,
"Robert Lominack" <robert@brucklaw.com>, <Smpresson@aol.com>,
<Waltlong@aol.com>, "Jennifer L. Brewer" <jenifer@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Kevin Stanford
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:44:12 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Kevin Stanford's USSC case is being reconferenced for a third time this Friday 10/18/02, with
the next possible date for an order being Monday 10/21.
Margaret O'Donnell
McNally and O'Donnell, P.S.C.
513 Capitol Avenue
P.O. Box 1243
Frankfort, Kentucky 40602
(502) 227-2142
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Search - 13 Results - juvenile death penalty Page 1 of 4
Source: News & Business > News > News Group File, Most Recent 90 Days (i)
Terms: juvenile death penalty (Edit Search)
¥ Select for FOCUS™ or Delivery
=
The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY) October 8, 2002 Tuesday Met and metro Editions
Copyright 2002 The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
All Rights Reserved
The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
October 8, 2002 Tuesday Met and metro Editions
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1B
LENGTH: 1249 words
HEADLINE: Supreme Court declines to hear death-row case;
Stanford's petition to ban execution because he was 17 at time still active
BYLINE: ANDREW WOLFSON, awolfson@courier-journal.com
BODY:
Byline: ANDREW WOLFSON
Source: The Courier-Journal
The U.S. Supreme Court said yesterday that it won't hear the appeal of Kentucky death-row
inmate Kevin Stanford, who argued that his right to confront his accuser was denied in his
trial 20 years ago in the murder of Baerbel Poore.
But the court kept alive Stanford's petition to consider whether the constitutional protection
against cruel and unusual punishment should bar the execution of people who commit capital
crimes as juveniles.
Stanford, who is now 39, was 17 when he was accused of the January 1981 robbery, sodomy
and murder of Poore, 20, who worked at a Cheker gas station on Cane Run Road in Jefferson
County.
In 1989, in Stanford's first appeal, the Supreme Court held there was no national consensus
against executing offenders for killing at age 16 or 17.
But in Stanford's petition, his lawyers now argue that times have changed and that putting
juvenile offenders to death is inconsistent with "evolving standards of decency" and
international laws and treaties. The state's response to the petition notes that at age 17,
Stanford already was a "career criminal" who had been sent to five different correctional
facilities as a result of juvenile court proceedings.
The court took no action on the petition yesterday, the first day of its new term, which means
it could decide to hear the issue later in the term or address it in another case.
The Kentucky attorney general's office won't request an execution date until the juvenile-
death-penalty issue is resolved, said David Sexton, director of the office's criminal appellate
division.
Stanford's co-counsel, Margaret O'Donnell of Frankfort, said: "We are trying to sort this out
.../retrieve?_ m=913c6901ce0bb2d6af454ec9707654cb&docnum=2&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=10/14/02
Search - 13 Results - juvenile death penalty Page 2 of 4
and see what it might possibly mean. We don't know our next step yet."
O'Donnell said she hadn't been able to pass the news on to Stanford, who has been on death
row at the Kentucky State Penitentiary since his conviction in 1982.
Poore's sister, Mona Mills, said: "We are almost there. We are very, very close." Poore's
family has supported the death penalty for Stanford.
If the court petition fails, Stanford will ask Gov. Paul Patton to commute his death sentence,
citing Stanford's age at the time of the crime and his abuse and neglect as a child.
Patton has signed death warrants that led to the executions of Harold McQueen Jr. in 1997
and Eddie Lee Harper in 2000. But Patton said last year that he would support legislation to
outlaw the execution of people for crimes committed before they turned 18 because he
questions whether 16- and 17-year-olds fully understand the consequences of their actions.
Nationally, there are 81 offenders awaiting execution for crimes they committed at ages 16 or
17, but Stanford is the only one in Kentucky.
Since the Supreme Court allowed the death penalty to be imposed again in 1976, 21 people
have been executed for crimes committed before they turned 18, including 13 in Texas.
Kentucky has not executed a juvenile offender since 1945.
The Supreme Court refused to hear Stanford's appeal of a ruling issued in September 2001
by a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel rejected Stanford's
argument that his rights were violated when a co-defendant's confession was read to the
jury.
The co-defendant, David Buchanan, who was convicted of robbery, rape, sodomy and murder
and sentenced to life in prison, implicated Stanford as the assailant and didn't testify at trial.
Defendants generally have the right to cross-examine their accuser, but the appeals panel
held that error was harmless because there was so much other evidence against Stanford.
For one thing, the panel said Stanford twice admitted killing Poore. Days after his arrest, the
judges said, Stanford sneaked up behind a security guard at the Jefferson County Youth
Center, put the end of a pencil against the guard's ear, and said, "Click, click, click, just like
the girl, I'm going to blow your brains out."
A few days later, the panel said, a corrections officer overheard Stanford bragging that he
had sodomized, shot and killed Poore because she could recognize and identify him.
Stanford's appellate lawyers have maintained that while evidence clearly tied him to the
robbery and sexual assaults, it didn't prove he shot the victim.
They also say that staff and inmates at the juvenile center have said that they never saw
Stanford discuss his case with anyone there, "let alone with . . . guards" and that he knew
better than to talk about his case with anyone but his attorneys.
The appeals panel also rejected an argument that Stanford's trial lawyers were denied the
right to ask jurors if they would consider a sentence of less than death if they convicted him
of intentional murder.
Death-penalty opponents have said they are optimistic about the Supreme Court's reversal of
its 5-4 decision 13 years ago in Stanford vs. Kentucky that allowed offenders to be executed
for crimes committed at age 17.
One source of their optimism occurred Aug. 28, when Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader
../retrieve?_m=913c6901ce0bb2d6af454ec9707654cb&docnum=2& fmtstr=FULL& startdoc 10/14/02
a
Search - 13 Results - juvenile death penalty
Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer issued written opinions dissenting from a 6-3 ruling that
allowed a Texas offender to be executed later that day for committing a murder when he was
17. The justices said the court should reconsider allowing death sentences for juvenile
offenders.
The votes of four justices are required to hear a case, meaning only one more would be
needed to hear Stanford's petition or a similar appeal from someone else.
Death-penalty opponents also were bolstered by the Supreme Court's decision in June barring
the execution of the mentally retarded. Citing "evolving standards of decency," the high court
reversed its opinion that was rendered in 1989, on the same day as the Stanford ruling that
year.
Death-penalty opponents say the same arguments against executing the retarded - that they
act impulsively and are less likely to be deterred by the death penalty - apply to juveniles as
well.
Foes of capital punishment for juveniles also have said they're hopeful because about the
same number of states bar the death penalty for both the retarded and juvenile offenders.
Of the 38 states that allow capital punishment, 16 allow it to be applied to those who were 18
or older when they committed their crime. Eighteen bar execution of retarded offenders.
But Stevens, writing for the majority in the June ruling prohibiting the execution of a retarded
Virginia man, said it's not so much the number of states that are significant but the "direction
of the change."
Since 1989, 16 states have joined the two that then barred executing the retarded. Only four
states have joined those that don't allow the execution of juvenile offenders. These include
Indiana, which enacted such legislation earlier this year.
Mills, Poore's sister, said she rejects the idea that juveniles and the retarded should be
treated equally under death-penalty laws.
"There are no similarities whatsoever," she said. "Kevin Stanford knew exactly what he was
doing."
Buchanan confessed to police that during an armed robbery of the Cheker station, he and
Stanford took turns raping and sodomizing Poore before Stanford drove her to a secluded
location and shot her twice in the head. They then returned to the station, ransacked it and
took two gallons of gas, 300 cartons of cigarettes and $143.07 in cash.
Poore, a single parent, was working there to support her 11-month-old daughter.
GRAPHIC: Kevin Stanford, now on death row, was convicted of the January 1981 robbery,
sodomy and murder of a 20-year-old gasstation attendant. Stanford was 17 at the time.
LOAD-DATE: October 12, 2002
Source: News & Business > News > News Group File, Most Recent 90 Days (i)
Terms: juvenile death penalty (Edit Search)
View: Full
Date/Time: Monday, October 14, 2002 - 1:50 PM EDT
.../retrieve?_ m=913c6901ce0bb2d6af454ec9707654cb&docnum=2& fmtstr=FULL& startdoc 10/14/02
Page 3 of 4
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20543
October 7, 2002
Mr. Victor L. Streib
Ohio Northern Univ.Law College
525 South Main Street
Ada, OH 45810
Re: Kevin Nigel Stanford
v. Phil Parker, Warden
No. 01-10008
Dear Mr. Streib:
The Court today entered the following order in the above
entitled case:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Sincerely,
William K. Suter, Clerk
Search - 9 Results - Atkins v. Virginia Page 1 of 9
Source: All Sources > Federal Legal - U.S. > Supreme Court Cases & Materials > US Supreme Court Cases, Briefs,
and Cases Preview @
Terms: atkins v. virginia (Edit Search)
¥ Select for FOCUS™ or Delivery
-
2001 U.S. Briefs 10008, *
KEVIN NIGEL STANFORD, Petitioner, v. PHIL PARKER, WARDEN KENTUCKY STATE
PENITENTIARY, Respondent.
No. 01-10008
2001 U.S. Briefs 10008
May 17, 2002
On Original Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus.
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY IN SUPPORT
OF THE PETITIONER
* VICTOR L. STREIB, COLLEGE OF LAW, OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY, 525 South Main
Street, Ada, Ohio 45810, 419-772-2207.
* Counsel of Record
Attorney for Amicus Curiae. [*i]
View Table of Contents
View Table of Authorities
[*1] INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
The American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry (ASAP) files this brief as amicus curiae in
support of Petitioner by written consent of all parties, pursuant to Rule 36.2 of the Rules of
this Court. The parties’ letters of consent are on file with the Clerk.
The ASAP was founded in 1967 and today has over 400 members. ASAP provides a national
forum for adolescent psychiatry and promotes the exchange of psychiatric knowledge about
adolescents. Since its founding, ASAP has supported research on the normal development, as
well as the psychopathology and treatment, of adolescents, helped to broaden knowledge and
understanding of the various factors that may influence adolescent development and
substantially improved the psychiatric community's ability to recognize and diagnose
psychiatric problems common in adolescents.
One half of ASAP's members are child psychiatrists, while the remaining number are general
psychiatrists and psychoanalysts who maintain an active professional interest in adolescents.
Its members work with adolescents in hospitals, schools and psychiatric clinics around the
country as well as within the nation's juvenile court system. Amicus sponsors a wide array of
educational programs for its members and other mental health professionals, as well as
publishing a scientific journal.
Pursuant to Rule 37.6 Non of the parties or counsel for the parties authored the brief in whole
or in part and no person or entity, other than the amicus curiae, made a monetary
contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.
.../retrieve?_m=1 19fb23cb02e83c9679d45 f5d25f6e3d&docnum=1&_ fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1 6/24/02
Search - 9 Results - Atkins v. Virginia Page 2 of 9
[*2] SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
This Court has not addressed the constitutionality of the death penalty for 17-year-old
offenders since the 1980s, a time when the Court's holdings were deeply divided and
generated three rulings in seven years on the narrowest of margins. No five-Justice majority
for all of the primary factors within this issue ever emerged in any case during that 1980s
recent era or has ever occurred during the history of our nation. Nonetheless, despite the
apparent "green light" given by the Court in 1989, death penalty states generally have
rejected the opportunity to use age 16 as their minimum age for imposing this punishment.
In fact, since 1989, only Texas and perhaps Virginia have embraced the death penalty for
juvenile offenders at any meaningful level. Excluding these rogue states, the clear national
consensus in the United States as of 2002 is to reject the death penalty for offenders who
were 17-years-old at the time of their crimes.
The law recognizes that 17-year-olds differ intellectually and emotionally from adults and
must be judged and treated differently. This is confirmed by recent research on adolescent
brain development, demonstrating that 17-year-olds tend to be less mature, more impulsive,
and less capable of controlling their conduct and thinking in terms of long-range
consequences. Therefore, capital punishment for 17-year-olds is disproportionate and makes
no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment. Finally, in light of this
research, the death penalty for 17-year-old offenders is contrary to contemporary standards
of decency.
[*3] ARGUMENT
I. The Constitutionality of the Death Penalty for 17-Year-Old Offenders Should Be
Reconsidered and Clarified by This Court.
This Court has not addressed the constitutionality of the death penalty for offenders under
the age of 18 since 1989, almost 13 years ago. At that time, the Court was deeply divided
with no five-Justice majority for all of the primary issues ever emerging in any case. Despite
the apparent "green light" given to the death penalty for juvenile offenders by the Court in
1989, death penalty states are rejecting this opportunity to use age 16 as their minimum age
for imposing this punishment. In fact, since 1989, only Texas and perhaps Virginia have
embraced the death penalty for juvenile offenders at any meaningful level. The other 38 of
our 40 death penalty jurisdictions are joining together to manifest a national consensus
against this practice.
A This Court's Opinions on the Juvenile Death Penalty Are Deeply Divided
and Provide Insufficiently Clear Guidance to the Death Penalty
Jurisdictions.
Prior to 20 years ago, the death penalty for crimes committed by juvenile offenders existed
only beneath the radar of American law. See generally Victor L. Streib, Death Penalty for
Juveniles (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University [*4] Press) (1987). This Court did not
directly consider the constitutionality of this practice for juvenile offenders until the 1980s,
and never more than four Justices of this Court have agreed completely with any
opinion on this issue. See Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989) (4-1-4 decision);
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988) (4-1-3 decision); and Eddings v. Oklahoma,
455 U.S. 104 (1982) (5-4 decision).
The first case arose in 1981 when this Court considered a certiorari petition putting forward
the specific issue of the constitutionality of capital punishment for an offense committed
when the defendant was only 16 years old. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982), cert.
granted, 450 U.S. 1040 (1981). This Court decided Eddings in 1982 on a different issue, but
.../retrieve?_ m=119fb23cb02e83c9679d45f5d25foe3d&docnum=1&_ fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1 6/24/02
Search - 9 Results - Atkins v. Virginia Page 3 of 9
a four-Justice dissent would have reached the ultimate issue and would have rejected any
constitutional bar to the execution of 16-year-olds. Eddings, 455 U.S. at 120, 128 (Burger,
C.J., dissenting, with Justices White, Blackmun, and Rehnquist). However, the Eddings
dissent devoted only a few lines to this central issue, cited to no legal or psychiatric
authorities for its decision, and certainly cannot be said to have fully and thoroughly
considered the issue. See id. at 128.
Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987) was a case in which the offender was only 17 years old
at the time of his crime, but Burger did not directly raise the minimum age issue. In his
dissent, Justice Powell nonetheless questioned the constitutionality of the death penalty for
the 17-year-old offender and lamented the majority's unwillingness to wait [*5] fora
decision squarely on this issue. Id. at 819, 822 n.4 (Powell, J., dissenting).
Even as Burger was being decided, the Court granted certiorari in the case of a 15-year-old
offender and was to decide that case in 1988. Thompson v. Oklahoma, 479 U.S. 1084
(1987), granting cert. to Thompson v. State, 724 P.2d 780 (Okla. 1986), vacated and
remanded, Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988). In Thompson the issue was
couched as "whether the execution of [a death] sentence would violate the constitutional
prohibition against the infliction of 'cruel and unusual punishments' because petitioner was
only 15 years old at the time of his offense." Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. at 818-819
(Stevens, J., plurality opinion) (footnote omitted).
In a 4-1-3 ruling resulting from a four-Justice plurality plus Justice O'Connor's essential fifth
vote on narrower grounds, Thompson held that such an execution would be unconstitutional.
had only three dissenters (Chief Justice Burger, Justice White, and Justice Scalia). Justice
Powell had retired the year before Thompson was decided, leaving the Court with only eight
members (Justice Powell's position had not yet been filled by Justice Kennedy).
In Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), Justice Scalia's plurality agreed with Justice
Stevens' Thompson plurality that "evolving standards of decency" must be manifested
primarily in the actions of the various legislatures and juries facing the issue. Id. at 368-369.
In [*6] his Stanford plurality, Justice Scalia noted that the practice of sentencing and
executing offenders age 16 and 17 clearly had not been as rare as for 15-year-old offenders,
and Justice Scalia interpreted such rarity as understandable and laudable prudence rather
than a clear signal of an evolved standard of decency rejecting the practice. Id. at 373-374.
Justice O'Connor's pivotal Stanford concurrence concluded that the executions challenged in
Stanford could proceed since "it is sufficiently clear that no national consensus forbids the
imposition of capital punishment on 16- or 17-year-old capital murderers." Id. at 381.
Justice Brennan's dissent in Stanford tracked closely the analytical scheme of Justice Stevens’
plurality opinion in Thompson. (Id. at 382 (Brennan, J., dissenting)) After finding the juvenile
death penalty generally rejected by legislatures, juries, informed organizations, and other
nations (Id. at 384-390), the Stanford dissent noted the lesser moral culpability of juveniles
and the failure of the juvenile death penalty to make any measurable contribution to
acceptable goals of punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 390-405. The four
Stanford dissenters (Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens) would have drawn
the minimum constitutional age line at 18. Id. at 405.
For the past 13 years, American death penalty jurisdictions have tried to gain meaning and
guidance from Eddings, Thompson and Stanford, a daunting task. For example, in Eddings in
1982, four Justices (Burger, White, Blackmun and Rehnquist) found in a perfunctory dissent
no [*7] constitutional bar to the execution of 16-year-olds. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S.
at 120, 128 (Burger, C.J., dissenting) However, by 1988 in Thompson, Justice Blackmun had
changed his position from Eddings to then find that the executions of 16-year-olds is barred
by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. at 838
(Stevens, J., plurality opinion).
.../retrieve?_m=119fb23cb02e83c9679d45f5d25 foe3d&docnum=1& fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1 6/24/02
Search - 9 Results - Atkins v. Virginia Page 4 of 9
Also occurring in this 1982-1988 interim, Justice Powell retired from the Court in 1987. In
one of his very last opinions, Justice Powell seriously questioned the constitutionality of the
death penalty for 17-year-old offenders. Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. at 819, 822 n.4 (Powell,
J., dissenting) It seems reasonable to assume that Justice Powell, had he delayed his
retirement just until 1989, would have joined Justice Brennan's opinion in Stanford,
transforming that dissenting opinion into a five-Justice majority ruling by this Court that
execution of 17-year-old offenders is prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution.
The result of these few opinions by Justices of this Court on this issue over a 7-year period
has been to provide razor-thin majority decisions, going opposite directions in back-to-back
years, and being changed completely by the fortuity of Justice Powell's exact year of
retirement. Surely such an important life-and-death issue for our nation's youth deserves
better from our nation's highest Court. Therefore, amicus urges this Court to revisit the
constitutionality of the death penalty for 17-year-old offenders.
[*8] B. Since 1989, Death Penalty Jurisdictions are Rejecting the
Opportunity to Move to Age 16 as the Minimum Age for the Death
Penalty.
This Court in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 180-181 (1976), was impressed that at least
35 states and the federal government had enacted new death penalty statutes even though
their previous statutes were knocked down in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). The
reactions of our 40 current death penalty jurisdictions since Stanford are of similar
significance. Stanford was universally understood to have given the green light to death
penalty jurisdictions wanting to impose that sanction upon offenders as young as age 16 at
the times of their crimes. A predictable nationwide reaction would have been for almost all
death penalty jurisdictions with higher statutory minimum ages to lower those minimum ages
to 16 as constitutionally permitted by Stanford. However, not a single death penalty
jurisdiction has lowered its statutory minimum age from 17 or 18 to 16 since
Stanford was decided in 1989. If the 1972-1976 phenomenon was seen as embracing a
national standard approving of the death penalty in general despite significant constitutional
impediments, then the 1989-2002 phenomenon should be seen as refusing to embrace a
national standard approving of the death penalty for 17-year-olds despite the removal of
constitutional impediments.
Instead of a clear national standard of age 16 emerging, American death penalty jurisdictions
have moved [*9] in precisely the other direction. The most recent is Indiana, which just
raised its statutory minimum age from 16 to 18. (SB 426 signed by the Governor on March
26, 2002, to be effective July 1, 2002). The Montana legislature did the same thing in 1999.
(Mont. Code Ann. Sec. 45-5-102) When New York returned to the death penalty and enacted
its new statute in 1991, it set a minimum age of 18 for the death penalty. (N.Y. Penal Code
v. Furman, 858 P.2d 1092 (Wash. 1993). Florida also used court action to raise its minimum
age from 16 to 17. Brennan v. State, 754 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1999). Finally, as described in
Petitioner's Original Petition (p. 17), at least nine other death penalty states (Arizona,
Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas)
are considering legislative amendments to raise their statutory minimum age for the death
penalty from age 16 or 17 to age 18. Instead of rushing through the door opened by
Stanford, American death penalty jurisdictions have said "no, thank you" and have moved
toward age 18 as their minimum age.
C. Since 1989, Only Texas and Perhaps Virginia Have Significantly
.../retrieve?_m=119fb23cb02e83c9679d45f5d25 f6e3d&docnum=1&_ fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1 6/24/02
Search - 9 Results - Atkins v. Virginia Page 5 of 9
Embraced the Execution of Juvenile Offenders.
The ultimate measure of the evolving standard of decency regarding the death penalty for
juvenile offenders is a jurisdiction's willingness to carry such cases through to [*10] actual
execution. In the years immediately prior to the Stanford decision in 1989, actual execution
of juvenile offenders had stopped, presumably awaiting the outcome of Thompson and
Stanford. Victor L. Streib, The Juvenile Death Penalty Today: Death Sentences and
Executions for Juvenile Crimes, January 1, 1973 - December 31, 2001 (March 2002)
(accessible at http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty/streib). However, one might expect such
executions to have returned to a "normal" level during the 1990-2001 time period.
This 12-year period saw a total of 629 executions. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, Inc., Death Row U.S.A., Winter 2002. Of these total 629 executions, only 15 (2%) were
of juvenile offenders. Streib, The Juvenile Death Penalty Today, at p. 4. Of critical importance
is that 8 of these 15 juvenile executions occurred in Texas and 3 others occurred in Virginia.
Looking at the entire United States except for Texas and Virginia, a total of 31 states
executed a total of 339 offenders from 1990-2001. Only 4 (1%) were of juvenile offenders,
executed in Louisiana (1990), Georgia (1993), Missouri (1993), and Oklahoma (1999).
However, it cannot be said that these four states are firmly in the fold of executing juvenile
offenders. Prior to these recent-era juvenile executions, Louisiana last executed a juvenile in
1948, Georgia in 1957, and Missouri in 1921. Oklahoma had never executed a juvenile
offender prior to 1999. Victor L. Streib, Death Penalty for Juveniles, supra, at 195, 197, 199,
203.
Texas and perhaps Virginia are the only two jurisdictions within the entire United States that
have [*11] significantly embraced the execution of juvenile offenders since Stanford.
During 1990-2001, Texas executed 220 persons, 8 (4%) of whom were juvenile offenders. As
of the end of 2001, Texas had 30 juvenile offenders on its death row and has indicated its
intent to continue to execute such offenders. Victor L. Streib, The Juvenile Death Penalty
Today, supra. Virginia executed 70 persons during 1990-2001, only 3 (4%) of whom were
juvenile offenders. However, Virginia has not sentenced any juvenile offenders to death for
several years and has no juvenile offenders now on its death row, making Virginia's position
somewhat unclear. While even 4% is still a very small portion of all executed offenders and
thus may not be truly significant, it might be argued that Texas and perhaps Virginia
continue to embrace the death penalty for juvenile offenders. However, the operative
"standards of decency" under the Eighth Amendment must flow from national practices and
procedures and are not dictated by a few rogue states. See, e.g., Ford v. Wainwright, 477
U.S. 399, 408 (1986); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 595-596 (1977). One clear indicator
of a national consensus against this practice is that only one or two states can be described
as continuing to embrace the actual execution of juvenile offenders.
D. Conclusion
A Constitutional issue of the significance of the death penalty for juvenile offenders should be
illuminated by holdings of this Court that are clear, consistent, and [*12] convincing. Since
this Court's last consideration and exposition of this issue, only Texas and perhaps Virginia
have continued to include juvenile offenders among those persons they execute in any
significant numbers. The actual practices of the other 38 of our 40 death penalty jurisdictions
reveal a national consensus that rejects the behavior of those two isolated states.
II. Well-Established Research on Adolescent Brain Development Reinforces the
Eighth Amendment's Evolving Standards of Decency Which Now Forbid the Death
Penalty for 17-Year-Olds.
A. The Human Brain, Particularly for Males, Continues to Evolve into the
.../retrieve?_ m=119fb23cb02e83c9679d45 f5d25f6e3d&docnum=1&_ fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1 6/24/02
Search - 9 Results - Atkins v. Virginia Page 6 of 9
Late Teens and Early Twenties, With the Mental Ability to Control
Impulses Developing Last.
Amicus completely endorses the arguments presented in Petitioner's Brief (pp. 23-25) as to
the scientific research on adolescent brain development. Earlier stages of this research were
relied upon by this Court in Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 833-838 (1988) (Stevens,
J., plurality opinion). During the ensuing years since Thompson and Stanford, this research
has continued and has reenforced the earlier findings.
The new research findings come chiefly from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of both the
structural and [*13] functional varieties. Numerous news articles describe recent MRI
studies comparing adolescent brains to adult brains and which suggest a connection between
teen behavior and brain development. See e.g., Matt Crenson, Brain Changes Shed Light on
Teen Behavior, The Times-Picayune, December 31, 2000, p. A-18; Daniel R. Weinberger,
Teen Brain Lacks Impulse Control, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 13, 2001, ed.; Shankar
Vedantam, Are Teens Just Wired That Way?, The Washington Post, June 3, 2001, sec. A.
Structural MRI has revealed that the brain changes as one matures, that different parts
change at different times, and that the frontal lobes (and more particularly the pre-frontal
lobes) along with a subcortical area, the striatum, change most dramatically between an
sample of youths ages 12 to 16 and a sample of adult ages 22 to 30. See, e.g., E.R. Sowell,
P.M. Thompson, C.J. Holmes, T.L. Jernigen, & A.W. Toga, In Vivo Evidence for Post-
Adolescent Brain Maturation in Frontal and Striatal Regions, 2 Nature Neuroscience 859
(1999). Functional MRI uses similar techniques to observe changes in brain activity and has
found that changes in those areas indicative of maturation continue to take place during late
adolescence and into early adulthood.
Counsel for amicus also has received a communication on this precise issue from Dr. Ruben
C. Gur, Professor and Director of Neuropsychology in the Department of Psychiatry of the
University of Pennsylvania Health System. Dr. Gur's summary of the evidence from the recent
MRI research is as follows:
[*14] Increase in white matter continues well into late adolescence, and the
frontal lobes are the last to myelinate. The behavioral significance of this
neuroanatomical finding is that the very brain system necessary for inhibition and
goal-directed behavior comes "on board" last and is not fully operational until
early adulthood (about 18-22 years).
E-mail message from Dr. Ruben C. Gur to Victor L. Streib, dated April 13, 2002 (on file with
amicus counsel).
We know that the prefrontal cortex is most important for "executive functioning" including
planning, and using judgment, controlling impulsiveness, etc. Now we see that there is an
objective basis for the common knowledge that teenagers tend to have a lot less of these
qualities than adults, both in terms of the structure of the brain (which is manifestly more
immature in the prefrontral area in adolescents than adults) and function of the brain.
Confirming what every parent of a teenager knows, the scientific research has concluded that
adolescents actually think differently from adults. D. Keating, Adolescent Thinking, in "At the
Threshold," 54-89 (S. Feldman et al. Eds., 1990); W. Overton, Competence and Procedures,
in "Reasoning, Necessity and Logic," 1-32 (W. Overton ed. 1990). These recent neurological
studies conclude that the adolescent brain is not fully developed and, among other things,
undergoes major reorganization in the area associated with social behavior and impulse
control. See Physical Changes in Adolescent Brains May Account for Turbulent [*15] Teen
.../retrieve?_ m=119fb23cb02e83c9679d45f5d25 f6e3d&docnum=1&_ fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1 6/24/02
Search - 9 Results - Atkins v. Virginia Page 7 of 9
Years, McClean Hospital Study Reveals,
http://www.mclean.harvard.edu/PublicAffairs/TurbulentTeens.htm; National Institute of
Mental Health, Teenage Brain: A Work in Progress, 2/6/01,
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/teenbrain.cfm.
To a certain degree, this latest research simply confirms what we have always known or
suspected about the brain development of 17-year-olds. While they often appear to be "fully-
grown" physically and may seem to be functioning as adults, their judgment and impulse-
control are simply not that of adults. Yes, they may know "right from wrong" under an
infancy defense or an insanity test, but they nonetheless are lacking in fully adult-level
functioning of their brains. They may make horrible decisions, and they act on impulse,
without thinking clearly about the consequences.
B. Legitimate Objectives of Punishment Are Not Served by Imposing
Adult Capital Punishment Upon Offenders Who Do Not Have Adult Mental
Abilities.
Amicus fully endorses Petitioner's arguments concerning deterrence and retribution, the
objectives of capital punishment which have been accepted by this Court. Petitioner's Brief,
pp. 20-27. The targets of these punishment objectives are 17-year-olds whose brains are not
fully developed, particularly as to judgment and impulse control. Elkhonon Goldberg's The
Executive Brain: Frontal Lobes and the Civilized Mind (Oxford University Press 2001) [*16]
describes the frontal lobes as "the CEO of the brain" and concludes that those lobes "cannot
fully assume their leadership role" until they are mature. Id. at 144-145.
It further appears that adolescents such as Petitioner typically do not come up even to the
standards of their 17-year-old peers. Other factors in their lives often hold back their mental
development even further, making them even less culpable mentally than others their age.
See, e.g., ABA Task Force on Youth in the Criminal Justice System, Youth in the Criminal
Justice System 39-46 (Chicago: American Bar Association) (2001).
If the objective is general deterrence of similarly homicidal behavior by other 17-year-olds in
the future, executing the Petitioner simply will not have that effect. The delayed brain
development described above negatively impacts impulse control. The theory of deterrence,
in direct contrast, assumes a person's ability to conduct an on-the-spot cost/benefit analysis
and to control or redirect impulses. Not surprisingly, Thompson rejected the deterrence
rationale as simply unacceptable for young offenders. Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815,
The other prong of the general deterrence theory is that the execution of any one offender
deters the behavior of all other potential offenders, including those older than age 17.
However, if this Court completely abolishes the execution of all juvenile offenders, this would
reduce executions nationally by about 2%. See Point I.C. above, and Streib, The Juvenile
Death Penalty Today, at p. 4. That is, [*17] 98% of executions would continue to occur and
would have whatever highly questionable impact they might have on these older potential
offenders. Amicus believes that this 2% reduction would have no significant impact on
deterrence.
| Given the extensive research findings on capital punishment during the past several decades,
the only legitimate objective that retains any credibility is retribution. However, this Court
also has noted that "less culpability should attach to a crime committed by a juvenile than to
a comparable crime committed by an adult." Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. at 835
(footnote omitted). Given what we have learned since 1989 about adolescent brain
development, this conclusion from Thompson is even more persuasive. Retribution is to be
commensurate with the offender's personal culpability. Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782,
.../retrieve?_ m=119fb23cb02e83c9679d45 f5d25f6oe3d&docnum=1&_ fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1 6/24/02
Search - 9 Results - Atkins v. Virginia Page 8 of 9
798-800 (1982). Seventeen-year-olds simply do not and can not have a sufficient level of
personal culpability to fully deserve the maximum adult punishment known to our legal
system.
C. Informed by the Recent Research on Adolescent Brain Development,
the Death Penalty for 17-Year-Old Offenders is Contrary to Contemporary
Standards of Decency.
Amicus fully endorses Petitioner's arguments that this Court should also take into
consideration the parallel issue of mental retardation and the international law setting.
[*18] Petitioner's Brief at 27 and 29. When added to the above-discussed concerns about
adolescent brain development, these issues argue strongly that the juvenile death penalty is
not in accord with contemporary standards of decency in this country or literally anywhere in
the world.
This Court is properly concerned about the death penalty for mentally retarded offenders, as
is indicated by the grant of certiorari in Atkins v. Virginia, No. 00-8452, and the
interchanges during oral argument of Atkins on February 20, 2002. See Petitioner's Brief at
27-28. It seems nearly impossible to separate the legal analysis of the death penalty for the
mentally retarded from the death penalty for juveniles. Both are physically able to commit
terrible crimes, but neither has the level of mental development to be held fully responsible
and to receive the maximum punishment for those crimes. Both juvenile and mentally
retarded offenders have "the mind of a child," albeit often in the body of an adult. A national
consensus opposing the death penalty for each group has become manifest, recognizing that
neither children nor those with the minds of children should receive the maximum adult
punishment.
The Justices of this Court have been split in the past over the importance of comparative and
international law in examining our national consensus concerning the death penalty. Amicus
firmly believes that these are very relevant issues, but a larger context is also important. The
United States, represented in this practice almost solely by Texas and perhaps Virginia, is
essentially alone in the world in imposing the death penalty upon juvenile offenders. We
feebly respond [*19] to the resulting international criticism by trying to explain that
juvenile executions are only 2% of all American executions, that only one or two states
actually engage in this practice, and that the vast majority of Americans do not allow their
state or federal governments to engage in such un-American acts. It is now time for this
Court to acknowledge that our national standards of decency no longer permit the execution
of juvenile offenders anywhere in the United States. It is an odious practice that has
essentially ended throughout American except for a couple of last holdout states, and they
must now be brought into line with American values and standards.
C. Conclusion
Brain development continues typically through the teenage years and into the early twenties,
with impulse control commonly developing last. Seventeen-year-olds, particularly those with
the atypical problems of the Petitioner, simply cannot be held to an adult standard in this
regard. General deterrence theories are simply inapplicable to 17-year-olds, since their stage
of brain development does not lend itself to rational, cost/benefit analyses. American
standards of decency now reject the imposition of the death penalty upon those with such
immature brain development.
[*20] CONCLUSION
Amicus ASAP urges this Court to reconsider and clarify the constitutionality of the death
penalty for juvenile offenders and to find that a national consensus now exists which opposes
.../retrieve?_ m=119fb23cb02e83c9679d45 f5d25f6e3d&docnum=1& _fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1 6/24/02
Search - 9 Results - Atkins v. Virginia Page 9 of 9
this practice. Amicus particularly wishes to endorse and further develop the issues in this
case regarding the mental development of adolescents, particularly those such as Petitioner
who were under the age of 18 at the time of the acts in question. Adolescents are
developmentally different from adults, regardless of the acts they may commit. Accordingly,
amicus strongly urges this Court to spare these non-adults the imposition of that most adult
of all sanctions, capital punishment and to find that the execution of juvenile offenders is
Cruel and Unusual in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Consequently,
Petitioner's death sentence should be vacated.
Respectfully submitted,
Victor L. Streib, Counsel of Record, Ohio Northern University College of Law, 525 South Main
Street, Ada, OH 45810, (419) 772-2207
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry
Source:
Terms:
View:
Date/Time:
atkins v. virginia (Edit Search)
Full
Monday, June 24, 2002 - 1:18 PM EDT
About LexisNexis | Terms and Conditions
Copyright© 2002 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
.../retrieve?_ m=119fb23cb02e83c9679d45 f5d25f6e3d&docnum=1& fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1 6/24/02
Margaret \(DCR\), 08:49 AM 10/8/02 , Louisville Courier Journal art
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
From: "Margaret \(DCR\)" <mod@dcr.net>
To: "Victor Streib" <v-streib@onu.edu>,
"Rice, Speedy" <srice@lawschool.gonzaga.edu>,
"Connie de la Vega" <delavega@usfca.edu>
Subject: Louisville Courier Journal article
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:49:21 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
| e-mailed the word to everyone yesterday, but forgot all our amicus people. So, sorry. How
dense of me.
But attached is today's news article that pretty much explains the legal posture of the case --
except for the fact that the juvenile dp case is to be reconferenced in the USSC this Friday
10/11 and the earliest date for any possible ruling will be next Tuesday 10/15,
Thanks again for all your help and support.
Margaret
Supreme Court declines to hear death-row case
Stanford's petition to ban execution because he was 17 at time still active
By Andrew Wolfson
awolfson@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
The U.S. Supreme Court said yesterday that it won't hear the appeal of Kentucky death-row
inmate Kevin Stanford, who argued that his right to confront his accuser was denied in his trial
20 years ago in the murder of Baerbel Poore.
But the court kept alive Stanford's petition to consider whether the constitutional protection
against cruel and unusual punishment should bar the execution of people who commit capital
crimes as juveniles.
Stanford, who is now 39, was 17 when he was accused of the January 1981 robbery, sodomy
and murder of Poore, 20, who worked at a Cheker gas station on Cane Run Road in Jefferson
County.
In 1989, in Stanford's first appeal, the Supreme Court held there was no national consensus
against executing offenders for killing at age 16 or 17.
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
e
Margaret \(DCR\), 08:49 AM 10/8/02 , Louisville Courier Journal art
But in Stanford's petition, his lawyers now argue that times have changed and that putting
juvenile offenders to death is inconsistent with "evolving standards of decency" and
international laws and treaties.
The state's response to the petition notes that at age 17, Stanford already was a "career
criminal" who had been sent to five different correctional facilities as a result of juvenile court
proceedings.
The court took no action on the petition yesterday, the first day of its new term, which means it
could decide to hear the issue later in the term or address it in another case.
The Kentucky attorney general's office won't request an execution date until the juvenile-
death-penalty issue is resolved, said David Sexton, director of the office's criminal appellate
division.
Stanford's co-counsel, Margaret O'Donnell of Frankfort, said: "We are trying to sort this out
and see what it might possibly mean. We don't know our next step yet."
O'Donnell said she hadn't been able to pass the news on to Stanford, who has been on death
row at the Kentucky State Penitentiary since his conviction in 1982.
Poore's sister, Mona Mills, said: "We are almost there. We are very, very close." Poore's
family has supported the death penalty for Stanford.
If the court petition fails, Stanford will ask Gov. Paul Patton to commute his death sentence,
citing Stanford's age at the time of the crime and his abuse and neglect as a child.
Patton has signed death warrants that led to the executions of Harold McQueen Jr. in 1997
and Eddie Lee Harper in 2000. But Patton said last year that he would support legislation to
outlaw the execution of people for crimes committed before they turned 18 because he
questions whether 16and 17-year-olds fully understand the consequences of their actions.
Nationally, there are 81 offenders awaiting execution for crimes they committed at ages 16 or
17, but Stanford is the only one in Kentucky.
Since the Supreme Court allowed the death penalty to be imposed again in 1976, 21 people
have been executed for crimes committed before they turned 18, including 13 in Texas.
Kentucky has not executed a juvenile offender since 1945.
The Supreme Court refused to hear Stanford's appeal of a ruling issued in September 2001 by
a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel rejected Stanford's
argument that his rights were violated when a co-defendant's confession was read to the jury.
The co-defendant, David Buchanan, who was convicted of robbery, rape, sodomy and murder
and sentenced to life in prison, implicated Stanford as the assailant and didn't testify at trial.
Defendants generally have the right to cross-examine their accuser, but the appeals panel
held that error was harmless because there was so much other evidence against Stanford.
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu> 2
ee
’ Margaret \(DCR\), 08:49 AM 10/8/02 , Louisville Courier Journal art
For one thing, the panel said Stanford twice admitted killing Poore. Days after his arrest, the
judges said, Stanford sneaked up behind a security guard at the Jefferson County Youth
Center, put the end of a pencil against the guard's ear, and said, "Click, click, click, just like the
girl, I'm going to blow your brains out."
A few days later, the panel said, a corrections officer overheard Stanford bragging that he had
sodomized, shot and killed Poore because she could recognize and identify him.
Stanford's appellate lawyers have maintained that while evidence clearly tied him to the
robbery and sexual assaults, it didn't prove he shot the victim.
They also say that staff and inmates at the juvenile center have said that they never saw
Stanford discuss his case with anyone there, "let alone with . . . guards" and that he knew
better than to talk about his case with anyone but his attorneys.
The appeals panel also rejected an argument that Stanford's trial lawyers were denied the
right to ask jurors if they would consider a sentence of less than death if they convicted him of
intentional murder.
Death-penalty opponents have said they are optimistic about the Supreme Court's reversal of
its 5-4 decision 13 years ago in Stanford vs. Kentucky that allowed offenders to be executed
for crimes committed at age 17.
One source of their optimism occurred Aug. 28, when Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer issued written opinions dissenting from a 6-3 ruling that allowed
a Texas offender to be executed later that day for committing a murder when he was 17. The
justices said the court should reconsider allowing death sentences for juvenile offenders.
The votes of four justices are required to hear a case, meaning only one more would be
needed to hear Stanford's petition or a similar appeal from someone else.
Death-penalty opponents also were bolstered by the Supreme Court's decision in June barring
the execution of the mentally retarded. Citing "evolving standards of decency," the high court
reversed its opinion that was rendered in 1989, on the same day as the Stanford ruling that
year.
Death-penalty opponents say the same arguments against executing the retarded -- that they
act impulsively and are less likely to be deterred by the death penalty -- apply to juveniles as
well.
Foes of capital punishment for juveniles also have said they're hopeful because about the
same number of states bar the death penalty for both the retarded and juvenile offenders.
Of the 38 states that allow capital punishment, 16 allow it to be applied to those who were 18
or older when they committed their crime. Eighteen bar execution of retarded offenders.
But Stevens, writing for the majority in the June ruling prohibiting the execution of a retarded
Virginia man, said it's not so much the number of states that are significant but the "direction
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu> 3
¢
Margaret \(DCR\), 08:49 AM 10/8/02 , Louisville Courier Journal art
of the change."
Since 1989, 16 states have joined the two that then barred executing the retarded. Only four
states have joined those that don't allow the execution of juvenile offenders. These include
Indiana, which enacted such legislation earlier this year.
Mills, Poore's sister, said she rejects the idea that juveniles and the retarded should be treated
equally under death-penalty laws.
“There are no similarities whatsoever," she said. "Kevin Stanford knew exactly what he was
doing."
Buchanan confessed to police that during an armed robbery of the Cheker station, he and
Stanford took turns raping and sodomizing Poore before Stanford drove her to a secluded
location and shot her twice in the head. They then returned to the station, ransacked it and
took two gallons of gas, 300 cartons of cigarettes and $143.07 in cash.
Poore, a single parent, was working there to support her 11-month-old daughter.
Rev. Patrick Delahanty Policy Analyst
613 Zane Street Catholic Conference of
Kentucky
Louisville KY 40203-3029 1042 Burlington Lane
Frankfort
Kentucky 40601
Phones: Home: (502)581-9154; Office: (502)875-4345; Fax: (502)875-2841
Websites: Catholic Conference: www.ccky.orgq; KCADP: www.kcadp.orq
Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
PO BOX 3092
Louisville KY 40201-3092
(502)585-2895
To join KCADP, send $15 to above address. $25 - Family; $5 - Low-income
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
=
Search - 23 Results - death penalty
Source: News & Business > News > Today's News (i)
Terms: death penalty (Edit Search)
* Select for FOCUS™ or Delivery
[
Birmingham Post, September 26, 2002
Copyright 2002 Midland Independent Newspapers plc
Birmingham Post
September 26, 2002, Thursday
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 4
LENGTH: 577 words
HEADLINE: LECTURER BACKS EFFORTS TO SAVE KILLER ON DEATH ROW
BYLINE: John Revill Lecturer Julian Killingley with a picture of Kevin Stanford on death row
BODY:
A Midland lecturer has joined the campaign to save an inmate on America's Death Row who
became a model in a controversial fashion campaign. Killer Kevin Nigel Stanford featured in
advertisements by Italian clothes firm Benetton while awaiting execution three years ago.
Stanford is due to die by lethal injection next month unless the United States Supreme Court
agrees to a final appeal. Julian Killingley, who lectures at the University of Central England in
Birmingham, is preparing to travel to Washington for a hearing on September 30 when the
court is expected to announce whether it will allow an appeal.
Mr Killingley, who specialises in American public law, said execution was a cruel and unusual
punishment for Stanford because he was only 17 when he committed the offence.
Stanford, now aged 40, shot dead shop assistant Barbel Poore after a raid at a petrol station
in Kentucky in June 1981.
He and an accomplice had raped Ms Poore before shooting her.
During one court hearing he said: 'I had to shoot her. She lived next door to me and would
recognise me.
'I guess I could have tied her up or something, or beat her up and tell her if she tells we
would kill her.’
Stanford has exhausted all his appeals and his final hope for clemency lies with an appeal at
the Supreme Court.
Two years ago Mr Killingley supported a successful bid to commute the death sentence on
Johnny Paul Penry to a life sentence on the grounds of his low IQ.
Mr Killingley, who became involved in Stanford's case after being contacted by campaigners,
said: 'No one can deny what Stanford did was horrendous and he deserved to be punished.
During his childhood he was physically and mentally abused, but that does not excuse what
he did.
.../retrieve?_m=3babe7c9cd37£7583da093bce38a7111f&docnum=4& _fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=19/26/02
Page 1 of 2
Search - 23 Results - death penalty Page 2 of 2
‘He was only 17 when he committed the crime, and he has already served more than 20
years in prison and he has changed a great deal in that time.'
The appeal will be based on a change in public opinion, since the 1989 appeal, on the
acceptability of executing juvenile criminals and also adherence to international law.
‘We believe standards have evolved since 1989, and most people would not accept a death
penalty for a man of 17,' said Mr Killingley.
‘Someone's brain is accepted to be one of the last parts of a body to mature physically, and
society does not accept they have reached maturity until the age of 18. People can't vote
until then because they are not thought grown up enough to make informed decisions.
'We will argue to execute him now would warrant a cruel and unusual punishment which is
against the American constitution.
‘Twenty eight states in the US do not have the death penalty or do not execute people who
committed their offences when aged under 18. Five of the 22 which do are reconsidering
whether they will in future.’
Mr Killingley will also cite international law in the appeal.
He said: ‘Congo and Iran are the only other countries apart from the US to allow juveniles to
be executed.
‘The US has signed up to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child which prohibit the execution of children. '
Mr Killingley said he was confident there would be an appeal hearing but added that the
outcome of that was far from clear cut.
He said: 'One judge has said in a previous case the views of the international community
have to be considered.
‘That is our best hope.'
LOAD-DATE: September 26, 2002
Source: News & Business > News > Today's News (2)
Terms: death penalty (Edit Search)
View: Full
Date/Time: Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 1:30 PM EDT
About LexisNexis | Terms and Conditions
.../retrieve?_m=3babe7c9cd37f7583da093be38a7111f&docnum=4& fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1 9/26/02
Margaret \(DCR\), 01:27 PM 9/17/02 , Dr. Chris Mallet
To: "Margaret \(DCR\)" <mod@dcr.net>
From: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Subject: Dr. Chris Mallet
Ce:
Bec:
Attached:
Margaret:
Never heard of him/her.
By the way, there are about 3 or 4 juvenile death penalty cases before the Supremes now, at various
stages of their appeals/habeas/etc. Don't know if that will help or hurt in Kevin's case.
Victor:
Do you know this social worker? He is contacting juveniles on death row, Kevin Stanford included, and
asking for all kinds of information about them and their cases for a publication.
Thanks. Hope you are well.
Margaret O'Donnell
McNally and O'Donnell, P.S.C.
513 Capitol Avenue
P.O. Box 1243
Frankfort, Kentucky 40602
(502) 227-2142
Victor
(502) 227-4669 (fax)
|
|
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu> 1
JUN 10-2002 MON 11:58 AM PUBLIC advocacy
we *AX NQ, 502 564 7890
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY
100 WAIR OAKS LANE, STE 302
FRANKFORT, KY 40601
TO: \iceloe Sacer wax: _ 4l9 9727 (87S
FROM: TIM ARNOLD, ATTORNEY
VICKIE ARROWOOD, ATTORNEY
BARBARA BINGHAM, PARALEGAL
TOM COLLINS, ATTORNEY
SUZANNE KOPF, ATTORNEY
SHERRI JOHNSON, SECRETARY
DAWN PETTIT, SECRETARY
AMY ROBINSON, ATTORNEY
a
GAIL ROBINSON, ATTORNEY a
TIM SHULL, ATTORNEY
DATE : Gfiofore
roT
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 7
RE; Thasts clam on "¢ Vol vi ng. Stan herds ©
thi) Let ye. Jeg\At ¢ + XE -
Oy 2 pert ri
Fatd
*IF YOU RAVE NOT RECEIVED THE NUMBER OF PAGES LISTED OR YOU
HAVE RECEIVED THIS FAX IN ERROR, PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE
AT (502) 564-8006 OR FAX (502) 564 7890. THANK YOU!
JUN-10-2002 MON 11:59 AM PUBLIC ADVOCACY
FAX NO,
502 564 7890
te
PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A
NATIONAL CONSENSUS OPPOSING THE
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OF 17-YEAR-OLD
MURDERERS, NOR HAS HE DEMONSTRATED
THAT HIS CASE IN STANFORD V. KENTUCKY,
492 U.S. 361 (1989) WAS WRONGLY DECIDED.
Petitionér was a career crimmal before he robbed, abducted, anally
sodoroized, orally sodomized, and executed Barbe] Poore. On prior occasions, Petinoner
had been sent to five different correctional facilities as the resuk of juvenile delinquency
proceedings. (JA 9, Stanford v. Kentucky, No. 87-5765).
... Stanford has been grven the benefit of weatment available
to youthful offenders in the Commonwealth on a repeated
basis over a period of several years before his mvolverment in
the crimes charged in the mstant case. Since the age of ten,
Stanford has revolved in and out of juvenile court havmg
committed various offenses including arson, burglary, sexual
abuse, theft and assault, to name but a few. Stanford v.
Commonwealth, Ky., 734 S.W.2d 781, 792 (1987).
Petitioner resumed his crimmma! career after he was sentenced to death for
the murder of Barbel Poore. See Stanford v. Parker, Ky.App., 949 S.W.2d 616
(1996)\(appeal from prison disciplmary action for anally sodomizing another Geath row
mmnate mi 19972).
Minors who become embroiled with the law range from the
very young up to those on the brink of majority. Some of
the older minors become fully “street-wise,” hardened
crimmals, deserving no greater considsration than Mat
properly accorded al] persons suspected of crame. Other
minors are more of a child than an adult. As the Court
indicated in In re Gaudr, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), the facts
relevant to the care to be exercised in a particular case very
widely. They include the mimor’s age, actual maturity,
18
-2002 MON 11:59 8M PUBLIC ADVOCACY FAX NO, 502 564 7890 P,
family environment, education, emotional and mental
stability, and, of course, any prior record he might have.
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 734, 2.4 (1979) (Powel, J., dissenting).
Maturity varies from individual to individual Some individuals never
attain it; some do at an age labeled “child.”
‘tt is generally agreed ‘that punishment should be directly related to the
personal culpability of the criminal defendant.” Calforma v. Brown, 479 U_S. 538 (1987)
(O’Connor, J., corcurring).” Thompson v. Okjahama, 487 U.S. 815(1988).
Guided, mdividualized consideration of the offender's circumstances is the
touchstone of capital sentencing. See Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 879 (1983),
collecting cases. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) and its progeny are intended to
avoid the kind of “rigid”, “tuechanical” and “wholly arbitrary” determmation urged here
by Petitioner. Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S, 939, 950 (1983). No particular circumstances
of a capital offender’s crime should automatically require che death penalry, Woodson vy.
North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976): Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976), or
automatically foreclose it, Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 158 (1987). Rather, the
sentencer must be “free to consider a myriad of factors to determime whether death is the
appropriate punishment.” California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1008 (1983). Youthfulness
is only one such factor and it is not necessarily the most imaportant.
etitioner did pot demonstrate a national conseusus agamst the execution
of 17-year-old murderers in Stanford v. Keatucky, 492 U.S. 36 (1989). His esserion that
during the 13 years that have followed, only two States have enacted legisianon barring
19
JUN-19-2002 MON 12:00 PM PUBLIC ADVOCACY FAX NO, 502 584 7890
the execution of tuveniles, falls woefully short of establishing such a national consensus
im the present action.
in exummung the evidence, it is important to remember that Petitioner
rather than Kentucky bears the burden of proof:
The deference we owe to the decisions of the state
legislarure under our federal system [citation omitted] is
enhanced where the specification of punishments is
concemmed, for “these are peculiarly questions of legislative
policy.” [citations omitted]
Greeg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 177 (1976).
Therefore, m assessmg a punishment selected by a
democratically elected legislature agamst the constitutional
mwasure, we presume tts validity. We may not require the
legislature to select the least severe penalty possivis so jong
as the penalty selected is not cruelly mbumane or
disproportionate to the crime mvolved. And a heavy
burden rests on those who would attack the rudgment of the
representatives of the people.
Id., at 176.
More important than the presence of consensus favormng capital
punishment of juveniles is the absence of a consensus opposing n. Because the
constirutional validity of an authorized punishment is presumed, Petitioner has the burden
of proving that the practice enjoys virturally no acceprance ammng the States. Greg v.
Georgia, supra, 428 U.S, at 176-177. Pertioner cannot prove a consensus opposing the
capital punishment of juveniles among the States that have the death penairy, or even
when he includes the non-death penalty States m his reckoning. The death penalty States
have not uniformly accepted any particular age numimum for capital punishment.
20
P,
04
JUN-10-2002 MON 12:00 PM PUBLIC ADYCCACY PAX NO, 502 564 7890 F, Ob
Petitioner cannot escape the fact that even by his own account a majority
of the death penalry States m this country subject 17-year-old capital offenders to capital
punishment. This falls far short of provmg a consensus against the practice, Stanford vy.
Kentucky, 492 U.S. at 373 (plurality opimion).
Based on the legislative enactments of the States, it is obvious that the idea
of subjecting 17-year-old capital offenders to the death penalty contmmues to garner
widespread acceptance throughout this country. Certamly there 1s no legislative
consensus against such a practice. Because these legislative pronouncements are the most
reliable indicia of modern societal standards pertaining to this matter, thei failure to
clearly demonstrate a uniform opposition to the capital punishment of Juveniles should
ead the inquiry cow before this Court.
The concurring opiion in Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988)
correctly noted Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S, 238 (1972) as au example of way the
evidence of a consensus agaist Capital punishment must be clear and convincmg:
in 1972, when thus Court heard arguments on the
constitutiouality of the death penalty, such statistics might
have suggested that the practice had become a relic,
implicttly rejected by a new societal consensus. Indeed,
counsel urged the Court to conclude “that the mumber of
cases in which the death penalry is imposed, as cormpared
with the nuraber of cases m which it is staturonly available,
reflects a general revulsion toward the penalty that would
lead to its repeal if only it were more generally and widely
enforced,” Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 386, 33
L.Ed.2d 346, 92 S.Ct. 2726 (1972) (Burger, CJ,
disseatmg). We know that any mference of 2 societa!
consensus rejecting the death penalty would have been
mistaken. But had this Court then declared the existence of
such @ consensus, and outlawed capital punishment,
24
* JUN-10-2002 MON 12:01 FM PUBLIC ADVOCACY FAX NO. 502 564 7680
legislatures would very likely not have been able to revive
it. The mistaken premise of the decision would have been
frozen into constitutional jaw, making it difficult to refute
and even more difficult to reject.
Thompson, at 855 (O’Connor, J., concurring in jucgment).
Petitioner urges that only a smail perceatage of American’s death row
prisoners were below the age of 18 years when they commutted their murders.
Petitioner’s statistical argument says nothing about the percentage of 19-year-olds, 34
year-olds, or 70-year-olds comprising America’s iota! death row population. Considered
in isolation and removed from comparison with other specific ages, the 16 and-17-year-
old percentage cffered by Petirioner means absolutely nothing. Aliso, the Peutoner does
not offer any statistics reflecting the number or percentage of death penalty-punishable
crimes committed by juveniles in comparison with those cormmutted by aduks. This
might well expla why Petitioner stops short of suggesting a significant statisucal
disparity between the relative number of juvenile death row inmates and the number of
juveniles who actually faced the death penalty at mal.
Petitioner refers to the opposition voiced by various special miterest
organizanons. In ae democratic society such as the United States only the minority would
be expected to speak out i9 opposition If those groups represented the majority view,
they would not find it necessary to advocate thar the law be changed. Consequeutly, this
too is an unreljable factor.
Pentioner offers as evidence the laws of other countries. Much like his
argument conceming non-capital States, the evidence pertaining to the laws of other
22
JUN-10-2002 MON 12:02 PM PUBLIC ADVOCACY
FAX NO, 502 564 7890
countries is confounded by the fact that the vast majority of the 22 Western Europe and
other Anglo-American nations have no death penalty at all for “ordmary crimes” (except
wartime offenses or under circurnstances not at issue here). See Thompson v. Oklahoma,
487 U.S. at 830-83 1 (plurality opmion).
Also,
We emphasize that it is American conceptions of decency
that are dispositive, rejecting the contention of penoners
and their various anuci (accepted by the dissent, sce post, at
389-390, 106 L.Ed.2d, at 331-332) that the seniencing
practices of other countries are relevant. While “the
practices of other uations, particularly other democracies,
can be relevant to determinmg whether a pracnce uniform
among our people is not merely an historical accident, but
rather so ‘implicit m the concept of ordered hberry’ that 1t
occupies a place not merely in our mores, but text
permitting, in our Constitution as well,” Thompson. v.
Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, $68-869, n.4., 101 L.Ed.2d 702,
108 S.Ct. 2687 (1988) (Scaha, J., dissenting), quoting
Paiko v Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 82 L.Ed. 288, 58
S.Ct 149 (1937) (Cardozo, J.), they cannot serve to
establish the first Eighth Amendment prerequisite, that the
practice is accepted among our people.
Stanford v, Kentucky, 492 U.S. at 370, 1 (emphasis in original).
Petitioner’s arguments have po more empirical support or practicality
today than they did when those same argumeats were rejected m Stanford v. Kentucky,
supra The petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be denmicd.
23
Search - 1 Result - Kentucky and moratorium and juvenile Page 1 of 1
Source: All Sources > News > Today's News G
Terms: kentucky and moratorium and juvenile (Edit Search)
The Bulletin's Frontrunner April 24, 2002 Wednesday
Copyright 2002 Bulletin Broadfaxing Network, Inc.
The Bulletin's Frontrunner
April 24, 2002 Wednesday
SECTION: Governors
LENGTH: 182 words
HEADLINE: KY: Thaw Seen In Battle Over Campaign Finance.
BODY:
... Richards said the level of public financing could be discussed. The House budget
committee, meantime, added several amendments yesterday to the revised budget bill
submitted Monday by Gov. Paul Patton -- including a moratorium on the death penalty for
people who are mentally retarded or who were juveniles at the time they committed a
capital offense."
Source: All Sources > News > Today's News @
Terms: kentucky and moratorium and juvenile (Edit Search)
View: KWIC + 25
Date/Time: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 10:19 AM EDT
About LexisNexis | Terms and Conditions
Copyright© 2002 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
.../retrieve?_m=d8bc109c51e769f82ed51cbe7d952cb2&csvc=bl&cform=bc4/24/02
Wicborc L. Strep
HtuPessor of Low
Nearchacts Unio University \
Claude a, Pretit Collage of Lau \
Wh. Main Steet \
Ada, “Hl. O54 7U :
2/3/02
Sear Vickuri
Shalom! It is my -opa that you ate well. A delayed thank you fat both Letter ta Gow, Patton, are
bo mee Therm you. I hayes hemn tess Fhan OiiLnent in keeping uo comaynicstion wlth you, Aewevar J an very
Tach wpteclative for you communication with Margaret O'Donnell. Ik means a considerable deal to me bhak
you [row] have ape communication with someone who stank aqally concern wlth my situation, and that.
your atvice is [now] being snughl out.
Tomet with Attorneys, Gail Asoingon, Margaret O'Oornell, Stefanie McArdle, anc} Julia Pearsen on
the Ist af thls month. Wary apecific issueg wers discussed conosming legal representation [af record)
before the U.S. Supreme Court, and “coressor Petition [Origial Habwas]. To inclu the tacgeted issues
Urat will oe a pact of the Cert Pecitlon. The “Mocgen™ issue fas 1 am told} is being raised bacausa oF
"eunryone” Feels ao strongly abowt it and the mange jm which the Ky. Sayre Ceurt has set tnreir oun
Standard whe) my Cage wag being apalied, yet they honored the standacd after my case was no longer bafore
them. T Fail tn rrason the inner mechanic af thls issu, Margacet can batber Formulate tt In words fur
OR I~
fre second issue wilk Le the Juvenile issue. [© need not spend tine telling ywu about it, Tois is
your Pield of knowledge. Cf he bean Pxplained to me that the "rwolwing standards of decency" have Some
tu saturation for thre U.S. Suptese Court to re-visit their 70 year cullng on ey case, 1 have my doubts
Victor, 1 really do. Hrweumr, I am willing ta see it Liircugn. Yes, I'm frightened, Frustrated, and hurting.
Tk's difPGcult For ma tn sit here end tall you that I ean sense hope, of that J Peel positive. T don't
ad il all goes hack ko not Reuing course] who would listen, ant take ackiod om thea things pointed out
to “im [¥ince Aprilaj, His negligence, and [failure to conduct any lowestigation prior to 11.42 suk qe
in eettene jeqpardy both befate the lower state and federal court= and the high court,
f“aua rrase tn fons my attention ou his neqiigance and atter failures to {this day] provide the
courts with Fects of my life amd issues oF inmncmice. T leave boat in capable hanilsa l've dome all T could
in fedecel court by asking them to dischyrow hin a3 counsel. They tock mo action in favor of my coneerns.
Pot akred a proycah 1/91/02 "Feromtline™. It @ocumented cecent dayelogwents on the Juvenile brain,
Foden't undarstaad a Leawendeuws daal of the terns Neurologist were using, bat I got the gist of tne study
aml ite comelusium facks that raaulted fram such atudles. 5 [petsonelly] reqeested fron the afore mentioned
Attorneys if they would contact Or, charles malaon, Neurologist, Univ. of "invesotet Or. Jay Gietd, Neuro.
National Inskitute of Santa Healiay Or. Mary Carskadon, Grown University. Thesa are the professional
Tommuniky fnlk kon Che desument was Farmed on. I asked my Attoeneys if thay weuld contact tne above
and ask if they would send me information thal will .elp ne understand what hapeened to ma. Victot I have
tu knw. I really seed ta undeestand why my life has been ao horribly ecaninyless leading to mathing but
painoand be on—poing aauas, uby [ feat Pelt anything untLLt became an adult.
The years 7] apank in liyhee etueation uhile T ‘ve bean here, I apolieo myntlf so hard ta study
Sociolajyy in “ope thak at soa ceoss-rosd I would understand the beneuloral aspect of my past, 1t gave
me anne solace, but were ara things 1 fell to grasp. And after giving my attention to the program T Felt
on ee orn emt aan
‘ancy TiguyTe J
pue ‘wTeues STH IMA que
vatzeuty [Te pO tey}ey ayy Ay,
"jTzeonoe jc
Bed pool Buyye} ‘aoead 42 ag ‘aosaqua o7 LeATh age BoueTIy RE corre pe "}ebw Ata om FED Bod TEU] Tyre
SuIN} STU ay I *JTasrnod Se ops Puatay @ Brey Of JNJaqPIb wy PUR ned Anny y YAU nad TTAy Wwe pa.
y,UBS J "oR Oy pata) © Autay JO) AOA yUPUY pu “Sslted aba} TTF Aral] Faltaq my roqaryA nod smu)
“nOA WOT) Joa sn pa) Uced TA *[wOO"USUgOUE Uae, FI] SRAUpPMe [Tees Ira any Ady tubeoIyy Sltyy quTUy PUE
Blay Ute Gy MY IY QINITyTH ST 4, Pus Be ID Teuopyry Azan stosty, *quyod 21a ye BSOT I yer
+eseo03d By UT PX TOAUT aae mos yeyy Autmcuy ul peseeqd puke paloudy 84 pThde [
"yetanh & anos ayy oF anqoz
TIM Gupaq ued oyy caw peuoTydeowe ate TIMP HOT, PUB MOA Jey RTs paAeHaRy, "IAQyRu ay] um «Qiyoyyne
600 3] Battagep Ql fy ayQ etOye Gupqueiaod ale siamo} iy AW BY omesyT us Bupeq sTuL gasnol ayy
aJOJ30 {ncy mek Fuinth tapteuod noA Anam “puetijy 8 se ‘noé4 Gupyer uw.) ing “Bupuyéue au sano aur a
"BT QAUe IO) muOdue ys OF Fit] B BABY 4,005 ] ZeteeaTg ZOTSY NOA p[MORssuoT eyUasaIds] Ids jose
PTOON JS7BT BTUL UT Pevop yaw syiurmuss jeudteseyoid oy yy "SSeayd "HEE OR BAR T Pg “BR AWIORS Pur
But] INOs 486 OF Yor Gupyer og pin 4p pug "HQeTd [TAY & aaey mos "ApNg are oOA MoU [ "JOTOTA
“4p Lo oO KOT [SY
OL pHSTWNId Pub ST. UT ISATSIUT wT Wosyiney Tteq puke auebleay "1 sesejuy ApIeg TRUOTIEZTULHIG UE fF
PHURSHIOG] 8g OF BABY PToOM Jaytig & ons (Pty we | Ly *ETY} Of BSMCT IPOS 1 ELOSeal Got [uc
mos @ayT® OTe aus gt jeaeGrey pawse 7 ‘quay ag 0) *ySaP ors Sty} ud BouEpIA® Undd BAT ay nos [oR qUED
pTnom yelehrey fT BUE BNET AP]Ruad Yeap aT URAND ayy wo ark) mwederHS tO *f] yy BIOyeq PaTyy seTIQ BrIM
Shun, uz Ney Of APD TRU] Seayord 9g 29) a7qreeod aq ppném yt yt payse J] Jeqyy “Buy yew ano Guyane
udT eWIOUT Sty} dy SAMIIORLY AW Dortee J LR UOTRenseirp uy, Ul cel YL FHIOIG Ste Shaquid,, pew ve 7
"nas ofou
Page 1 of 1
Victor Streib - Re: Email letter from Kevin
a rg errr acer nrenenmnrnmrm ey
From: "Eileen Cano" <eileencano@vci.net>
To: "Victor Streib"
Date: 2/13/2002 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Email letter from Kevin
Dear Victor:
| sure hope you are right; and yes you are right, it certainly might drive
me crazy. Thank you so much for caring. Eileen
seeee Original Message ----- \
From: "Victor Streib" <streib@law.msu.edu> \
To: <eileencano@vci.net> 7
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 1:33 PM A
Subject: Re: Email letter from Kevin { 0) /\)
> Dear Eileen & Kevin: \/
>
> | received the email version of Kevin's letter today -- thanks. | have
been emailing back and forth with Margaret about the Cert Petition before
the U.S. Supreme Court, and we have some other people around the country
working on it as well. | think things keep looking better in Kevin's
situation, but the uncertainty can drive all of us a little crazy. Stay in
touch.
>
> Vic Streib
>
VVVV
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00002.HTM 2/13/2002
Vicbur L. strep
bry fessor of Law .
fear Ehacts Uhie Undwerskty
Claude ul, Prttit Collage of Lau
WS. Mgin fteemt
Dna, dl. Q447U
24 $02.
Jaar Virkur |
Shalit It ig my Tapa that you are weil. Bo delayed thank you far both letker ta Gow, Ratton, sare
br mee Thiet you. I hay heen tess than OLilgent in keeping uo comMANication with you, hemever Joan very.
Tech muteclative for you communication with Margaret O'Connell. Ik means a toneidecable deal to me that
you [row] have aoe communic#t Lon with Sansone who stand equally comern ilth ay sdtvatlen, and that,
your atvice is [now] hainy nnughl but.
Tomek with Attorneys, Gail Aaoingon, Margaret O'fernell, Stefanie MeArdle, anci Julia Pearsen on
the [st af thls month. Vary specific lesued uecn discussed canoaming legal representation (af record)
before the U.S. Supreme Court, and Successor Pebiljon [Origial Habsas]. To Include the tacgeted issuss
trot will oe a pact of Mie Cert Petitlon. The "Margan™ Leaue (as I az told} 18 being raised bacayse nF
“puATyone” feels So strongly aboyt ik and the namer jn which the Ky, Supreme Court has. set tneir oun
Standard wien my Cage weg being apalimd, yet they honored ‘the standard after my case was no longer. hafore
them, T fail tn rrason the inner mechanic af this issug, Margacet can batber Fooulate kt in sords fur
¥Oel~
[re second issue will Us the Juvenile issue. [0 need not spend tine telling you about if, Tois is
yuut field of knowledge. fb het Dean explained to im that the "amluing Standards of decency” have cone
tu saturation for the iS. Suoteme Court to peswisit their 20 year cullng on oy case, 1 have my dotats
Wietor, 1 eeally do, Hremumr, Tam willing to see it Uirougn. fes, I'm frigntensd, Frustrated, and hurting,
Te" dLfficult’ for ma ta ait here and tell-you that I can sense hope, oc that I Feel positive. [ don’t
ard il all goss hack fa not meuSng counsel wha would listen, ant take acting om tha things painted out
to “im [¥1nce Potilal, His. negliganse, and Tailure to conduct any investigation peLor to 11,42) suk qe
in eetteme jeopardy bath -befate the lower state: and federal.courts and the high court,
fooaun orrase ka fotos my atkantion ou tis neqigence and atter failures. to {this day) provide the
cruris “with Feets af my Life and issues oF ioinnmice. T leaya baat in capable haniles 1? ye Jone. all tT. could
in Federal court by asking them to discharoe hin as counsel, They took mo mckion in favor of my conmeerns.
Pot alred a proycah 1/31/02 "Erontline™. It cocumented recent. davelnawents on the juvenile train,
TP oden't understand a keewendous daal of the berms Neurologist wer using, hut I got the gist of tne study
am its -conclusiue facts that Tasulted fram such studles. J [personally] requested from the afore mentioned
Retorreys LP they would contact Or, Dharles Melson, Neurployiat ; Unde. of Minmesokat Or. Jay Giedd, Neuro.
Natinoal Innkitute. of fartal Healtay Or. Mary Carskadon, Grown University. These are thr professional
comunihy fnlk shan che decunent was Ferused on. I asked my Abtoeneys if thay would contact Ame above
and ask if they would ser me infornation thal wiil welp ne understand what hapwened to ma. Victor I have
tu knows I really seed ko undeéestand why my life has been go horribly ecaningless leading to-nathing but
painoand the on-going aauan, uby [ ment felt anything ubLLt became an adult.
The years IT snank inliuhee education ubjle (we bean here, I applieo mymtlf sa hard ta # Lud
Sociology in ‘ope thak at sme cooss-rosd I] would understand the beneuioral aspect of my past. It gave
mm nee solace, bul there ara things 1 fell to grasp. And after Viving ny attention to the program T Frit
- oe eee emi aerR
‘aao] TiguyTeL
pur ‘woTeus STH IMOA sues
varzeuty [Te pO tey}ey Bu AB
"dT eesnoe yc
Bed pool Buy ye} “aoeRd qe ag. “sveaqwa.o7 LeNT& sae SoueTTy RE SORT pe "YeeW Ae om FED BOO JeLy "re
5uINy STU. acy I * jTasinad te LPs PusTO B Bhesy of Ja jae26 | w,J pur nal mint 7 yRuG nod TTA. yet Hts.
4, UBD T "Hy Pata) e Gutay Joy AOA yueLy Pur “Slbod abel} Te ajay] Futaq my 10 73T; nok yeu]
“nA woz gRaly =n 74) aceata + [wOD"USUgOLE QUEST F3] Seaupoe [Tues rd any. ny, UbRO Sfritay quo pue
Blaey Te oy ay Woy VInstyyip 8]. 4p Pee Bee oDy TBUCT IESE. iran ST ST] *quyod STUY fe Bf0T4 yoru: Ty
+*eceo0id GTyy UF Pa TOAUT sae mos yey Aytmcus ul pestatd puk patouddy 84 pTnde f
"yetung oc yqanas ayy OF anqo=
TIP ut3q yea oy Lau U peLOTSddoNa are (aang wd, pus nod BI tp) RIAGY pATeH amy, *2AqQPu ayy Wa (éAQizaqne
1640 3y] pakrasep at Ayan 2a wi yaq buy qwesaad are: BAO} IY Aw yeyl ames, us Bopep STU] AIPOT: a]
alOJ3q Mdut mas Fuinth tapteuod nos PINE “puayoy a &e ‘nos Rupter Ww.) ing “Bupuyeue aw Son. AUD OL
"PupqAue a4 mapodise ysu O07 git] eB BAeY 4)L05 [. LeseaTy ecTay nod pynons = voy yequasazds2 mad pane
ATO ISBT - ETUY Ut pawl] yw ay LUM yeuatsse jasc fey} 47 ‘eseayd "HEE Oy BABY I arg *BEOIMOEAI Pur
Buy} UNOA 465 0D Uru Ou | yee 20, Pron 4} pilng "JET [AY PF asey rod. "ABN ae oO BOW} J "2019TA
“47 LO om AOT IO
oy pes turd pue 5TY4 uty ears SOO oe Tey Tteq pue qasvebley . _TSI8 UT AYIEG TeUOT IBZ yUeHIG, ue GE
peur EOE Ag: 03 BABY PTMOH Jayig F ions (rts7 wit Se] uA. tETYy} Of} BSMCT IPOS Of ELOSEad Bury Tau
rar BATS pyro aus JT JRIEGIBY PaHER ] ‘qumiy 3g oc] +qoalyrs Sty} ub BOUERTNG gnod. BATS ay nod “oR }UO2
PTNom jelebrey gf AUE anesy Ay] euad. Yap aT]usnnt ayQ vo 326K mec *S*7) Byy SIOLEq PAT Ty JaTIg eT
Shun, ub aney. a4 AyPunWa TRO ]Sea Jord Suz 20) aTqcauod 3Q Plném YT yt payse J Jagiy “BUT IBEW ano Guyane
UOT} eWdO UT Stu} Joy SAMIIOGTY AW DeoeR y LAY uetRenserp ayy ul ch JUFWIOIg Sim pena. pratt UBL r
=suas oA
Bee ee
: mg
NORTHERN
Wa
OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY
THE CLaupe W. Pettit CoLieGe or Law
December 7, 2001
Governor Paul Patton
The Capitol
700 Capitol Avenue
Suite 100
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-3492
RE: Execution of Kevin Stanford
Dear Governor Patton:
Your support for the abolition of the death penalty for juvenile offenders is wonderful news |
for Kentucky and for all Americans. As you know, the United States is the only country in the entire
world to continue the practice of executing persons who commit their crimes while under the age
of eighteen. I sincerely believe that we also are beginning to phase out the juvenile death penalty |
in the United States, but we still have a few juvenile offenders on death row. Even as we end this
practice, a few juvenile offenders may die in the last days. Perhaps the most tragic deaths in any
conflict are those which occur just as the peace treaty is being signed. All of us must work together
to see that no juvenile offenders die under such circumstances.
Tam a law professor, a former law dean, a death penalty lawyer, and a death penalty research
scholar. Almost all of my work for the past quarter-century has been on this issue — the death penalty
for people like Kevin Stanford. During my career, I have represented more juvenile death penalty
| clients, published more juvenile death penalty articles and books, and testified about the juvenile
death penalty before more legislatures than anyone in the world. Now, the juvenile death penalty
has disappeared everywhere except in the United States and is fading fast here. As heartening as this
progress is to me, I cannot rest until the last case is taken care of.
For Kentucky, the last juvenile death penalty case to be taken care of is that of Kevin
Stanford. Although our whole country is watching, indeed the whole world is watching, this is a
Kentucky issue for Kentuckians to decide. The Commonwealth of Kentucky is on the brink of
putting this practice behind it, in step with so many of your fellow human beings. In this letter, I
want to help you to understand why this is such a good idea for Kentucky.
Page | of 3
Arts & Sciences * Business * Engineering * Pharmacy * Law Since 1871
525 SouTH Main StreEET * Apa, OH 45810 © (419) 772-3051 © Fax: (419) 772-1875 © www.law.onu.edu
One of the byproducts of my over twenty-five years of research on this topic are my files on
all 363 executions of juvenile offenders in American history (1642-2001), including the eighteen
Kentucky cases. Yes, of Kentucky’s total of 574 executions since its earliest settlement, only
eighteen (3%) have been of offenders under the age of eighteen at the time of their crimes. The last
such execution in Kentucky occurred on April 6, 1945 (Carl Fox, age 17 at crime and age 19 at
execution). Now, three generations later, Kentucky has executed no more juvenile offenders. It is
clear that this practice has always been rare in Kentucky, and now it has essentially disappeared.
Kentucky’s neighboring Midwestern states have similar histories. Tennessee last executed
a juvenile offender in 1947, and its modern death penalty statute has a minimum age of 18. My own
Ohio last executed a juvenile offender in 1956, and now our death penalty statute also has an age 18
minimum. The last juvenile execution in Illinois was in 1929, and they now have a minimum age
of 18. Indiana still has a minimum age of 16, although Indiana last executed a juvenile offender in
1920 and has no juvenile offenders on its death row. The pattern is clear: execution of juvenile
offenders in the Midwest ended in the early- to mid-1900s. In fact, Kevin Stanford is the only
juvenile offender left on death row in the Midwestern states. As I said earlier, Kevin Stanford is the
last case to be taken care of before we close this chapter in the history of Kentucky and of the entire
Midwest. Other states, notably Texas, do continue this practice at a very low level, but we in the
Midwest no longer take the lives of our children in the name of justice.
The many reasons why juvenile offenders do not deserve to receive the death penalty for their
crimes are well known and widely accepted. Almost all of these young teenage offenders have had
terrible childhoods, suffering unimaginably at the hands of we adults. Sadly, many older adults also
suffered terrible childhoods, but they have struggled over many years to put their lives in order
nevertheless. In contrast, young teenagers have not yet had the opportunity to age out of some of the
effects of their terrible childhoods. They are still living in the midst of it all, and their violent,
impulsive acts too often result from it.
Ihave devoted my professional career to finding means to reduce homicide by juveniles. My
research findings, and the research findings of essentially everyone in this field, are that the death
penalty is not an effective means for accomplishing our goal. First, we know that the threat of
capital punishment does not deter teenagers, who tend to have little understanding of death and
instead tend to see themselves as immortal. In contrast, they see long term imprisonment as being
“srounded, forever,” and this is something that teenagers both understand and fear. Also, the
retributive desire to impose extremely harsh punishment upon an egregious offender is blunted at
least somewhat if that offender is a child. We know that children are not just “short adults” and that
the crimes of children are not adult crimes. Our outrage at the crime and our extreme sympathy for
the victim and her family do not change the child offender into an adult criminal, at least for
purposes of the death penalty.
Finally, let me add that I have known Kevin Stanford both as a litigant and as a person for
well over ten years. I have watched him grow from a boy into a man while living on death row.
Whatever continuing anger we may have toward that 17-year-old boy, he no longer exists. In his
place is a thoughtful, repentant, introspective adult man. We can no longer execute the boy, and we
Page 2 of 3
should not execute the man. It is not hard to imagine the wonderful resource Kevin Stanford can be
for all of us working to try to understand why kids kill people, what they were thinking (or not
thinking) at the time, what might have diverted them from such senseless acts, and what we can do
to prevent these crimes in the future. In the field of juvenile homicide, we must focus less on
punishing the last offender and more on saving the next victim. Kevin Stanford can help us to do
this, and we need everyone we can get to help on this critical effort.
Thank you for considering my comments about Kevin Stanford and about the death penalty
for juvenile offenders in Kentucky. I hope this information is of value to you as you face this
extremely important question. Of course, I would be happy to discuss this issue with you further at
your convenience should you wish.
Sincerely,
VIG aL.
Victor L. Streib
Professor of Law
Page 3 of 3
GroupWise WebAccess Message Item
Mail Message
Close |
Previous Next Reply to Sender Reply All Forward Move Delete
From: "Eileen Cano" <eileencano@juno.com>
To: MSU-DCL:onu.edu:v-streib
Date: Thursday - November 29, 2001 9:02 PM
Subject: Fw: Fwd: meeting
GC Mime.822 (4797 bytes) [View [Save As]
----- Original Message-----
From: "whitney graves" <wdg1031@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:56:25 -0500
To: eileencano@juno.com
Subject: Fwd: meeting
Eileen, If you have already not been notified of this,,,,l thought you may
find it of interest. | realise you will not make it due to the fact that you
will be w/Kevin..but you may wish too e-mail the gov. and voice your support
of a new law that may very well save Kevins life!!
Fear is useless
Faith is necessary
Love is everything!
Later Whitney
>From: "Brian/Prue Cooney" <prubri@mis.net>
>To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
>Subject: meeting
>Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 19:06:42 -0800
>
>Greetings Everyone.
>
>The Central Kentucky chapter of the KCADP will hold its monthly meeting
>this Thursday, Nov. 29, 7:30 PM, in apt. 8 of the UK Newman Center on Rose
>Lane. Because of the upcoming holidays, we will not have a meeting in
>December. Our next meeting will be the fourth Thursday of January (the
>24 th).
>
>There will be a debate on the death penalty Dec. 4. The info is as follows:
>
>WHAT:
>A Panel Discussion:
>"Revisiting the Death Penalty 25 Years
>After its Reinstitution?"
>
>In Opposition:
>
>Father Pat Delahanty
>Catholic Priest and Chair
>Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
Page 1 of 3
' Novell »
Properties
../webacc?action=Item.Read&User.context=oystRnikhiMi<em.drn=283(11/30/01
,
GroupWise WebAccess Message Item
>
>The Honorable Kevin McNally
>Capital Defense Attorney
>
>In Support:
>
>State Senator Robert Stivers
>
>The Honorable Joe Bouvier
>Assistant Commonwealth Attorney
>Fayette County
>
>WHEN:
>7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Tuesday
>December 4
>
>WHERE:
>Courtroom
>UK College of Law
>S. Limestone Street
>
>SPONSORS:
>Lexington Chapter of the ACLU
>Central KY Chapter of the
>Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
>
>FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
>Don Sands
>sands@pop.uky.edu
>
>
>It appears that a bill banning the death penalty for crimes committed by
>juveniles has an excellent chance of getting through the upcoming session
>of the legislature (beginning Jan.8). The Governor has publicly stated his
>support on this issue. You can let him know of your support (and help keep
>him motivated) by contacting his office at:
>
>The Honorable Paul E. Patton
>Governor's Office
>700 Capitol Avenue
>Frankfort, KY 40601
>Phone: 502-564-2611 Fax: 502-564-2517
>Capitol E-mail Address: governor@mail.state.ky.us
>
>On Nov. 20 the Joint Interim Committee on Judiciary heard testimony from
>Sen. Gerald Neal and Judge Charles Baird of Texas in support of a two-year
>moratorium on executions. The challenge, as always, is to get the bill out
>of committee. Here is the contact info for the chairs of the joint
>committee:
>
>Senator Robert Stivers
>297 Main St.
>Manchester, KY 40692
>Office 606-598-2322
>Home 606-598-8575
>
>Representative Gross C. Lindsay
>P.O. Box 19
>Henderson, KY 42420-0019
>(Office) 270-827-9824
>
Page 2 of 3
../webacc?action=Item.Read&User.context=oystRnikhiMi&Item.drn=283 11/30/01
’ GroupWise WebAccess Message Item Page 3 of 3
>To find out how to contact your legislators, about committee membership,
>and other legislature info, goto http://www.irc.state.ky.us/home.htm
>
>| will send you further info on the upcoming legislature session and
>relevant bills in December. Cheers.
>
>Brian Cooney
>676 Seminole Trl
>Danville, KY 40422-1781
>859 236 1726
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Get your free email from http://mymail.juno.com
.../webacc?action=Item.Read&User.context=oystRnikhiMi<em.drn=283 11/30/01
é
GroupWise WebAccess Message Item Page 1 of 1
Mail Message ' Novell >»
Close |
Next Delete From This Mailbox Delete From All Mailboxes Properties
From: Victor Streib
To: MSU-DCL:[juno.com]:ecano2
Date: Tuesday - September 25, 2001 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: Juvenile death penalty
Hi Eileen:
Thank you for your note about Kevin's case. | know this is terribly frustrating for you, but at least part of the
blame goes to our strange habeas corpus process. The kinds of issues we would like to see raised (e.g., the
lies) are simply not reviewable by the courts at this stage of the process. The ability to get the courts to review
old issues or consider new issues is greatly limited under the current system. In essence, it means that you
have to "get it right" the first time or forever hold your peace. This certainly isn't "justice," but it now is "the
American way."
Please let me know what | can do to help you and Kevin get through this. Take care.
Vic Streib
>>> <ecano2@juno.com> 09/22/01 22:38 PM >>>
You may have read by now that Kevins final appeal before the 6th circuit
was denied. They took years to decide other cases and about 6 months to
deny kevins. | think one of the most frustrating things is that | keep
asking vince aprile to make the point in all of these appeals that the
victim did not live next door to kevin, that the statements, the lies
told by the detention guard, Mike Nalley, were just that, lies. This
guard pretty much got himself his coveted transfer and all for making up
these statements that kevin never made; it is the thing that they keep
printing over and over in the paper and never once has vince or stefanie
bothered to let any of the courts know that he has denied these
statements from day one, that so much of what he is supposed to have said
like killing the victim because she lived next door to him could be
proven to be entirely false. THEY DON'T EVEN TRY! Well anyway thought |
would let you know. What is Margaret O'Donnells e mail address? Kevin
did not tell me over the phone that his appeal hd been denied; he did
not want to spoil my time here in california. The victims sister who
says she is estatic about him being killed does not even have a clue as
to who kevin is and what kind of a loving and special man he really is.
Eileen Stanford
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tag}.
../webacc?action=Item.Read&User.context=mqosMjipfidi<em.drn= 1037:9/25/01
GroupWise WebAccess Message Item
Mail Message
Close |
Previous Next Reply to Sender Reply All Forward Move Delete
From: <ecano2@juno.com>
To: Victor Streib
Date: Saturday - September 22, 2001 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Juvenile death penalty
G Mime.822 (2196 bytes) {View! [Save As)
You may have read by now that Kevins final appeal before the 6th circuit
was denied. They took years to decide other cases and about 6 months to
deny kevins. | think one of the most frustrating things is that | keep
asking vince aprile to make the point in all of these appeals that the
victim did not live next door to kevin, that the statements, the lies
told by the detention guard, Mike Nalley, were just that, lies. This
guard pretty much got himself his coveted transfer and all for making up
these statements that kevin never made; it is the thing that they keep
printing over and over in the paper and never once has vince or stefanie
bothered to let any of the courts know that he has denied these
statements from day one, that so much of what he is supposed to have said
like killing the victim because she lived next door to him could be
proven to be entirely false. THEY DON'T EVEN TRY! Well anyway thought |
would let you know. What is Margaret O'Donnells e mail address? Kevin
did not tell me over the phone that his appeal had been denied; he did
not want to spoil my time here in california. The victims sister who
says she is estatic about him being killed does not even have a clue as
to who kevin is and what kind of a loving and special man he really is.
Eileen Stanford
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Page 1 of 1
‘ Novell >»
Properties
.../webacc?action=Item.Read&User.context=mqosMjipfi0i&Iltem.drn=1009:9/25/01
Se
2 Proms
aes —
se Met ety
. a4 A «&
RECEIVED
mE PX be te Ld Y DL
Attorneys eS
Kevin McNall McNally & O'D a
evin McNally cINaLLy O'Donnell, P.S.C. Administrative Assistant
Margaret O'Donnell* . Attorneys at Law Rachelle Chattin
* also admitted in
Arizona, [Indiana
and New York
December 19, 2000
Dean Victor Streib
Ohio Northern University College of Law
525 S. Main Street
Ada, Ohio 45810
Dear Dean Streib:
BAH
As I discussed with Kyle Thompson, enclosed Kevin Stanford’s 6" Circuit Briefs and various
police reports. The cost of copying and postage is $44.40. ($5.40 for postage and $39.00 for the
copies). Thank you so much for your continued interest in his case. Stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Warean O" Pret
Margaref (’ Donnell
Attorney-4t Law
MOD/dmw
513 Capitol Avenue + P.O. Box 1243 + Frankfort, Kentucky 40602 + (502) 227-2142 » Fax: (502) 227-4669
e-mail: kmcnally@sat ; & printed on recycled paper e-mail: mod@aaumms
cler .ne+ caer. 1e-
Victor Streib - Re: Juvenile death penalty
Page 1
From: Victor Streib
To: ecano2@juno.com
Date: 9/11/01 10:31AM
Subject: Re: Juvenile death penalty
Hi Eileen:
Thanks for the note. | am at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan, for this academic year,
but | am still easily reached. My family is still back in Ohio, so | am usually there Thursday through
Sunday.
| continue to be encouraged by the increasing support for doing away with the death penalty for juvenile
offenders. So far, it seems limited to public opinion and politics, but | think the courts and legislatures are
beginning to wake up as well. All in all, it is the most positive climate in many years.
Vic
>>> <ecano2@juno.com> 09/01/01 11:59AM >>>
Dear Victor:
Just wanted to give you my e mail address here in california. | will be
back in kentucky on september 29th. | was able to access your web site.
Also do not know if you are aware, but in kentucky the other juvenile is
no longer on death row, Osbourne. His case was overturned and | think he
is actually free now.
Are you going to be in new york at the CURE international human rights
and death penalty conference on october 6-11 of this year?
Eileen Stanford
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Margaret \(DCR\), 04:55 PM 1/2/01 -, Kevin Stanford
X-From_: mod@dcr.net Tue Jan 2 16:55:43 2001
X-PH: V4. 4@postoffice.onu.edu
From: "Margaret \(DCR\)" <mod@dcr.net>
To: "Victor Streib" <v-streib@onu.edu>
Subject: Kevin Stanford
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:55:39 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Thanks for the check and letter. Gail Robinson and | also plan to be at the oral argument. We hope to convince Vince Aprile and Stefanie McArdle
to meet with us. | look forward to meeting you.
Margaret O'Donnell
McNally and O'Donnell, P.S.C.
513 Capitol Avenue
P.O. Box 1243
Frankfort, Kentucky 40602
(502) 227-2142
(502) 227-4669 (fax)
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
eileen m cano, 10:22 AM 5/4/01 -, Re: Greeting
To: eileen m cano <eileencano@juno. com>
From: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Subject: Re: Greeting
Cc: KevinSanford@juno.com
Bcc:
Attached:
Hi Eileen & Kevin:
Thanks for the update. News from this front -- I will be here at Ohio Northern
through the summer but then will be on the faculty at Michigan State University in East
Lansin, Michigan, beginning in mid-August. Still working on the juvenile death penalty and
beginning to write about Life Without Parole and a really poor alternative to death.
way, you can check out what I do at my web site: www.law.onu.edu/faculty/streib.
Stay in touch.
Vic Streib
At 06:45 AM 5/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Wanted to give you my new e mail address. Guess you know the oral
>argument for kevin was on February 12th. Kevin has gotten to the point
>of not wanting any further contact with vince or stefanie. I cannot
>blame him, it is like talking to a tree. Stefanie is now pregnant and
>very uninvolved and vince never was really involved. I just hope we can
>soon get Margaret and Gail and get rid of vince and stefanie; it is
>stressing both of us out so much.
>They were at the prison yesterday (media) interviewing paul stevens, he
>is a sweet man. Volunteer chaplian whose daughter was murdered, and he
>speaks out against the death penalty and comes into the visitng room
>almost every week to visit us. Anyway we asked them not to take our
>picture or bother us, which i agree is best. Publicity only seems to
>bring the hatemongers out of the woodwork.
>Hope all is well with you. Please keep in touch. Eileen Stanford
>PS Kevin has his own e mail address but it left out the t so it is
>KevinSanford@juno.com
>
>GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
>Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
>Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
>http://dl.www. juno.com/get/tag}.
>
>
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Sokol, Rose, 08:13 AM 3/29/01 , Re: juvenile death penalty
To: "Sokol, Rose" <rsokol@mail.pa.state.ky.us>
From: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Subject: Re: juvenile death penalty
Cc:
Bcc:
Attached:
Dear Ms. Sokol:
Thank you for your note and for your flattering comments. I also am working with
Kevin Stanford and his attorneys, hoping for a better outcome in his current appeal. Any
creative legal ideas I have had have already been passed along to Kevin and his lawyers,
but I doubt that they have been very helpful. I am happy to learn of your work on this
case, and I hope we can stay in touch.
Vic Streib
At 02:17 PM 3/28/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Mr. Streib:
>
>I am an intern of the juvenile branch at the Department of Public Advocacy
>in Frankfort, KY. I am working for one of the successor counsel members on
>the Stanford case, a man who was sentenced to death at age 17 (mentioned in
>your article online about juvenile death penalty). I have spoken to the
>National Association of Counsel for Children, and have therefore learned
>about you and your work in the field.
>
>I was wondering if you, as an experienced counsel for juvenile DP cases and
>as a researcher, have any creative legal advice, issues or documents that
>could help in filing a new action, or, if necessary, influencing a clemency.
>Any asssitance you could lend would be greatly appreciated. I will also
>answer any further questions you may have.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Rose Sokol
>intern, DPA juvenile branch
>rsokol@mail.pa.state.ky.us
>
>
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streibf@onu.edu> 1
ElnCan@aol.com, 12:47 PM 1/29/01 -0500, Re: Greeting
From: ElnCan@aol.com
X-PH: V4.4@orb2
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:47:34 EST
Subject: Re: Greeting
To: streib.4@osu.edu
X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10506
| definitely do understand what you are saying about the issue of
retroactivity; and | guess that a lot of my frustration is the thought that
instead of a law bringing him off of death row and then being able to focus
on eventual parole, being able to visit more than one day a week, not having
to face constant fears of execution, etc., it would still mean continuing to
fight in court against the death penalty instead of being able to feel that
we had made some progress.
Kevin and | look forward to being able to meet with you in the future. We
continue to be very very appreciative of your efforts and concern in his case.
Eileen Stanford
Printed for Vic Streib <streib.4@osu.edu>
Page 1 of 1
1/30/01
ElnCan@aol.com, 11:50 AM 1/26/01 -0500, Re: Greeting
To: ElnCan@aol.com
From: Vic Streib <streib.4@osu.edu>
Subject: Re: Greeting
Cc: k-thompson@onu.edu
Bcc:
Attached:
At 10:28 AM 1/26/01 -0500, you wrote:
Dear Victor:
Just wanted to give you my new e mail address and let you know that i was
back on line. | had my computer being repaired since | have been back from
california and just got it yesterday.
There is a bill in the legislature again here for elimination of the death
penalty for juveniles, but of course it is not retroactive. | get real sick
of their watered down bills that seem to help no one, but guess that is the
political reality today.
Just wanted to get back in touch. Eileen Stanford
Hi Eileen:
| am at Ohio State University in Columbus for this semester, but | am having my Ohio
Northern email forwarded automatically to my Ohio State email address. It seems like magic to
me, but somehow it all works.
Glad to hear you are back in the area. | do want to get together with you and Kevin
sometime in the not-too-distant future just to talk about how things are going and what | can do to
help. My research assistant, law student Kyle Thompson, and | have been reading lots of the
briefs in Kevin's pending Sixth Circuit case. | know the oral argument is scheduled for Monday,
February 12th, in Cincinnati, and | had hoped to be there. As it turns out, | will be in Sacramento
for several days just before then and will not get back to Ohio until late that afternoon. | have no
role in the argument anyway, but | would like to have been there.
| don't know if the new bill has any realistic chance, but the fact that it is not retroactive is not
the end of the world. A state would have a very hard time legally or politically in executing a
juvenile offender after that practice has been outlawed in that state. We were success in
making that argument in the Paula Cooper case in Indiana some years ago.
Lets stay in touch.
Vic Streib
Printed for Vic Streib <streib.4@osu.edu>
G2-EE-ZB
Eileen Cano, 09:40 AM 11/17/00, Re: 6th circuit
To: Eileen Cano <ecano@hcis.net>
From: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Subject: Re: 6th circuit
Cc: k-thompson@onu. edu
Bcc:
Attached:
Hi Eileen:
Thanks for the information about the 6th cirtuit panel in Kevin's case. I will see
what I can find out about them Take care.
Vic Streib
At 05:00 PM 11/15/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Dear Victor:
>I meant to tell you who the three judges are that have kevins case in the 6th circuit, and
see what you know about them, and past decisions of theirs. It is Silor, Kennedy and
Boggs. According to one of the dpa lawyers they will never give anyone anything and kevin
can forget it, and they feel sure they will not let kevin go back into state court either.
This is not Gail or Margaret saying this. Kevins comment is well why bother to do anything
then if that is the case; but if everyone felt that way all the time, what would be the use
of anything.
>Gall and Skaggs did not have these judges; and they are saying that that is why they got
their cases reversed, but that kevin never will with these judges. Tell me what you think,
you probably know these judges better than anyone here in kentucky, and may have argued
cases before them before. Eileen
>
>
>
>
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streibf@onu.edu>
Margaret \(DCR\), 08:22 AM 11/7/00 , Re: Kevin Stanford
X-From_: mod@dcr.net Tue Nov 7 08:22:17 2000
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
From: "Margaret \(DCR\)" <mod@dcr.net>
To: "Victor Streib" <v-streib@onu.edu>
Subject: Re: Kevin Stanford
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:22:03 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Gail and I are what are considered successor post-conviction and clemency
attorneys. Right now the actual status of Kevin's case is that his habeas
appeal case is fully briefed in the Sixth Circuit (as of a month ago or so).
No oral argument has been assigned. He is still represented in those
proceedings by Vince Aprile and Stefanie McArdle. Without going into long
detail, neither are very pleased with me or Gail.
I have read the whole juvenile and trial record. I am in the process of
trying to get access to the file at the DPA, but that is hampered by needing
to get Vince's approval. Gail and I have started making a list of what
investigation still needs to be done, but have done nothing yet and won't
until I read the entire file.
As far as issues are concerned, the failure to investigate and present
mitigating evidence issue has never been presented or exhausted in state
court. I know that the whole gambit of juvenile issues has never been
researched and presented to any court (although, of course, Kevin's USSC
case is the big juvenile case). There are probable issues about the use of
"Junk science", particularly hair expert testimony, that need to be
explored. We also have the whole issue of getting around the bar against
successor post-conviction actions to research and come up with possible
arguments, including, if we can get Vince and Stefanie's cooperation,
consideration of whether a motion to stay the Sixth Circuit proceedings so
that we can exhaust state remedies might be in order.
As we conduct more investigation, I am sure more issues will come to the
forefront, including possible culpability arguments.
I will be in touch. Have Kyle contact me when he is in town.
mod
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Streib" <v-streib@onu.edu>
To: "Margaret (DCR)" <mod@dcr.net>
Cc: <k-thompson@onu. edu>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: Kevin Stanford
> Dear Margaret:
>
> Thak you for getting in touch with me. I have this great student (Kyle
> Thompson from Frankfort, KY) who is trying to get up to speed with me on
> Kevin Stanford's case. He is interested in doing this kind of work when
he
> graduates in May 2001 and returns home to God's country. It so happens
> that I will be on research leave January to July 2001, so I also will have
> some time to do what I can on Kevin's case. As you may know, I have
> corresponded with Kevin and Eileen for many years, but I never seem to
have
> time in my schedule to help very much in his case. Maybe now I can be of
a
> little help.
>
> Right now, Kyle and I are just trying to figure out where the case is and
> what the continuing issues might be. Kyle said he might call you, and he
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Margaret \(DCR\), 08:22 AM 11/7/00 , Re: Kevin Stanford
does plan to go home to Frankfort next month to see his family. Maybe he
could stop by to see you, get copies of any key documents that we might
find enlightening, etc.
Let us know what and when we can do something to help in Kevin's case.
Thanks.
Vic Streib
At 12:40 PM 11/6/00 -0500, you wrote:
> Professor Streib: My address is Margaret O'Donnell & O'Donnell,
>P.S.C. P.O. Box 1243 513 Capitol Avenue 40602 (502) 227-2142 (502)
>227-4669 (fax)
VVVVVVVVVVVVV VV VV VV VV VV
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streibf@onu.edu>
Margaret \(DCR\), 04:02 PM 11/6/00 , Re: Kevin Stanford
To: "Margaret \(DCR\)" <mod@dcr.net>
From: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Subject: Re: Kevin Stanford
Cc: k-thompson@onu.edu
Bcc:
Attached:
Dear Margaret:
Thak you for getting in touch with me. I have this great student (Kyle Thompson
from Frankfort, KY) who is trying to get up to speed with me on Kevin Stanford's case. He
is interested in doing this kind of work when he graduates in May 2001 and returns home to
God's country. It so happens that I will be on research leave January to July 2001, so I
also will have some time to do what I can on Kevin's case. As you may know, I have
corresponded with Kevin and Eileen for many years, but I never seem to have time in my
schedule to help very much in his case. Maybe now I can be of a little help.
continuing issues might be. Kyle said he might call you, and he does plan to go home to
Frankfort next month to see his family. Maybe he could stop by to see you, get copies of
any key documents that we might find enlightening, etc.
Let us know what and when we can do something to help in Kevin's case. Thanks.
Vic Streib
At 12:40 PM 11/6/00 -0500, you wrote:
> Professor Streib: My address is Margaret O'Donnell & O'Donnell,
>P.S.C. P.O. Box 1243 513 Capitol Avenue 40602 (502) 227-2142 (502)
Right now, Kyle and I are just trying to figure out where the case is and what the
>227-4669 (fax)
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streibf@onu.edu> 1
a
Margaret \(DCR\), 12:40 PM 11/6/00 , Kevin Stanford
X-From_: mod@dcr.net Mon Nov 6 12:40:38 2000
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
From: "Margaret \(DCR\)" <mod@dcr.net>
To: <v-streib@onu.edu>
Cc: "Eileen" <ecano@hcis.net>
Subject: Kevin Stanford
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:40:11 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Professor Streib:
My address is
Margaret O'Donnell
McNally& O'Donnell, P.S.C.
P.O. Box 1243
513 Capitol Avenue
Frankfort, Kentucky 40602
(502) 227-2142
(502) 227-4669 (fax)
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib(@onu.edu>
ecano@hcis.net, 08:13 AM 11/6/00 , E mail address
X-From_: ecano@hcis.net Mon Nov’ 6 11:16:46 2000
From: ecano@hcis.net
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
Reply-To: Eileen Cano <ecano@hcis.net>
To: v-streib@onu. edu
CC:
Subject: E mail address
Date: 06 Nov 2000 08:13:58 -0800
X-Mailer: NeoPlanet Version: 5.2.0.1563
X-ID: 416D6AC1C1EF11D2B8CE444553540000
X-Brand: NeoPlanet
X-Build: 1563
For Margaret it is: mod@dcr.net
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streibf@onu.edu>
ecano@hcis.net, 08:11 AM 11/6/00 , RE: Reversals of death sentenc
X-From_: ecano@hcis.net Mon Nov 6 11:14:02 2000
From: ecano@hcis.net
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
| Reply-To: Eileen Cano <ecano@hcis.net>
To: v-streib@onu.edu
CC:
Subject: RE: Reversals of death sentences
Date: 06 Nov 2000 08:11:43 -0800
X-Mailer: NeoPlanet Version: 5.2.0.1563
X-ID: 416D6AC1C1EF11D2B8CE444553540000
X-Brand: NeoPlanet
X-Build: 1563
|
|
|
|
Dear Victor:
I hope you are right about kentucky rethinking the death penalty, but of course these
decisions came out the 6th circuit, not from kentucky judges. I have hardly ever known of
any reversals in the immediate past of any death sentences by kentucky judges. Even the
federal district judges, who are located in Louisville, are often good friends with the
very prosecutors who got the death sentence against the men on death row at Eddyville, and
that very fact seems to almost guarantee that not so much as a hearing will be allowed.
| Hopefully the judges in the 6th cirucit will not all be buddies of the prosecutors in
| kentucky (smile.)
| Margaret O'Donnells e mail address is: wait i have to look it up. Her address is: 513
| Capitol Ave. Frankfort, Ky 40602 and phone is 502-227-2142 or 1-888-298-5430. Gail Robinson
does work for DPA, but of course Margaret would know her phone number. Kevin deals
| basically with Margaret, who is the lead attorney.
| I continue to be so thankful for your interest and offers of help. It will be another
| holiday without seeing kevin. I get so sick of this constant punishment of taking away
| visits by the warden here for death row prisoners and their families; not based on any
wrong doing, simply punishment for the fun of it. Eileen Stanford
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streibf@onu.edu>
Eileen Cano, 11:43 AM 11/3/00 , Re: Reversals of death sentenc
To: Eileen Cano <ecano@hcis.net>
From: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Subject: Re: Reversals of death sentences
Cc:
Bcc:
Attached:
Hi Eileen:
Maybe the good news from this is that Kentucky is in the business of OVERTURNING
death sentences, and (almost) never actually executing anyone. I remain interested in
doing a little more to help in Kevin's case. Please send me up-to-date addresses, email
addresses, and telephone numbers for Margaret O'Donnell and Gail Robinson. Thanks.
Vic Streib
At 07:40 AM 11/3/00 -0800, you wrote: |
>Hi Victor: |
>Guess you might be aware that two persons at KSP with kevin got their death sentences
overturned, one was ahead of kevin in the appeal process, and the other one was the one
right behind kevin; David Skaggs and Eugene Gall. It gets harder and harder to keep up
hope; it is like they dance all around kevins case. I believe Skaggs will simply get a
resentencing hearing, not a complete new trial. i think in the case of Gall, it is for the
fact that he is mentally ill. He has been on death row the longest in kentucky, 22 years.
He is 54 years old.
>Margaret O'Donnell and Gail Robinson (Kevin McNally's wife) are now Kevins attorneys. The
investigator that was working on his case, Reenie Schuble was banned forever from the
prison and resigned from DPA because they would not even back her up or listen to her side |
of the story. They claim her knee touched the client, John Mills, plus the warden was
trying to listen with the sophisticated cameras to what they were saying; they also listen |
in on the calls to lawyers, so much for confidentiality with your clients ha!
>Well hope you are doing well. Eileen Stanford
>
>
>
>
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu> 1
ecano@hcis.net, 04:39 PM 9/27/00 , RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's
X-From_: ecano@hcis.net Wed Sep 27 19:40:57 2000
From: ecano@hcis.net
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
Reply-To: Eileen Cano <ecano@hcis.net>
To: v-streib@onu.edu
CC:
Subject: RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's case
Date: 27 Sep 2000 16:39:50 -0800
X-Mailer: NeoPlanet Version: 5.1.0.1493
X-ID: 416D6AC1C1EF11D2B8CE444553540000
X-Brand: NeoPlanet
X-Build: 1493
Finally Margaret is going to be kevins lawyers, and Gail, Kevin McNalley's wife will be co
counsel. I am so afraid that the damage that has been done by DPA cannot be undone.
Kevin was very down today, he feels that there is no hope. Everyone else seems to at least
get a hearing, most of the time on only one of the many issues in kevins case, yet we
continue
to be turned down for even a hearing. Sorry to whine, but I too am giving up hope. 8
years
of dealing with waiting, waiting, and more waiting, only to finally be turned down for even
any
kind of hearing on his case, arguing with stefanie and vince to correct all the lies the AG
puts
in the briefs, things that can be disproven, but yet they say they will and they do not do
it.
Hopefully Margaret will soon be in touch with you soon. Thank you from the bottom of my
heart for your concern. Eileen
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streibf@onu.edu>
ecano@hcis.net, 06:46 AM 8/24/00 , RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's
X-From_: ecano@hcis.net Thu Aug 24 09:51:18 2000
From: ecano@hcis.net
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
Reply-To: Eileen Cano <ecano@hcis.net>
To: v-streib@onu. edu
CC:
Subject: RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's case
Date: 24 Aug 2000 06:46:30 -0800
X-Mailer: NeoPlanet Version: 5.1.0.1493
X-ID: 416D6AC1C1EF11D2B8CE444553540000
X-Brand: NeoPlanet
X-Build: 1493
Dear Victor: I am sorry that I have been so out of touch; in fact it is ironic cause I
really was
going to e mail you today or tomorrow anyway. I have been in california for the last
almost 3
months. My mother died. She had ovarian cancer for the last over 3 years. It was a lot
of
botching on the part of kaiser insurance, anyway she had a stroke on my birthday, which was
may 24th and i left right away and went back there. I ama little confused about the
status of
the case, vince and stefanie are still his lawyers and will not step down, but also
margaret
o'donnell is on the case I think and we are still attempting to get vince and stefanie off.
Both
kevin and i were very upset for one thing at the way the testimony of mike nalley the
detention guard who claimed kevin bragged about the killing and rape was handled in the
habeas, stefanie argued the meaning of the word bootie. It could have been proven at trial
that kevin never said these things; he never discussed his case at all while in the
detention
center. The policy is that if one kid does not want to go outside the guard has that kid
put in
their room or cell or whatever they call it, and the monitoring system is put on. There
are
many false statements made by nalley, one that all of the other kids heard kevin bragging;
none of the kids were interviewed either by the defense or prosecution, yet the prosecuor,
jasmin claimed in his closing arguments that all of the kids heard him bragging. The kids
have
finally been interviewed, and even some who say they did not like kevin have said that he
never said anything about his case, and that he was sullen and quiet. Also of course
nalley
got his transfer for the federal position after he testified. It was a big factor in
turning people
against kevin, calling the victim the b word supposedly, bragging about sodomy etc. I feel
it
made their case for them. I sent your message on to margaret and her e mail address is:
moc@dcr.net and she is in frankfort, she works with kevin mcnalley as his partner in the
law
office. I appreciate your help and interest more than you can know. Kevin of course was
37
yesterday, since death row only visits one day a week now, wednesday, we had his birthday
together. I want to say that anyone who helps is always more than welcome to stay with me
here when visiting kevin. I live only about 5 miles from the prison. So good to hear from
you. Eileen
> ** Original Subject: RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's case
> ** Original Sender: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
> ** Original Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:29:38 -0500
> ** Original Message follows...
Eileen:
Haven't heard from you for awhile and thought I would touch base. Your
last message indicated that you were trying to change lawyers from Vince
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
ecano@hcis.net, 06:46 AM 8/24/00 , RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's
> Aprile to Gail Robinson (Kevin McNally's wife) and someone else. Please
> get back to me and let me know where that is now.
>
> I have a Kentucky native (Kyle Thompson) who is a third year law student
> here at our law college and wants to work on Kevin's case with me. I will
> be going on research leave beginning in January, so I will have more time
> to be involved as well. We would want to work with whomever is Kevin's
> attorney, so maybe you can help us get in touch with that person.
>
> Thanks, and take care.
>
> Vic Streib
> --------- End Original Message ----------- 7?
>
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
ecano@hcis.net, 08:11 AM 11/6/00 , RE: Reversals of death sentenc
X-From_: ecano@hcis.net Mon Nov 6 11:14:02 2000
From: ecano@hcis.net
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
Reply-To: Eileen Cano <ecano@hcis.net>
To: v-streib@onu. edu
CC:
Subject: RE: Reversals of death sentences
Date: 06 Nov 2000 08:11:43 -0800
X-Mailer: NeoPlanet Version: 5.2.0.1563
X-ID: 416D6AC1IC1EF11D2B8CE444553540000
X-Brand: NeoPlanet
X-Build: 1563
Dear Victor:
I hope you are right about kentucky rethinking the death penalty, but of course these
decisions came out the 6th circuit, not from kentucky judges. I have hardly ever known of
any reversals in the immediate past of any death sentences by kentucky judges. Even the
federal district judges, who are located in Louisville, are often good friends with the
very prosecutors who got the death sentence against the men on death row at Eddyville, and
that very fact seems to almost guarantee that not so much as a hearing will be allowed.
Hopefully the judges in the 6th cirucit will not all be buddies of the prosecutors in
kentucky (smile. )
Margaret O'Donnells e mail address is: wait i have to look it up. Her address is: 513
Capitol Ave. Frankfort, Ky 40602 and phone is 502-227-2142 or 1-888-298-5430. Gail Robinson
does work for DPA, but of course Margaret would know her phone number. Kevin deals
basically with Margaret, who is the lead attorney.
I continue to be so thankful for your interest and offers of help. It will be another
holiday without seeing kevin. I get so sick of this constant punishment of taking away
visits by the warden here for death row prisoners and their families; not based on any
wrong doing, simply punishment for the fun of it. Eileen Stanford
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streibf@onu.edu> 1
Eileen Cano, 11:43 AM 11/3/00 , Re: Reversals of death sentenc
To: Eileen Cano <ecano@hcis.net>
From: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Subject: Re: Reversals of death sentences
Cc:
Bcc:
Attached:
Hi Eileen:
Maybe the good news from this is that Kentucky is in the business of OVERTURNING
death sentences, and (almost) never actually executing anyone. I remain interested in
doing a little more to help in Kevin's case. Please send me up-to-date addresses, email
addresses, and telephone numbers for Margaret O'Donnell and Gail Robinson. Thanks.
Vic Streib
At 07:40 AM 11/3/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi Victor:
>Guess you might be aware that two persons at KSP with kevin got their death sentences
overturned, one was ahead of kevin in the appeal process, and the other one was the one
right behind kevin; David Skaggs and Eugene Gall. It gets harder and harder to keep up
hope; it is like they dance all around kevins case. I believe Skaggs will simply get a
resentencing hearing, not a complete new trial. i think in the case of Gall, it is for the
fact that he is mentally ill. He has been on death row the longest in kentucky, 22 years.
He is 54 years old.
>Margaret O'Donnell and Gail Robinson (Kevin McNally's wife) are now Kevins attorneys. The
investigator that was working on his case, Reenie Schuble was banned forever from the
prison and resigned from DPA because they would not even back her up or listen to her side
of the story. They claim her knee touched the client, John Mills, plus the warden was
trying to listen with the sophisticated cameras to what they were saying; they also listen
in on the calls to lawyers, so much for confidentiality with your clients ha!
>Well hope you are doing well. Eileen Stanford
>
VV Vv
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
ecano@hcis.net, 06:46 AM 8/24/00 , RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's
X-From_: ecano@hcis.net Thu Aug 24 09:51:18 2000
From: ecano@hcis.net
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
Reply-To: Eileen Cano <ecano@hcis.net>
To: v-streib@onu. edu
CC:
Subject: RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's case
Date: 24 Aug 2000 06:46:30 -0800
X-Mailer: NeoPlanet Version: 5.1.0.1493
X-ID: 416D6AC1C1EF11D2B8CE444553540000
X-Brand: NeoPlanet
X-Build: 1493
Dear Victor: I am sorry that I have been so out of touch; in fact it is ironic cause I
really was
going to e mail you today or tomorrow anyway. I have been in california for the last
almost 3
months. My mother died. She had ovarian cancer for the last over 3 years. It was a lot
of
botching on the part of kaiser insurance, anyway she had a stroke on my birthday, which was
may 24th and i left right away and went back there. I ama little confused about the
status of
the case, vince and stefanie are still his lawyers and will not step down, but also
margaret
o'donnell is on the case I think and we are still attempting to get vince and stefanie off.
Both
kevin and i were very upset for one thing at the way the testimony of mike nalley the
detention guard who claimed kevin bragged about the killing and rape was handled in the
habeas, stefanie argued the meaning of the word bootie. It could have been proven at trial
that kevin never said these things; he never discussed his case at all while in the
detention
center. The policy is that if one kid does not want to go outside the guard has that kid
put in
their room or cell or whatever they call it, and the monitoring system is put on. There
are
many false statements made by nalley, one that all of the other kids heard kevin bragging;
none of the kids were interviewed either by the defense or prosecution, yet the prosecuor,
jasmin claimed in his closing arguments that all of the kids heard him bragging. The kids
have
finally been interviewed, and even some who say they did not like kevin have said that he
never said anything about his case, and that he was sullen and quiet. Also of course
nalley
got his transfer for the federal position after he testified. It was a big factor in
turning people
against kevin, calling the victim the b word supposedly, bragging about sodomy etc. I feel
it
made their case for them. I sent your message on to margaret and her e mail address is:
moc@dcr.net and she is in frankfort, she works with kevin mcnalley as his partner in the
law
office. I appreciate your help and interest more than you can know. Kevin of course was
37
yesterday, since death row only visits one day a week now, wednesday, we had his birthday
together. I want to say that anyone who helps is always more than welcome to stay with me
here when visiting kevin. I live only about 5 miles from the prison. So good to hear from
you. Eileen
> ** Original Subject: RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's case
> ** Original Sender: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
> ** Original Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:29:38 -0500
> ** Original Message follows...
Eileen:
Haven't heard from you for awhile and thought I would touch base. Your
last message indicated that you were trying to change lawyers from Vince
VVVVV
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streibf@onu.edu>
ecano@hcis.net, 06:46 AM 8/24/00 , RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's
> Aprile to Gail Robinson (Kevin McNally's wife) and someone else. Please
> get back to me and let me know where that is now.
>
> I have a Kentucky native (Kyle Thompson) who is a third year law student
> here at our law college and wants to work on Kevin's case with me. I will
> be going on research leave beginning in January, so I will have more time
> to be involved as well. We would want to work with whomever is Kevin's
> attorney, so maybe you can help us get in touch with that person.
>
> Thanks, and take care.
>
> Vic Streib
> --------- End Original Message ----------- **
>
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
ecano@hcis.net, 06:46 AM 8/24/00 , RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's
X-From_: ecano@hcis.net Thu Aug 24 09:51:18 2000
From: ecano@hcis.net
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
Reply-To: Eileen Cano <ecano@hcis.net>
To: v-streib@onu. edu
CC:
Subject: RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's case
Date: 24 Aug 2000 06:46:30 -0800
X-Mailer: NeoPlanet Version: 5.1.0.1493
X-ID: 416D6AC1C1EF11D2B8CE444553540000
X-Brand: NeoPlanet
X-Build: 1493
Dear Victor: I am sorry that I have been so out of touch; in fact it is ironic cause I
really was
going to e mail you today or tomorrow anyway. I have been in california for the last
almost 3
months. My mother died. She had ovarian cancer for the last over 3 years. It was a lot
of
botching on the part of kaiser insurance, anyway she had a stroke on my birthday, which was
may 24th and i left right away and went back there. I ama little confused about the
status of
the case, vince and stefanie are still his lawyers and will not step down, but also
margaret
o'donnell is on the case I think and we are still attempting to get vince and stefanie off.
Both
kevin and i were very upset for one thing at the way the testimony of mike nalley the
detention guard who claimed kevin bragged about the killing and rape was handled in the
habeas, stefanie argued the meaning of the word bootie. It could have been proven at trial
that kevin never said these things; he never discussed his case at all while in the
detention
center. The policy is that if one kid does not want to go outside the guard has that kid
put in
their room or cell or whatever they call it, and the monitoring system is put on. There
are
many false statements made by nalley, one that all of the other kids heard kevin bragging;
none of the kids were interviewed either by the defense or prosecution, yet the prosecuor,
jasmin claimed in his closing arguments that all of the kids heard him bragging. The kids
have
finally been interviewed, and even some who say they did not like kevin have said that he
never said anything about his case, and that he was sullen and quiet. Also of course
nalley
got his transfer for the federal position after he testified. It was a big factor in
turning people
against kevin, calling the victim the b word supposedly, bragging about sodomy etc. I feel
it
made their case for them. I sent your message on to margaret and her e mail address is:
moc@dcr.net and she is in frankfort, she works with kevin mcnalley as his partner in the
law
office. I appreciate your help and interest more than you can know. Kevin of course was
37
yesterday, since death row only visits one day a week now, wednesday, we had his birthday
together. I want to say that anyone who helps is always more than welcome to stay with me
here when visiting kevin. I live only about 5 miles from the prison. So good to hear from
you. Eileen
> ** Original Subject: RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's case
> ** Original Sender: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
> ** Original Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:29:38 -0500
> ** Original Message follows...
Eileen:
Haven't heard from you for awhile and thought I would touch base. Your
last message indicated that you were trying to change lawyers from Vince
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu> 1
ecano@hcis.net, 06:46 AM 8/24/00 , RE: Status of Kevin Stanford's
| > Aprile to Gail Robinson (Kevin McNally's wife) and someone else. Please
| > get back to me and let me know where that is now.
| >
| > I have a Kentucky native (Kyle Thompson) who is a third year law student
> here at our law college and wants to work on Kevin's case with me. I will
> be going on research leave beginning in January, so I will have more time
> to be involved as well. We would want to work with whomever is Kevin's
> attorney, so maybe you can help us get in touch with that person.
>
| > Thanks, and take care.
| >
> Vic Streib
DER amen nm End Original Message ----------- **
>
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu> 2
ecano@hcis.net, 09:26 AM 8/23/00 , Status of Kevin Stanford's cas
To: ecano@hcis.net
From: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Subject: Status of Kevin Stanford's case
Cc: k-thompson@onu.edu
Bcc:
Attached:
Eileen:
Haven't heard from you for awhile and thought I would touch base. Your last message
indicated that you were trying to change lawyers from Vince Aprile to Gail Robinson (Kevin
McNally's wife) and someone else. Please get back to me and let me know where that is now.
I have a Kentucky native (Kyle Thompson) who is a third year law student here at
our law college and wants to work on Kevin's case with me. I will be going on research
leave beginning in January, so I will have more time to be involved as well. We would want
to work with whomever is Kevin's attorney, so maybe you can help us get in touch with that
person.
Thanks, and take care.
Vic Streib
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streibf@onu.edu> 1
ecano@hcis.net, 09:26 AM 8/23/00 , Status of Kevin Stanford's cas
To: ecano@hcis.net
From: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Subject: Status of Kevin Stanford's case
Cc: k-thompson@onu. edu
Bcc:
Attached:
Eileen:
Haven't heard from you for awhile and thought I would touch base. Your last message
indicated that you were trying to change lawyers from Vince Aprile to Gail Robinson (Kevin
McNally's wife) and someone else. Please get back to me and let me know where that is now.
our law college and wants to work on Kevin's case with me. I will be going on research
leave beginning in January, so I will have more time to be involved as well. We would want
to work with whomever is Kevin's attorney, so maybe you can help us get in touch with that
person.
Thanks, and take care.
I have a Kentucky native (Kyle Thompson) who is a third year law student here at
|
|
Vic Streib
|
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streibf@onu.edu> 1
ecano@hcis.net, 05:28 PM 2/12/200, RE: Kevin's Lawyers
X-From_: ecano@hcis.net Sat Feb 12 18:34:01 2000
From: ecano@hcis.net
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
Reply-To: Eileen Cano <ecano@hcis.net>
To: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu> roy
CC: oA «
, : / a An,
Subject: RE: Kevin's Lawyers t CV
Date: 12 Feb 2000 17:28:38 -0800
X-Mailer: NeoPlanet Version: 5.1.0.1265
X-ID: 416D6AC1C1EF11D2B8CE444553540000
House bill 311 is proposed in kentucky, which would eliminate the death penalty for juveniles
and replace it with 25 years to life. Any help or support you can voice would be appreciated;
the numbers to leave a message for a legislator is 800-372-7181 and to speak with a
legislator is 502-564-8100 and for fax it is 502-564-6543 and to check on the status of a
bill
is 888-701-1488. I think we have gotten Gail Robinson (Kevin McNallys wife) and Kevin
McNallys law partner to agree to represent kevin if we can just get DPA off of the case.
Stefanie also seems to have no interest lately and has more than she can handle in tennessee.
Eileen Stanford
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
*
A
ecano@hcis.net, Kevin's Lawyers
To: ecano@hcis.net
From: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
Subject: Kevin's Lawyers
Ce:
Bec:
Attached:
Hi Eileen:
Just got back from a trip and read your message. It sounds like you have good reason
to seek another attorney, but I know it is hard to find anyone or to get the judge to
cooperate. I of couse want to remain involved, but I still can't take the lead position
given my responsibilities here at the law college.
I do have an idea that we might pursue. Sometimes major law firms in large cities
(e.g., Louisville, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, etc.) take on capital cases pro bono
(without cost to client) as a public service. We might think about my contacting some of
these firms to see if they might be interested in taking on this case. I would work with
them, but they would do the leg work. We would have to develop a synopsis of the legal
issues still pending for the firms to review, but it might work.
Let me know what you think. In the meantime, take care of yourself.
Vic
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
<
ecano@hcis.net, 02:57 PM 1/20/2000, Kevin Stanford
X-From_: ecano@hcis.net Thu Jan 20 16:02:51 2000
From: ecano@hcis.net
X-PH: V4.4@postoffice.onu.edu
Reply-To: Eileen Cano <ecano@hcis.net>
To: Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
CC:
Subject: Kevin Stanford
Date: 20 Jan 00 14:57:29 -0800
X-Mailer: NeoPlanet Version: 5.0.0.1003
X-ID: 416D6AC1C1EF11D2B8CE444553540000
Dear Victor: Just wanted to let you know my new e mail address. Also to let you know that
we are working hard to get Vince Aprile off of Kevins case. Both Kevin and i like Vince as
a person, but I think it is important to realize that in about 12 years of representing
Kevin,
vince has l-never read the trial transcript 2-never come down to talk with Kevin about his
case 3-Is impossible to reach almost any time 4-Has failed to do any real investigation at
any
time. it was only when stefanie McArdle came on the case before the habeas was filed that
the investigation of Kevins case was finally done. One of the major factors convicting Kevin
has been a detention center guard who testified that Kevin bragged to him about the rape,
sodomy and murder, saying he knew the victim. Over the years the briefs filed by the AG
hav e continually stated that the other 6 juveniles present heard this conversation. Kevin
asked his lawyer at trial to speak to these kids, they would tell the lawyer that kevin never
discussed his case, and that he did not know the victim, as this guard mistakenly thought.
It
was never done, and was never done until recen tly Stefanie has finally, after 19 years of
begging to have this done has talked to some of these kids who are now adults. They have
without exception said that Kevin was very despondent, suicidal and never discussed his case
with anyone. This Nalley got a promotion to a federal job at the federal prison after his
testimony; he has since gotten promoted; everyone benefited fromkevins conjviction, the
judge became a KY suprem,e court judge, the prosecutor became a judge, one of Kevins
lawyers became a judge (he is a good friend of Vince's and when i went to speak with him he
told me that never has Vince ever mentioned to him even being Kevins lawyer or the case,
even thoughVince has repeatedly told Kevin and I that he was getting this judge to help. The
judge is refusing to let us get rid of Vince, citing his time on the case and expertise, well
the
realtiy Victor, is that a person or lawyer could have 20 years on a case and if he never
reads
the transcript, never takes an interest, etc. the amount of time is not really relevant;
Vince is
not a bad person, he is simply lazy and is a 9-5 type employee, plus he told me once that he
does not like dealing with child abuse and other such messy issues. I have gone to see him
numerous times over the years, and finally talked him into hiring the psychiatrist that was
hired
to speak with Kevin; the money had been there, butVince had just never done it. We tried
about 3 years ago to take this action and were encouraged both by Vince and others to give
Vince another chance, Vincepromised to come and see Kevin, read the trial transcript,
become involved, etc. but has done absolutely nothing. Stefanie has had to do it all; but
often
her hands are tied because she is not the lead attorney, also now she is in Tennessee and
has
a full work load there, and has kept only Kevins case from KY. Kevin McNally has been
very helpful, and I have a lot of respect for both Kevin and another lawyer in his office,
Margaret Connelly who has beenhelpful. They are too busy or would take on Kevins
case,but they have been helpful in contacts and in speaking with both Stefanie and Kevin and
I. I do hope that whoever we are able to get that we can continue to count on your help in
any way that you have timefor? Hope you are doing well. Eileen Stanford
Printed for Victor Streib <v-streib@onu.edu>
