William Hermann, The Arizona Republic
County attorneys should relinquish their authority in the charging of capital crimes to the state, according to a new report recommending major changes to Arizona's death penalty.
The report, sponsored by the American Bar Association, also calls for state supervision of county and municipal crime labs, better pay for court-appointed attorneys, standardization of sentencing and a clear definition of what constitutes a "cruel and heinous" crime.
A team working under the supervision of the ABA released the 21-month study Monday. It was an Arizona case that prompted the European Union to fund this and other studies. The team included a former Arizona Supreme Court justice, an Arizona State University law college professor, ASU law students, several
Valley attorneys and a state Attorney General's Office official.
ASU law Professor Sigmund Popko said one of the most significant findings is that there is little consistency in how defendants in murder cases are charged. There is "arbitrary treatment of defendants; we have 15 counties with 15 county attorneys, each with the authority to seek the death penalty
as he or she sees fit," he said.
That finding was met with some scorn by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office and caution from the Arizona Attorney General's Office because it calls for usurping the authority of elected officials. Maricopa County Attorney's Office spokesman Bill Fitzgerald said it wasn't clear at all that a statewide authority is needed.
"We believe the system is very much skewed in favor of defendants," he said. "It commonly takes 20 years or more for murderers to be executed for their crimes, due to numerous appeals and other issues. We think the system has a number of areas that should be reviewed and that the system certainly isn't
shortchanging defendants and their rights."
He said the office had declined to participate in the ABA study "because the ABA is on record calling for a halt to all executions in America."
The office soon would issue its own report on the topic, he said.
The new report was part of the ABA's Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project. The ABA in 1997, called for a moratorium on the death penalty. The organization said inconsistencies nationwide in many aspects of charging capital cases made the system manifestly unjust.
Deborah Fleischaker directs ABA death penalty studies and said similar projects are going on in eight other states. "We asked the Arizona team to look at the state's system and note concerns. We did not require them to make a conclusion about whether there should be a moratorium on the death penalty; they chose not to," Fleischaker said.
"We wanted them to determine if Arizona's system is fair and accurate. Then the onus is on Arizona to improve that system."
She said the studies are being funded by the EU as a result of the 1999 Arizona execution of two German-born brothers, Karl and Walter LaGrand. The two were convicted of the 1982 murder in Marana of a bank manager. The International Court of Justice, which has no power to enforce rulings, had nonetheless ruled to stop the executions.
"The European Union gave us about $1.3 million for these studies as a result of the outrage over the LaGrand executions," Fleischaker said. "They view the death penalty as one of the major human rights issues of our time."
Between 1963 and 1991, there were no executions in Arizona because of legal challenges.
Team member and Phoenix attorney Larry Hammond said one of the most significant threats to the rights of Arizona defendants is the county-to-county differences in the way justice is, or isn't, delivered.
"It's beyond question that whether the death penalty is sought will depend on where charges are sought," Hammond said. "We clearly need a statewide authority here."
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said that while he agreed with some recommendations of the report, he was more cautious about infringing upon the authority of county attorneys.
"The county attorneys are elected specifically to make that kind of (capital case) decision," Goddard said. "This is a very serious matter, one of constitutional import.
"Still, if one county is charging many crimes as a capital offenses and another is charging very few, you may have a disproportionality of capital offenses. Perhaps there could be a (state) review; but you would not want a usurpation by any group."
Hammond and Fleischaker said it is the hope of the ABA and the study team that state officials will use the report to improve Arizona's capital cases system.
"The governor, the attorney general, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Superior Court justices, legislators, the Board of Executive Clemency, all will see this report," Hammond said.
"We are seeing that it goes to the decision makers who can move this question forward."
Source : Arizona Republic
www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0718lawreport0718.html#