[.ca] The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies (ISBN 0195122860)

From Amazon.com:
Death penalty abolitionists will find much to like about The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. Editor Hugo Adam Bedau makes his bias plain in the preface: "I ... am opposed to the death penalty in all its forms, no matter how awful the crime or how savage the criminal." Other than a token mid-1980s essay from Ernest van den Haag, then, the thrust of this collection is decidedly anti-death penalty. As such, it is a useful compendium of the abolitionist viewpoint, and its extensive bibliography will serve anyone as a starting point for research on the subject. The book also contains excerpts from important Supreme Court opinions and laws on the subject. Those of a quantitative bent will be frustrated by the argumentation and the short shrift it gives to the work of Isaac Ehrlich, who demonstrated the deterrent value of the death penalty. But those interested in an exhaustive survey of the arguments against all components of the death penalty will find this a must-have volume. --Ted Frank

Well-researched:
It is true that overall Bedau presents an argument in opposition to capital punishment. However, this argument is very well researched and documented. One may disagree with the conclusion, but it would be difficult to refute the evidence presented in the book. Furthermore, the very fact that the book is a collection of research may be the reason it appears one-sided. Having attempted objective research on the issue of capital punishment myself, it is often difficult to find solid research in support of capital punishment. More often support comes in the form of statements of belief or opinion. If you are looking for an equal collection of arguments for and against the death penalty in America, then this book is not for you. However, if you are looking for very solid research on the topic, presented in a logical, easy to understand format, then this is an excellent resource.

Regarding Florida CCR Chief Litigators::
After Mark Olive voluntarily resigned from CCR about March 1988, Billy H. Nolas became the next Chief Litigator. It is extremely odd that Michael Mello in his books doesn't mention his name nor Martin "Marty" McClain's names in the book. For a vast variety of reasons he should have. One can only interpret Mello's non-inclusion of their names and histories because Mello is a Holdman cheerleader. Nolas was and is an excellent litigator like Olive was and is. Nolas was the Chief Litigator for about the last two years of Gov. Martinez "regime", which was the most difficult time in CCR history (during my employment there) with Martinez signing death warrants as if he was at a Republican Party event signing autographs. Nolas sadly resigned at the end of 1990, when Martinez had been defeated by former U.S. Senator Lawton Chiles and former U.S. House of Representatives member Buddy MacKay. Nolas was completely drained from the years he endured and litigated while at CCR, both due to the hugh case load and due to the internecine warfare within the agency. McClain and his faction within CCR basically did their best to cause Nolas to leave -- eventually they were successful -- and THAT is when clients's cases began to suffer. McClain can be an excellent litigator, however his strategic decisions in various cases is a different matter. When Mello writes on page 245 of the hardcover version regarding CCR, "Look beneath the surface of CCR's 'success rates', however, and you'll find an artifice typical of hack public defender officers. CCR has in the past farmed out the hardest cases to outside lawyers (by finding that it has a 'conflict of interest')" As the penultimate example of McClain alleging a "conflict of interest" \oand I can only assume with the director of CCR at the time, Michael Minerva, consent\c is the client Jerry Layne Rogers, Sr. -- a clearly wrongfully convicted innocent man -- in Mr. Rogers's case there were 80 boxes of documents, from court files, prosecutor and law enforcement files, trial and evidentiary hearing transcripts, etc. Mr. Rogers's case was the largest and most complicated that CCR has ever represented. The second largest and most complicated was that of Mr. Gerald Stano, whose lead attorney during most of the development of his case was Olive. McClain simply didn't want to have such a complicated case as a CCR case, so McClain, in my considered insider opinion as Mr. Roger's only investigator from 1989 until my involuntary departure in 1992, alleged in a misrepresentation to the Florida Supreme Court (FSC) that he had a "conflict of interest" with Mr. Rogers -- while Mr. Rogers's case was pending at the FSC. As a result, Mr. Rogers had no counsel for an extended period of time until the Washington, D.C. law firm Covington and Burling became his pro bono counsel in 1995. The result was an unanimous FSC 26 page opinion ordering a new trial in Mr. Rogers's case due primarily to prosecutorial misconduct, in particular Brady v. Maryland violations. To read the opinion, go to www.flcourts.org, then to Opinions, then to the year 2001, then toward the bottom on February 15, 2001, one will find the FSC opinion. Two other cases in particular McClain's strategic decisions may very well cost the clients their lives: Peter Ventura and Roy Swafford. More on these two cases another time, except to note that in both cases the FSC decided 4 - 3 against Mr. Ventura and Mr. Swafford in their most recent FSC cases.

Re: Florida cases: Roy Swafford and Peter Ventura::
For those interested in reading the four to three vote Florida Supreme Court opinions regarding two more death sentenced persons whose innocence is an authentic issue, please go to www.flcourts.org, then go to "Opinions and Rules", then chose the correct year and scroll down to the following two cases: Roy Swafford: April 18, 2002 Case No. 92.173 Peter Ventura: May 24, 2001 Case No. 93.839 These two cases are findable under "Court Orders: Case Disposition Orders" and "Briefs in Other Cases" sections of the "Press Page": Roy Swafford: March 26, 2004 Case Nos. 03.931 and 03.1153

More Florida CCR history::
In Michael Mello's excellent book "Dead Wrong: A Death Row Lawyer Speaks Out Against Capital Punishment", Mr. Mello and I have a substantial difference in the facts and their meaning during a key time period in Florida death row post conviction litigation history during Gov. Martinez's "regime": From page 195 of the hardcover version of the book: "On paper, neither Olive nor Holdman ran CCR; that title belonged to Larry Helm Spalding. With the warrants and the infighting on all fronts, it has suddenly become chic to ridicule Spalding.... I believe that Spalding did some good at CCR. But none of the good can ever come close to compensating for Spalding's fatal decision in the late 1980s, to fire Scharlette Holdman, knowing that Mark Olive would be forced to resign in protest." In my considered opinion, having worked as an investigator at CCR during this very time period whereas Mr. Mello was in Vermont teaching at a law school at the time in late 1987 and early 1988, Ms. Holdman was out of control, seeking to fire various staff, she then was an abusive alcoholic, she threw a typewriter at a door, she was passively physically aggressive with me in the hallways, refusing to come to work as a form of protest ("strikes" or similar actions by state employees in Florida are prohibited by the Florida Constitution) and more misconduct, including her misrepresentation of her academic record. Mr. Spalding was willing to even pay her salary since Ms. Holdman is indeed an asset nevertheless and have her work in New York with Dick Burr -- however even Dick Burr with the Legal Defense Fund knew enough about the dark side of Ms. Holdman that he didn't want her working in the same space as himself. Mr. Spalding had no choice but to terminate Scharlette Holdman. She essentially gave him no other choice. She had committed numerous fireable offenses over the years at CCR, including tampering with evidence. Ms. Holdman made her situation a national battle by bringing in all the "big guns" in the anti-death penalty community across the country to pressure Mr. Spalding into either allowing Ms. Holdman to continue as she was conducting herself and to pressure Mr. Spalding to resign or otherwise be forced out of office. And Mr. Olive, whom I admire as one of the best litigators in America for death sentenced persons, had his own substance abuse problems at that time. And he was playing the same hard-ball tactics as Ms. Holdman -- thus his threat to resign should Ms. Holdman be terminated from employment. Mr. Olive chose to resign in an attempt to cripple the agency. However her termination and his resignation did just the opposite. Mr. Spalding did the right thing given the totality of the circumstances. In fact, the office functioned better and was more effective in our representation of death sentenced persons upon their departure. It is highly ironic that Mr. Mello does not mention even one time the name of Mr. Olive's successor as Chief Litigator, Billy Horatio Nolas, who is just as competent and effective as Mr. Olive. In fact, Mr. Nolas and his legal and investigative team had more successes with stays of execution, winning new sentencing hearings, winning new trials, etc.

More Background about Florida Post Conviction History::
First an introduction: From 1986 - 1992 I was employed as an investigator at the Office of Capital Collateral Representative (CCR) in Tallahassee, Florida, where Scharlette Holdman worked as the supervisor of the investigators from October 1985 - March 1988. I have known Scharlette since the mid-1970s death penalty debates at Florida State University, including the debate between Professor Richard L. Rubenstein (author of "After Auschwitz", "My Brother Paul", "The Cunning of History: Mass Death and the American Future", "The Age of Triage", "Religion and Eros", and other books) vs. Baptist Minister and Philosopher Will Campbell (the debate was circa 1977). Her office, the Clearinghouse on Criminal Justice, was in the same wing of the Petroleum Building as my office at Common Cause in Florida (where I was a full-time volunteer during the day and worked at the Brown Derby Restaurant at night from 1981 - 1986). The Petroluem Building was next to the State Capital, the Florida Supreme Court and the State Archives and Library. When it was torn down, the space and the space for the first CCR office became the Mary Brogan Art and Science Museum and a storm water retaining pond. The Petroleum Building was called by those of us who worked or volunteered there the "Forces of Good" (FOG) Building -- as opposed to FOE -- Forces of Evil, such as Associated Industries, the Chamber and other big business interests in Florida. The FOG building also included (not an exhaustive list) the Clean Water Action Project, the ACLU, NOW, Florida Legal Services, Migrant Farmworker's Organization (directed by Cliff Thaell, who has more recently been a Leon County Commissioner for about ten years or more), Mike Vasilinda's television news service. About every two years at CCR there was a Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist purge due to the pressures and dysfunctions of the work and the people. I survived two such purges. With the third, I was the first to go in the spring and summer of 1992. When Scharlette had essentially declared war upon CCR in 1987 and thereafter, some of us decided to investigate her background given some things that we had heard. Low and behold, Scharlette's claim of a PhD in anthropology from the University of Hawaii and a Master's Degree from (if my memory serves me correctly) the University of Birmingham don't exist. We used Scharlette's Social Security number, her maiden name and her married name -- with all this information, both universities had no record of Scharlette having received any degrees from these institutions. As I understand Scharlette, she needed the "degrees" to confer upon her "credentials" that she really never needed as she is indeed then and now a national expert on capital mitigation, litigation, etc. However Scharlette can be deceptive, as her lack of a PhD and Masters so demonstrates. Even today she claims to have the degrees as when she gives presentations regarding capital cases, she is identified as "Dr." A key word search of her name will bring up some of the presentations that she has made in the past several years with the title "Dr." preceding her name. If she has received any honorary or other degrees since 1990, that would be new information for me. If anyone can assist in this matter, please contact me at phar208452@aol.com or my mailing address: P.O. Box 38458, Tallahassee, FL 32315-8458. Thank you.