Prosecutors:death-penalty opponents did study

The study noted that the state had inadequate
procedures to protect
defendants.

By MARC KOVAC

VINDICATOR CORRESPONDENT

COLUMBUS — A state prosecutors’ group has dismissed a study calling for a moratorium on capital punishment in Ohio, stating it “is not deserving of serious consideration.”

In a letter this week to Gov. Ted Strickland, John E. Murphy, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, voiced several concerns about the results of the American Bar Association’s Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project.

Last month, that group called on the governor to temporarily halt all executions after a 30-month review determined that Ohio fully met only four of 93 protocols or standards involved in death penalty proceedings.

The study noted that the state had inadequate procedures to protect defendants claiming innocence, significant racial and geographic disparities in the issuance of capital penalties, and death sentences imposed or carried out on people with severe mental disabilities.

The group also made 14 recommendations for improving the fairness and accuracy of the death penalty system, including preserving all biological evidence in potential capital cases as long as defendants are incarcerated; and creating a commission to supplement the current clemency process to test evidence, hold hearings and further review claims of innocence.

Murphy countered the findings, however, stating that the study stemmed from individuals who oppose capital punishment.

“Opponents are free to introduce legislation to repeal the death penalty at any time, but they know it will not pass,” he wrote. “They have apparently concluded that their only course is to attack the legitimacy of our criminal justice system itself and to load duplicitous and unnecessary requirements on top of duplicitous and unnecessary requirements — to the point that no death penalty could ever possibly be enforced, no matter how overwhelming the evidence of guilt, no matter how horrendous the facts of the case.”

Murphy wrote that the bar association group conducting the study “appears heavily weighted in favor of death penalty opponents,” that it is “simply inaccurate to say that we have inadequate procedures to protect defendants, that they receive inadequate representation or that appellate review is inadequate,” and that the resulting recommendations “are a wish list of the defense bar.”

He concluded, “We believe that every defendant has a right to a fair trial and full due process protections, but that process cannot be made so cumbersome that it cannot operate effectively. That, in our view, would be the result of the adoption of the recommendations of this committee. We urge you to reject their efforts.”