home

Bump and Update: Attorney General Eric Holder has approved the plea deal his predecessor Michael Mukasey rejected. The death penalty will be off the table when trial resumes for Emile Fort.
Not only does Holder's reversal likely spare defendant Emile Fort his life, but it may signal a less aggressive approach to the death penalty in federal court. And it vindicates the local U.S. Attorney's office: Months ago federal prosecutors in San Francisco had recommended a 40-year plea bargain for Fort to their higher-ups in Washington -- only to be rebuffed by Holder's predecessor, Michael Mukasey.

Original Post below:

Sunday 3/1/09:

There are 680 California inmates on death row, but since 1991, only one has been from San Francisco. The last two district attorneys, Kamala Harris and Terrence Hallinan, did not seek the death penalty for any defendants.

Federally, there are two death penalty prosecutions underway in San Francisco. In one case, the U.S. Attorney had agreed to a 40 year plea deal, but the Bush Justice Department, under Michael Mukasey, overruled the prosecutor. Trial began last week.

The capital trial of the other defendant, Dennis Cyrus, age 24, for gang-related murders, also began Wednesday, before a different jury. On Friday, the judge in Cyrus' case canceled court.

Is the Obama Justice Department having second thoughts about Ashcroft, Gonzales and Mukasey's policies of overruling local U.S. Attorneys' decisions not to seek death?

It's a possibility. The Judge said only that "a legal issue" had arisen. Attorney General Holder may be reviewing the case.

Holder said in 2000 that he was "personally and professionally disturbed" by a Justice Department report showing that racial minorities were defendants in 80 percent of the death penalty prosecutions sought by local U.S. attorneys.

As to the other defendant,

Emile Fort, 27, is accused of taking part in three murders in 2004 as a leader of a Visitacion Valley gang. Then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey approved a 40-year sentence in November for another Visitacion Valley gang member who could have faced capital charges. But Mukasey rejected a similar plea agreement that federal prosecutors in San Francisco had accepted for Fort.

Fort's case has previously been appealed to the Supreme Court. The prosecutors refused to release the names of its witnesses to the defense until the witness testified at trial.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the prosecution to disclose the names before trial, saying the witnesses would be protected by orders prohibiting defense lawyers from sharing the names with their clients or outsiders. But Alsup was overruled in January in a 2-1 decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The Supreme Court let that decision stand.

After that, Mukasey agreed to sign off on the plea deal for Fort's codefendant, Edgar Diaz, but not for Fort.

Fort's attorneys are attempting to use a PTSD defense for him:

Using the testimony of psychiatric and gang experts, attorneys Michael Satris and Michael Thorman will argue that a violent upbringing in Bayview–Hunters Point left Fort with cognitive defects and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which positioned him to commit and attempt murder in self-defense. (The PTSD defense will not be used for the count involving the baby, who was killed by a bullet apparently intended for a parent.)

Satris and Thorman will attempt to convince the jury that when Fort fired fatal shots at 19-year-old Jovani Banks and 18-year-old Michael Hill and injured another man, he believed — based on unwritten laws of the projects — that he was defending his own life.

< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | New Pew Report: 1 in 31 U.S. Adults Are in Jail or Under Supervision >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I was with you until the part about the baby. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 09:55:17 AM EST


    They were smart enough (none / 0) (#3)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 10:09:07 AM EST
    not to try it for the murder of the baby.

    That leads to the question - if you kill one person in "self defense" (I'm using the term very loosely here.) and you kill others that you didn't intend to, then it's "self defense" for the one killing and straight up murder for the others?  

    Does that mean that for the perpetrator, the other deaths were acceptable collateral damage?

    Parent

    I agree that (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by JamesTX on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    the guy can't be cut loose, but the way our system abuses poor people (placing them daily in life or death crises) it is no surprise this is the result.

    Nobody is asking for you to defend him. We all need for you to understand what created him, and the part we all play in it.

    Parent

    No personal responsbility (none / 0) (#12)
    by nyjets on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 01:43:31 PM EST
    And of course, a person is never resonsible for his action. We lack free will. If a person does something wrong, it is always someone elses fault.

    People are ultimatly responsible for his or her action. We have free will. If you commit a crime,  999/1000, it is your choice.


    Parent

    Life in prison (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:54:30 PM EST
    is enough personal responsibility for me to impose on anyone, whether they 'accept' it in their heart (or wherever it is one accepts personal responsibility) or not.

    Parent
    I can't even think about. Makes me (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 10:31:33 AM EST
    really angry.  PTSD from growing up in the projects?????? Severely dilutes respect for mental illnesses  of military combat veterans.  

    Parent
    why not? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    child sex abuse leads to ptsd, ptsd is not limited to those who serve in the military. It can be the result of any severe trauma.

    Parent
    Oops. My "inner former prosecutor" (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 11:45:47 AM EST
    busted out.

    Parent
    Have you ever (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by scribe on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 11:41:24 AM EST
    spent a lot of time around projects?  

    Those kids grow up (in some of the projects now and likely more formerly) living in what is basically a war zone.  A slow-motion war zone, not like a shoot-em-up movie war zone, but one nonetheless riven by "don't go there", "so-and-so got shot last night", "so-and-so is looking for the guy that shot his relative/friend and is gonna kill him", and all the rest of the ills that living in a place where cops, homicide and generic violence are the rule of the day.

    Put it another way:  estimate the percentage of the kids who grew up in, say, Sarajevo of the mid-90s who now suffer from some form of PTSD.  How many of them, had the shooting not stopped there, would be so callous as the defendant in this case is alleged to have been?  How many of them would decide that shooting first in the assumption it would be self-defense, was the proper act and, indeed, complying with the "unwritten law" that governed their neighborhood?

    I'll say, responding seriatim, "many", "more than many" and "probably most".

    Parent

    Have I ever? No, except (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 11:49:26 AM EST
    on the train through Gary, Indiana.

    Parent
    Many of those (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by JamesTX on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 12:06:59 PM EST
    neighborhoods are actually less safe than being in Iraq. They are war zones. It's class warfare. What you are saying is that you care more about the soldiers. That is fine. But don't pretend the nightmare that out society creates for the poor to live in is any less stressful or dangerous than a war zone. Spend three days there then say that.

    Parent
    In another (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 09:45:59 AM EST
    move by prosecutors in the same District, the Barry Bonds case scheduled to start tomorrow, which has already been tortoise-ing along for six or seven years at a cost to taxpayers of millions of dollars, is on hold indefinitely and probably into 2010 as the Government starts the appeals process on permissible evidence.

    Tunnel vision Government prosecutors need to learn how to stop their own runaway train when they jump the shark of vindictiveness. (Sunday morning metaphor heaven)

    I think, under the (none / 0) (#5)
    by JamesTX on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 11:23:58 AM EST
    current paradigm, it is we who need them stop. They have no needs whatsoever!

    Parent
    appeal is make or break (none / 0) (#17)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 10:11:17 AM EST
    I think they are appealing because it is make or break for them.  The judge excluded the steroid test results, unless they can get Anderson to testify to establish the connection to Bonds.  Without those test results, the government's case may not even be triable.  

    Parent
    Irony (none / 0) (#14)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 09:12:46 PM EST
    Bill Alsup was the clerk for Justice Douglas who wrote the "trees have standing" dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton.  

    Bill Alsup is one of the most liberal members of the federal judiciary.  How ironic that he is presiding over a death penalty trial.  My heart goes out to him.

    We can only be responsible for our own actions (none / 0) (#15)
    by nyjets on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:34:03 AM EST
    For the most part, IMO, personal responsibility trumps 'group responsiblity.' We can only be responsible for our own actions. There are always going to be jerks out there. THe minute people start blaming them for there own mistakes is when you start running into problems.

    In my opinion, when you start arguing group responsibility, you are defending there actions. It serves as a mitgating factor which will severely reduce someones punishment.

    ANd you are right. There should be personal responisiblity for the people you mentioned. THey are responsible for there own actions. And when they start blaming others for there own actions,  will say the same thing.


    gang leaders and PTSD (none / 0) (#16)
    by diogenes on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 07:01:19 AM EST
    If you really have PTSD from a violent childhood then wouldn't you avoid gangs like the plague, especially avoiding becoming the LEADER of a gang  when such a role often involves violence?  Had this gang committed no violent acts in it's history prior to these shootings?  This is junk science at its worst.

    do you actually want an answer? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 10:15:19 AM EST
    If you really have PTSD from a violent childhood then wouldn't you avoid gangs like the plague, . . .

    You mean, the way children who have PTSD from years of child sexual abuse avoid sexually abusing children?  The short answer to your question is that some do and some don't.  I have no idea whether this guy really has PTSD or not, but I don't think it can be called junk science, at its best or worst, based on faulty assumptions about people's responses to PTSD.

    Parent
    PTSD as child (none / 0) (#22)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 11:06:26 AM EST
    You may have PTSD from being abused as a child and still sexually abuse children as an adult, but you'd be hard-pressed to say that the reason that you sexually abused children yourself was that "The PTSD made me do it."  You'd simply be a pedophile who happens to have PTSD.  I don't dispute that this guy might have PTSD since I've never seen him.  However, the idea that having PTSD due to childhood violence, if this really happened, would lead you to join a violent gang and then lead you to kill someone is tenuous.  

    Parent
    At Last (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    A bit of good news from Obama DOJ.

    trial? (none / 0) (#21)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:09:49 PM EST
    I'm a little confused by the article as to whether your statement that the death penalty will be off the table when trial resumes for the defendant is correct.  It sounds like Holder stepped in and approved the original plea bargain offer that Mukasey had rejected, and that the defendant has agreed to take it.  If he turned the deal down, I don't believe it is clear that they wouldn't seek it at trial.

    Correct. (none / 0) (#23)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    Now that the death penalty is off the table, this guy would be much more likely to take his chances at trial.  Especially if the witnesses are so scared that the prosecution is trying to delay the release of the witness list if at all possible.  Or is Holder leaving the death penalty on the table?

    Parent