Two Scheduled Executions / One Held Up So Far

Robert Leslie Roberson III

Texas Set Robert Roberson’s execution for Oct. 17, despite new evidence that he is an innocent man wrongly convicted under the now-debunked shaken baby syndrome hypothesis.

Roberson's death sentence is allegedly a case of "junk science" with his autism also making him seem more heartless. After all, the death of a young child allegedly because of child abuse is horrible. 

But, the death penalty? Texas's sentencing of Robertson led to many people from both parties (along with some big names like John Grisham) flagging his case. The bipartisan lawmakers were able to convince a judge on the day of the execution to grant a stay. 

Meanwhile, a separate attempt to get a stay from the Supreme Court failed via the usual no-comment order. Sotomayor released a statement granting there was no adequate federal jurisdictional hook. No one else joined her statement. 

In her view, the actual innocence claim was compelling enough that an executive reprieve to allow the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to reconsider the evidence is necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice. She answered claims that the evidence of innocence was refuted by the state and a state judge.

The basics:

On 01/31/2002, Roberson took his two-year-old daughter to Palestine Regional Medical Center with severe trauma to her head. The victim died from her injuries the next day and Roberson was subsequently charged in her death.

An execution over twenty years later is constitutionally problematic because of delays (Breyer's dissent). 

The doubt that it was a murder at all (including pre-existing health problems) is the biggest issue here. Multiple appeals to stop the execution have been rejected. It is hard to show "actual innocence" once you are convicted. And, there was some evidence of guilt here, even if it is greatly disputed. 

Nonetheless, even if there is not a compelling legal reason to stop it after he was sentenced to death, there appears to be enough doubt not to meet the level of assurance warrant to execute someone. 

Plus, he has been in prison for over twenty years. He has not "gotten off" by any means.  How long the most recent (somewhat absurd time-wise) reprieve will last remains to be seen.  It now will go to state appeals which have their own complexities. 

Derrick Ryan Dearman

Dearman's lawyers have raised various appeals alleging he was mentally ill and concerning competency of counsel. But, this is another matter. 

Dearman murdered five people, one pregnant. He had a problem with his girlfriend, who rejected him after a violent relationship. Good choice on her part.

Dearman in 2016 went into the house where Laneta  Lester was living and murdered multiple residents by an axe and gun. By some sick bit of irony, Lester herself was not killed. She was kidnapped along with a nephew and later escaped (or maybe he let her go?). 

(Alabama counted the unborn so "six" persons were murdered by their lights.)

An article earlier this year lists him as thirty-six years old. Alabama executing him now is relatively quick as these things go but he decided to end his appeals, rejecting advice from his father and lawyers.  

“I’ve decided to drop my appeals and have my sentence carried out… I was fairly tried and convicted. I agreed with the court’s decision.”

He had hoped that the execution would occur next year. Dearman did not want people to think it was "suicide by execution." His reasoning sounds sane to me and I guess you can give him a smidgen of respect for saying it. 

“No, in one sense. But in my heart, that is the right thing and the only punishment… I know that me being executed, it’s not going to fix things for the victims’ family. It’s not going to bring their loved ones back. It’s the only thing that I could ever do or give to show that... I don’t want to use the words I’m sorry… It’s the only way for not only them, but my family and anybody else witnessing that, that this person is truly remorseful and regrets actions, crimes he’s committed.”

People kill in moments of insanity (colloquially speaking) and his acts were especially unhinged.  

After all, the one person you would think he would kill, he did not. Who knows what he planned to do with her. Either way, it was a horrible waste of life to kill all those people who he had little or no reason to murder. I do not ignore the crimes in these accounts:

The victims were [Joseph] Turner, 26; Robert Lee Brown, 26; Chelsea Marie Reed, 22; Justin Kaleb Reed, 23; and Shannon Melissa Randall, 35. Chelsea Reed was pregnant with her and Justin Reed’s first child. Turner and Randall had a 3-month-old son in the bed with them when they were attacked, but he was unharmed.

I will not label the execution "barbaric" except to the extent the death penalty overall is an act of barbarism. 

This sort of crime will not be deterred because of the death penalty. As to just desserts, I do not think the state killing people via a system filled with problems is an appropriate use of public policy.   

And, yes, even here, we can focus on problems. He had significant mental problems:

Court filings show that, at just four years old, Derrick Dearman displayed symptoms of severe depression and spoke to his mother “about wanting to die.” He was prescribed antidepressants at age 12 and began self-medicating with crack cocaine at 14. That year, Derrick barely survived a car accident that left him feeling that he “should have died.” At 16, he started using methamphetamines, and at 19, he drove his car off the road in an attempt to kill himself. In his early 20s, he was hospitalized in a psychiatric unit. 

His horrible crimes show Dearman as a grave danger to society. Confining him in prison for a long time was quite justified. Execution is another matter.  

Two Films From the 1980s

Married to the Mob is a fun Jonathan Demme film with many familiar faces including the person who played the doctor's mom in Loving Leah. Al Lewis (Grandpa Munster) has a small role late. A surprise is a young Nancy Travis (a familiar face, including on such shows as Becker) in a nude scene!

Michelle Pfeiffer plays a young mob wife and mother (her husband is played by a young Alec Baldwin) with a son. She's unhappy with her life and her marriage. His murder by a mob boss (Dean Stockwell is made his mistress—Nancy Travis—is double dipping) is somewhat serendipitous. 

She decides to leave town and start fresh in Manhattan. Unfortunately, Dean Stockwell has the hots for her, which interests the FBI. 

And, Stockwell's wife is pissed off at her since she thinks Pfeiffer is cheating on her husband. To top it all off, the FBI agent watching her (Matthew Modine, a familiar face around then) falls for her.  

The whole thing is comfortably paced and overall fun though some mob violence and the aforementioned nudity make it somewhat risque for the kiddies. There are also a few "f" bombs. 

BTW, TV Tropes says that the NY apartment complex was also used in Child's Play (the original). I will also recommend that film and most of its sequels. The television show also has received kudos. Did not see the film remake which received mixed reviews.  

Good music soundtrack. The interestingly put-together end credits appear to be a collection of scenes cut from the film. Either way, it's a nice touch.

Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II is the sequel to one of Jamie Lee Curtis' less well-known horror films. It is not a direct sequel. She is not in this movie. 

The movie starts in the 1950s but the song "Hello Mary Lou" came out a few years later. A bitchy prom queen gets her comeuppance though her boyfriend didn't mean to kill her. She comes back in the 1980s.

The Canadian cast is not too familiar though some faces might be, including Michael Ironside, who was in a bunch of "B" films. The possessed innocent was in an Anne of Green Gables adaptation. Here? Well, she eventually walks around nude in a locker room. 

(The two actresses who play the prom queens have an interesting look. The innocent one -- well before she's possessed -- particularly does not look like a run-of-the-mill horror queen. Watch it and see what I mean.)

The whole film is rather intentionally weird. The 1980s also seem a bit off. They hang out in a 1950s-style diner and the boyfriend drives a motorcycle that might come out of the 1950s. They dress more up-to-date (being the 1980s, they don't look it to us) but other than an old-fashioned computer used to select the prom queen, doesn't look too much different. 

After the opening scenes, the movie takes a bit of time to get going, but the whole thing is well-acted and put together. You cannot really ask for more since it is after all a sequel to a not that good film. 

I found it mentioned in my Leonard Maltin movie guide and there was one copy in the Westchester Library system. I even would be able to download it on my computer but wanted to see it on my TV.

I saw both films back-to-back. Enjoyable. 

Ruth: A Migrant's Tale

The Book of Ruth is a four-chapter account in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) of the great-grandmother of David. This book summarizes the story and provides insights into its application over the years regarding converts, Jewish spiritual beliefs, art, and other contexts. 

The book starts with a summary of Ruth's story. The biblical account briefly explains why a Jewish family was in pagan territory:

In the days when the judges ruled, there was famine in the land, and a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to live in the country of Moab, with his wife and two sons. The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion; they were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there. 

The family spends about ten years in Moab. The sons married Moabite wives. Ruth tells this without comment even though Jewish scriptures have a strong opposition to intermarriage, especially with Moabities. There is some suggestion from biblical texts that Israel and Moab had a peaceful relationship from time to time. But, there were also red flags. 

Genesis tells us Lot's daughters (after the family escaped Sodom and Gomorrah, the mother looking back and turning into a pillar of salt) got their father drunk to continue their line. From this arose the people of Moab. A people who did not follow the Jewish god with that sort of origin would not be ideal marriage material.  

Many would be interested in the details left out of the brief introduction before we were told the women were on the way back to Judah after the men had died. But, the Bible has many of these "lacunae." 

Fried Green Tomatoes shows the closeness of two women by having one named Ruth. She sends a letter to her future companion's family:

It's an obituary... oh no, honey, Ruth's mother died. And this is from the Bible, it's from the Book of Ruth. And Ruth said: "Whither thou goest, I will go. Where thou lodgest, I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people."

Ruth says this to Naomi, her Jewish mother-in-law after Naomi suggests her daughter-in-laws return to their people. Ruth adopted Naomi's people.  One does. Ruth sticks with Naomi. Her kindness and loyalty make her a "woman of valor" (Proverbs 31). 

Ruth's adoption of Naomi's ways later made her a symbol of converts to Judaism.  Her travels helped make her a symbol of the spirit of God found among the Jews in exile. She left her homeland to a foreign country like the Jews of the diaspora. 

A film version and some Jewish commentaries add more backstory. But, we do not know about Ruth's earlier life. Did she worship Moabite gods before this moment? Was Naomi and her husband upset that their children married foreign wives?  Was there something notable about Ruth's family?

The book explains how Ruth "gleaned" the remnants of the harvest. The poor and migrants had a right to the remainder of the harvest. This provides further symbolism, in poetry and art, with a pastoral theme. 

The symbolism found in names is shown by them being in Bethlehem ("house of bread"). It was Boaz's field, a well-off kinsman of Naomi.

Boaz is impressed with Ruth and treats her kindly. Naomi arranges for Ruth to meet up with Boaz on the threshing room floor, which has some erotic implications. Boaz was able to "redeem" the family line, first arranging with a closer relative to agree to give up their rights. Thus, things end happily, and we learn she is ultimately the ancestor of King David. 

The story of Ruth might explain why David has Moabite relations. If David did have some Moabite heritage, it would be suspicious given the problems between the two peoples. If his great-grandmother was a woman of valor and all, it might be okay!  

We are later told (working off the final version of the Bible) that he sent his parents to Moab for protection. The link provides more information about how Moab and Israel had a complicated relationship.  

Matthew later includes Ruth as one of the women referenced in his genealogy of Jesus.  Luke's genealogy leaves out the women. 

A Migrant's Tale could have provided more backstory regarding Ruth's Moabite origins. Otherwise, the summary of the biblical book was interesting. I was not as interested in reading the other discussions though did read the chapter on how Ruth later symbolized converts to Judaism.  

Ruth is a touching story with many intriguing parts. It is particularly a story about women, including women who show agency in their lives. When Matthew does not even mention Solomon's mother by name, the very fact he uses her name is notable. 

It also shows how Jewish beliefs honor the needs of migrants (for they were once strangers in Israel!)  and how outsiders can become insiders.  

Ruth also provides further insights into a different time, including a form of a ritual involving a sandal referenced in Loving Leah. I agree that the film is excellent (I watched it over three times) and I'm not even Jewish (though my name is Jewish-friendly!). 

Poltergeist

Halloween has already brought a range of scary films on cable (or whatever you should call it). 

I remember seeing the very end of this classic movie, where the father puts the television outside the door.  Does that mean I saw the film itself? I don't remember anything else from the film. Who knows?

I watched parts of it recently and was impressed. JoBeth Williams as the mom had one of her best roles, providing a mix of emotions. Early on, she was amused by the poltergeist activity. 

Later, when her youngest daughter was taken, she was distraught. Near the end, she was full momma bear in protecting her kids. She was a bit of a naughty girl -- had a marijuana stash. Near the end we see her underwear when she finds out the house is still haunted. 

Stephanie Miller's "what's happening!!!" clip comes from this film. 

JoBeth Williams was in multiple well-known films around that time, including The Big Chill and Teachers. She continued to get work (her Wikipedia page has credits up to 2023) but less notable roles.

Zelda Rubenstein (the only person in all three films other than the youngest daughter) also had a supporting role in the television series Picket Fences. 

The older daughter (Dominque Dunne) was murdered soon after the release of the first film. Her father became a victim rights advocate. The youngest daughter died of natural causes before the third film came out.  The son played "Jimmy" in Airplane II.

And, no, the house was not clean!  

New York City Ballot Measures

Federal Races 

The most important thing on the ballot in November, as people have already begun to vote, is the defeat of Donald Trump. 

It would be appalling if Trump, a convicted felon who is unfit across the board, wins. Do we want to be a nation where his message and cause is endorsed by the people at large?

We also need to focus on Congress. Both to act legislatively in a positive way, and to not endorse Trump enablers and supporters, congressional races matter. The path to a House majority includes a few swing districts in New York. 

The Senate remains an uphill battle. It would be appalling (less so than Trump winning) if President Harris is handcuffed by Senate Republicans. It is time for change in places like Texas and Florida. 

State/Local Races 

State and local races also matter. 

Attorney generals and local prosecutors have much power. The counting of votes in the presidential election in 2020 significantly turned on state and local officials. States have much discretion. 

Ballot measures also are an important means for the public to make policy. Abortion is on the ballot in over ten states. Any number of other issues, including marijuana policy, are covered by such proposals. 

New York State Proposal

New York City residents also will vote on six proposals (back of the ballot). 

The first is a statewide measure which is repeatedly promoted and/or thought of as a "state ERA" or an an abortion rights measure. It covers more ground:

This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.

Some criticism its wording. Why not directly talk about abortion rights? The proposal (rightly) covers more ground. Abortion rights are part of a wider whole, involving "pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy." 

The amendment also covers more ground that that. The measure covers "ethnicity, national origin, age, disability." The first categories expand and clarify existing protections regarding race and color. 

The next two expand existing protections in other areas. Without knowing for sure, it appears to me a more significant addition to the state constitution. 

I guess it might be argued that too much is being added at once. It also allows specific classifications being "piggy backed."  I figure less people are worried about "age' while "disability" will interest a specific sector of the population more than others.  

New York City Proposals

New York City residents have five proposals, which are basically the result of mayoral action. There is some mayor v. City Council drama involved. Some argue that mayoral overreaching alone makes all of these provisions dubious. 

Mayor Adams is now under federal indictment for campaign related crimes involving foreign deals. Many city residents (I will count myself among them) are not that so happy with his overall reign. 

The provisions also involve various inside baseball proposals that seem dubious fodder for the ordinary public. The support of a general equal protection measure is something the average vote can have a basic sense about. These measures? Not so much. 

Some form of both of these concerns leads me to be wary about most of the city measures. How important one of more of them will be in practice is far from clear. Nonetheless, as a matter of principle, I am included to vote "no" down the line.

The one exception might be the second ballot measure overall (and first city ballot measure), which involves sanitation. It seems benign:

This proposal would amend the City Charter to expand and clarify the Department of Sanitation’s power to clean streets and other City property and require disposal of waste in containers.

Granting that is unclear if it is necessary to use a ballot measure to do this, the overall sentiment makes sense. Some areas now fall outside of the Department of Sanitation's jurisdiction. It seems sensible to be more comprehensive. 

And, if you like the mayor's policies involving new garbage cans and the like (from what I can see, a modest but important good sense policy proposal from Adams), that's another reason to support it. 

I have concerns that make me lean toward "no." First, again, the overall process involved here is questionable. I am not inclined to give this mayor the benefit of the doubt. Overall, I would let the City Council handle making sanitation policy, not the public at large via ballot proposals.  

Second, the measure involves additional power to regulate vendors. There is a connection there and sanitation. Nonetheless, as the linked article notes, it appears that the measure misleads the public -- if more power to regular venders is at issue, why not openly mention it? 

This is the sort of inside policy details that makes me wary about policy by ballot. Sometimes, there is some obscure proposal on the ballot involving state law. For instance, something about regulating parkland. Why is this on the ballot? The state constitution apparently requires it in various instances. Fine if annoying.

There is no such compelling need for these measures to be on the ballot. Again, one or more might not be problematic, or even might be useful. 

But there is some debate on the matter.  Like voting for some local judges with little clarity on whom you are voting for and often little discretion ("pick three" and there are only three options), sometimes there is too much democracy. That might sound bad but republican democracy involves a balance there.   

It is counterproductive in an overall civics sense to have people vote for things for which they have little grounds to make a sound choice. People have a rough idea who to pick when voting for major candidates, especially when they have party-based choices. 

Some ballot measures will confuse people. We can reasonably hope that a half-way sound approach will be possible when the people vote. At some point, however, a line is crossed. When we get to:

“This proposal would amend the City Charter to require fiscal analysis from the Council before hearings and votes on laws, authorize fiscal analysis from the Mayor, and update budget deadlines.”

I think we crossed it. Anyway, early voting in New York will begin on October 26th and run to November 3 (also "fall back" time day). Then, you will have a day off to worry about Election Day itself. 

Not that it will be the end of things either though except for the stray race it might be in New York.  

SCOTUS News: Kavanaugh Hearings and Advise and Consent

More on Roberts

Joan Biskupic has another behind-the-scenes article that focuses on Chief Justice Roberts, including how people noted he was quite tired after carrying so much water for Trump last term.

Oral Arguments 

The justices had the first oral arguments of the new term. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar shined yet again in a case involving regulation of "ghost guns" (a possible 6-3 win for the Administration, granted the Democrats hold serve; the alternative might make the matter moot).  

The everlasting Richard Glossip saga's latest chapter (remember when he lost a lethal injection case almost 10 years ago?) turns on a pair of technical questions. There are various predictions but the bottom line is that his death penalty case is a mess for a lot more than what is at issue. For instance, an over 200-page report written on the flaws was not just about this.  

Kavanaugh Sham 

The Senate has a constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent on judicial nominees and an institutional interest in ensuring that it receives complete, accurate, and timely information to facilitate carrying out that responsibility. 

Senator Whitehouse has been trying to obtain a full accounting of the investigation of Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings for around six years. A report released underlined the sham nature of the FBI investigation, which gave the Republicans cover. 

The nomination process from Garland to Barrett underlined how constitutional norms can be broken without there being some "unconstitutional" process that can be upheld in the courts.  

Current Supreme Court ethical problems underline the responsibilities of all three branches. Mere raw majoritarian will is not the only factor.

A president nominates and the person is confirmed (literally "appointed") with the advice and consent of the Senate. Inferior officers can be handled without Senate involvement if Congress so decides. 

The specifics of this process are basically a political question. Again, this does not mean "anything goes" meets one's constitutional oath. 

The process in place provides a means for nominees to be investigated. A reasonable investigation is necessary to uphold the sanctity of the confirmation process, including the power of the Senate to advise and consent. Extra effort is warranted for people with special responsibilities. 

If the process is slipshod, there are various checks. The First Amendment provides multiple means to air out the details and criticize. There is a greater reason to put people to a higher test if officials are not properly vetted. And, those who failed to do their job can be remembered at election time. 

People are understandably angry and cynical. "What does this matter? They will yet again get away with it."  This is surely appropriate when dealing with people with a form of life tenure. (The "good behavior" proviso seems rather meaningless at times.)

But, airing out the details has not been meaningless. The Supreme Court has had multiple hits. People support Supreme Court reforms. The justices have been more careful. And, it factors in at the polls. 

Federal judges were a major reason why voted chose Trump in 2016. It is a major concern for many voters today. The report, for instance, noted that (then) Senator Kamala Harris played a role in seeking information. Harris has joined in the conversation about how the courts again are on the ballot.  

Who do you want to nominate and appoint judges? Who do you want overseeing the courts, both in the House of Representatives (good shot) or the Senate (will take some help)? This report is a reminder. 

It would be a travesty if Republicans regain control of the United States Senate. Their role in corruptly obtaining a SCOTUS supermajority is but one reason.

Upcoming 

There are two argument days in mostly technical cases next week. A Friday conference will lead to the first scheduled Order Day of the new term. 

There are also two executions scheduled next week. I might cut back on my in-depth analysis of executions next year. Maybe, will leave it to those with miscellaneous orders connected to them.  

Odds and Ends

Johnson Amendment

The Johnson Amendment is named after Lyndon Baines Johnson, who supported it as a senator. Charities and religious institutions can get a tax break. 

Nonetheless, they cannot endorse a specific political candidate. Some people oppose this as a threat to religious liberty. A lawsuit pushes that mantra.

It is really a fair trade, including allowing political speech and engagements in many ways. More here. 

Supreme Court News 

A SCOTUS history entry led me to find out that Dorothy Beasley, who argued the Georgia side in Doe v. Bolton, died in May. 

She argued multiple SCOTUS cases and later became the first woman to become a Georgia appellate judge. When notice of the loss in Doe arrived, she allegedly refused to pay the fee to accept the message.

Jets News 

After another disappointing loss, where Aaron Rodgers again failed to do what he is there to do, the head coach was fired. Robert Saleh was good on the defensive side. Not so good on offense, if repeatedly with subpar material. Ownership was not pleased.

I am not shocked or anything. I did think without more there is a shade of scapegoating there.

Maybe, there was some internal understanding of just that. For instance, Nathan Hackett, the offensive coordinator whose product was somewhat offensive (but Rodgers likes him) was demoted.  

The overall substandard play in the division, helped by injury to the QB in Miami, has kept the Jets in the hunt. So, the season is far from done.