MORATORIA MARYLAND, RINVIO PRIMA ESECUZIONE

NEW YORK,  - Una Corte d'appello del Maryland ha bloccato la prima esecuzione che avrebbe dovuto interrompere la moratoria sulla pena di morte in corso dall'inizio del 2002.

La decisione rende improbabile che lo stato metta a morte qualcuno nei prossimi tre mesi.

   Steven Howard Oken avrebbe dovuto morire il 17 marzo per uno stupro seguito da un omicidio avvenuto nel 1987. I giudici d'appello hanno fissato per maggio una nuova udienza sul caso Oken, per valutare un ricorso che attacca la costituzionalita' della pena di morte nello stato.

   Lo scorso anno il governatore del Maryland, Parris Glendening, un democratico, aveva seguito l'iniziativa presa dall'Illinois ed aveva dichiarato una moratoria sulle esecuzioni, in attesa di studi che valutassero la correttezza del sistema. Nonostante gli studi abbiano sollevato una serie di interrogativi, indicando apparenti disparita' di trattamento dei detenuti sulla base della razza, il nuovo governatore Robert Ehrlich, un repubblicano, ha preannunciato la fine della moratoria.

  MARYLAND: Md. Court Orders Stay of Execution

Ruling May Shield Death Row Inmates

Maryland's highest court yesterday halted the impending execution of a Baltimore area killer and scheduled a May hearing on his challenge to the state's death penalty law, a decision that probably will prevent Maryland from executing anyone for at least 3 more months.

 The order was issued by the Maryland Court of Appeals in the case of Steven Howard Oken, who had been scheduled to die during the week of March 17 for the 1987 rape-murder of a Baltimore County newlywed. Oken's execution would have been the 1st since Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) took office after pledging during the fall campaign to lift a moratorium on the death penalty that was declared last spring by his predecessor, Parris N. Glendening (D).

 With the moratorium over, prosecutors had projected that as many as seven condemned prisoners could be put to death in Maryland this year, starting with Oken. By contrast, in the past 4 decades, the state has carried out just 3 executions.

 Oken's appeal challenges the constitutionality of the state's capital murder statute in light of a Supreme Court ruling last year, and a favorable decision for him would affect the other 11 men on death row, lawyers said.

 For that reason, they said, it is unlikely that the Maryland high court will allow any executions to proceed until Oken's appeal is resolved.

 Oken's challenge concerns the standard of proof that prosecutors are required to meet in asking juries to vote for death sentences in capital murder cases.

 His attorneys argue that under the Supreme Court ruling, the standard of proof in Maryland is too low.

 The "issues apply across the board to everyone on death row," said Gary Bair, chief of the Maryland attorney general's criminal appeals division. "Until Oken is resolved, it holds up, effectively, all of them."

 Ehrlich spokesman Henry Fawell said, "The governor is anxiously awaiting the court's decision in May and looks forward to the letting the judicial process take its course."

 Oken's attorney, Fred Warren Bennett, said he is "elated" with the decision, which could signal that the court intends to reexamine the sentences of every man on death row.

 Yesterday's stay, which the court issued after a 5 to 2 vote, has virtually nothing to do with the political debate that has been raging over the death penalty in Maryland since Ehrlich took office. 

Last month, a University of Maryland study found statistical evidence that prosecutors in the state are more likely to seek the death penalty for black killers of white victims than for other murderers, prompting calls for reform. 2 weeks ago, Attorney General J. Joseph Curran (D) leapt into the fray, calling for the abolition of capital punishment in Maryland to avoid what he called the "inevitable" execution of an innocent person.

 Bennett filed a separate appeal based on the University of Maryland study, arguing that the entire capital murder system is marred by racial and jurisdictional disparities. A Baltimore County court dismissed that argument yesterday. But lawyers expect the issue ultimately will be decided by the Court of Appeals.

 In deciding to stay Oken's execution, the justices were acting on an earlier appeal, which asked the court to revisit a complicated issue known in the legal community as the "Apprendi" matter.

 Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to strike down a New Jersey hate crimes law that allowed a judge to increase prison time beyond the statutory maximum if a crime had a racial motive. The problem, the high court ruled, was that the defendant's motive had not been considered by the jury or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

 In 2001, Bennett argued that the case, Apprendi v. New Jersey, is relevant to capital murder laws in Maryland. Once a defendant has been found guilty, a judge or jury is asked to answer 3 questions: whether the defendant was the primary cause of the victim's death; whether there were aggravating circumstances warranting execution; and whether there were mitigating circumstances weighing against a death sentence.

 To sentence someone to die, the judge or jury is required to find that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating factors by a "preponderance of the evidence." That legal standard is less than "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- and so, under the Apprendi ruling, it is an impermissible standard for increasing the penalty from life to death, Bennett argued.

 Then, in June, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in an Arizona death penalty case in which the defense raised the Apprendi issue. The court ruled that a jury, not a judge, should determine whether the facts in a murder case warrant a death sentence. The decision overturned laws in five states where judges alone have the authority to weigh aggravating factors and decide whether to sentence a killer to life or death.

 At the time, attorneys predicted that the new case, Ring v. Arizona, would have little impact in Maryland, where capital murder defendants have the right to be sentenced by a jury.

 But Bennett contends that the Ring case is relevant in Maryland. "Ring says that any fact that is decided by a jury in sentencing has to be determined beyond a reasonable doubt and that this applies to capital cases," Bennett said. "When a jury goes from life . . . to death, that is in fact an increase in the sentence and therefore the requirements of Apprendi apply."

 That issue will be debated before the court in May. A date for the hearting has yet to be set.

 Ehrlich's legal counsel, Jervis Finney, said yesterday that until the matter is resolved, "it's difficult for me estimate" when executions will resume.