Attorney General Opposes Death Penalty Study

Talk of the death penalty is everywhere in New Hampshire these days.

The Attorney General’s Office is trying two cases, one against Michael Addison, the other against John Brooks.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also just recently issued its opinion on the constitutionality of lethal injection.

Among supporters there is a sense the time is ripe for the state to thoroughly discuss the issue.

The ACLU’s Barbara Keshin says with six people charged with a capital crime in the last 20 years, New Hampshire can no longer pretend it’s not a death penalty state.

TAPE: when I was at the hearing in the House, one person said, we have these cases, but no one is going to be put to death here in NH. I think we are in denial about the death penalty.

Keshin and others hope by creating the commission the public would begin to grapple with some complex questions.

For example, infrastructure questions like what kind of execution facility would be needed and whether the state ought to adopt American Bar Association standards.

Or financial questions like what is the cost of a capital case compared to life in prison.

And, of course, moral questions.

Attorney General Kelly Ayotte says philosophically she doesn’t oppose the state looking at the death penalty.

But she says it could hurt the prosecution of the Addison and Brooks cases if the study commission considers questions that have been raised in court.

TAPE:...the work done by that study committee could be brought in the courtroom by either party and then cause us to have to re-litigate those issues in the case.

Former Superior Court Chief Justice Walter Murphy couldn’t disagree more.

TAPE: nothing this commission does, or any ensuing legislation will have any impact at all upon the currently existing capital murder cases.

Even if Murphy is right that creating a commission wouldn’t impact the Attorney General’s cases, Manchester Police Detective Nick Willard says the timing of the commission couldn’t be worse.

He says the legislation upsets the family of fallen police officer Michael Briggs and the officers that served with him.

Willard posed one key question to the Senators.

TAPE: why now?...it doesn’t make sense to me as a knuckle dragging police officer to conduct a study just as we are litigating a death penalty case. When in fact, a lot of the things the study could glean from the trials may address some of the questions. As an investigator, if I can find information out, a month down the road, then I am going to show prudence in my investigative techniques until after the event has occurred...I don’t understand why that is not occurring here.

TAPE: If not now, when?

That’s Mike Icapino, president of the New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Speaking for any number of supporters, Icapino says there may never be a convenient time to do this.

TAPE: we could have capital cases pending from now until....we are all dead. That is not an excuse. We shouildn’t let the executive branch, by some injunction, b/c they have cases pending, not to study this.

In a move to compromise, Judiciary Chair Senator Joe Foster asked Icapino and others if they would support pushing the commission start date from sometime this summer to January 1st 2009.

Supporters and Attorney General Ayotte said they could live with that arrangement.

A spokesperson for the governor wouldn’t answer the question where he stands on the bill, only saying that the governor doesn’t see a need to change the state’s death penalty law right now.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is likely to vote on the matter in the next couple of weeks.

For NHPR News, I’m DG.