Comments on: LWOP: Death sentence by another name – Vote No on 34

By: babysoft

babysoft — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:53:56 +0000

Proponents can identify three men who have been exonerated from CA's death row because of the lengthy appeal and habeas process this initiative would remove. (assistance of counsel) Yet to appease the revenge seekers they laud the savings of LWOP, death by another means, but surely a death sentence, and remove even this small safety valve of justice.

I have no idea if Mr. Lomax is innocent. What I do know is opinions by the CSC from the direct appeal reflect the record of the trial court and only what is in the record. They cannot go outside the record. So, if the defendant lost at trial, and it is ruled there is no error in the record, of course the CSC opinion is going to read like an exact reindictment of the guilty verdict.

This is where habeas comes in, which is exactly Mr. Lomax's point. If he is ever to prove anything that is not currently in the record, from a witness receiving a bribe, falsified evidence by law enforcement, the judge sleeping with a prosecutor, a juror lying to get on a jury (and I am not saying any of these happened or did not happen in this case just giving examples of things that come up in habeas but not direct appeal) including not having effective counsel that may have been able to find all of this out if he/she had been effective, etc. So publishing from the CSC opinion does nothing other than prove Mr. Lomax's point in a way . . . if something is wrong with his case, he definitely needs habeas counsel, because on LWOP he is stuck with the above as the final decision.l

By: Chris Bernstien

Chris Bernstien — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:56:23 +0000

ARGUMENTS OF INNOCENCE BOGUS. Proponents can’t identify one innocent person executed in CA. They can’t identify one person on CA’s death row who has exhausted his appeals and has a plausible claim of innocence. Quite simply, CA’s appellate process, designed by the very same people promoting Prop. 34, is 100% effective in weeding out the innocent. Every person Prop. 34 proponents refer to are either non-death-penalty cases or out-of-state cases where defendants do not get the benefit of CA’s appellate process.

By: Chris Bernstien

Chris Bernstien — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:55:45 +0000

Lomax innocent? I think not. As explained by the California Supreme Court: Lomax entered a liquor store and announced, "this is a robbery." He stood across the counter from the clerk, Nasser Akbar. Akbar handed money to Lomax. Akbar did not speak, reach for anything, or make any threatening gestures during this exchange. Nevertheless, after the money changed hands, Lomax shot Akbar twice. As Akbar lay on the floor, Lomax reached over the counter and shot him twice more. Lomax’s girlfriend, who was with him during the robbery, testified against him. A security guard also identified Lomax and his girlfriend. Lomax was arrested with a gun missing several bullets from the magazine. The shell casings from the murder scene matched Lomax’s gun.

After his arrest, Lomax stuck a jail bailiff four or five times. All blows were to the head. The deputy suffered a concussion and was off work for nearly three weeks and was on light duty for some period of time thereafter.

Lomax had previously attempted to shoot and kill a person during a carjack, but the victim ran and Lomax missed all three shots, one sailing past the victim’s ear.

Lomax also robbed three men selling marijuana. Lomax and his friends bound the three victims hand and foot in the bathroom and Lomax said to one of his associates, "Get a knife. I am going to kill these guys." About 15 seconds later, the bathroom light was turned off. Defendant said, "good night," and fired four shots into the bathroom. All three men were hit. One bullet entered a victim’s head. It fractured his jaw, tore out his sinuses, and destroyed his right eye.