Pubdate: Thu, 06 Feb 2003
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2003 The New York Times Company
Contact:  http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Benjamin Weiser And William Glaberson
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ashcroft.htm (Ashcroft, John)

ASHCROFT PUSHES EXECUTIONS IN MORE CASES IN NEW YORK

Attorney General John Ashcroft has ordered United States attorneys in New 
York and Connecticut to seek the death penalty for a dozen defendants in 
cases in which prosecutors had recommended against or did not ask for 
capital punishment, according to lawyers who follow the issue. Those are 
nearly half of all the cases nationwide in which Mr. Ashcroft has rejected 
prosecutors' recommendations in a death penalty case.

Mr. Ashcroft's decision to reject the confidential recommendations of the 
federal prosecutors for 10 defendants in New York and 2 in Connecticut is 
part of an aggressive effort to assure nationwide consistency in decisions 
to seek the federal death penalty, federal officials say.

Under the law, the attorney general has final approval on whether to seek 
the death penalty in federal cases.

The cases include a new one in Manhattan against three defendants accused 
in a narcotics trafficking case that involved a triple slaying, lawyers 
say. Prosecutors had recommended against the death penalty for all three 
men. There is no indication that those defendants wanted to cooperate with 
the government or to plead guilty.

Mr. Ashcroft's decision in that case was disclosed to lawyers in New York 
this week, just days after it was revealed that he had rejected the 
recommendation of federal prosecutors in Brooklyn and ordered them to seek 
the death penalty against a murder suspect on Long Island who had already 
agreed to plead guilty in exchange for testimony against others in a 
dangerous Colombian drug ring.

The Justice Department would not comment on Mr. Ashcroft's decisions 
involving the latest three defendants, which were related to The New York 
Times by a defense lawyer who was told about the matter.

Barbara Comstock, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in Washington that 
when the federal death penalty law was passed, Congress intended that it be 
applied equally and "in a consistent and fair manner across the country."

"What we are trying to avoid," she said, "is one standard in Georgia and 
another in Vermont."

Ms. Comstock said the attorney general was "committed to the fair 
implementation of justice," and she cited the "multiple levels of review" 
conducted at Justice Department headquarters and the local United States 
attorneys' offices "to provide consistency."

"The people involved in the death penalty review process at Main Justice 
have the benefit of seeing the landscape of these cases nationwide, thereby 
ensuring consistency in U.S. attorney districts across the country," she 
said. "The department is confident that this process works."

James B. Comey, the United States attorney in Manhattan, also refused to 
address specific cases, but said, "I have been a federal prosecutor in 
Virginia and New York, two states with very different death penalty 
traditions, so I appreciate the need for someone to take a national view to 
ensure consistency."

He said decisions on death penalties were "often very close calls, so the 
fact that the attorney general and a U.S. attorney reach a different 
conclusion does not mean that one of them is out to lunch."

Mr. Ashcroft's aggressive approach in the New York region was criticized 
yesterday by lawyers who said the best way to eliminate geographic 
disparities in capital punishment was not to increase its use but to reduce 
it. No federal court jury in New York City has yet returned a verdict for 
the death penalty since the revised federal capital punishment laws were 
passed more than a decade ago.

"They want to set a consistent national standard for these cases," said 
David A. Ruhnke, who represents a defendant in the new Manhattan case, "but 
the standards they're using are the standards used by Texas district 
attorneys running for re-election."

Mr. Ruhnke said he was speaking generally of Mr. Ashcroft's approach, and 
he declined comment on how Mr. Ashcroft's decision might apply to his 
client, Elijah Bobby Williams.

Mr. Williams and the two other defendants, who will now face the death 
penalty in Federal District Court in Manhattan, are in the same family, 
records show. In addition to Mr. Williams, the defendants are his brother, 
Xavier, and son, Michael. All three men have pleaded not guilty to charges 
of racketeering, which include narcotics trafficking and three killings.

The national total of 28 defendants in cases where Mr. Ashcroft has 
rejected recommendations against the death penalty or where the prosecutors 
did not seek it has been calculated by Kevin McNally, a lawyer based in 
Kentucky, who helps run the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project. 
The nationwide project provides information to lawyers defending in capital 
cases.

"They are attempting to bring the federal death penalty to areas of the 
country like the Northeast that are less hospitable to the death penalty 
than the traditional death penalty states," Mr. McNally said. "This is not 
an accident or a statistical fluke. This is a deliberate decision to 
require not a few but many death penalty trials in the Northeast and in New 
York in particular."

The Justice Department does not discuss individual cases, and Mr. McNally 
compiled his data from defense lawyers and other sources. The Times was 
able to confirm the details of the cases in the New York metropolitan area 
independently.

Two other defendants who now face a death penalty prosecution in Manhattan 
as a result of the attorney general's directive are Alan Quinones and Diego 
Rodriguez. Both men are accused of torturing and killing a man whom they 
correctly suspected of being a government informant, court documents show. 
They have each pleaded not guilty.

Avraham C. Moskowitz, a lawyer for Mr. Rodriguez, said he believed that Mr. 
Ashcroft was pushing for more death penalty cases in New York City and its 
suburbs because the government has not yet obtained one there. "I think 
there's a commitment to getting it done, to showing it can be done here," 
he said.

The Rodriguez and Quinones cases received widespread publicity last year 
after a federal judge, Jed S. Rakoff of United States District Court, ruled 
in their case that the current federal death penalty law was 
unconstitutional, citing the growing number of exonerations of death row 
inmates through DNA and other evidence.

Judge Rakoff's ruling was overturned on appeal, and the death penalty case 
against the two men is proceeding.

The other cases in the region in affected by Mr. Ashcroft's decisions 
include one in Binghamton, N.Y. that involves three men who, according to 
prosecutors, were cocaine dealers who killed a marijuana dealer. Defense 
lawyers argue that one of the defendants is mentally retarded and that 
executing him would violate federal death penalty standards.

In the Connecticut case, the Justice Department surprised lawyers for two 
defendants in late January by notifying them that federal prosecutors there 
would seek execution. They are charged along with other defendants in the 
1996 killing in Hartford of the leader of a gang known as the Savage Nomads.

Mr. Ashcroft has also ordered the death penalty sought in a case in 
Vermont, which is in the same federal appeals court district as New York 
and Connecticut.

That case involved charges of a carjacking and kidnapping that ended when 
the 53-year-old victim was beaten to death.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D