Travis Comments on the Death Penalty

From the March 19, 2009 edition of the Williamsport Sun-Gazette:

"I hate the death penalty."

That's how Attorney Ronald C. Travis of the law firm Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Harris, Waters & Waffenschmidt summed up his thoughts on capital punishment Wednesday night as he spoke for 90 minutes to a small group gathered at the James V. Brown Library.

Travis said he has tried two capital punishment cases in the U.S. Middle District, but none in Lycoming County because, he said, "they don't yet certify them here." He offered several reasons for his opposition to capital punishment.

The basis for his arguments centers on what he believes is a general lack of understanding about the process, its overall cost to society in terms of financial expense with trial and appeals, and the proven mistakes made by jurors convicting innocent men and women.

"The public has a poor idea of the trial and how it is handled and what the rules are and how it works," he said.

In this state, the alternative to a sentence of death is life without the possibility of release, he said.

"In this state, jurors are not told that unless the government argues 'future dangerousness.'

"It's the No. 1 reason jurors tell me they wanted clients put to death," he said. They believe they will get out and kill again. "They don't want that blood on their hands."

Travis agreed "at one point in time life did not mean life. That is in the past ... it is not true. If a person is convicted of first-degree murder, they either die of old age in prison or are confined to a tiny cell with the possibility of getting strapped to a gurney and being poisoned."

In Pennsylvania a commutation of a natural life sentence never has happened, Travis said.

Another issue for argument against capital punishment is the extreme cost, he said.

"It is a total myth it is more cost effective to impose the death penalty than it is to keep somebody in prison for life," he said.

In some cases, experts who testify have cost up to $750 per hour. Travis said he charges $185 per hour for capital case representation.

Then the appeal process generally is lengthy and costly to society because "you the taxpayers foot the bill. The appeal process is unreal," he said.

For example, on July 24, 1998, the jury recommended death for David Paul Hammer, who is in Terre Haute prison for killing his cellmate, Andrew Marti.

But this past Jan. 14, an oral argument took place before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the potential exists that the case may still be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Here's a case 10 years out and it still costs U.S. taxpayers," Travis said.

Another reason for opposing death is there is no crime in this state or in the federal system that automatically requires the death sentence, he said.

"You don't start with the presumption that if it is a premeditated murder, it has to be death," he said. Since the advent of DNA testing, which is getting better by the day, more often people sentenced to die have been found factually innocent, Travis said.

"Not every case involves hair, semen or DNA," he said. "It is scary to see that number of people convicted wrongly."

Additionally, Travis pointed toward problems existing with ineffective defense counsel and eyewitness testimony and even confessions.

Travis pointed to the comedy movie "My Cousin Vinny" in which one of the accused brothers incredulously asks Sheriff Dean Farley, who is questioning him about a shooting at the Sac-of-Suds convenience store. The defendant says, "I shot the clerk at the Sack-O-Suds?" Then, during the trial, his words are taken out of context by the prosecutor who considers them self-incriminating.

"If there is a killing and it is premeditated, or first-degree murder, it is potentially eligible, Travis said. "But before getting to the capital case phase one must have aggravating circumstances.

"The government must have aggravating circumstances before the death penalty is considered. We try to prove up the mitigating (lesser) factors in the case. That is why Dr. Richard Illes, who was convicted of killing his wife Miriam, did not and why Fabian Smart, tried several years ago in Clinton County, did."

In Smart's case, the defense lost the guilt and innocence phase of the trial but achieved a life sentence.

One problem, according to Travis, is when trying these cases "unfortunately, we don't pick one jury for the first phase and another for the second. Both phases are heard by the same jury."

In order for there to be death, jurors must be unanimous. That means all 12 in agreement, he said.

In the federal system, Travis said, the presumption is life.

"You could find 25 aggravators and zero mitigating factors and still vote for life in the federal system," he said.

Travis said when selecting jurors he is looking for the most biased and prejudiced jury he can find.

Questions are drawn up, lawyers look for what social groups prospective jurors belong to and attorneys watch for eye and body contact.

Worst of all is when jurors have a lack of understanding and don't pay attention to the judge's explanation of the charges.

"I can't begin to tell you how many times jurors disregard the judge's order during the charge," he said.