Letters to the Editor

DEATH PENALTY DEBATE
      I sat next to Justice Ardaiz as a witness to the execution of Clarence Ray Allen. He accurately depicts the mood and solemnity of that event ["Witness to an Execution," November]. Allen was serving a life sentence for murdering Mary Sue Kitts when he ordered the deaths of witnesses who had testified against him, and he did not care who got in the way. Josephine Rocha and Douglas White got in the way at Fran's Market when Allen's hired murderer arrived to kill Bryon Schletewitz.
      As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained, "If the death penalty is to serve any purpose at all, it is to prevent the very sort of murderous conduct for which Allen was convicted."
      One of Allen's intended victims was Fran's Market owner Ray Schletewitz. He and his wife, Fran, worked tirelessly to reform the system. When I told Ray that Allen's case was almost over, he expressed relief and his desire to see it through to the end by witnessing the execution of the man who murdered his son. Just two days later Ray suffered a fatal accident, and I felt a taste of his frustration. It remains to be seen whether our state, including our legal community, will carry on Ray's work by reconciling the demands of a fair process with timely justice.
      Any feelings of pity I had that night were allayed by the memory of Allen's crimes and his victims. I thought of the terrifying final moments of Bryon Schletewitz, Josephine Rocha, Douglas White, and Mary Sue Kitts. I remembered what Shakespeare said about dying, and I hoped for their sakes that he was right: "The rest is silence."
      Ward A. Campbell
      Supervising deputy attorney general
      California Department of Justice
     
      Author's note: The letter is my personal reflection and does not necessarily reflect the views of the attorney general or the California Department of Justice.
     
      Justice Ardaiz's article moved me and offered a logical and well-reasoned argument to end the death penalty. Had the final decision been life without parole, then all the family members of the victims would have had closure on the day that the killer went behind those prison walls. They would have known that he would never leave, that he would live every day thinking about what he had done, and die alone. The death penalty will always be a protracted process to avoid killing the innocent, so we can either continue to open new wounds 30 years later, or end the suffering of victims with an alternative to the death penalty.
      Gregory J. Elvine-Kreis
      Auburn
     
      I am a former police officer and prosecutor. I've seen men and women die in the streets of Los Angeles. I've seen death firsthand and presented testimony of it in a court of law. But I had never watched death administered by a governmental unit in a lawful manner. I was present to watch Allen die in order to know, firsthand, as a policymaker, if lethal injection appeared to be humane.
      During those many minutes, after repeated attempts to insert a secondary needle (this is a redundancy system in the event the first line in the right arm fails), Allen submitted to the cocktail mix which ended his life. At no time did I witness discomfort or pain. At no time did the body spasm or react violently, or at all, to the process. He lay there. His breathing stopped. His heart stopped. He was pronounced dead. The time was noted. For me it was sterile, although watching a man die does tug at your emotions.
      Now, every California death penalty sentence is in question and pending based on Allen's execution because "experts" and criminal defense appellate attorneys who were not present are arguing that the second push of drugs necessary to stop Allen's heart caused him pain.
      The legal issues will continue to be debated. And while Justice Ardaiz wishes for closure for the victims?as do I?I got closure that early morning on January 17, 2006. Clarence Ray Allen deserved to die. The state administered the procedure with compassion and minimal pain. That is our system of justice, even though Allen did not deserve such treatment.
      Todd Spitzer
      California assemblyman,
      Assembly District 71
      Orange
     
      FOR APPEARANCE SAKE
      Robert Ray is right on the money when he advises [attorneys] not to send a contract lawyer to a critical hearing [Expert Advice, "When Every Appearance Counts," November]. Contract lawyers ought to be wary of such assignments?their E&O is on the line.
      One phrase that has been misused to characterize contract lawyer appearances must be corrected. Contract lawyers (or even a lawyer from the same firm as the handling attorney) are not making a "special appearance." A "special appearance" is one made by a defendant at the beginning of a case when a defendant files pre-answer motions (e.g., motion to quash). One lawyer standing in the shoes of another for a hearing is not making a special appearance. Someone please come up with a better name!
      Stephany Yablow
      Studio City
     
      California Lawyer welcomes letters to the editor and publishes excerpts from as many as possible. Please include your phone number and city of residence. Write to us at 44 Montgomery St., Suite 250, San Francisco, CA 94104, fax 415/296-2482, or email letters_callaw@dailyjournal.com.
     

---