Al Gored by the Data

I seldom stray from writing of wrongful convictions and executions. My skepticism, however, is not restricted to the accuracy of our justice system. Given my engineering background, my skeptical klaxon sounds frequently as those who are out to serve us pontificate on issues ranging from financial solvency to alternative energy. I usually withhold comment. This post is therefore unusual.

AccuWeather has posted an article: "Coolest March Since 1994." (How can you not trust something from a source with "Accu" in its name?) Based on satellite temperature readings, March turned out to be relatively cool. The fine folks at AccuWeather even put a chart at the bottom of their article. Unfortunately, they failed to label the axes. I presume we're supposed to notice the trend line is still sloping upward and we're supposed to conclude that we are still doomed to melt, assuming we don't first drown or return to our pre-industrial ways.

The article did, however, link to the data used to construct the plot. I commend the fine folks at AccuWeather for that. (Seriously, I commend them for that.) I refer you to their article if you would like to manipulate the data yourself. I have used the data to create two plots which I present below. Click on either to have the pair appear enlarged in a separate window.

The upper plot is a reproduction of the plot provided in the AccuWeather article. Mine differs only in that I cluttered them by labeling the axes. Oh, yeah. I also colored the data a scary red to indicate things are getting hotter and hotter.

In the lower plot, I split the data roughly in half. It seemed to me that something significant happened near the beginning of 1998. As before, the first half of the data shows the temperature to be increasing, though the increase is not as steep as in the upper plot. I colored it scary red anyway.

The second half of the data represents the global temperature trend for the last twelve years. This may come as a shock to you, but we have not had any global warming for the last twelve years. In fact, according to the U.S. NOAA Climate and Global Change Program, it has been cooling slightly. I therefore colored those data in a comforting, earth-friendly green.

I don't know what the temperature will be next month, next year, next decade, or next century. Some people claim to know, and those people want to make energy more expensive and want to further restrict our liberty.

I thought you would be pleased to know that no longer appears necessary.

You're welcome.

Juror 799

Here's a jury duty quiz for you. Assume you are a judge presiding over a death penalty case. During jury selection you review the questionaire filled out by juror 799, and you are shocked by what you read. The prosecutor asks you to excuse that juror. What do you do?

I provide a real life example below. As you read it, consider how you might respond to the prosecutor's request. There will be a pop quiz after the reading assignment.

Juror No. 799, an Asian woman in her 20s who said she works in the garment industry, was up for jury duty in the death penalty trial of Bonanno crime boss Vincent Basciano. ... Asked to name three people she least admired, she wrote on her questionnaire: "African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians."

When the judge asked why she answered the question that way, she replied, "You always hear about them in the news doing something."

She also declared that cops are all lazy, claiming that they sound their sirens to bypass traffic jams.

[The judge] flipped forward several pages in her questionnaire. He landed on the page where she had said she had a relative who was a member of the Chinese Ghost Shadows gang in the 1980s, convicted of murder and still in prison.

"Why didn't you put 'Asians' down also?" the judge asked sarcastically, referring to her list of least-liked people.

"Maybe I should have," she said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Taryn Merkl requested that the woman be disqualified from the Vinny Gorgeous case because of her "inappropriate" comments.

If you said you would disqualify the juror, you are correct, but only partially so. If you are Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis, you must also tell the woman "This is an outrage and so are you." Then you must sentence her to indefinite jury duty.

At the risk of being forced into indefinite involuntary servitude for my beliefs, or being labeled a racist for beliefs ascribed to me by readers who have no idea what is going on inside my head, I argue the correct answer is "You are excused," and nothing more.

I concede I have no idea what was going inside that woman's head, but 'll consider two possibilities. First, I'll assume she did in fact hold the racist thoughts she expressed on her jury survey.

In that case, I would dismiss her for cause on the assumption that there must be at least one African American, Hispanic, or law enforcement officer involved in the case in some fashion. Her prejudice would therefore keep her from serving as a fair juror. I would recognize that the State had forced her, under the color of law, to serve jury duty. I would recognize that I had required  her to answer, under oath, personal and intrusive questions. I would fool myself that we do not punish people for their beliefs. I would not confront her in open court over what she wrote. I would not denigrate her or thank her for her service. I would simply excuse her from serving on the jury.

Now, I'll assume the juror was simply trying to get out of jury duty. I'll have to also assume she wasn't even clever enough to say she would never vote for the death penalty. (We certainly can't let such people on a death penalty case.) In that case, I would not confront her in open court over what she wrote. I would not denigrate her or thank her for her service. I would simply excuse her from serving on the jury.

I think also that Judge Garaufis now agrees with me. His indefinite jury duty lasted only a single day.

A Federal judge relented Wednesday and commuted the sentence of indefinite jury duty he had slapped on a Brooklyn woman who presented herself as wildly racist and anti-cop. 

"I hope this experience will be an education for you and the next time you're called for jury duty you'll give honest answers," Federal Judge Nicholas Garufis told Juror 799. 

The young Asian woman had written in her jury questionaire on Tuesday that she couldn't stand "African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians" - and that all cops were lazy.

Garaufis, who is trying to empanel a jury for the capital case against Bonanno crime boss Vincent (Vinny Gorgeous) Basciano, told her she was outrageous and vowed to keep her coming back every day for jury duty.

On Wednesday, he made it clear it wasn't her views that angered him but what he said was her obvious attempt to weasel out of jury duty by lying.

"My ruling was not based in any way upon whether or not you held any racist views. It was apparent you did not tell the truth," Garaufis told the woman.

"You were the only juror who indicated that you had every form of bias imaginable. You were lying to the court in order to be excused. ... The purpose of this order was to attempt to create some consequences or disincentive for people who intentionally obstruct the court's ability to empanel a fair and impartial jury.

I claim the judge's justification for his actions doesn't ring true. In other words, I presume to know what's in his head, and I suggest he might be lying.

Judge Garaufis claimed that no one could hold such racist views, that anyone who expresses them must be lying. Yet our same court system increases penalties for many crimes if the defendant allegedly acted in response to racial or other socially unacceptable prejudices.

Note also that Judge Garaufis certainly left the impression that he was outraged by her beliefs on Tuesday. He did not claim until Wednesday that he was outraged only that someone might actually lie to get off jury duty.

I'm sure that must be true. Everyone knows that no one would lie to get off jury duty. It's an "outrage" to finally come across a clear cut case disguised as prejudice. Hahahahahaha.

By the way, none of the other jurors were punished with indefinite involuntary servitude, though it is likely many of them were lying. Only the person who claimed (truthfully or otherwise) that she was prejudiced was held up to ridicule and punishment.

What Judge Garaufis did manage to accomplish, however, was to present a tutorial on how one should lie to get off jury duty. I offer the following paragraph from the article for those of you who can't figure it out by yourself.

Nearly half of the jurors are struck before they even get to court for questioning due to language barriers, fear of the Mafia or their extreme views for and against the death penalty.

And finally, there is a bizarre lesson to be learned here. If you are in fact prejudiced, lie under oath when asked about it. Otherwise, you could be punished without trial for perjury.

Supremes Stay Execution of Daniel Wayne Cook

The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the execution of Daniel Wayne Cook.

I think it is an excellent idea that we look carefully at every case before taking the life of another. What I find distressing about this stay, and that for Cleve Foster, is that Eric King was executed without a stay, despite the distinct possibility of his innocence.

When Cook was arrested, the police found two bodies in his closet. Both his victims had been tortured. He gets a stay.

Cleve and his buddy rape and kill a young woman a month after they had raped and killed another young woman. Cleve's explanation for his sperm in the victim's vagina was that his buddy had her ride him while he was passed out drunk.  Cleve gets a stay.

Eric King was a half foot shorter than the shooter. He gets the needle.

This sucks.

Supremes Stay Execution of The Disturbing Cleve Foster

It looks as if The Disturbing Cleve Foster has had his latest execution date once again stayed, this time by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I think it is an excellent idea that we look carefully at every case before taking the life of another. What I find distressing about the stay is that it was granted to Foster rather but not to Eric King.

The Impending Execution of Daniel Wayne Cook

This post almost writes itself. The pattern is now too common.

A murderer is on the verge of execution. The murders are particularly grusome. (It seems as if the murders are always particularly grusome.) There is no chance the person sitting on death row did not at least participate in the crime that led to the murders. There is some dispute, however, over who did the actual killing or killings. The prosecutor rewards the first person to rat out the other with life, early out, or even freedom. The prosecutor charges the other with capital murder. Death penalty proponents compete among themselves with insightful commentary such as "good riddance" and "rot in hell." Death penalty opponents point to an abusive and disasterous childhood. I simply excerpt an appellate decision, stand mute rather than take a position, and the world goes on without a bother.

Daniel Wayne Cook (see Too Many Waynes) is scheduled to be executed by the people of Arizona on 5 April 2011 for the murders of Carlos Cruz Ramos and Kevin Swaney. There is no viable evidence that Cook did not participate in the kidnapping and torture of the victims. The mutilated bodies were found in his closet, for Pete's sake, while he was still in the room.

From the appellate decision in State v. Cook I offer the lurid details.

Shortly after 4:00 a.m. on July 21, 1987, John Matzke and Byron Watkins arrived at the Lake Havasu City Police Department, where Matzke reported his involvement in two murders committed at his apartment during the evening of July 19 and early morning of July 20. Matzke told officers about the crimes and granted the police consent to enter the apartment. Investigating officers went to the apartment that Matzke shared with Cook. After arresting Cook, officers searched the apartment and discovered the bodies of Carlos Cruz Ramos and Kevin Swaney in the closet of Matzke's bedroom. Autopsies revealed that both victims had been strangled.

Cook and Matzke were each indicted on two counts of first degree murder. In return for the state's dismissal of all other charges, Matzke agreed to plead guilty to one count of second degree murder and to testify against Cook. Cook was not offered a plea agreement. At trial Matzke related the following sordid story of bondage, torture, and sodomy, in which Cook was the principal protagonist. 

Carlos Cruz Ramos was a Guatemalan national employed at the same restaurant where Cook and Matzke worked. He had recently moved into their apartment. According to Matzke, Cook devised a plan to steal Cruz Ramos' money. While Matzke distracted Cruz Ramos, Cook stole approximately $90 from Cruz Ramos' money pouch. Shortly afterward, Cruz Ramos noticed his money was missing, and asked Cook and Matzke whether they knew anything about it. The two then lured Cruz Ramos into Cook's upstairs bedroom. They pushed Cruz Ramos down on the bed and, using strips torn from Cook's sheets, gagged him and tied him to a chair. 

Over the course of the next six or seven hours, Cruz Ramos was cut with a knife, beaten with fists, a metal pipe and a wooden stick, burned with cigarettes, sodomized, and had a staple driven through his foreskin. Matzke suggested that they kill Cruz Ramos because they could not let him go. Cook replied that Cruz Ramos should be killed at midnight, "the witching hour." When midnight arrived, Matzke first tried to strangle Cruz Ramos with a sheet. Matzke then took Cruz Ramos out of the chair, put him on the floor, and pushed down on his throat with a metal pipe. According to Matzke, because Cruz Ramos still would not die, Cook pressed down on one end of the pipe while Matzke pressed on the other. Finally, Matzke stood on the pipe as it lay across Cruz Ramos' throat and killed him. 

Matzke and Cook later dressed Cruz Ramos and put him in the closet of Matzke's bedroom. The autopsy revealed that Cruz Ramos had suffered severe lacerations and contusions as a result of his beating, that he had been cut on the chest, and that his stomach and genitals had been burned. The autopsy also revealed that Cruz Ramos had two puncture holes in his foreskin and that his anus was dilated, although no semen was detected. 

Kevin Swaney was a sixteen-year-old runaway and sometime guest at the apartment. He was a dishwasher at the restaurant where the others worked. Shortly after 2:00 a.m., approximately two hours after Cruz Ramos' death, Swaney stopped by the apartment. Cook initially told Swaney to leave, but subsequently invited him inside. Cook and Matzke told Swaney they had a dead body upstairs and, according to Matzke, Cook took Swaney upstairs and showed him Cruz Ramos' body. Swaney was crying when he and Cook returned downstairs. Cook reportedly told Swaney to undress, and Swaney complied, and Cook and Matzke then gagged him and tied him to a chair in the kitchen. Matzke said he told Cook that he would not witness or participate in Swaney's torture. Matzke then went into the living room and fell asleep in a chair. 

Cook later woke Matzke, who said he saw Swaney bound and gagged, sitting on the couch, crying. Cook told Matzke he had sodomized Swaney and that they had to kill him. Matzke said they tried to strangle Swaney with a sheet, but Matzke's end kept slipping out of his hands. Cook then reportedly stated "this one's mine," placed Swaney on the floor, and strangled him. He carried Swaney's body upstairs and put him in the closet with Cruz Ramos. 

The autopsy revealed that Swaney's anus was dilated and semen was present, although the identity of the donor could not be ascertained. Matzke's fingerprints were found on the knife used to cut Cruz Ramos' chest, but no identifiable fingerprints were found on the metal pipe or wooden stick. Cook's fingerprints were found on the chair to which Cruz Ramos had been tied, the closet door, and the stapler. His semen was found on the strips that had been torn from his bedsheets. There was no other physical evidence of Cook's participation. 

After Swaney's murder, Cook and Matzke fell asleep downstairs. Later in the day, Matzke went to work, but returned a few hours later after quitting his job at the restaurant. Late that evening, some friends came over to the apartment. Early in the morning of July 21, 1987, Matzke took one of the friends, Byron Watkins, outside of the apartment and told him about the murders. Watkins convinced Matzke to go to the police. 

When Cook was arrested and brought to the station, he was questioned by Detective David Eaton of the Lake Havasu City Police Department. According to Eaton, he advised Cook of his Miranda rights, then asked him how the two bodies found in the apartment had gotten there. Cook replied that "we got to partying; things got out of hand; now two people are dead." When asked how they died, Cook said "my roommate killed one and I killed the other."

Now, with the appellate court excerpt cleverly pasted into my post, I add my boilerplate conclusion.

I oppose the execution of people who might be factually innocent of the crime for which they are to die. I suspect that to prevent the execution of the factually innocent, we might have to ban the death penalty entirely.

I find no evidence that Daniel Wayne Cook did not participate in the kidnapping and torture that led to the deaths of Carlos Cruz Ramos and Kevin Swaney. Since I limit my efforts to people who are in all respects factually innocent, I stand mute with regard to the execution of Daniel Wayne Cook.

[Perhaps I'm still bummed about the execution of Eric King, who was likely innocent.]