Danny Robbie Hembree is on death row at Central Prison in Raleigh, N.C.  In an editorial letter he sent to his hometown paper, the Gaston Gazette, he describes himself as "a gentleman of lesiure [sic], watching color TV in the A.C., reading, taking naps at will, eating three well balanced meals a day." 

Hembree taunts his readers with the costs of his trial and upkeep, as well as the relative comfort in which he lives on death row.  He explains that he has access to "free medical care 24/7" at a new 55 million dollar facility.

Humbree, 50, was convicted of murdering two North Carolina women and a 17-year-old girl.  Like many states, no one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006 because of legal challenges over lethal injections and whether a physician must oversee executions.

"Is the public aware that the chances of my lawful murder taking place in the next 20 years if ever are very slim?" Hembree asked. 

Hembree states that he "is ready to except [sic] his unjust punishment and face God Almighty with a clear conscience."  He taunts, "Kill me if you can, suckers. Ha! Ha! Ha!"

You can see Henbree's handwritten letter here.

*To receive interesting crime and criminal law news stories like this, as well as other crime facts and information, join the Criminal Law Community.

A few notable crime-related events took place on this day, January 25, in history:

2006:  A Mexican professional wrestler, Juana Barraza, was arrested in conjunction with the serial killingof at least 10 elderly women

1996:  Billy Bailey was the last person to be hanged as a method of execution in the United States

1993:  Five people were shot outside the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia by a Muslim extremist, resulting in two dead and three wounded

1971:  Charles Manson and three female co-defendants were found guilty of the 1969 murders of actress Sharon Tate and Leno and Rosemary LaBianca

1787:  American Daniel Shays led a rebellion against the federal government to protest debtor's prisons, for which he was later convicted of treason

For more interesting crime tidbits, news and information delivered straight to your inbox, join the Criminal Law Community!

The U.S. Justice Department indicted 12 members of an Amish sect for shaving the hair and beards of non-sect Amish people.  A grand jury indicted the Amish sect's leader, Samuel Mullet Sr., along with 11 other followers.

The defendants were charged with violations of the federal hate crime law (the Matthew Shepard-James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act), which carries a potential life sentence.  The defendants were also charged with obstruction of justice.

The alleged crimes were the result of religious disputes with other Ohio Amish.  The defendants are accused of planning and carrying out assaults "on their perceived religious enemies." 

According to authorities, "The assaults all entailed using scissors and battery-powered clippers to forcibly cut or shave the beard hair of the male victims and the head hair of the female victims.  During each assault, the defendants restrained and held down the victims."

After the assaults, some of the defendants are accused of concealing or attempting to conceal evidence including a camera, photographs "and an over-the-counter medication that was allegedly placed in the drink of one of the assault victims."

The way that Amish men wear their beards and Amish women wear their hair are symbols of their faith.  That's why someone cutting their hair and beards can be considered a hate crime.

"Every American has the right to worship in the manner of his or her choosing without fear of violent interference," said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.

For updates on other interesting news stories, as well as crime and criminal law definitions, and crime books, TV and movies, join the Criminal Law Community!

Michael Morton, 57, was exonerated after spending 25 years in a Texas prison for killing his wife.  His attorneys are now seeking a "court of inquiry" to examine whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by withholding exculpatory evidence.

If approved, a judge would be selected to preside over the inquiry.  A district or county attorney would assist examining witnesses and evidence.

Prosecutorial misconduct (specifically, prosecutors withholding evidence) is a common factor in cases where the defendant is later exonerated.

Read about a similar story by entering my free book giveaway- Chasing Justice:  My Story of Freeing Myself After Two Decades on Death Row for a Crime I Didn't Commit" by Kerry Max Cook.

Or buy that book:

Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State Football Coach arrested last month for molesting eight young boys, was rearrested today.  He was charged with more counts involving two victims who came to light after his initial arrest.

It is common in cases of child molestation that victims do not report their abuse until other similar allegations surface. 

The facts alleged by these new victims appear to be similar to those alleged by the first eight victims.  The victims were all young boys who met Sandusky through his charity, The Second Mile.  Sandusky gave the boys gifts and took them to football games.  He began physically touching the boys, which eventually became sexual assaults. 

These kinds of similiarities tend to reinforce the truth of each of the allegations.  If specific enough, they can be classified as the defendant's modus operandi, or M.O.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai pardoned an Afghan woman serving a 12-year prison sentence for having sex out of wedlock after she was raped by a cousin.  A judge had earlier offered to release her if she agreed to marry the rapist, but she refused.

The woman's story was highlighted in a European Union documentary on Afghan women jailed for so-called "moral crimes."  However, the European Union blocked release of the film because of fears the women featured in the film would be in danger if it were shown.

Even though the documentary film was blocked, the Afghan woman's case drew international attention to the plight of many Afghan women 10 years after the overthrow of the Taliban.  Half of the women in Afghan jails are victims of rape or domestic violence.

The woman's attack (and crime) was only brought to light because of the resultant pregnancy.  She had the baby in prison and began raising her in prison, which is common for women inprisoned in Afghanistan.

More than 5,000 people recently signed a petition urging Afghan President Karzai to release the woman.

On Thursday, Karzai's office said in a statement that Karzai had agreed to pardon the 21-year-old woman.  Initial reports were that the pardon was based on the woman finally agreeing to marry her attacker.  Today, however, the woman's attorney stated that the woman would not have to marry her attacker as a condition to being freed.

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber has declared a moratorium on the death penalty in Oregon.  Oregon joins 16 other states and the District of Columbia in its removal of the death penalty as a sentencing option.

Oregon Governor Kitzhaber said, "I am convinced we can find a better solution that keeps society safe, supports the victims of crime and their families, and reflects Oregon values.  I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer; and I will not allow further executions while I am Governor."

Governor Kitzhaber's decision stops the execution of twice-convicted murderer, Gary Haugen, which was scheduled for December 6, 2011.  Haugen had waived his appeals.

Governor Kitzhaber said his decision was made "[b]oth because of my own deep personal convictions about capital punishment and also because in practice, Oregon has an expensive and unworkable system that fails to meet basic standards of justice."

Governor Kitzhaber noted his decision was not based on compassion for Haugen or other death row inmates.  He pointed out that the death penalty is imposed unfairly, with people who have committed similar crimes to those on death row serving life sentences.

High profile cases have been proving me wrong lately.  Kind of. 

One of my big gripes with film and television crime shows is their common depiction of a criminal suspect or defendant talking to police while his lawyer sits idly by.  This is a common complaint of mine because criminal defense lawyers almost NEVER let their clients speak to police, and for good reason.  Criminal lawyers know that the best evidence against someone is often their own words. 

No matter how clever someone thinks they are, there is almost never anything they can say to help themselves once  the police have targeted them as a suspect, and certainly not once hthey have been charged. 

That said, Jerry Sandusky, a former Penn State football coach, who has been charged with 40 counts of molestation against 8 boys, spoke to sports reporter Bob Costas, this week.  During the interview, Sandusky admitted almost all of the allegations against him short of the ultimate sexual acts.  Most reports of the interview concluded that it did not help him at all, at least in the court of public opinion. 

Chances are good that if Sandusky goes  to trial, the prosecution will play the tape of his interview to the jury.  The jury will likely see Sandusky's words in a bad light as well, and it will come back to bite him. 

This is exactly what happened recently during the involuntary manslaughter trial against Michael Jackson's doctor, Conrad Murray.  I used that case as an example of why suspects should not, and usually do not once they have a lawyer, speak to police.  Speaking to a reporter is not any different.

Sandusky's lawyer has gotten a lot of flack as a result of letting Sandusky do the interview.  Of course, if a client insists on talking, there's really only so much a lawyer can do.  And who knows how things played out between Sandusky and his attorney.  At the end of the day, however, this case stands as yet another example of why suspects and defendants should not talk, and, more importantly, why criminal defense attorneys almost never let that happen.

Sign up for your free Writer's Guide:  Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama, which includes more information about the value of remaining silent.

The recent news about Jerry Sandusky, a Penn State football coach accused of molesting at least eight boys over a period of years, parallels stories from the 1990s of child molestation within the Catholic Church. 

In both cases, there was a man (or several men in the Catholic Church) accused of repeatedly molesting and even raping young children.  In both cases, reports of the molestation reached the man's superiors. 

In both cases, the superiors took minor measures, apparently to try to make sure no further acts of molestation occurred in their places of business.  At Penn State, the coaches and other superiors of Jerry Sandusky told him not to bring any more young boys to the college, where many of the attacks allegedly took place.  In the Catholic Church, priests who had molested young children were often transferred to other parishes. 

In both cases, none of the men who supervised the accused molesters contacted the police.  None of the men in charge acted to protect the children who had been abused.  The men in charge covered up for the accused molester, sweeped the problem under the rug, and went about their business, as if nothing had happened.  As if a child had not been sexually abused and likely scarred for the rest of his life.  As if more children would not be harmed because of their failures.

In both cases, the alleged sexual abuse was allowed to go on for many years.  In both cases, the failure of any one of the men in charge to contact the police, insulated the molester from any real consequences, and allowed more victims to be abused.  At least in the case of Penn State, two of the men who failed to step up and do the right thing have been charged for their failures. 

I'm not sure what this culture of silence and protecting abusive men at the expense of children is about.  I have to wonder if a woman had been involved somewhere along the way, whether it would have taken so long for these abuses to come out.

Jerry Sandusky, the Penn State coach accused of molesting at least eight young boys is getting off scott-free, at least for now.  Sandusky was indicted on November 4, 2011 of 40 counts related to child molestation.  

Sandusky retired from his Penn State coaching job in 1999 and retired from The Second Mile charity last year.  He has been receiving a pension of almost $60,000 per year since 1999.  That will not be affected by his criminal charges.

When Sandusky first appeared in court, the prosecution asked for $500,000 bail and electronic monitoring.  Bail is intended to ensure a criminal defendant appears in court to face the charges.  Generally, the more serious the charges, the higher the bail.  Also, if a defendant has the resources to pay, he will usually be assessed higher bail.  That will ensure he comes to court instead of fleeing.

Sandusky's bail was set at $100,000, unsecured.  He was not required to be electronically monitored.  The bail amount is lower than the prosecution requested, and is quite low considering the crimes he is accused of and his resources.  Even more surprising is the fact that his bail is unsecured. 

Normally when bail is set, the defendant has to put up the amount of the bail for the court to hold.  Or they may give a bail bondsman 10% of the bail amount, and the bail bondsman ensures the court will receive the rest if the defendant does not show up.  If the defendant does not show up in court, he forfeits all the money he posted. 

When bail is unsecured, however, the defendant does not need to front any money.  He basically promises to pay the bail amount if he does not appear.  However, the defendant is already required to appear, so  it does not seem that an unsecured promise to pay would do much more to ensure a defendant's appearance.

The defendant is already required to appear by law, and a judge can issue an arrest warrant if he fails to appear.  An additional promise to pay an unsecured bail amount does not seem like any more of an incentive to appear. 

Sandusky can therefore continue to live at home, go about his daily life, continue receiving his pension, and need not pay a penny in bail as long as he appears.  That is highly unusual for someone accused of such serious crimes.

It is no wonder that people are crying foul now that they have learned that the judge who set Sandusky's bail has donated money to and volunteered for his charity, The Second Mile.  Judges have a duty to recuse themselves from a case if there is even the appearance of an impropriety.  

If Judge Leslie Dutchcot did volunteer for or donate money to The Second Mile charity, she should recuse herself from Sandusky's case.  This is particularly so since Sandusky got access to his victims through The Second Mile charity, according to the indictment.