Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,953

    Raymond Mata, Jr. - Nebraska Death Row


    Adam Gomez






    Summary of Offense:

    Convicted of the March 12, 1999 murder and dismemberment of three-year-old Adam Gomez in Scottsbluff.











  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,953
    June 20, 2009

    Nebraska Supreme Court dismisses lethal-injection appeal


    The Nebraska Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge to Nebraska's new lethal injection law filed earlier this month by death row inmate Raymond Mata Jr.

    In filing a motion on Mata's behalf, attorney Jerry Soucie, with the Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy, said the lethal injection bill, passed by the Legislature in late May and going into effect Aug. 30, was flawed.

    He also filed a motion to replace Mata's death sentence with a sentence of life imprisonment. That motion was overruled as moot.

    Soucie said he wasn’t surprised by the court's ruling Friday. It will pave the way for issues to be raised in future appeals, he said. It also clarified the issue of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

    Mata was sentenced to death for the 1999 killing of his former girlfriend's 3-year-old son, Adam Gomez. Prosecutors said Mata, of Scottsbluff, dismembered the boy, and kept some of his remains in the home to intimidate the mother.

    Mata's motion said, among other things, LB36 unconstitutionally delegated authority to the executive branch to determine the lethal injection protocol and procedures. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning has said the crafting of the law was thorough, taking into account what other states have done and what the U.S. Supreme Court has found to be constitutional.

    In dismissing the case, the court said the only circumstances that have changed since Mata filed a similar motion in October were the passage of time and of the lethal injection bill.

    "What has not changed, however, is this court’s lack of jurisdiction based on the facts of this case as they currently exist," the court said.

    Bruning said Mata's death sentence was affirmed by the court in an earlier ruling, and that decision is final.

    "Criminals who commit the ultimate crime deserve the ultimate penalty," he said.

    Soucie said he would file a new state appeal on behalf of Mata in the next week to 10 days.

    (source: Lincoln Journal Star)

  3. #3
    Administrator
    Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28,080
    Inmate Personal Information

    DOB: 02/07/1973
    Race: Hispanic
    Gender: Male


    Crime and Trial Information

    * County of conviction: Keith (on
    change of venue from Scottsbluff
    County)
    * Number of counts: One
    * Race of Victims: Hispanic
    * Gender of Victims: Male
    * Date of crime: On or about March
    15, 1999
    * Date of Sentencing: 06/01/2000


    Legal Status




    Attorney

    On appeal from second death
    sentence:
    James Mowbray
    Jerry Soucie
    Jeff Pickens





    Court Opinions

    State v. Mata, 668 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 2003) (reversing in part and
    remanding for new penalty phase hearing, holding that violation of
    Ring v. Arizona in imposing death sentence was plain error), cert.
    denied, 543 U.S. 1128 (2005); State v. Mata, 745 N.W.2d 229 (Neb.)
    (affirming sentence and staying execution because electric chair
    violates 8th amendment), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 228 (2008); see
    also State v. Rogers, 760 N.W.2d 35 (Neb. 2009) (abrogating State v.
    Mata, 668 N.W.2d 448, holding that it is a mixed question of law and
    fact whether a statement was voluntarily made, whether a custodial
    interrogation has occurred, whether sufficient Miranda warnings
    were given to the suspect, whether properly advised Miranda rights


    Legal Issues

    On appeal after second death sentence:
    1. whether Nebraska's capital sentencing scheme violates the 8th
    Amendment;
    2. whether the aggravator instruction was unconstitutionally vague;
    3. whether jurors are required to unanimously agree on the means by
    which a capital defendant manifested aggravator of exceptional
    depravity;
    4. whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in
    federal and state Constitutions is a restraint upon the exercise of
    legislative power,
    5. whether death by electrocution violates prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •