I've often heard it argued that opposition to the death penalty is somehow a slap in the face of the families left behind. Nothing could be further from the truth -- especially if you ask the members of Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, a group which opposes the death penalty:

After a murder, victims' families face two things: a death and a crime.  At these times, families need help to cope with their grief and loss, and support to heal their hearts and rebuild their lives.  From experience, we know that revenge is not the answer.  The answer lies in reducing violence, not causing more death.  The answer lies in supporting those who grieve for their lost loved ones, not creating more grieving families.  It is time we break the cycle of violence.  To those who say society must take a life for a life, we say: "not in our name."   

-Marie Deans, founder of Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation

But today the Press-Enterprise reports on a startling incident that shows just how far the Riverside district attorney's office is willing to go in order to gain a death penalty sentence. The DA pointlessly granted immunity to a witness who murdered someone in 1989 -- and what's more, the jurors said that the testimony given under immunity was meaningless anyway.

Yes, this is the Steve Woodruff trial, which your humble Inland Anti-Imperialist has talked about before.

It turns out that in 1989, Dennis James Smith and his cousin, Steve Woodruff, went to a liquor store in Riverside. Arnold Palmer (not the famous one) was apparently killed by Smith, but Smith was never prosecuted due to conflicting eyewitness testimony.

Flash forward to 2003. Chief Deputy DA Mike Soccio decides he'll get another death penalty conviction for his boss, Grover Trask (who has been criticized for his office's handling of death penalty cases in the past involving minority defendants), no matter what it takes.

So they give immunity to Smith and put him on the stand.

Smith, dressed in an orange jail jumpsuit, testified that Woodruff had accompanied him to the University Avenue liquor store, but that the unemployed high school dropout had never handled a gun or fired a shot. Smith, who was convicted of perjury in 1992, is now serving prison time for a domestic-violence conviction.

The jury that heard Smith's testimony recommended that Woodruff be executed for the murder of the 30-year-old officer. Some jurors said the deciding factor in the penalty phase was Woodruff's lack of remorse and the circumstances of the crime.

One juror, Tom Blue of Riverside, said the 1989 case was not discussed during the penalty-phase deliberations and played no role in their decision. Blue said he found Smith's testimony lacking in substance, especially because he provided so little relevant information and was granted immunity.

"His time on the stand was a waste of time," Blue said.

For that worthless bit of testimony, the survivors of Smith's victim, Arnold Palmer, will never be able to see justice done. Here's what his sister has to say.

Prosecutors granted Smith immunity -- meaning he cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed during the 1989 incident -- in exchange for his testimony in the trial of Steve Woodruff, who was convicted of murdering Detective Doug Jacobs.

Smith could establish that Woodruff had been at the liquor store when the 1989 incident occurred.

The decision to grant Smith immunity has angered Palmer's family, particularly Palmer's sister, Tamara, who had been there when the shootout took place and testified at Woodruff's trial. Tamara Palmer says she was lied to by prosecutors and believes she was used to bolster the case against Woodruff at the expense of the potential charge against Smith.

"They used us to get this man the death penalty," Palmer said. "That is not right." The family, she said, was "betrayed."

Palmer said she believed her testimony would help incriminate Smith and did not learn about the granting of immunity until she was told by Mark Blankenship, Woodruff's defense attorney.

"I didn't understand what that was," she said. "I thought they were going to prosecute Smith. Then the next thing I'm being told is nothing can be done."

Where exactly are proponents of the death penalty showing this great concern for the victims' families?

Or gee, could it possibly be that the prosecutors are more concerned with making boss Trask look good before the public, so the assistant DAs can get promoted? As Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation points out, prosecutors only really give a damn about the families when they're calling for blood.