June 25 TEXAS: 21-year-old man faces capital murder charge A Nueces County grand jury indicted Leonard Haskin, 21, on a charge of capital murder in a stabbing death in March, chief prosecutor Gail Gleimer said Thursday. A co-defendant, Maria Raquel Rivas, 29, also was indicted on the same charge in the stabbing death of James Timothy Haynes, 44, of Dayton, Gleimer said. Haynes crashed his vehicle into a utility pole in the 2400 block of West Broadway Street at Kennedy Avenue in March after being stabbed in the chest, police said. (source: Corpus Christi Caller-Times) ************************* Federal judge overturns death sentence In Lubbock, a federal judge on Friday threw out the death sentence of a man condemned for his role in a 1993 murder in Plainview. The conviction of Joe Lee Guy stands, but U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings sent the sentencing part of Guy's case back to state district court in Hale County. The ruling probably spares Gov. Rick Perry from deciding whether to commute the sentence to life in prison for Guy, who has said he was an unarmed lookout during the slaying. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles in January recommended unanimously that Perry commute the sentence. The district attorney who prosecuted Guy's case said he will offer a plea deal putting Guy in prison for life, if the attorney general's office does not appeal Cummings' ruling. No decision has been made by the attorney general's office, spokesman Jerry Strickland said Friday. "We're evaluating the ruling at this point," he said. Guy's clemency petition said he was only a lookout in the robbery that led to the killing of 62-year-old Larry Howell at a Plainview grocery store. The other two men convicted of Howell's slaying, who allegedly committed the murder, were sentenced to life prison terms. "I just wanted my client's life spared, and we've taken a huge step down that road," said Pat McLaughlin, one of Guy's attorneys. Guy appealed based on the behavior of a defense attorney and an investigator during sentencing. Testimony during a hearing this week indicated he was mentally slow and always was a follower. (source: Associated Press) ************************* Guy defense lawyer says he relied too much on investigator The defense attorney who represented Joe Lee Guy in his 1994 capital murder trial testified Thursday in federal court that he was remiss in checking his private investigator's work. Richard Wardroup said he instructed Frank SoRelle to interview a number of potential mitigating witnesses for the sentencing phase of the trial but failed to ensure that the work was done. The result, Wardroup testified, is that dozens of people who might have swayed a jury to sentence Guy to life in prison instead of a death sentence were not discovered until too late. "I relied on him too much, is one answer for it,'' Wardroup said. ''But I relied on him to narrow the focus more than anything else. We ended up with (4) civilian witnesses, and that's not near enough." A Hale County jury convicted Guy and sentenced him to death for his role in the March 25, 1993 robbery of a Plainview mom-and-pop grocery store and the shooting death of the store's proprietor, Larry Howell, 52. Guy was an unarmed lookout during the crime, while his cousin, Thomas Howard and their friend Ronald Springer went into the store. Howard and Springer received life sentences. However, Senior Assistant Attorney General Katherine Hayes, representing the state, reminded Wardroup that the four lay witnesses he called during the trial's punishment phase provided mitigating testimony for Guy. Those witnesses included Guy's aunt, his pastor and two other people who were familiar with his life. Their testimony included information about Guy's impoverished and non-nurtured childhood, his tendency to be non-violent and well-behaved, his below-average intelligence, his remorse for his crime and other factors. "To your knowledge, has anyone come to light that didn't fit into these categories?" Hayes asked Wardroup. Wardroup said that since he learned of other potential witnesses, he thinks he could have presented more compelling, specific information for the jury's consideration. "We addressed the issues we wanted to, but it was just in a much too limited degree," he said. The hearing before U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings is to determine if SoRelle's actions deprived Guy of fairness in the sentencing phase of his trial. Throughout the hearing, Hayes is presenting evidence to witnesses that shows Guy had a previous criminal history and "did not learn from his mistakes." Howard and Springer did not have prior convictions. In January, 15 members of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles unanimously recommended commutation of Guy's death sentence to life in prison and sent it to Gov. Rick Perry. Perry has taken no action on the recommendation. The hearing resumes today in federal court in Lubbock. (source: Lubbock Avalanche-Journal ****************** Justices Say Death Row Inmate With Low IQ Deserves Appeal The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a man with an IQ of 67 who had been on Texas' death row for 17 years deserved another chance to challenge his sentence, a decision that could affect dozens of other condemned inmates in Texas. The 6-3 decision said the federal appeals court in New Orleans had paid only lip service to the proper federal standard for when a condemned prisoner was entitled to have his case reviewed. Sixty to 100 inmates on Texas's death row might benefit from the ruling, lawyers involved in the case said. The contested issue was whether the jury in Robert J. Tennard's 1986 Houston murder trial had been given instructions that effectively communicated the latitude they had on whether to give Tennard a life sentence. Tennard, a convicted rapist on parole, stabbed a man 15 times after he and several others had been drinking and smoking marijuana. One of Tennard's friends used a hatchet to kill another man at the gathering. The other defendant received a life sentence. When Tennard, then 23, was tried, the jury was aware of his low IQ. However, at the time, jurors in capital cases in Texas were told to determine the appropriate punishment by considering two "special issues": whether the crime was committed deliberately and whether the defendant posed a risk of danger in the future. In 1991, Texas changed its law and now provides jurors with more explicit instructions about weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Texas Legislature had acted in the wake of a 1989 Supreme Court ruling, Penry vs. Lynaugh, which held that Texas' 2-question approach was a constitutionally inadequate vehicle that did not allow jurors to consider and give effect to the mitigating evidence of mental retardation and childhood abuse. Tennard asked for a resentencing hearing based on the Penry decision. That request was rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which ruled that "there is no evidence . [that Tennard's] low IQ rendered him unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct when he committed the offense, or that his low IQ rendered him unable to learn from his mistakes . or control his impulses." That decision was upheld by a federal district judge in Houston and by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which has jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to death penalty cases from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The 5th Circuit said that for Tennard to have been entitled to a review, his lawyers would have needed to prove at trial that he had a "uniquely severe permanent handicap" and presented evidence that his crime "was attributable to this severe permanent condition." The court said Tennard's low IQ alone was not proof that he was mentally retarded and that, even if he was, his lawyers had failed to show that his crime was attributable to his mental capacity. The 5th Circuit's standard makes it almost impossible for a defendant to get the low-IQ issue before a jury as mitigating evidence in the penalty phase, Tennard's attorney, Rob Owen, argued at the Supreme Court. A majority of the justices, led by Sandra Day O'Connor, agreed. She said a defendant was entitled to an appeal if he had "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." The substandard jury instructions had, in effect, denied him his rights, O'Connor said. Her opinion was joined by justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. O'Connor noted that in previous cases when the Supreme Court had addressed the standard for the relevance of mitigating evidence in capital cases, "we spoke in the most expansive terms" - a low threshold in distinct contrast to the high barrier set by the 5th Circuit. She then quoted another Supreme Court ruling that said that virtually no limits could be placed on relevant mitigating evidence in a death penalty case. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 5th Circuit. In view of the majority's strong language, "it would be very difficult for the 5th Circuit to do anything but order a new sentencing hearing for Tennard," said Houston attorney Richard Burr, Owen's co-counsel. Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Texas attorney general's office said: "We respect the court's decision and will continue to proceed with these cases . However, because there is pending litigation it would be inappropriate for us to comment further." Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - the court's most conservative members - issued separate dissents. All said the courts had applied the proper standard. The ruling was praised by several legal experts, including Eric M. Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University's School of Law. "The Supreme Court strongly reaffirmed the importance of a wide-ranging examination into mitigating circumstances," which is a critical factor in most death penalty trials, Freedman said. (source: Los Angeles Times) GEORGIA: ** PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY. ** 25 June 2004 UA 211/04 Death penalty/imminent execution/legal concern USA (Georgia) Robert Karl Hicks (m), white, aged 47 Robert Hicks is scheduled to be executed in Georgia on 30 June 2004. He was convicted on 16 January 1986 of the murder of a 28-year-old woman, Toni Strickland Rivers, on 13 July 1985. The jury found three aggravating factors, including the fact that the murder was committed by a person with a prior conviction for rape, and Hicks was sentenced to death the next day. Because Robert Hicks could not afford his own lawyer, the trial court appointed one - an attorney who had no experience in murder cases. After several weeks, he had to ask for co-counsel and the judge appointed a lawyer who had tried a capital case. In September 1985, a court-ordered mental examination had been conducted by a state psychologist who found Hicks competent to stand trial. Given that the identity of Hicks as the person who stabbed Toni Rivers to death was not disputed, it was apparent that the only viable defences and mitigating factors would be based on Hicks's mental state. In February 1985, the US Supreme Court had handed down a decision, Ake v. Oklahoma, in which it ruled that the denial of expert psychiatric assistance to an indigent defendant where that defendant's sanity was a significant factor at both the guilt and sentencing phases of the trial constituted a denial of due process. Hicks's co-counsel, who knew about the Ake decision (unlike the lead lawyer) filed a motion requesting an independent psychiatric expert for the defence. The judge authorized $500 for an independent evaluation. The defence attempted to find someone who could do an evaluation for that sum, but were unable to retain anyone for less than $1525. Rather than authorizing additional funds, the trial judge responded that he would inquire whether a doctor at the state hospital could perform the evaluation. The psychologist who had performed the initial examination of Hicks for the court explained that having another doctor employed by the state to evaluate Hicks for the defence would create a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, the trial judge insisted that he would find an expert for the defence. The judge decided upon a psychiatrist at the state hospital to conduct the evaluation. On 16 December, less than a month before the trial was due to begin, the hospital informed the defence lawyers that its staff did not "do Ake cases". The trial judge nevertheless insisted that he wanted a state-paid psychiatrist in order to save money. The state psychiatrist he had chosen continued to make it clear that he would not do an Ake evaluation. On 30 December 1985, the judge relented and authorized the defence lawyers to find a mental health expert subject to his approval of any expenditure and fees. The defence lawyers were unable to locate, gain court approval for, and retain an expert until 9 January 1986. This psychiatrist, Dr Andrea Bradford, met with Hicks on 10 January, three days before the trial was due to begin. On 11 January, the psychiatrist informed the lawyers that she would not be able to reach an authoritative diagnosis without the assistance of a neurologist. She made a preliminary diagnosis of neurological damage and a mental disorder called "intermittent explosive disorder". One of the defence lawyers later explained that they had had "no idea how to formulate [a mental health] defense, or whether we even could honorably formulate one until Dr Bradford had come back with her diagnosis." They asked for the trial to be postponed so that they could arrange for a neurological examination. The judge refused. The trial proceeded. On the stand, Dr Bradford admitted that what she had found did not amount to a defence under Georgia's insanity law. The defence's closing argument to the jury was desperate: "We are asking you and begging you and imploring you... that you deliberate, that you concentrate and that you then vote for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity". The jury took less than an hour and a half to reject their plea. During appeal proceedings, new lawyers had Hicks examined by a neurologist, Dr Jonathan Pincus, who concluded that "there is no question that Robbie Hicks is neurologically impaired". He recommended further tests, but further funding was denied by the appeal court. Dr Bradford signed an affidavit in which she stated: "The preliminary evaluation performed by Dr Pincus is precisely the type of preliminary neurological examination that I believed was needed in order to begin the process of determining whether [Hicks] was suffering from an organic brain impairment or some neurological dysfunction at the time of the crime." In September 2000, a federal district court found that Hicks's right to expert assistance at trial under Ake v Oklahoma had been violated by the trial court's prolonged delay in appointing a defence psychiatrist and by the denial of a postponement of the trial to allow more time for the defence to prepare. However, the federal court found that this constitutional violation was "harmless". In June 2003, the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases. Every death sentence is an affront to human dignity, every execution a symptom of a culture of violence. Today, 117 countries are abolitionist in law or practice. In the USA, where the capital justice system is marked by arbitrariness, discrimination and error, 915 people have been put to death since executions resumed in 1977. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible: - expressing sympathy for the family and friends of Toni Rivers, and explaining that you are not seeking to condone the manner of her death or to minimize the suffering caused; - opposing the execution of Robert Hicks; - expressing concern at the violation of constitutional law (Ake v Oklahoma) in this case, and at the federal courts' holding that such an error was harmless; - noting post-conviction evidence that Robert Hicks has a neurological disorder, evidence that the defence was unable fully to present to the jury because the trial judge had left them no time to prepare their mental health case; - urging clemency for Robert Hicks. APPEALS TO: Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, SE, Suite 458 Balcony Level, East Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30334-4909 USA Fax: 1 404 651 8502 Email: [email protected] Salutation: Dear Board Members COPIES TO: You may also copy your appeals or write a brief letter (not more than 250 words) to: Letters to the Editor Atlanta Journal Constitution PO Box 4689 Atlanta GA 30302 USA Fax: 1 404 526 5611 PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY. Amnesty International is a worldwide grassroots movement that promotes and defends human rights. This Urgent Action may be reposted if kept intact, including contact information and stop action date (if applicable). Thank you for your help with this appeal. Urgent Action Network Amnesty International USA PO Box 1270 Nederland CO 80466-1270 Email: [email protected] Phone: 303 258 1170 Fax: 303 258 7881 ---------------------------------- END OF URGENT ACTION APPEAL ---------------------------------- LOUISIANA: URGENT ACTION APPEAL ---------------------------------- 25 June 2004 ---- UA 212/04 Death penalty / Legal concern USA (Louisiana) Lawrence Jacobs (m), black, aged 24 The Parish of Jefferson, in the State of Louisiana, is intending to seek a death sentence against Lawrence Jacobs, or to use the threat of the death penalty to coerce him into accepting a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Lawrence Jacobs was 16 years old when he arrested and charged with first degree murder. International law, recognized by almost every government in the world, prohibits the use of the death penalty or life imprisonment without the possibility of release against those who were under 18 at the time of the crime. Nelson Beaugh, aged 45, and his 75-year-old mother, Della Beaugh, were shot dead at Nelson Beaugh's home on 31 October 1996. Lawrence Jacobs and Roy Bridgewater, who was 17 at the time of the crime, were both convicted of first degree murder and received death sentences. Lawrence Jacobs's conviction and death sentence were overturned by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2001 on the grounds that he had been denied his right to an impartial jury by the inclusion of jurors who displayed a strong predisposition to imposing death sentences. The Court did not address the constitutionality of executing 16-year old offenders, the lack of any direct evidence indicating that Lawrence Jacobs fired any shot (he maintains that he left the scene before the shootings), or the apparent racial discrimination in the selection of the jury. On the latter question it did note, however, that "the prosecutor's alleged racial discrimination in the selection of jurors... also appears to raise serious questions regarding the propriety of the jury selection process in the case". The prosecution had dismissed four of the five African-American jurors in the jury pool by using peremptory strikes (the right to reject jurors without giving a reason). The prosecution had also tried to dismiss the fifth African-American juror, but had been prevented from doing so by the trial judge. Lawrence Jacobs is black (as is Roy Bridgewater). Both the murder victims were white. The state is seeking to retry Lawrence Jacobs. The prosecution has insisted that if he does not accept a plea bargain under which he pleads guilty and is sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, they will seek the death penalty again. Pre-trial hearings will be held in July 2004 on the legality of executing someone who was 16 years old at the time of the crime. Prior to his arrest for the crime of which he is now accused, Lawrence Jacobs was held at the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth (TCCY), a privately operated juvenile justice facility later closed as a result of an investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice. The investigation found "systemic life-threatening staff abuse and juvenile-on-juvenile violence" in each of the facilities. Other "graduates" of TCCY have faced capital trials (see p 58-59, USA: Indecent and internationally illegal: The death penalty against child offenders, AMR 51/143/2002, September 2002). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The use of the death penalty against child offenders, people who were under 18 at the time of the crime, is prohibited under international law. The Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified by 192 countries), the American Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, all have provisions exempting this age group from execution. Since 1990, Amnesty International has documented 36 executions of child offenders in eight countries - the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the USA, China and Yemen. The USA carried out 19 of the executions, more than all other countries combined. In its October 2004 term, the US Supreme Court will revisit its 1989 decision allowing the execution of offenders who were 16 or 17 at the time of the crime. Its decision is expected in early 2005. Of the 38 death penalty states, Louisiana has the highest percentage of African Americans on its death row. In April 2004, 67 per cent of its condemned population was black. The state's population at large is 32.5 per cent black and 64 per cent white. Eighty-five per cent of the inmates executed in Louisiana since 1977 (23 out of 27) were put to death for the murder of white victims. They included child offender Dalton Prejean, executed in 1990 for the murder of a white police officer. Prejean was sentenced by an all-white jury, as were at least six of the other 12 African Americans put to death in the state since 1977. Every child offender executed in Louisiana since slavery is reported to have been black and tried in front of an all-white jury for a crime involving a white victim. Ryan Matthews, black, was originally sentenced to death in Jefferson Parish by a jury of 11 whites and one black for the murder of a white man when Matthews was 17. On 18 June 2004 he was released on bail pending retrial after four separate DNA tests supported his innocence claim. In a pre-trial hearing in Lawrence Jacobs' case in 2002, one of the prosecutors wore a tie which bore the image of an executioner's noose, an image which carried echoes from Jefferson Parish's history of racist lynching. See USA: Death by discrimination - the continuing role of race in capital cases, AMR 51/046/2003, April 2003. There are around 70 child offenders on death row in the USA. The number serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole is unknown but far higher. Defendants who were as young as 12 years old at the time of the crime have been sentenced to this penalty. According to information received by Amnesty International there are more than 300 prisoners serving sentences of life without parole in Louisiana for crimes committed when they were 15, 16 or 17. Three quarters of them are black. Lawrence Jacobs' case was previously the subject of EXTRA 66/02 (AMR 51/141/2002, 22 August 2002) and follow-ups AMR 51/156/2002, 3 October 2002 and AMR 51/007/2003, 15 January 2003. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible: - expressing sympathy for the family of Nelson and Della Beaugh, and explaining that you are not seeking to condone the manner of their deaths; - pointing out that international law prohibits the use of the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole against those who were under 18 at the time of the crime; - expressing concern that the USA is in virtual isolation on this issue internationally; - explaining that the prohibition stems from the recognition of a young person's immaturity and capacity for rehabilitation, noting allegations that the State of Louisiana earlier failed to provide rehabilitative and protective care to Lawrence Jacobs in Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth; - urging the District Attorney's Office to drop its pursuit of the death penalty against Lawrence Jacobs, and not to use the death penalty as a threat to coerce a plea to life imprisonment without parole. APPEALS TO: District Attorney Paul Connick, Jefferson Parish District Attorney's Office 200 Derbigny Street Gretna, LA 70053 USA Fax: 1 504 361 2585 Salutation: Dear Assistant District Attorney COPIES TO: You may write brief letters of concern (not more than 250 words) to: Letters to the Editor The Times-Picayune 3800 Howard Avenue New Orleans LA 70125 USA Fax: 1 504 826 3812 E-mail: [email protected] PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY. Check with the Colorado office if sending appeals after 6 August 2004. Amnesty International is a worldwide grassroots movement that promotes and defends human rights. This Urgent Action may be reposted if kept intact, including contact information and stop action date (if applicable). Thank you for your help with this appeal. Urgent Action Network Amnesty International USA PO Box 1270 Nederland CO 80466-1270 Email: [email protected] Phone: 303 258 1170 Fax: 303 258 7881 ---------------------------------- END OF URGENT ACTION APPEAL ----------------------------------
