April 17 TEXAS: Free to kill again The Supreme Court decision yesterday allowing execution by lethal injection eventually will free the nation's busiest death chamber the one in Huntsville, Texas to pick up where it left off. It's not a moment to celebrate for those distressed about the quality of justice meted out in the state's courts. The 6-month hiatus from state-sponsored killing allowed the Supreme Court to review a challenge to a widely used injection method. A hiatus is just what this newspaper has been calling for, but for different reasons. The disturbing spate of DNA exonerations of Texas inmates is the most powerful argument for freezing Texas' machinery of death. Dallas County has the distinction of having more discredited cases than any county nationwide. Just this week, a 16th wrongful conviction was announced here. Thomas Clifford McGowan Jr. spent 23 years imprisoned by the state stemming from a rape in Richardson that he didn't commit. It appears that a flawed photo lineup technique was the root of the breakdown in justice. Other prosecution methods and junk forensic "science" have been implicated by the exonerations. None have involved a death sentence, but they indicate flaws in the system that could have dire consequences for the 360 men and 9 women on Texas' death row. Gov. Rick Perry hailed the Supreme Court ruling yesterday, saying, "Texas is a law and order state, and I stand by the majority of Texans who support the death penalty as it is written in Texas law." The governor's majority claim may be true, but support for the death penalty appears to be waning in Texas. Prosecutors are more wary of taking on marginal cases, and jurors want a higher standard of proof than the recollections of a purported eyewitness. Life sentences without parole are now an option for the courts. Lethal injections may be cleared for use in the Texas death chamber again, but that doesn't mean executions have to go forward. State lawmakers who have doubts about the system have a responsibility to restate their case. (source: Editorial, Dallas Morning News) ***************** Supreme Court clears way for lethal injections to resume The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for lethal injections to resume by declaring that Kentucky's lethal injection process was not cruel and unusual punishment. The 7-2 ruling was unusual in that seven different justices issued written opinions on the case. Some say the fractured ruling may reignite the debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty itself, which was not at issue in this case. Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins said he was particularly interested in a concurring opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, who seemed to indicate that he no longer supports the death penalty. "The time for a dispassionate, impartial comparison of the enormous costs that death penalty litigation imposes on society with the benefits that it produces has surely arrived," Justice Stevens wrote. "All of this is really getting us closer to having this honest conversation about the death penalty," said Mr. Watkins. "It's time," he said, adding that he thinks the spark for the debate is "going to come from someone in a district attorney's seat." Executions across the country, including Texas, have been halted in a de facto moratorium since the high court accepted the Kentucky case last fall. But Texas' execution chamber, the busiest in the nation, probably won't open for business again until a similar case, involving Heliberto Chi, who was convicted of killing a store clerk in Arlington, is resolved by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. "It's a procedural hurdle that still has to be cleared," said Edward Wilkinson, assistant chief of the appellate section of the Tarrant County district attorney's office. Mr. Chi's execution was stayed by the Texas court in October after the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the Kentucky case. The Court of Criminal Appeals received briefs in the Chi case in January. The Chi case involves not only the drugs used in executions, but also other protocol issues such as training of the person who administers the drugs. In the Kentucky case, Baze vs. Rees, attorneys argued that the combination of drugs and administration of lethal injections caused the inmate to suffer unnecessarily, violating the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Texas uses the same drug cocktail in executions, but David Dow, law professor at the University of Houston, said the process in Texas is less transparent than the process in Kentucky, so, "It is possible that lethal injection challenge will get some traction in Texas." Mr. Dow is assisting in the Chi case. The Supreme Court's 7-2 decision in the Kentucky case was not unexpected but the division among justices arriving at the decision was. Though Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the deciding opinion, it was joined completely by only 2 other justices. The inmates' attorneys "pretty much knew from the outset that they would lose it," Mr. Watkins said. Rob Owen, a law professor at the University of Texas, agreed that while the final decision of the Supreme Court wasn't a surprise, "the number and variety of questions raised by the separate opinions was unexpected." "There is still an open question about how to evaluate the system in a particular state. The most I think that can be said for the decision in Baze is that it says Kentucky's system passes constitutional muster. And it leaves open, I think, the question of other states and how they implement the lethal injection." The court ruled that anyone challenging the method of execution must show a "substantial risk of significant harm" and identify an alternative method that reduces that risk, Mr. Dow said. That opens the door for other inmates to challenge the protocol in their state. Texas is particularly ripe for such a challenge because of "sheer sample size," Mr. Dow said. While Kentucky has executed only two people since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976, Texas has executed 405. With such an extensive track record, there is a greater chance of meeting the "substantial risk" standard set by the court, Mr. Dow said. Even if the Chi case is decided immediately, it would be several weeks before any executions resume in Texas. Inmates must be given at least 45 days notice if it is their first time to have a date set, or 30 days notice if they have had previous execution dates, said Michelle Lyons, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Judges can set execution dates pending the outcome of the Chi ruling, but those cases are likely to also be put on hold by the state's top criminal court. The last Texas inmate with an execution date was Karl Chamberlain of Dallas, said Ms. Lyons. Mr. Chamberlain, who was convicted in 1997 for the sexual assault and murder of a Dallas woman in 1991, had been scheduled for lethal injection in February. Mr. Watkins' office withdrew its request for his execution date pending the Supreme Court's decision. "Obviously, from a legal standpoint, yeah, we have to go forward" with Dallas death penalty cases, he said. But Mr. Watkins said "it weighs on my mind." In light of the Supreme Court's decision, "I have no choice. I'm not thrilled. I'm not thrilled." WHERE THE DALLAS DA STANDS Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins on his struggles with the death penalty: "I sit here and I see the worst, the worst of what humans can do. And when you sit here and see that, the only logical conclusion that you can come to is we have to seek the ultimate punishment. "But when you go home, sit with your family in day-to-day chores, you look at morality and religion and think about the course of life. Then you start to question, 'Am I putting myself in that same position as that person [who] for whatever reason decided to take a life?' "Now, I represent the government and I am in the position to do the same that they do. I struggle with that. As a district attorney, I'm here to uphold the law and protect the society I have been elected to represent. So the question I have for myself is: 'If I don't pursue these crimes that are so heinous with ultimate punishment, am I living up to my ultimate responsibility?' "But my other side of me is not only to protect society but to make society better. If I do the death penalty, am I doing that?" ********************************** Man exonerated for rape gives forgiveness A DNA sample from Thomas McGowan proved him innocent of rape, which made his exoneration the 16th conviction overturned in Dallas using DNA. McGowan was arrested in Richardson in 1985 and sent to prison for life. But Wednesday, the nightmare ended for him and his family. The life sentence was overturned with just a few words from Judge Susan Hawk to McGowan. "Words cannot say how sorry I am for the past 23 years," she said. "Is there any statement you would like to make?" "Thank you," McGowan said. "Thank the DA, the Innocence Project. God is good." Since McGowan was wrongfully convicted in 1985, he has spent almost half his life locked up for a rape he didn't commit. But his family said they never doubted his innocence as the years went by with McGowan behind bars. "Oh my God, he missed his whole life," said Doris Washington, McGowan's sister. "He never got married. He doesn't have any children. He missed a big part of his life. He was 27-years-old." McGowan was convicted because the victim said she was sure he was guilty; but DNA has now proved her wrong. McGowan said he harbors no resentment. "I know God forgives," he said. "So, I got to forgive too. It's not for me to be holding anger and resentment. I feel good. The bad news is over with." His father and one of his sisters died while he was in prison. "It's a blessing I was alive to see this," said his mother. McGowan was released without the $100 the state gives parolees. James Giles, who was exonerated last year, knows what that's like. "So, I'm going to give him this $100 bill to make sure he has something," Giles said handing over the bill. McGowan walked to his freedom and new life Wednesday. (source for both: Dallas Morning News) ************************ YOGURT SHOP MURDERS----Lawyer: New evidence found in yogurt shop case; Prosecutors dispute claim that DNA exonerates defendant. The lawyer for Robert Springsteen, 1 of 2 defendants expected to be retried this year in Austin's infamous 1991 yogurt shop murders of 4 teenage girls, wrote in a court filing this week that new DNA evidence in the case exonerates Springsteen, co-defendant Michael Scott as well as 2 former defendants, something prosecutors dispute. On Wednesday, defense lawyer Joe James Sawyer petitioned for Springsteen's release on bail before trial. That petition, which cites the new evidence, was first reported in the Austin Chronicle's online edition. The petition disclosed for the 1st time that in preparation for Scott and Springsteen's upcoming retrials, prosecutors ordered new DNA testing in the case. Through that testing, investigators found male DNA in a vaginal swab taken from 13-year-old victim Amy Ayers that is not from Springsteen or Scott, the petition said. Forrest Wellborn, whose murder charges in the case were dismissed after a grand jury declined to indict him, and Maurice Pierce, whose indictment in the case was later dismissed by prosecutors, also do not match the DNA, according to the petition. "This exonerates defendant Springsteen and makes it clear someone else committed these murders," Sawyer wrote in the petition. Ayers was killed along with Eliza Thomas, 17, and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison, ages 17 and 15, during a 1991 robbery at the I Can't Believe It's Yogurt store near Northcross Mall. The store was then set on fire, destroying much of the physical evidence. The case stymied police until 1999 when they arrested the 4 men. Scott and Springsteen were both convicted of capital murder, based mostly on their alleged confessions to the crimes. Lawyers for the men said their statements were coerced and noted that police had received dozens of other confessions that were discounted. An appeals court overturned the convictions, saying prosecutors improperly used Springsteen's confession against Scott and vice versa. The Supreme Court has ruled that using such statements and not live testimony deprives the defendant of his right to cross-examine witnesses against him. Scott's May trial has been postponed, with no new date set; Springsteen will be tried sometime after Scott. Prosecutor Gail Van Winkle today disputed Sawyer's assertion that the DNA evidence exonerates the men. "We still have testing going on to determine the identity of that profile," she said. Van Winkle noted that DNA not linked to any of the defendants or former defendants had been found before on Jennifer Harbison. That DNA was later determined to be Harbison's boyfriend's, Van Winkle said. Van Winkle said that Sawyer's disclosure of the evidence may have violated a protective order issued by state District Judge Mike Lynch that prevents lawyers from making out-of-court statements about any evidence, including witness statements or DNA test results. Lynch might have ordered the petition sealed. It did not appear Thursday in a check of the court files. Sawyer could not be reached for comment. Van Winkle said that the newly found DNA is not in a form that can be entered into the state database of DNA, which includes convicted felons. "It's fairly new" technology that recovered the DNA, she said. "It's my understanding it's effective on degraded samples." Defense lawyers on Tuesday won the right to conduct new DNA tests on some other evidence in the case, including several articles of clothing and materials used to bind and gag the victims. Prosecutors argued the evidence is unreliable and tainted, because it has been handled by many people since being publicly introduced at trial several years ago. Lynch warned any new evidence could still be excluded from trial if shown to be tainted. (source: Austin American-Statesman) ******************* Death penalty gets new life The page on the Texas Death Row Web site that lists executions was empty Wednesday, but it is not likely to stay that way long. And one of the men convicted in the infamous dragging death of James Byrd Jr. is likely to be high on the list after a 7-month execution hiatus. The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for resumption of executions when it issued a ruling Wednesday upholding lethal injection as a means of carrying out a death sentence. Six inmates on Texas death row are there courtesy of Southeast Texas courts. Of these, Lawrence Russell Brewer, the 2nd man to be sent to death row in the Byrd case, is perhaps the closest to being scheduled for execution. Brewer, 41, was convicted after being tried in Bryan on a change of venue. He has been on death row since 1999 for the June 7, 1998, death of Byrd, according to The Enterprise archives. Brewer's case has been denied review by the Supreme Court and there is no further legal recourse for challenging his death sentence, said his Austin-based appeals lawyer, Alex Calhoun. Calhoun, who opposes the death penalty, said he was "disappointed" by the Supreme Court's ruling. "Execution is not going to solve any problems, but the state's got to have blood for blood," he added. The Enterprise was unable to locate any of Byrd's relatives Wednesday for comment, but in the past, Byrd's son, Ross Byrd, was a vocal opponent of the death penalty. Jeff Feldman, an Alaska-based lawyer who is handling the retardation appeal of Elroy Chester, said even if the Supreme Court had ruled that lethal injection was unconstitutional, it would not have stopped the death penalty. "Obviously there's nothing good to be said about the Supreme Court endorsing a manner of killing," he said. Chester, now 38, was convicted and sentenced to death in the 1998 capital murder of Port Arthur firefighter Willie Ryman. Chester shot Ryman to death as Ryman was trying to keep his nieces from being raped by Chester. Chester's appeal, based on the claim that he is retarded and therefore not eligible to be executed, still is making its way through the courts. "This decision removes one roadblock to enforcing the death penalty," Feldman said, adding, "Our battle goes on very different grounds." Jefferson County District Attorney Tom Maness said he was not surprised by the ruling. "There was a lack of evidence that serious pain is inflicted before death (by lethal injection)," Maness said. "I've often felt it was kind of silly to worry about hurting someone a little bit before taking their life," he said. "And the people you would be hurting inflicted the most brutal pain on their victims." Max Dawson, a pastor and evangelist at Dowlen Road Church of Christ, said he thought lethal injection was a "very humane" method of execution, because one of the drugs used causes unconsciousness before the drugs that cause death are injected. Dawson said both Old and New Testament scripture support the death penalty. "God authorizes governments to carry out the death penalty," Dawson said. "Government serves as a minister for God to execute wrath on those who do evil." "Not only does the civil government have the right to judge crimes, but it also has a right to carry out the ultimate penalty." Robert Gazaway, president of the local chapter of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, rued Wednesday's ruling because it opens the gates to a glut of executions. "Sooner or later, the citizens of Texas are going to have to come to grips that the death penalty is much more expensive than keeping people in prison for the rest of their lives." Gazaway cited the prevalence of people being executed for crimes they did not commit as a principal objection to the practice. "It just doesn't make sense for a civilized society to continue to use the death penalty when we have life without parole," he added. A brief written statement from the Texas Attorney General's Office said the moratorium had delayed justice for crime victims and their families, but the state soon would rectify that. "In the wake of today's decision, the Office of the Attorney General will take the legal action necessary to bring closure to these victims," said AG spokesman Jerry Strickland in the statement. A Kentucky inmate had argued that the combination of drugs widely used for execution in America constituted cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the Constitution. (source: The Beaumont Enterprise)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS
Rick Halperin Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:54:42 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin
- [Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS Rick Halperin