Texas

Texas

REPORT: "Lethally Deficient" Texas Death Penalty Appeal System in "Dire Need of Reform"

A September 20 report by the Texas Defender Service says that Texas "has failed to ensure effective counsel" for appellants in capital cases and that the state's system of reviewing death penalty cases on direct appeal is "in dire need of reform." The report, titled Lethally Deficient, reviewed all 84 capital direct appeals decided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) from 2009 to 2015 and identified numerous "persistent deficits in the provision of counsel on direct appeal in death penalty cases." Among those problems, the report found that the Texas capital defense system "fails to meaningfully evaluate attorney qualifications" before assigning a lawyer to handle a capital appeal; "understaffs the defense" by appointing only one lawyer—frequently a solo practitioner—to the case; improperly "subjects defense counsel to political pressures"; provides inconsistent and often inadequate resources and compensation; and fails to control attorney workload to ensure that appointed lawyers have time to provide appropriate representation. The report said that, these "fundamental flaws ... led to multiple instances" in which appeal lawyers recycled boilerplate arguments relying on outdated legal authority that had already been rejected in other cases, failed to meet or consult with their clients before filing briefs, failed to file replies to prosecutors' briefs, and failed to seek review of the case by the U.S. Supreme Court. During the period examined, the CCA upheld every capital conviction and more than 94% of all death sentences, and overturned just three death verdicts. Looking at 1,060 capital direct appeal decisions between 2005 and 2015 by courts in the other 30 death penalty states, the study found that Texas's reversal rate was 2.8 times lower than the national average. “The tragedy of direct appeals in Texas capital cases is not simply that lawyers underperform, often pasting together briefs, skipping oral argument, or declining to do other basic tasks such as filing reply briefs. It is that everyone knows that this is happening, from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on down. It is an embarrassment to the legal profession and a testament to the low expectations in Texas surrounding defense representation in capital cases,” said Jordan Steiker, Co-Director of the Capital Punishment Center at The University of Texas School of Law. The Texas Defender Service offers three major reform recommendations, suggesting that Texas should 1) "establish a statewide capital appellate defender office," 2) "create a statewide appointment system with effective caseload controls and uniform attorney compensation," and 3) "appoint two lawyers to represent death-sentenced defendants on direct appeal." Kathryn Kase, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, said "Texas has made enormous strides in its effort to reform indigent legal services in general, and in capital indigent representation, since 2001." These new measures, she said "are the necessary next steps in delivering a promise that the first Texas Code of Criminal Procedure laid out in 1857, promising adequate legal assistance to indigents facing the mighty powers of the state."

New Podcast: Jeffery Wood and the Texas Law of Parties, With Expert Guest Kate Black

Today, DPIC launches a new podcast series, "Discussions With DPIC," which will feature monthly, unscripted conversations with death penalty experts on a wide variety of topics. The inaugural episode features a conversation between Texas Defender Services staff attorney Kate Black (pictured) and DPIC host Anne Holsinger, who discuss the case of Jeffery Wood and Texas' unusual legal doctrine known as the "law of parties." Wood's case garnered national media attention because he was sentenced to death despite having neither killed anyone nor even intended that a killing take place. His execution, which had been scheduled for August 24, was stayed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to permit him to litigate a challenge to the prosecution's use of scientifically invalid predictions of future dangerousness by a psychiatrist who had been expelled from state and national psychiatric associations for similarly improper testimony in the past. In the podcast, Black explains the law of parties and its application in Wood's case, and discusses how the national dialogue that developed around Wood's case may affect the death penalty in the future. 

FBI Documents Show States' Claims of Threats to Execution Drug Suppliers Were Exaggerated

FBI records show that state claims that execution drug suppliers have been the subject of threats by anti-death penalty activists are largely unsubstantiated and exaggerated, according to an investigation by BuzzFeed NewsBuzzFeed found that "few concrete examples" of the alleged harassment, intimidation, and physical threats states claim have been made against drug suppliers, and that "the states’ marquee example — in which the FBI allegedly investigated a serious bomb threat sent to a drug supplier — is contradicted by internal FBI documents." Instead, BuzzFeed found, "the real danger to drug suppliers appears to be legal and economic risk, not risk of violence." Texas and Ohio have claimed secrecy was necessary to protect the safety of potential drug suppliers, citing an alleged threat against a disgraced and now defunct Tulsa, Oklahoma pharmacy, The Apothecary Shoppe, that had been supplying execution drugs to Missouri. That "threat" appears to have consisted of an email sent by a retired college professor who used his own name and included his own phone number, and which the professor has characterized as a warning to the pharmacy to be cautious. An expert witness for the two states—a former Secret Service officer named Lawrence Cunningham who is now employed by a private security company—testified in litigation over their secrecy policies that the email constituted a "serious threat," as evidenced by the fact that it was investigated by the FBI. However, FBI and Tulsa Police Department records show that neither agency was aware of any threats against the pharmacy until a reporter called the FBI months later to ask about alleged threats. The pharmacy had not filed any complaint about the email and, FBI records show, did not come forward with copies of any threatening emails after having been given an opportunity to do so. Cunningham also testified in the Ohio case that the Texas Department of Public Safety had investigated the email, including interviewing the professor—a claim that is contradicted by Cunningham's own sworn testimony in the Texas case and, BuzzFeed says, by Texas DPS documents, sworn statements of the DPS department head, and FBI internal documents. Indeed, Colonel Steven McCraw of Texas DPS testified in a deposition, “I did not do any investigations. We didn’t look at any people. We didn’t do anything.” Officials in Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri also exaggerated threats by stating suppliers were "harmed" or "threatened" by facing lawsuits or disparaging comments in the media. 

Seventh Consecutive Scheduled Execution in Texas Halted as Court Grants Ronaldo Ruiz a Stay

In a 5-2 order, with two judges dissenting and two others not participating, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed the scheduled August 31 execution of Rolando Ruiz (pictured). The order did not specify the reason why the court issued the stay, saying only that after reviewing a new challenge to Ruiz's death sentence that his lawyers had filed, "we have determined that his execution should be stayed pending further order by this Court." Although Texas remains the most prolific state in carrying out executions and, along with Georgia, has executed six prisoners in 2016, this is the seventh consecutive time a scheduled Texas execution has been halted or postponed as a result of either a stay, a rescheduled execution date, or the withdrawal of the death warrant. Ruiz's stay came after his new lawyers filed a petition for relief in the Texas courts seeking relief from his death sentence on the grounds that his trial lawyer unreasonably failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence to spare his life at the punishment phase of his trial, violating his right to effective assistance of counsel, and that the lawyer Texas appointed to represent him in his initial state habeas challenge to his conviction and sentence also unreasonably failed to investigate and present that evidence. Ruiz also claimed that executing him more than two decades after his conviction would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This was Ruiz's third death warrant. He first faced execution in 2007, but he received a stay from a federal appeals court. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review his case in May 2015 and he faced a second death warrant earlier this year, when his execution was set for July 27. That execution was rescheduled for Aug. 31, reportedly because Texas failed to provide Ruiz's lawyers with sufficient notice of the execution. Texas has four more executions scheduled for 2016, with the execution of Robert Mitchell Jennings scheduled for September 14. Its last execution was on April 6. Texas has not gone that long between executions since June 2008, when executions resumed after a nearly nine-month hiatus while the U.S. Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of lethal injection.

Categories: 

Diverse Range of Voices Call for Sparing Jeff Wood, Who Never Killed Anyone, from Execution in Texas

As his August 24 execution date approaches, Jeffrey Wood's case has garnered mounting attention from groups and individuals calling on the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Greg Abbott to commute Wood's sentence. These diverse voices include a conservative Texas state representative, a group of evangelical leaders, and the editorial boards of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and several Texas newspapers, among others. Wood (pictured) was convicted under Texas' "law of parties," but he neither killed nor intended for anyone to be killed and, his supporters say, was not even aware the robbery in which a codefendant killed a store clerk was going to occur. His trial also featured misleading testimony from Dr. James Grigson, who had been expelled from psychiatric associations because of his unethical testimony regarding the potential future dangerousness of capital defendants. Republican state representative Jeff Leach, a long-time death penalty supporter, said "Jeffery Lee Wood’s case has caught my attention unlike any death row inmate in my time in office has. ...I simply do not believe that Mr. Wood is deserving of the death sentence. I can’t sit quietly by and not say anything." Leach has spoken with Gov. Abbott's office and the parole board about the case and is urging other legislators to contact the board in support of commutation before the board votes on Wood's clemency petition on Monday. Gov. Abbott also received a petition from a group of evangelical Christian leaders, who said "Our faith compels us to speak out in this case, where a looming execution date threatens the life of an individual with significant mental impairments who never should have been sentenced to death." The 49 religious leaders also noted the disproportionality of Wood's sentence: "As the getaway driver, Wood committed a crime, but not one deserving the death penalty." A New York Times editorial also urged clemency for Wood and sharply critiqued the law of parties. "The Law of Parties stands as a grotesque demonstration of how utterly arbitrary capital punishment is," it said. "The only true course for justice in Texas is for the law to be scrapped and Mr. Wood’s life to be spared." Wood's supporters say they will deliver a petition to Gov. Abbott and the parole board Friday with thousands of signatures seeking commutation of Wood's sentence. Texas last commuted a death sentence in 2007 in the case of Kenneth Foster, a getaway driver who, like Wood, had been convicted under the law of parties. [UPDATE: On August 19, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a stay of execution to permit Wood to litigate his claims that the prosecution had presented false scientific evidence and that the use of false testimony from Dr. Grigson violated due process.]

Defense Attorney Retires from Capital Practice After No Acquittals in 40 Years and 21 Clients Sent to Death Row

Harris County, Texas has sent more people to death row than any other county in the United States and Jerry Guerinot (pictured) was defense counsel for twenty-one of them. His death-sentenced clients included two who were juveniles at the time of the crime and another who was later freed after prosecutors dropped charges against him. Labeled by some as "the worst lawyer in the United States," in forty years of practice, none of Guerinot's capital murder clients was acquitted. Now, after decades of criticism, Guerinot says he will no longer take capital cases. Guerinot asserts that his record is a by-product of the cases he was assigned: "My theory is if they are the sorriest of the worst or the very worst, I got 'em. Somebody's got to defend - 'defend' is the wrong word - represent these people." Other attorneys, however, say he did not adequately represent his clients. "I wouldn't be here if I had better counse," Linda Carty, a British national who was one of Guerinot clients, said. "I met this guy for less than 15 minutes. Once." Although investigative assistance was available from the British consulate, Guerinot never sought it, she says. Guerinot also served as top assistant to the lead attorney for Duane Buck, whose appeal will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this fall based upon defense counsel's use of a psychologist who told Buck's sentencing jury that he was more likely to pose a future danger to society because he is Black. Kathryn Kase, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, said defense counsel sat silent as their witness provided racially-biased testimony against their client and "never objected to the prosecution's questions or arguments ... that skin color, race, makes someone more likely to be dangerous in the future." Jim Marcus, co-director of the Capital Punishment Clinic at the University of Texas, noted that Guerinot had four separate clients sentenced to death in a seven-month period in 1996. "It is unthinkable that a defense attorney would try four separate death penalty cases to verdict in the space of seven months," he said. Veteran capital defense lawyer and University of Houston law professor David Dow told the New York Times in 2010 that the large number of death sentences imposed on Guerinot's clients reflected a failure to conduct simple investigations. "He doesn't even pick the low-hanging fruit which is hitting him in the head as he's walking under the tree," Dow said. Guerinot said, "I'm there to ensure they get a fair shake. And, by God, there ain't one of them that didn't."

Defense Lawyers, Former Prosecutors, and Constitutional Rights Groups File Amicus Briefs in Buck v. Davis

Five groups, representing defense lawyers, former prosecutors, and organizations devoted to protecting constitutional liberties have filed amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Texas death row prisoner Duane Buck. Buck was sentenced to death when a psychiatrist presented by his own lawyer said he posed a greater potential danger to society because he is Black, and the case attained widespread notoriety after the new Texas attorney general failed to honor a commitment by his predecessor not to oppose a new sentencing hearing. On August 4, the National and Texas Associations of Criminal Defense Lawyers, a group of former prosecutors, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the Constitutional Accountability Center joined the National Black Law Students Association (NBLSA) in submitting briefs arguing that Buck's rights were violated by the racial arguments made at his trial. The NBLSA said, "Whether by a judge, a prosecutor, or defense counsel, an appeal to a jury based on racial prejudice poisons our system of justice." The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law stated, "Mr. Buck was entitled to have his dangerousness assessed on an individualized basis based on his personal attributes. Instead he received a death sentence tainted by four hundred years of racial stereotyping invoked by a witness who was supposed to testify on his behalf." The former state and federal prosecutors, who include former Texas Governor and Attorney General Mark White, former Attorneys General from Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Ohio, and the second-chair prosecutor from Buck's trial, highlighted Texas' refusal to provide Buck a new sentencing hearing, even though it had included him on a list of defendants whose trials were tainted by similar testimony by the same psychologist, and every other one of those defendants had received new sentencing hearings. "To backtrack on an ethical obligation and decision to grant relief to a defendant in any context is extraordinary; it is particularly so here, where the purpose of backtracking was to defend the propriety of a capital sentencing hearing tainted by racist testimony," they said. The Court is scheduled to hear argument in Buck v. Davis on October 5. 

Texas Prisoner Who Did Not Kill Anyone Challenges Execution, Use of False Psychiatrist Testimony to Condemn Him to Die

Lawyers for Jeffery Wood (pictured), a Texas death row prisoner who is scheduled to be executed August 24 despite undisputed evidence that he has never killed anyone, have filed a new petition in state court challenging his death sentence on multiple grounds. They argue that Wood cannot be subject to the death penalty because he neither killed nor intended for anyone to be killed and was not even aware the robbery in which a codefendant killed a store clerk was going to occur. They also challenge his death sentence on the gounds that it was obtained based upon false and scientifically baseless testimony from a discredited psychiatrist that Wood would pose a future danger to society. Wood was convicted of capital murder under the Texas doctrine called the "law of parties," which employs an usually broad interpretation of accomplice liability to make a defendant liable for the acts of others. He was sentenced to death for his alleged role in the murder of a store clerk in 1996 committed by another man, Daniel Reneau, while Wood was outside sitting in a truck. Reneau was executed in 2002. Wood says he and Reneau had planned to rob the store the previous day, but that he had backed out. According to Wood, he did not know Reneau still planned to rob the store, or that Reneau had a gun with him. Jared Tyler, one of Wood's attorneys, said, "I believe that no person in the history of the modern death penalty has been executed with as little culpability and participation in the taking of a life as Mr. Wood." Wood's appeal also alleges that his right to due process was violated when the state presented false and misleading testimony from psychiatrist James Grigson, who earned the nickname "Dr. Death" for testifying in numerous Texas capital cases that the defendant would "certainly" or "absolutely" or "with 100% certainty" commit future acts of violence, including several cases in which defendants later turned out to be innocent. Three years before Wood's hearing, Grigson was expelled from the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association for ethical violations involving making psychiatric diagnoses without having examined capital defendants, predicting with certainty that they would engage in future violent acts, and basing those predictions on hypothetical questions posed by the prosecution that contained "grossly inadequate" information. Nonetheless, based on a prosecution hypothetical question and without having evaluated Wood, Grigson testified that Wood would "certainly" pose a continuing threat to society. Wood's jury was never told that Grigson had been expelled for similar conduct or that the professional associations had determined that his practices were unethical and unscientific.[UPDATE: On August 19, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a stay of execution to permit Wood to litigate his claims that the prosecution had presented false scientific evidence and that the use of false testimony from Dr. Grigson violated due process.]

Pages