ACLU Review of Quintin Jones Execution Documents Finds Texas ​“Woefully Unprepared to Carry Out an Execution”

Documents that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) with­held from pub­lic dis­clo­sure for months reveal that ​“con­fu­sion and lack of train­ing” have left the state ​“woe­ful­ly unpre­pared to car­ry out an exe­cu­tion,” accord­ing to the American Civil Liberties Union. 

On June 4, 2021, the ACLU filed a request with TDCJ for records relat­ed to the state’s May 19, 2021 exe­cu­tion of Quintin Jones, in which the exe­cu­tion team failed to bring media wit­ness­es into the cham­ber. The exe­cu­tion, which drew wide­spread crit­i­cism, was the first in the 571 Texas exe­cu­tions since cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment resumed in the 1970s car­ried out with­out media wit­ness­es. TDCJ ini­tial­ly blamed the absence of media wit­ness­es on a ​“mis­com­mu­ni­ca­tion.” The Department’s inter­nal inves­ti­ga­tion found that the mis­takes made dur­ing the exe­cu­tion were ​“pre­ventable and inex­cus­able” but not inten­tion­al. Unsatisfied with the state’s expla­na­tion, the ACLU filed a Texas Public Information Act request to inde­pen­dent­ly review the documents.

TDCJ refused to pro­vide the doc­u­ments, claim­ing that the infor­ma­tion in the doc­u­ments — some of which the agency had referred to in news releas­es about the Jones exe­cu­tion — were con­fi­den­tial under one or more of eight exemp­tions to the pub­lic records act and there­fore ​“not sub­ject to release.” The ACLU filed an appeal with the Texas Attorney General’s office alleg­ing that TDCJ had engaged in ​“repeat­ed attempts to obfus­cate infor­ma­tion crit­i­cal to accountability.”

After what the ACLU called ​“six months of stonewalling,” TDCJ released 43 pages of doc­u­ments, includ­ing emails, text mes­sages, media wit­ness pro­to­cols, and state­ments from prison staff involved in Jones’ exe­cu­tion. ​“The doc­u­ments describe inter­views with staff who report­ed ​‘a lot of unwrit­ten pro­ce­dures,’ con­fu­sion about whether there were any writ­ten guide­lines or pro­to­cols about exe­cu­tions, a lack of a ​‘clear under­stand­ing of [their] role,’ and staff who were ​‘not trained,’” the ACLU reported. 

“An inter­view with one indi­vid­ual who appears to have par­tic­i­pat­ed in pre­vi­ous exe­cu­tions revealed that ​‘to [his] knowl­edge, there are no writ­ten guidelines/​protocols about the exe­cu­tion itself. He is aware of a doc­u­ment titled Execution Procedure-April 2021, how­ev­er he stat­ed he has not read it thor­ough­ly.’ Multiple doc­u­ments describe a pic­ture of con­fu­sion as a result of ​‘all the changes,’ includ­ing changes in the exe­cu­tion process. Taken togeth­er, these doc­u­ments reveal a glob­al lack of under­stand­ing about exe­cu­tion pro­ce­dures gen­er­al­ly,” the ACLU wrote.

Following its inter­nal inves­ti­ga­tion, the TDCJ announced that an undis­closed num­ber of staff had been dis­ci­plined for their part in the exe­cu­tion. The Department also announced changes, includ­ing adding train­ing, more clear­ly defin­ing roles, and sta­tion­ing an offi­cer who is in con­tact with the exe­cu­tion team to the reporter waiting area. 

TDCJ spokesper­son Jeremy Desel assert­ed that no state laws had been bro­ken dur­ing the exe­cu­tion. However, the ACLU charged that the TDCJ’s fail­ure to allow reporters to wit­ness the exe­cu­tion vio­lat­ed a fed­er­al court’s direc­tive, the Texas Administrative Code, and the First Amendment. 

“The doc­u­ments, which TDCJ tried for months to with­hold, make clear that the depart­ment is not pre­pared to car­ry out anoth­er exe­cu­tion in line with Texas pol­i­cy or the Constitution,” the ACLU said. 

Free speech groups and mem­bers of the Texas leg­is­la­ture crit­i­cized TDCJ’s fail­ure to admit media wit­ness­es to Jones’ exe­cu­tion. Rep. Jeff Leach (R – Plano), a co-chair of the Texas House Criminal Justice Reform Caucus, tweet­ed, ​“There needs to be an imme­di­ate inves­ti­ga­tion in to what hap­pened, why it hap­pened and who is respon­si­ble. It was ​‘a mis­take’ and/​or ​‘a mis­com­mu­ni­ca­tion’ is not accept­able. This is an unfath­omable, colos­sal screw-up and we need answers.” 

In a let­ter to TDCJ, Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas exec­u­tive direc­tor Kelley Shannon wrote: ​“Executions must be done pub­licly to main­tain the integri­ty of the judi­cial process. Indeed, the pub­lic inter­est is at its high­est when the gov­ern­ment is using its pow­er to extin­guish the life of a per­son. The media are the public’s eyes — and if they are exclud­ed, there is no public witness.”

Texas has exe­cut­ed three peo­ple since Jones. Media have been present at those three exe­cu­tions but, the ACLU not­ed, “[w]hile exclud­ing media from an exe­cu­tion is eas­i­ly notice­able, oth­er errors may be less appar­ent. When the state makes a mis­take in exe­cut­ing a per­son, those mis­takes are unfix­able and inex­cus­able. There is no room for error when the final moments of a person’s life are on the line.”