Texas

Texas

Study: Texas' 'Harsh and Inhumane' Death-Row Conditions Amount to 'Torture'

The conditions in which prisoners on Texas' death row are confined are "harsh and inhumane," violate international human rights norms, and amount to "a severe and relentless act of torture," according to a new study by the University of Texas School of Law Human Rights Clinic. The study, "Designed to Break You," collected accounts from former death-row prisoners who had been exonerated or who had received lesser sentences after their death sentences had been overturned. Their stories revealed numerous problems with death-row conditions, including, "mandatory solitary confinement, a total ban on contact visits with both attorneys and friends and family, substandard physical and psychological health care, and a lack of access to sufficient religious services." Every prisoner on death row spends about 23 hours a day in an 8-by-12 foot cell for the duration of their time on death row. "This prolonged solitary confinement has overwhelmingly negative effects on inmates’ mental health," the study reports, "exacerbating existing mental health conditions and causing many prisoners to develop mental illness for the first time." Ariel Dulitzky, director of the Human Rights Clinic, said, "Any person who is kept in solitary confinement for more than 15 days starts to suffer mental and psychological effects that cannot be reversed, and that fits the definition of torture." The report concludes that Texas death-row "conditions fall woefully behind international standards for confinement" and offers 13 recommendations to bring conditions in line with international norms. The recommendations include using solitary confinement only as a punitive measure of last resort and banning it altogether for prisoners with mental illness or intellectual disability. The report also recommends that death-row prisoners be permitted contact visits with their lawyers, family, and friends and that they "have access to natural light, fresh air and outdoor activities."

FDA Issues Final Order Refusing to Release Illegally Imported Lethal-Injection Drugs to States

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a final order refusing to release illegally imported medicines that the states of Texas and Arizona had intended to use in executions. On April 20, 2017, the FDA notified prison officials that it would not release the two states' shipments of 1,000 vials each of sodium thiopental that the FDA had seized at U.S. airports in October 2015 when the states had attempted to import the drug from a supplier in India. Both shipments were halted at the airport by FDA officials, who said the importation of the drugs violated federal regulations. A third shipment of 1,000 vials of the drug ordered by Nebraska was halted by FedEx before it left India because the shipping company was not provided paperwork indicating FDA approval to import the drugs. Sodium thiopental, an anesthetic widely used in executions prior to 2010, is no longer produced by any U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the FDA has said that it has no legal uses in the U.S. In January 2017, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice sued the FDA, demanding a final decision on the detained imports. In a statement, the FDA announced it had "made a final decision, refusing admission of the detained drugs into the United States." FDA press officer Lyndsay Meyer said that the shipments of sodium thiopental had been confiscated because the detained drugs appeared to be unapproved new drugs and misbranded drugs. The shipments, the agency said, must be either exported or destroyed within 90 days. Texas insisted that the import was covered by a "law enforcement exemption," because the drug was intended for use in executions. The FDA said its decision was made in compliance with a 2012 court order: "The court order requires the FDA to refuse admission to the US any shipment of foreign manufactured sodium thiopental being offered for importation that appears to be an unapproved new drug or a misbranded drug." Since 2012, Texas has used another anesthetic, pentobarbital, in all executions. Arizona has used several different lethal-injection protocols since sodium thiopental became unavailable.

Texas Court Stays Execution of Paul Storey Based on False Argument About Wishes of Victim's Family

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has issued an order staying the scheduled April 12 execution of Paul Storey. The unpublished April 7 order sends Storey's case back to the trial court to consider whether the prosecution knowingly presented false evidence about the victim's family's views on the death penalty. Storey had been scheduled to be executed on April 12. His lawyers argued that "the State denied him his right to due process because it argued "evidence it knew to be false" when prosecutors told jurors that the family of victim Jonas Cherry supported a death sentence for Storey. During the penalty phase of Storey's trial, the prosecution argued that "[i]t should go without saying that all of Jonas [Cherry’s] family and everyone who loved him believe the death penalty was appropriate." However, Cherry's parents (pictured) say they always opposed the death penalty and had made their beliefs known to the prosecution at the time of Storey's trial. They recently released a video and statement in support of clemency, saying "Paul Storey’s execution will not bring our son back, will not atone for the loss of our son and will not bring comfort or closure." Storey presented his claim as part of a second state post-conviction challenge to his death penalty. He faces the procedural hurdle of establishing that the evidence supporting this claim could not have been discovered "with the exercise of reasonable diligence" at the time he filed his initial post-conviction petition. The stay continues a recent pattern of decisions by the Texas court permitting judicial review of claims that death sentences had been procured as a result of false or unreliable prosecutorial evidence or argument. In August 2015, the Court stayed Nicaraguan national Bernardo Tercero's execution based on allegations that he had been "denied due process because the State presented false testimony at his trial." In May 2016, the court stayed the execution of Charles Flores to permit him to challenge the use of scientifically unreliable hypnotically refreshed testimony. One month later, it stayed the execution of Robert Roberson to permit him to challenge the State's use of "false, misleading, and scientifically invalid testimony” about Shaken Baby Syndrome. And in August 2016, the Court stayed the execution of Jeffery Wood to permit him to litigate a claim that prosecutors had presented false scientific evidence and false testimony from a discredited psychiatrist to persuade the jury that Wood would pose a future danger to society.

Supreme Court Overturns Texas' "Outlier" Standard for Determining Intellectual Disability in Capital Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously struck down Texas' standard for evaluating intellectual dIsability in death penalty cases, calling the state's approach an "outlier" that, "[b]y design and in operation, ... create[s] an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed." In Moore v. Texas, the Court on March 28 vacated the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), which had applied an unscientific set of lay stereotypes known as the “Briseño factors” (named after the Texas court decision that announced them) to overturn a trial court determination that Texas death-row prisoner Bobby Moore was intellectually disabled. The Court described these seven factors—including such things as whether lay people who knew the defendant thought he was intellectually disabled and whether he could hide facts or lie effectively—as an unscientific "invention" of the CCA that was "untied to any acknowledged source" and that lacked support from "any authority, medical or judicial." The Supreme Court ruled in 2002, in Atkins v. Virginia, that the execution of individuals with intellectual disability was unconstitutional, but it left states with some discretion in determining who was intellectually disabled. However, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the five-justice majority, reiterated, "States’ discretion ... is not unfettered.” "[A] court’s intellectual disability determination," she wrote must be “informed by the medical community’s diagnostic framework." The Moore decision is the second time in recent years that the Court has addressed state deviations from clinical definitions of intellectual disability, which focus on "three core elements: (1) intellectual-functioning deficits, (2) adaptive deficits, and (3) the onset of these deficits while still a minor." The Court struck down Florida's use of a strict IQ cutoff in the 2014 case Hall v. Florida, noting that Florida's standard, "disregards established medical practice." The Hall decision addressed the first element, intellectual-functioning, while Moore addressed aspects of both the first and second, adaptive deficits. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the portion of the Court's opinion that held that Texas had inappropriately rejected Moore's evidence of the first prong, deficits in intellectual functioning. But they joined the Court in rejecting Texas' use of the Briseño factors, calling it “an unacceptable method of enforcing the guarantee of Atkins.”

Texas Murder Victims' Parents Seek Death Sentence Commutation for Paul Storey

Judy and Glenn Cherry (pictured), the parents of Jonas Cherry, have asked Texas state and local officials not to execute Paul Storey, the man convicted of killing their son. The state has scheduled Storey's execution for April 12. In a letter to Tarrant County District Attorney Sharen Wilson, Gov. Greg Abbott, state District Judge Robb Catalano, and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, the Cherrys ask state officials to commute Storey's sentence to life without parole. They write, "Paul Storey’s execution will not bring our son back, will not atone for the loss of our son and will not bring comfort or closure." Storey's commutation efforts have also drawn support from one of the jurors in his case, Sven Berger, who has provided an affidavit for the defense. Berger says the jury was unaware of evidence of Storey's mental impairments at the time it rendered its verdict, and that, had that information been available, it would have affected his decision. He was also affected by learning that Tarrant County prosecutors had agreed to give Storey's co-defendant, Mike Porter, a plea deal for a life sentence. “It seemed clear to me that Porter was the leader,” Berger said. "It was infuriating to see Porter get life and Storey get death.” But most importantly, Berger said knowing the Cherrys' stance would have led him to vote differently because the prosecutor had misled jurors during the trial that the Cherrys wanted Storey to be sentenced to death. “If the family of the deceased did not want the perpetrator executed, that would have been important for me to know, and I believe it would have been important to the other jurors," Berger wrote. The Cherrys have also released a video explaining why they oppose Storey's execution and their desire to spare Storey's family the pain they felt at the loss of their son: "We have never been in favor of the death penalty. However, in the current situation before us, it pains us to think that, due to our son's death, another person will be purposefully put to death. Also motivating us, is that we do not want Paul Storey's family, especially his mother and grandmother, if she is still alive, to witness the purposeful execution of their son. They are innocent of his deeds." The Cherrys said they recently learned that Storey had been offered the same deal as Porter, but had turned it down.

As Supreme Court Denies Stay of Execution, Justice Breyer Urges Consideration of Death Row Conditions

On March 7, the United States Supreme Court denied a stay of execution for Texas death-row prisoner Rolando Ruiz, declining to consider his claim that the more than 20 years he had been incarcerated on death row, mostly in solitary confinement, violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Ruiz's lawyers had urged the Court to consider this issue, writing, "At this point, a quarter-century has elapsed since Mr. Ruiz committed a contract murder in 1992, two days after he turned twenty years old. Mr. Ruiz has lived for over two decades under a death sentence, spent almost twenty years in solitary confinement, received two eleventh-hour stays of execution, and has received four different execution dates.” Justice Stephen Breyer (pictured) agreed, saying, "Mr. Ruiz argues that his execution 'violates the Eighth Amendment' because it 'follow[s] lengthy [death row] incarceration in traumatic conditions,' principally his 'permanent solitary confinement.' I believe his claim is a strong one, and we should consider it." Breyer dissented from the Court's denial of a stay, citing the Court's "serious objections" to extended solitary confinement, which date back as far as 1890, when the Court, "speaking of a period of only four weeks of imprisonment prior to execution, said that a prisoner’s uncertainty before execution is 'one of the most horrible feelings to which he can be subjected.'" He also quoted fellow Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in 2015 urged the court to consider the constitutionality of extended solitary confinement. Justice Breyer and former Justice John Paul Stevens have repeatedly questioned the constitutionality of prolonged incarceration under death-row conditions, but the Court has never reviewed the issue. Long stays on death row are increasingly common: the Fair Punishment Project estimates about 40% of death row inmates have spent more than 20 years on death row. These delays, Breyer noted in Ruiz's case, are "attributable to the State or the lower courts." Ruiz was the fifth prisoner executed in the U.S. in 2017 and the third in Texas. Prior to his execution, he expressed his remorse to the victim's family, saying, “Words cannot begin to express how sorry I am and the hurt I have caused you and your family. May this bring you peace and forgiveness.”

Exoneree Urges Dallas Prosecutor to Drop Death Penalty Against Veteran With PTSD

Texas capital murder exoneree Christopher Scott (pictured) has urged Dallas County's new District Attorney, Faith Johnson, to drop the death penalty from murder charges pending against Erbie Bowser. Bowser, who is black, is a seriously mentally ill Marine veteran who was discharged from military service after having been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He faces four capital charges in the killings of his girlfriend, his estranged wife, and their daughters. When police found him, he was reportedly reciting his name, rank, and serial number, and the medical staff at the hospital to which he was taken him described him as delusional. In a guest column for the Dallas News, Scott—who served 12 years of a life sentence for a murder he did not commit—writes that the Dallas DA's office "has failed the African-American community for generations," and says that "[t]he Bowser case offers an opportunity for Johnson to change the way her office has historically treated African Americans accused of committing capital crimes." He notes that in 2013, the Dallas District Attorney's office "agreed not to seek the death penalty in a nearly identical case involving a white defendant, William Palmer[, who had] stabbed his wife and both her parents to death while his wife's sister and her six-year-old hid in a closet." Dallas has long been criticized for its history of racial bias in enforcing its criminal laws, including bias in jury selection and the application of the death penalty. During the 30-year administration of Henry Wade, the office produced a training manual instructing prosecutors to exclude people of color from juries, and in a death penalty decision in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court found that black people in Dallas County had been "almost categorically ... excluded from jury service." The racially disproportionate use of the death penalty has continued in subsequent prosecutorial administrations. A report from the Fair Punishment Project identified Dallas is one of only 16 U.S. counties that imposed five or more death sentences between 2010 and 2015; seven of the eight people sentenced to death in that period were black. Johnson, whom Wade hired in 1982, is the first African-American woman to serve as District Attorney and Bowser's case is considered a barometer of the path she will follow in capital prosecutions. In addition to the issue of racial fairness, Bowser's case presents serious questions about the appropriateness of the death penalty for defendants with severe mental illness, and in particular, veterans with PTSD. Bowser has a history of hallucinations and psychosis stretching back to his adolescence, and reportedly was on more than a dozen medications, including sedatives and antipsychotics, at the time of his arrest. So far this year, seven states have proposed legislation to exempt people with serious mental illness, including PTSD, from the death penalty. 

Supreme Court Grants Relief to Duane Buck in Texas Racial Bias Death Penalty Case

Saying that the "law punishes people for what they do, not who they are," the Supreme Court on February 22, 2017, granted relief to Duane Buck (pictured, right), a Texas death-row prisoner who was sentenced to death after his own lawyer presented testimony from a psychologist who told the jury Buck was more likely to commit future acts of violence because he is black. Writing for the six-Justice majority, Chief Justice Roberts (pictured, left) said that "[d]ispensing punishment on the basis of an immutable characteristic flatly contravenes this guiding principle." Buck's case turned on the legal question of whether his lawyer had provided ineffective assistance. The Court left no doubt on the issue. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that "[n]o competent defense attorney would introduce such evidence about his own client." Despite counsel's deficient representation, the lower federal courts had refused to intervene, asserting that the references to race in the case had been brief and would have had only minimal, if any, effect on the jury's sentencing decision. The Chief Justice squarely rejected that conclusion, writing: "when a jury hears expert testimony that expressly makes a defendant’s race directly pertinent on the question of life or death, the impact of that evidence cannot be measured simply by how much air time it received at trial or how many pages it occupies in the record. Some toxins can be deadly in small doses." The Court explained that stereotyping black men as somehow more violence-prone than others is a "particularly noxious strain of racial prejudice." Buck's attorney, Christina Swarns, who had argued the case before the Court in October 2016, said “Today, the Supreme Court made clear that there is no place for racial bias in the American criminal justice system.” The decision, she said, reaffirms "the longstanding principle that criminal punishments—particularly the death penalty—cannot be based on immutable characteristics such as race.” Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, dissented.

Pages