What's New

Rodricus Crawford Becomes 158th Death-Row Exoneree

Caddo Parish, Louisiana prosecutors formally dropped charges against Rodricus Crawford (pictured) on April 17, exonerating him in a controversial death penalty case that had attracted national attention amid evidence of race discrimination, prosecutorial excess, and actual innocence. He is the 158th person exonerated from death row in the United States since 1973. Crawford was convicted in 2012 and sentenced to death on charges he had murdered his one-year-old son. Crawford's appellate counsel, Cecilia Kappel, argued that the testimony underlying his conviction—the opinion of a local doctor who claimed the infant had been suffocated—was contradicted by autopsy results that showed pervasive bronchopneumonia in the baby's lungs and sepsis in his blood. After the trial, Kappel presented additional evidence from experts in the fields of pediatric pathology, pediatric neuropathology, and pediatric infectious disease that the child had died of natural causes. In a statement announcing that it was dropping the charges against Crawford, the Caddo Parish District Attorney's Office said, "New evidence presented after the trial raised questions about the degree of pneumonia together with bacteria in the child's blood indicative of sepsis are possibilities that require consideration. ...The death of a child is a tragedy under any circumstance for the victim, the family and the community as a whole, but this office is charged with the task to consider all of the evidence in a case and to bring a charge when the evidence can support it. For these reasons, the State has elected not to retry Rodricus Crawford." In November 2016, the Louisiana Supreme Court had ordered a new trial for Crawford because prosecutor Dale Cox had improperly removed jurors on the basis of race. Caddo has a documented pattern of racially biased jury selection, with a 2015 study finding that prosecutors struck black jurors at more than triple the rate of other jurors. Data from 22 felony trials prosecuted by Cox showed he had struck black jurors at a rate 2.7 times higher than other jurors. Cox attracted national criticism for questionable comments and practices and his perceived overzealous pursuit of the death penalty. He personally prosecuted 1/3 of all the cases in which Louisiana juries returned death sentences between 2010-2015, and wrote an internal memo on the Crawford case in 2014 stating that Crawford "deserves as much physical suffering as it is humanly possible to endure before he dies." In 2015, he told The Shreveport Times that he believed the state needs to "kill more people." Caddo Parish is among the 2% of U.S. counties responsible for a majority of death-row inmates, and had a death sentencing rate per homicide eight times higher than the rest of the state of Louisiana from 2006 to 2015. Ben Cohen, an attorney for Crawford, said, "This case has always been about injustice and the disproportionate use of the death penalty in Caddo Parish. In deciding not to retry Rodricus Crawford, the Caddo Parish District Attorney’s office is righting this injustice, restoring integrity to their office."

State and Federal Courts Grant Stays, Preliminary Injunctions Blocking 8 Arkansas Executions

In legal challenges filed separately by Arkansas death-row prisoners and a company involved in the distribution of pharmaceuticals, the Arkansas state and federal courts issued preliminary injunctions putting on hold the state's plan to carry out an unprecedented eight executions in the span of eleven days. After a four-day evidentiary hearing that ended late in the evening on Thursday, April 13, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas issued a preliminary injunction barring Arkansas from carrying out the eight scheduled executions with a three-drug cocktail of midazolam, vecuronium bromide, and potassium chloride. The District Court issued its opinion and order early Saturday, April 15, finding "a significant possibility” that the prisoners' challenge to the lethal injection protocol will succeed and that Arkansas' execution plan denies the prisoners meaningful access to counsel and to the courts during the course of the executions themselves. In granting the preliminary injunction, Judge Kristine G. Baker wrote, "The threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs is significant: If midazolam does not adequately anesthetize plaintiffs, or if their executions are ‘botched,’ they will suffer severe pain before they die." The ruling came a week after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction granted by an Ohio federal district court barring that state from using midazolam in a three-drug execution process. Arkansas has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

In another lawsuit filed in state court by McKesson, the company that distributed vecuronium bromide to the Arkansas Department of Corrections, an Arkansas circuit judge issued an order in the late afternoon on Friday, April 14, temporarily blocking the state from using the drug. McKesson had filed a complaint alleging that Arkansas misled them about the intended use of the drug and refused to return it even after being issued a refund. Arkansas appealed the court's order, but after the federal injunction was issued, McKesson asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to vacate the state-court order because it would not be necessary as long as the federal injunction is in place.

Two prisoners separately received individual stays of execution. The Arkansas Supreme Court stayed the execution of Bruce Ward, scheduled for April 17, to allow consideration of his claim that he is incompetent to be executed. A federal district court stayed the execution of Jason McGehee, scheduled for April 27, to comply with the required 30-day public comment period after the Arkansas Parole Board's 6-1 recommendation for clemency.  [UPDATE: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling staying the Arkansas executions based upon its use of midazolam and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the issue. The Arkansas Supreme Court lifted the temporary restraining order against the state's use of medicines obtained from the McKessen Corporation to carry out executions.]

With Looming Execution and Serious Innocence Concerns, Calls Mount for Virginia to Grant Clemency to Ivan Teleguz

Amid mounting concerns that Virginia may execute an innocent man on April 25, a diverse group of religious, political, and business leaders are calling on Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe to grant clemency to Ivan Teleguz (pictured). Their pleas for clemency stress that Teleguz was convicted based upon highly unreliable testimony and sentenced to death based upon false testimony that he had been involved in a fabricated Pennsylvania murder that had, in fact, never occurred. Teleguz was convicted and sentenced to death on charges that he had hired Michael Hetrick to kill Stephanie Sipe, Teleguz's ex-girlfriend. But as a letter from more than two dozen prominent conservatives—including former Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley and former Republican Party of Virginia executive director Shaun Kenney—urging McAuliffe to spare Teleguz explains, the case against him "relied almost entirely on dubious testimony" from the confessed murderer and two other witnesses who "later admitted that they lied in court and swore under oath that Teleguz was not involved in Sipe’s murder." Hetrick, they write, "had incentive to lie, since he received a deal sparing him from the death penalty in exchange for his testimony against Teleguz." He is now serving a life sentence. The others "confessed to giving false testimony at trial because of threats from the prosecutor and promises she made to lessen the severity of their sentences." Teleguz's clemency petition is also supported by former Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich, the Virginia Council of Churches, Virgin CEO Richard Branson, and more than 100,000 signers of a Change.org petition. The Richmond Times-Dispatch also urged McAuliffe to grant clemency, writing that "McAuliffe does not have to decide whether Teleguz is guilty or not. He merely has to decide whether new information casts doubt on the conviction." The paper wrote, "justice still will be served" by having Teleguz serve life in prison if he turns out to be guilty, but if the state executes an innocent man, "Virginia will have committed a great crime." The editorial concluded: "Given those two alternatives, the governor seems to face an easy choice." [UPDATE: On April 20, 2017, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe granted clemency to Ivan Teleguz.]

Poll Shows Orange and Osceola County Voters Prefer Life Sentences Over Death Penalty

A new poll of voters in Orange and Osceola counties in Florida—taken in the wake of Governor Rick Scott's removal of their locally elected State Attorney Aramis Ayala (pictured) from 22 homicide cases after she announced that her office would not pursue the death penalty—shows that the counties' voters overwhelmingly prefer the use of life imprisonment over the death penalty as punishment for murder. The poll by Public Policy Polling, released on April 10, found that 62% of Orange and Osceola county respondents preferred some form of life in prison for those convicted of first-degree murder, while just 31% preferred the death penalty. Ayala's March 17 decision not to seek the death penalty in any murder cases drew praise from the Florida Black Caucus and local civil rights groups, but provoked an immediate backlash from death penalty proponents. Republican Governor Rick Scott removed Ayala—a Democrat and the state's only locally elected African-American prosecutor—from 22 murder cases and replaced her with State Attorney Brad King, a white Republican prosecutor from a neighboring judicial district. The Public Policy Polling survey found a preference for life sentences across all racial, gender, and age groups and political affiliations. 73% of black voters preferred some form of life sentence as the punishment for murder, as compared to 19% who preferred the death penalty. Whites and Latinos also preferred life sentences over the death penalty, both by margins of 29 percentage points. The preference for life sentences transcended party affiliation, although there were clear partisan differences. 76% of Democrats preferred life sentences, while 21% favored the death penalty; Independents preferred life sentences by a margin of 22 percentage points (55%-33%); and Republicans preferred life sentences by 5 percentage points (49%-44%). A majority of voters also supported a State Attorney taking a "data-driven" approach to reducing bias in sentencing and considering costs to taxpayers and the effect on victims' families when deciding whether to seek a death sentence. Kenneth B. Nunn, a professor of law at University of Florida's Levin College of Law, said, “These results clearly show that Orange and Osceola voters strongly prefer life sentences over the death penalty. State Attorney Aramis Ayala’s position on the death penalty is very much in line with the position of her constituents.” Governor Scott lost Orange County by 12 percentage points and Osceola County by 9 percentage points in the 2014 gubernatorial election.

Louisiana Legislature Considers Bipartisan Measure to Abolish Death Penalty

Three Louisiana legislators, all of them former law enforcement officials, have proposed legislation to abolish the state's death penalty. Sen. Dan Claitor (R-Baton Rouge, pictured), a former New Orleans prosecutor who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, is the primary author of Senate Bill 142, which would eliminate the death penalty for offenses committed on or after August 1, 2017. The bill's counterpart in the House of Representatives, House Bill 101, is sponsored by Rep. Terry Landry (D-Lafayette), a former state police superintendent, with support from Rep. Steven Pylant (R-Winnsboro), a former sheriff. Both bills would replace the death penalty with a sentence of life without parole. In urging repeal, Sen. Claitor said he was "well aware of the need to create an environment that is hostile to violent crime and criminals. Yet," he said, "the death penalty has failed as deterrence to such horrendous criminal activity. Moreover, the death penalty is rarely utilized in Louisiana, and, when it is, the costs of appeals in these cases are extraordinarily burdensome to our law-abiding taxpayers.” Landry, who led the Louisiana State Police portion of the investigation that led to the murder conviction and death sentencing of Derrick Todd Lee, also expressed concerns about the cost and public safety value of the death penalty. "I've evolved to where I am today," he said. "I think it may be a process that is past its time." Louisiana's last execution was in 2010, but the Department of Corrections estimates that housing death row inmates costs $1.52 million per year, and the Louisiana Public Defender Board spends about 28% of its annual budget on capital cases, totaling about $9.5 million last fiscal year. That cost has also contributed to Louisiana's chronic underfunding of public defender services for non-capital cases across the state. The Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty is also a factor in the heavily Catholic state. Sen. Claitor said his Catholic faith brought about a change of heart on the issue, and Sen. Fred Mills (R-Parks), said a statement of support for repeal, expected to be released by the Louisiana Catholic bishops, "would weigh heavy on me and on the vast majority of my constituents."

Amnesty International Report: U.S. Falls to 7th in Executions Amidst 37% Global Decline

Executions worldwide fell by 37% last year, according to the 2016 Amnesty International Global Report on Death Sentences and Executions, released on April 11. With 20 executions in 2016, the United States ranked seventh in the world among confirmed executions, the lowest it has ranked since at least 2005. For the 8th consecutive year, the U.S. was the only country in the Americas to conduct any executions, and the only Western democracy in the world to do so. Amnesty International confirmed that at least 1,032 people were executed worldwide in 2016, not including the estimated thousands executed in China, which classifies information on the death penalty as a state secret. Vietnamese media uncovered secret executions in that country, revealing that Vietnam had carried out 429 executions since August 2013, making it the world's third biggest executioner in that period, following China and Iran. The report found that 23 countries carried out executions in 2016, with 87% of the known executions occurring in just four countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Pakistan). Iran's 567 executions accounted for 55% of all documented executions worldwide. Death sentencing trends were mixed worldwide, with improved data collection documenting 3,117 death sentences in 2016—a record number for a single year—but those death sentences were concentrated in a smaller number of countries (55). Benin and Nauru abolished the death penalty for all crimes—bringing to 104 the number of countries to have done so—and Guinea abolished it for ordinary crimes. 141 countries worldwide, more than two-thirds, have now either abolished the death penalty in law or not executed anyone in more than a decade. Salil Shetty, secretary-general of Amnesty International, summarized the international trends in the death penalty, saying, “Just a handful of countries are still executing people on a large scale. The majority of states no longer condone the state taking human life. With just four countries responsible for 87 percent of all recorded executions – the death penalty is itself living on borrowed time.” (Click image to enlarge.)

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.

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Injunction Against Ohio Execution Protocol

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld a lower federal court ruling blocking the state of Ohio from proceeding with plans to carry out executions with its new three-drug execution protocol. The decision affirmed a district court preliminary injunction that barred the state from using the drug midazolam as part of a three-drug execution process, and barred the state from using "any lethal injection method which employs either a paralytic agent...or potassium chloride." Judge Karen Moore, writing for the 2-1 majority, said, “We are bound by the district court’s factual finding that ‘use of midazolam as the first drug in a three-drug execution protocol will create ‘a substantial risk of serious harm.’” Midazolam, a sedative, has been linked to botched executions in Ohio, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Alabama. Three Ohio death-row prisoners, Gary Otte, Ronald Phillips, and Raymond Tibbets, challenged Ohio's proposed protocol, which would use midazolam, followed by a paralytic drug, followed by potassium chloride to stop the heart. In January, a U.S. Magistrate Judge conducted the most extensive evidentiary hearing to date on the constitutionality of using midazolam in executions. After hearing five days of testimony featuring expert medical witnesses and eyewitness accounts of previous midazolam executions, the court issued a preliminary injunction against Ohio's execution protocol. The Sixth Circuit upheld the district court's decision, ruling that—given the evidence presented at the hearing—the court's findings of fact regarding the risks posed by midazolam were not clearly erroneous. The appeals court also upheld the lower court's injunction against the use of any paralytic drug or potassium chloride, agreeing with the district court that Ohio was bound by its previous repeated representations that it would not use those drugs in future executions. In reliance on those representations, the death-row plaintiffs had dropped claims related to those drugs from the litigation. The Sixth Circuit wrote, "[a]llowing the State to reverse course and use pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride in executions not only would unfairly advantage the State, but also would undermine the integrity of this litigation." In a short concurring opinion, Judge Jane Stranch commented: "This dialogue about the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is closely intertwined with our ongoing national conversation about the American criminal justice system. Woven through both is disquiet about issues such as punishing the innocent, discrimination on the basis of race, and effective deterrence of crime. These concerns are present throughout the criminal justice processes from arrest, to trial, to sentencing, to appeals, and to the final chapter in death penalty litigation such as this." Judge Raymond Kethledge dissented from the majority opinion. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine's office has not yet decided whether to appeal the decision.  

Pages