Controversy Over Texas Executions as Houston Judge Refuses to Issue Death Warrant and Attorney General Fights Nueces County D.A.’s Effort to Withdraw Another

The fates of two men sub­ject to poten­tial­ly immi­nent exe­cu­tion in Texas hang in the bal­ance, as the state’s attor­ney gen­er­al and one local pros­e­cu­tor chal­lenge the dis­cre­tion of oth­er key offi­cials not to move for­ward with exe­cu­tions. The con­tro­ver­sy over the exe­cu­tion dates high­lights emerg­ing ten­sions between pros­e­cu­tors about enforce­ment of death sen­tences and the pro­vi­sion of fair process before a pris­on­er is executed.

In Harris County, pros­e­cu­tors are chal­leng­ing Houston Judge Natalia Cornelio​’s refusal to sched­ule an exe­cu­tion date for death-row pris­on­er Arthur Brown to pro­vide a new lawyer time to inves­ti­gate whether he is inel­i­gi­ble for the death penal­ty because of intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty. In Nueces County, the Texas Attorney General’s Office has inter­vened in coun­ty pro­ceed­ings to oppose District Attorney Mark Gonzalez​’s motion to with­draw a death war­rant sched­ul­ing the exe­cu­tion John Henry Ramirez for October 5, 2022. 

The Attempt to Schedule Arthur Brown’s Execution

The request to set Brown’s exe­cu­tion date reached the Harris County District Court amid ques­tions as to whether he was eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty in the first place. Defense lawyer Paul Mansur asked the court to deny the Harris County District Attorney’s request for an exe­cu­tion so that new coun­sel could be appoint­ed to inves­ti­gate claims that Brown is intellectually disabled. 

Mansur cit­ed records and affi­davits that Brown’s moth­er admit­ted to hav­ing drunk alco­hol on a week­ly basis while she was preg­nant with him, and that Brown may have suf­fered a trau­mat­ic brain injury as a child, had a low IQ, and had been placed in spe­cial edu­ca­tion class­es. Mansur, who has rep­re­sent­ed Brown since 2008, wrote that “[n]one of these red flags for intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty have been inves­ti­gat­ed, nor has any­one inves­ti­gat­ed Mr. Brown’s adap­tive func­tion­ing.” He urged the court not to set an exe­cu­tion date, say­ing “[a]nyone whom this Court appoints will require sub­stan­tial time to become famil­iar with the case.”

Joshua Reiss, chief of the Post-Conviction Writs Division in the Harris County District Attorney’s office, argued that Brown’s coun­sel have had two decades to present evi­dence of intel­lec­tu­al and have not done so, and that Brown was not enti­tled to delay his exe­cu­tion date to con­duct that inves­ti­ga­tion now. During a May 20, 2022 hear­ing that the Houston Chronicle described as ​“heat­ed,” Reiss argued that set­ting an exe­cu­tion date is a min­is­te­r­i­al duty over which the court had no dis­cre­tion and loud­ly talked over Judge Cornello when she ruled against him. ​“I am steam­ing mad,” Reiss said. Cornelio admon­ished Reiss to sit down, telling him ​“That is no excuse to raise your voice.” 

The rul­ing enables Brown to obtain rep­re­sen­ta­tion by the state Office of Capital and Forensic Writs, a pub­lic defend­er orga­ni­za­tion with expe­ri­ence in death penal­ty cas­es, to inves­ti­gate his intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty claim. The Harris County District Attorney’s office is expect­ed to appeal Judge Cornello’s ruling.

The Controversy Over the Ramirez Death Warrant

The con­tro­ver­sy over John Ramirez’s death war­rant high­lights resis­tance local reform pros­e­cu­tors are fac­ing to their poli­cies both from with­in their offices and from state officials. 

Gonzalez, a for­mer defense attor­ney, was elect­ed in 2016 on a plat­form of crim­i­nal jus­tice reform. In response to an appli­ca­tion filed by his office, the Nueces County District Court issued an order on April 12, 2022, set­ting an exe­cu­tion date for Ramirez. Two days lat­er, cit­ing his “ firm belief that the death penal­ty is uneth­i­cal and should not be imposed on Mr. Ramirez or any oth­er per­son” while he is Nueces County District Attorney, Gonzalez filed a motion to with­draw the death war­rant. ​“The Assistant District Attorney who most recent­ly moved for an exe­cu­tion date in this cause was not aware of my desire in this mat­ter and did not con­sult me pri­or to mov­ing for an exe­cu­tion date,” Gonzalez wrote.

The court has not tak­en any action on the Gonzalez’s motion, and on May 20, 2022, the Texas Attorney General’s office sub­mit­ted a let­ter to the court argu­ing that Gonzalez’s eth­i­cal objec­tion to the death penal­ty was not a valid rea­son to stop the exe­cu­tion. Edward Marshall, chief of the attor­ney gen­er­al office’s Criminal Appeals Division, argued that once the death war­rant had issued, the District Court did not have the author­i­ty to it. Marshall offered to take the case by spe­cial appoint­ment ​“If District Attorney Gonzalez does not wish to con­tin­ue in this pro­ceed­ing, the under­signed is will­ing to step in to rep­re­sent the State pro tem,” he wrote.