Saying “the ultimate penalty has to be the death penalty,” President Donald Trump announced on March 19 that he will direct the Department of Justice to seek the death penalty against drug traffickers. The proposal, included as part of the administration’s plan to address an opioid epidemic that has resulted in as many as 64,000 overdose deaths in 2016 alone, drew immediate criticism from public-health and criminal-justice experts. “We can’t execute our way out of this epidemic,” said Dr. Andrew Kolodny, co-director of the Opioid Policy Research Collaborative at Brandeis University. “To be talking about the death penalty sounds to me like a step backwards.” During the announcement, Trump acknowledged resistence to his death-penalty proposal, saying, “[m]aybe our country's not ready for that. It's possible, it’s possible that our country is not ready for that.” Since 1994, federal law has authorized the death penalty for “drug kingpins” who traffic in large quantities of drugs, even if no killing has occurred. But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional for crimes against individuals in which no one is killed, and no prior administration—Republican or Democratic—has used the drug kingpin provision to seek the death penalty. Experts said the opioid crisis should be dealt with as a public-health issue and that harsher penalties for drug dealers would not fix the problem. Instead, they said, the administration should focus on addiction treatment. “The reality is, most people who are selling drugs are suffering from opioid addiction, and they sell drugs to support their own habit,” Dr. Kolodny said. “When I start hearing about the death penalty, it just seems to me we’re going in the wrong direction.” Dr. Guohua Li, professor of epidemiology and anesthesiology at Columbia University, agreed, saying “[c]riminal justice can play a complementary role in addressing the opioid crisis, but relying on the criminal justice system to address public health problems has proven unwise, costly, ineffective and often counterproductive.” Legal experts said the constitutionality of death sentences for drug dealers would likely be the subject of extensive litigation. “The death penalty is uncertain as a constitutionally permissible punishment without that connection to an intentional killing,” said Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman. Hamilton County, Ohio, Prosecuting Attorney Joe Deters, known for aggressively pursuing the death penalty, said “[t]o seek a death penalty case [simply for for drug trafficking] would be almost impossible. We'd have serious constitutional problems.” Former Harris County, Texas, homicide prosecutor Ted Wilson called the proposal “kind of over-the-top.” The death penalty for drug dealers "in my opinion just doesn’t fit,” he said. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) compared the President’s death-penalty proposal to past failed drug policies, saying, “We cannot arrest our way out of the opioid epidemic—we tried that and ended up with an even bigger addiction problem and the world’s largest prison population. The war on drugs didn’t work in the 80’s, and it won’t work now by reviving failed deterrence measures like the death penalty for drug dealers. We must instead crack down on the over-production and over-prescribing of painkillers, and increase treatment for those suffering from addiction—both of which have bipartisan support in Congress." A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, released March 8, found that harsher penal sanctions had no measurable impact on drug use, drug overdose deaths, and drug arrests. The data, Pew said, “reinforce a large body of prior research that cast doubt on the theory that stiffer prison terms deter drug misuse, distribution, and other drug-law violations. The evidence strongly suggests that policymakers should pursue alternative strategies that research shows work better and cost less.”
Faced with doubts about prosecutorial misconduct and the accuracy of forensic evidence, the Ohio Parole Board has recommended that Governor John Kasich grant executive clemency to William T. Montgomery (pictured), scheduled to be executed on April 11. Montgomery was convicted and sentence to death in 1986 for two murders he has long maintained he did not commit. An Ohio federal district court, affirmed by a federal appeals court panel, overturned his conviction in 2007 because prosecutors had suppressed evidence and witness statements that undermined its version of how the crime occurred, but with five judges dissenting, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reinstated the conviction. Montgomery's supporters argued to the parole board that there was too much doubt about his guilt to risk executing a potentially innocent man. Prosecutors argued at trial that Montgomery murdered Debra Ogle and then killed her roommate, Cynthia Tincher to prevent her from testifying against him, then dumped Ms. Ogle's body in the woods where it was not discovered for four days. However, prosecutors withheld from the defense evidence that multiple witnesses had seen Ms. Ogle alive four days after she supposedly had been killed and an independent review of the autopsy report showed that Ms. Ogle's body likely had been discovered within hours of her death. The report noted that a body left in the woods for four days in above-freezing temperatures would have shown signs of decomposition, insect infestation, and animal predation, none of which were present, and the body's state of lividity indicated death had occurred within twelve hours of its discovery. Adding to the doubt in the case, Montgomery's co-defendant, Glover Heard told police five different stories before settling on a version of events that fit the prosecution's theory and, instead of facing the death penalty, was sentenced to a term of years with eligibility for parole. Montgomery’s lawyers also presented the parole board with affidavits that undermined its confidence in the jury verdict, including one from a juror who was confused as to what the law required, another from a juror who had doubts about Montgomery’s guilt, and a third juror whose psychiatric behavior raised questions about her ability to serve. The Board majority cited both the State’s failure to disclose the witness reports that Ms. Ogle was alive after the State claimed she had been killed and the jurors’ affidavits as reasons for recommending commutation. Four Board members opposed commutation, arguing that the information presented was insufficient to overturn the jury verdict and finding no “manifest injustice” in the case that they believed warranted clemency. In an op-ed in the Toledo Blade, Phyllis Crocker, Dean of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and a former member of the Ohio Supreme Court Joint Task on the Administration of Ohio’s Death Penalty, wrote: "At best, Montgomery was convicted on a false set of facts and at worst, he may be actually innocent. In death penalty cases there must be no doubt whatsoever. There is too much doubt to allow this execution." Montgomery's lawyer, Jon Oebker, reiterated that his client's assertion of innocence and said the defense plans to "explore every avenue we can." Governor Kasich must issue a decision on the pardons board's recommendation before the April 11 execution date.
Human Rights Advocates: Prisoner's Rare Medical Condition Risks Gruesome Botched Execution in MissouriPosted: March 16, 2018
Human rights advocates are warning that the impending execution of Russell Bucklew (pictured) in Missouri on March 20 presents a “substantially increase[d] risk of a gruesome and botched execution.” Court pleadings and a March 14 letter from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) say that Bucklew suffers from congenital cavernous hemangioma, a rare and severe blood-vessel condition that his lawyers and doctors say compromises his veins and makes lethal injection inappropriate and potentially torturous. Bucklew’s medical condition causes large tumors of malformed blood vessels to grow on his head, face, and neck, including a vascular tumor that obstructs his airway. Dr. Joel Zivot, a board-certified anesthesiologist who reviewed Bucklew’s medical records for defense lawyers in the case, said his compromised veins will likely prevent the pentobarbital Missouri uses in executions from circulating through his bloodstream as intended, risking a “prolonged and extremely painful” execution. Zivot says there is a substantial risk that Bucklew’s throat tumor may burst during the execution and that he will suffocate, choking on his own blood. Missouri first sought to execute Bucklew on May 21, 2014. At that time, his lawyers filed a challenge to the state’s lethal-injection process based on Bucklew's medical condition, and the ACLU filed a petition in the IACHR seeking precautionary measures—the international equivalent of an injunction—against the execution. The IACHR petition argued that the execution would violate international human rights proscriptions against cruel and inhumane treatment and torture. On May 19, 2014, the Missouri federal district court denied Bucklew’s execution challenge and his motion to stay his execution. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted him a stay of execution so it could consider his lethal-injection claim, but the full court, sitting en banc, vacated the stay. Bucklew then sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, which stayed his execution pending the outcome of the lethal-injection appeal in the Eighth Circuit. While the case was working its way through the federal courts, the IACHR issued precautionary measures against the United States on May 20, 2014, requesting that the U.S. comply with its human rights obligations under the charter of the Organization of American States and the American Convention on Human Rights. The IACHR directive asked the U.S. to “abstain from executing Russell Bucklew” until the human rights body could hear his case. On March 6, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Bucklew’s appeal and affirmed the district court’s ruling, concluding that “Bucklew has failed to establish that lethal injection, as applied to him, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.” The ACLU then requested that the IACHR “immediately intervene” to halt Bucklew’s execution, and the human rights commission informed the U.S. government that its precautionary measures were still in effect. “This execution should not move forward,” ACLU’s Human Rights Program Director Jamil Dakwar told Newsweek. “Because the state is pursuing lethal injection, that will most certainly cause severe pain and suffering which under international law is considered torture.” Bucklew’s scheduled execution comes on the heels of two failed executions of gravely ill prisoners in which states ignored warnings that the prisoners’ medical conditions had compromised their veins and would make it impossible for executioners to set intravenous execution lines. Nonetheless, Ohio tried and failed to execute Alva Campbell and Alabama called off the execution of Doyle Hamm after failing for more than 2 1/2 hours to obtain venous access in his lower extremities. Campbell subsequently died of his terminal illness and Hamm has sued to bar Alabama from attempting to execute him again. On March 15, Bucklew’s lawyers filed pleadings in the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to stay his execution and review his case.
At a news conference on March 14, Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter and Corrections Director Joe M. Allbaugh announced that the state plans to switch its method of execution from lethal injection to nitrogen gas asphyxiation. Attorney General Hunter said the move to nitrogen hypoxia was necessary “because of the well-documented fact that states across the country are struggling to find the proper drugs to perform executions by lethal injection." "Oklahoma,” he said, “is no exception.” No state has ever carried out an execution with nitrogen gas, and the ACLU of Oklahoma and lawyers for the state's death-row prisoners critized the new execution plan as “experimental.” Dale Baich, an assistant federal defender who is representing 20 Oklahoma death-row prisoners in a challenge to the state's execution process, cautioned that “Oklahoma is once again asking us to trust it as officials ‘learn-on-the-job’ through a new execution procedure and method. How can we trust Oklahoma to get this right when the state’s recent history reveals a culture of carelessness and mistakes in executions?” In 2015, Oklahoma legislators authorized the use of nitrogen gas as a backup method of execution should lethal injection be declared unconstitutional or unavailable. State officials said the change is a response to the unavailability of execution drugs, although there has been no judicial declaration on that issue. “Trying to find alternative compounds or someone with prescribing authority willing to provide us with the drugs is becoming exceedingly difficult, and we will not attempt to obtain the drugs illegally,” Allbaugh said. Oklahoma botched the execution of Clayton Lockett in April 2014, the first time the state had attempted to use the controversial drug midazolam. Lockett died of a heart attack shortly after the state halted the procedure and delayed the execution of Charles Warner, which it had scheduled for the same night. The state executed Warner on January 15, 2015—the last execution carried out in the state—using a drug that was not authorized in the state's execution protocol. Executions have been on hold since October 2015, after Richard Glossip was granted a last-minute stay when the state again obtained the wrong execution drug. A grand jury report on Warner’s execution and Glossip’s near-execution called the actions of prison officials, “careless,” “negligent,” and “reckless,” and said the state’s “paranoia" about keeping execution information secret had caused corrections personnel “to blatantly violate their own policies.” Following the mishandled executions, the independent bipartisan Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission spent more than a year studying Oklahoma’s capital punishment practices and unanimously recommended that the state halt all executions “until significant reforms are accomplished.” ACLU of Oklahoma Executive Director Ryan Kiesel said the commission report “paint[s] a picture of a system that fails at multiple points to provide the necessary safeguards” to protect the innocent and ensure fair trials. He said the state’s attempt to restart executions without addressing the 46 recommendations made by the commission was “deeply troubling.” The Department of Corrections has not yet written a protocol for how it will carry out executions using nitrogen gas, but Allbaugh indicated that he expected the protocol to be ready within 90 to 120 days. Under the terms of an agreement in the federal challenge to Oklahoma’s execution process, Oklahoma may not seek to carry out executions for at least five months after adopting a new protocol.
California Supreme Court Grants New Trial to Man Sent to Death Row 25 Years Ago by False Forensic EvidencePosted: March 14, 2018
The California Supreme Court has vacated the conviction of Vicente Figueroa Benavides (pictured), saying that the forensic evidence that sent the former Mexican farmworker to death row 25 years ago was “extensive,” “pervasive,” “impactful,” and “false.” Benavides, now 68, was sentenced to death in 1993 after being found guilty of brutally murdering Consuelo Verdugo, his girlfriend’s 21-month-old toddler, by raping and anally sodomizing her. However, the court said, medical evidence showed that the girl was never raped or sodomized and may not have been murdered at all. Instead, she may have died from complications from having been struck by a car. Benavides—whose lawyers have argued is developmentally disabled and possesses the mental ability of a 7-year-old—told the police and jury during the trial that he lost track of the toddler while he was preparing dinner on November 17, 1991 and he found her outdoors, vomiting. Consuelo’s mother took her to a local medical center that evening, where her condition worsened. After surgery and two hospital transfers, the child died a week later. At trial, forensic pathologist Dr. James Diblin testified that the toddler had died from “blunt force penetrating injury of the anus” and claimed that the major internal injuries she suffered were the result of rape. He further testified that arm injuries, internal trauma, dilated pupils, and compression rib fractures that Consuelo sustained had been “caused by tight squeezing during a sexual assault.” Dr. Jess Diamond, who evaluated the toddler at Kern Medical Center, also initially testified that the baby had been raped. However, medical records obtained by Benavides’s post-conviction lawyers showed that the examining physicians had not seen any signs of bleeding when Consuelo was brought to the hospital, and a nurse who helped treat the toddler said that neither she nor any of her colleagues saw evidence of anal or vaginal trauma when the child arrived. Instead, the court said, the injuries to Consuelo’s genitalia and anus were “attribut[able] to medical intervention,” including repeated failed efforts to insert a catheter and the improper use of an adult-sized catheter on the small child. “After reviewing the medical records and photographs that I should have been provided in 1993,” Dr. Diamond withdrew his assessment that Consuelo had been raped. “I am convinced that this case presents a tremendous failing of the criminal justice system," he said. The defense also presented evidence from Dr. Astrid Heger, one of the country’s leading experts on child abuse, who described Dr. Didbin’s assertion that Consuelo’s injuries had been the product of sexual assault as “so unlikely to the point of being absurd. … No such mechanism of injury has ever been reported in any literature of child abuse or child assault.” She said the internal injuries the child sustained were commonly seen in victims of automobile accidents. During oral argument, Associate Justice Carol Corrigan, a former prosecutor, described Dibdin's testimony as being “among the most hair-raising false evidence that I’ve encountered in all the time that I’ve been looking at criminal cases." Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye compared the sexual assault allegations to “a bomb dropped on the jury” that prevented the jurors from considering the evidence that the toddler may have been hit by a car. Prosecutors admitted that the forensic evidence they used to convict Benavides was false, but asked the state court to sustain a conviction for second-degree murder. With its key evidence discredited, Kern County District Attorney Lisa Green said it was improbable that prosecutors would attempt to retry Benavides. If the charges are dismissed, Benavides would be the fourth California death-row prisoner to be exonerated since the state brought back the death penalty in 1974.
Carlton Gary, a Georgia death-row prisoner scheduled for execution on March 15, is asking the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant him clemency on the basis of new and withheld evidence that undercuts the prosecution testimony against him and suggests he did not commit the crimes for which he was sentenced to death. Gary was convicted of raping and killing three women in the 1970s, in what prosecutors have claimed was part of a string of nine burglaries and rapes committed by a single perpetrator. Gary’s lawyers argue that new evidence that was either unavailable or undisclosed at the time of his trial raises enough doubt about his guilt that he should not be executed. In his clemency petition, his lawyers write: “We are not talking about questionable recanting witnesses who came forward long after trial, but hard physical evidence of innocence.” Bodily fluid testing performed on semen from two of the crime scenes likely excludes Gary, but conclusive DNA testing couldn’t be performed because the samples were contaminated while in the possession of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation crime lab. In some of the most damning evidence prosecutors presented at trial, the survivor of one of the attacks identified Gary as her assailant. However, DNA testing later performed on evidence from her attack excluded Gary as the perpetrator and police withheld an initial report from that rape victim in which she told officers that she had been asleep and her bedroom had been dark at the time of the attack, and she could not identify or describe her attacker. Shoeprint evidence from the scene was also withheld from Gary’s defense team until 20 years after his trial. The size 10 print found at one of the crime scenes could not have been left by Gary, who wears size 13½ shoes. Prosecutors also claimed that Gary had confessed to participating in the crimes, but not to raping or murdering the victims. However, police neither recorded nor contemporaneously documented his alleged statement, which his lawyers say “fits all the recognized hallmarks of a false confession that never happened.”
“In 2016, at least 60 prisoners were exonerated after having been condemned to death, in countries across the geographical and political spectrum,” according to a new report on wrongful capital convictions by the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide. The report, Justice Denied: A Global Study of Wrongful Death Row Convictions, analyzes risk factors for executing the innocent that are endemic in death penalty cases irrespective of where they are tried, and makes recommendations for systemic reform. The sixty exonerations in just one year “represent[ ] only a tiny fraction of those who are currently on death row for a crime they did not commit,” the report says. “Few innocent prisoners are able to obtain access to the courts, either because they lack lawyers or because there are no procedural mechanisms available by which they can present new evidence of innocence.” The study illustrates systemic risk factors for wrongful convictions that are present wherever capital punishment is practiced, highlighting cases from Cameroon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malawi, Nigeria, and Pakistan. According to the report, these factors include ineffective assistance of legal counsel, torture and coercion, misconduct by officials, racial and ethnic discrimination, false or misleading forensic evidence, and mistaken eyewitness identification. It recommends, among other reforms, that states provide adequate funding and training for capital defense lawyers, provide meaningful access to appellate review, allow for post-conviction DNA testing, record all police interrogations, and provide compensation to those who are exonerated. The Center chose the six countries whose systems it highlighted “not because their legal systems are uniquely flawed, or because they contribute a greater number of wrongful convictions compared to their peers,” the report says, but “because they represent a diversity of geographic regions and legal systems.” While the risk factors for wrongful capital convictions play out differently from country to country, the experience of each country illustrates the gap between the legal protections afforded on paper to those facing the death penalty and the manner in which those safeguards are implemented in practice. The report concludes: “Every country that retains the death penalty—from the poorest to the most wealthy—runs the risk that innocent persons will be executed. No criminal justice system is perfect, and the risk of error can never be entirely eliminated. The only way to completely exclude the possibility of executing the innocent is to abolish the death penalty altogether.”
Attempts Both to Repeal and to Restore Death-Penalty Statutes Fail in Legislatures Across the CountryPosted: March 9, 2018
In Washington and Utah, bipartisan or Republican-led efforts at death-penalty repeal fell short, a month after death-penalty proponents abandoned efforts to reinstate capital punishment in New Mexico and Iowa. In Washington, a bipartisan push to replace the death penalty with life without possibility of release was introduced at the request of Democratic Attorney General Bob Ferguson with the support of his Republican predecessor Rob McKenna, Democratic Governor Jay Inslee, and King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, a Republican from the state's largest county. With key votes from five Republican senators, SB 6052 passed the state senate on February 15 by a vote of 26-22 and was favorably reported out of the House Judiciary Committee, but the Democratic leadership in the House did not schedule it for a vote before the legislative session ended. Ferguson said he was “deeply disappointed” by the bill’s failure, but said his disappointment was “tempered somewhat by the historic progress the bill made this year” and his belief that the state has moved closer to abolishing capital punishment. The Utah death-penalty repeal effort was led by Republican legislators, and the state’s Republican Governor Gary Herbert had said he would consider signing the bill. In 2016, a bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Steve Urquhart passed the state senate and a house committee, but was not voted on by the full House before the legislative session ended. This year, Republican Rep. Gage Froerer sponsored HB 379, and won the support of Republican House Speaker Greg Hughes. But on March 2, after the bill had passed the House Judiciary Committee, Froerer pulled it from consideration because he believed the bill would lose a close vote in the House. “I was hopeful that Utah would be one of the first red states to take this, because the trend obviously is to do away with the death penalty,” Froerer said. “I’m convinced whether it’s next year or five or 10 years from now the death penalty will go away.” The failure of the abolition bills came on the heels of death-penalty proponents’ abandonment of efforts to restore capital punishment in New Mexico and Iowa. After passing the New Mexico House last legislative session, a bill to bring back the death penalty was tabled in committee on February 2. It was the fifth failed attempt by Republican Gov. Susana Martinez to reinstate the practice, which was abolished under Gov. Bill Richardson in 2009. On February 13, the sponsor of Iowa’s Senate Study Bill 3134—Republican Sen. Brad Zaun, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee—announced that he did not have enough votes to move forward with the bill in 2018 and would be “putting it to rest.” Proponents of Iowa's house bill had previously withdrawn it from consideration when a key Republican supporter changed his mind after researching the bill. Rep. Steven Holt said “conceptually and morally” he believes the death penalty is sometimes appropriate, but “[s]tatistics show, without a doubt, that those of lesser means are more likely to receive the death penalty than are those with greater assets and ability to hire the best attorney.” Holt said, “I support the death penalty in theory," but “practically, I arrived at a different conclusion than I expected. ... I have great issues with its practical and fair application.”
Two former Pennsylvania death-row prisoners, whose death sentences were overturned by federal courts after the United States Supreme Court had ruled against them, have been resentenced to life without parole. On February 28, 2018, Scott Blystone (pictured) was resentenced to life by the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas in southwestern Pennsylvania, 34 years after being sentenced to death and 27 years after the U.S. Supreme Court heard his case. Two days later, on March 2, Joseph Kindler was also resentenced to life after the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office agreed to drop the death penalty in his case. Nearly 35 years had passed since Kindler had been sentenced to death and eight since the Supreme Court had ruled against him. Blystone's case was the first from Pennsylvania to challenge the state's law requiring the jury to sentence a defendant to death if it finds any aggravating circumstance present, but no mitigating circumstances. Blystone had been represented by a part-time public defender who had been practicing law for less than a year and had never tried a homicide case. The lawyer presented no defense at the guilt stage of trial and had no evidence to present in the penalty phase except for testimony from Blystone's parents. When Blystone refused to have his parents take the stand to beg for his life, the lawyer presented no case in mitigation. Even then, the jury asked the court whether it had to impose the death penalty if it found no mitigating evidence. The court answered in the affirmative, and the jury sentenced Blystone to death. In 1990, a divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld Pennsylvania's death-penalty statute by a 5-4 vote. The federal district court subsequently overturned Blystone's death sentence because of his lawyer's failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence of Blystone's brain damage, mental health diagnoses, and extreme mental and emotional disturbance at the time of the murder. Kindler also overturned his death sentence in the federal courts, after the Pennsylvania state courts had refused to consider Kindler's constitutional challenges to his conviction and sentence because he had escaped to Canada. The federal courts found multiple constitutional violations in Kindler's case, including that his lawyer had failed to investigate and present available mitigating evidence and that the jury had been given an instruction that unconstitutionally limited its ability to consider the mitigating evidence that had been presented. In a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2009 dealing with federal review of state procedural rules, the Court overturned the grant of a new penalty hearing and sent the case back to the federal court of appeals. The appeals court again ruled in Kindler's favor, and this time the Supreme Court let that decision stand.
According to newly disclosed records, the Harris County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Texas death-row exoneree Alfred DeWayne Brown was aware of phone records that corroborated Brown's assertion of innocence long before the case went to trial, but withheld the records from the defense and intimidated a witness who original testimony was supported by the records into falsely testifying against Brown. Brown was convicted and sentenced to death in 2005 for the murders of a Houston police officer and a store clerk during a 2003 robbery. No physical evidence linked him to the murders and he consistently maintained that he had been at his girlfriend's apartment when the murders occurred. Brown won a new trial in 2014 after police investigator Breck McDaniel discovered copies of the phone records in his garage. At the time, prosecutors said that the records had been inadvertently misplaced. However, an email that was released by the Harris County district attorney's office on March 2 in response to a civil suit filed by Brown shows that McDaniel alerted former Harris County prosecutor Dan Rizzo to the existence of the records on April 22, 2003, the day after his girlfriend, Erica Dockery, had told the grand jury that Brown had called her from her apartment. McDaniel told Rizzo in the email that he had obtained Dockery’s phone records “hoping that it would clearly refute Erica’s claim that she received a call at work” from Brown. Instead, McDaniel said, “the call detail records from the apartment shows that the home phone dialed Erica's place of employment” twice on the morning of the killing and that Dockery had called Brown back from work. A Pulitzer-Prize-winning Houston Chronicle investigation revealed in July 2014 that, after her testimony, a police officer who served as the grand jury foreman in the case threatened Dockery with perjury for supporting Brown's alibi. Then—after Rizzo had received the email confirming the truthfulness of Dockery’s testimony—prosecutors jailed Dockery for seven weeks until she changed her testimony to implicate Brown. After Brown was exonerated, he applied for approximately $1.9 million in cash and annuity payments under Texas’ exoneration compensation law. Prosecutors claimed that the court proceedings leading to Brown’s release did not constitute a determination that he was “actually innocent,” and his application was rejected in April 2016. Cate Edwards, Brown’s lawyer in the civil case, called the email revelations “horrifying.” Brian Stolarz, who represented Brown in the appeals leading to his exoneration, called the disclosures “[v]indication.” He said he was “sickened and disheartened” that “[o]nly now, after a civil lawsuit, does the whole truth finally come out.’ But he said he was “encouraged that Dewayne is vindicated and his long journey to justice is near the end.” Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg, who took office in November 2016 on a platform of criminal justice reform, issued a statement saying that “The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct require that ‘the appropriate disciplinary authority’ shall be informed when a lawyer becomes aware that another lawyer has committed a violation of applicable rules of professional conduct that raises a substantial question as to the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in all other respects.” The statement said “the Harris County District Attorney’s Office will notify the State Bar of Texas of the newly discovered evidence so that it may investigate the prosecutor’s professional conduct while handling the Brown case.”