Missouri Court Denies Condemned Prisoner Stay of Execution, Review of Case Despite Exonerating DNA Evidence
After having previously granted Marcellus Williams (pictured) a stay of execution in 2015 to permit DNA testing in his case, the Missouri Supreme Court on August 15 summarily denied him a new execution stay, despite recently obtained results of that testing that support his innocence claim. Williams—who was convicted and sentenced to death in 2001 by a nearly all-white St. Louis County jury in the highly publicized stabbing death of a former St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter—presented scientific evidence that excluded him as a contributor to DNA on the knife used to kill Felicia Gayle. Williams had filed a motion in the state court to stay his scheduled August 22 execution, along with a petition seeking the appointment of a Special Master to hold hearings on his innocence claim. His petition was supported by reports from two DNA experts who had determined that DNA evidence on the knife did not match Williams or Gayle, but came from an unknown third person. One expert concluded that Williams "could not have contributed to the detected [DNA] profile" and the other found "a clear exclusion of Marcellus Williams from the knife handle." The petition alleged that the "physical evidence collected from the crime scene”—which included fingernail scrapings from the victim, who had been stabbed more than 40 times—“did not match and could not be linked to" Williams. Williams was convicted and sentenced to death based on the testimony of a jailhouse informant and a prostitute who was an admitted crack addict. He has never been provided an evidentiary hearing on the DNA results. The Missouri Supreme Court denied his petition without any written opinion within one day of its filing, and before Williams had an opportunity to respond to the State's opposition. Kent Gipson, one of Williams's lawyers, said the defense plans to seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court. "It certainly would give most reasonable people pause to say, 'Should you be executing somebody when you've got reasonable evidence suggesting another man did it?,'" Gibson said. Williams also has a case pending in federal court arguing that he should be permitted to re-open his habeas proceedings because he can show he is innocent; he was denied relief in the federal district court and is currently appealing that denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In earlier federal habeas corpus proceedings, the district court had overturned Williams’s death sentence, finding that his trial lawyer had failed to investigate and present significant mitigating evidence relating to Williams’s history of mental deficiencies and chronic abuse throughout his childhood. That decision, however, was reversed by the Eighth Circuit in a split 2-1 decision. Williams had also previously raised a claim alleging that St. Louis County prosecutors had a pattern and practice of striking black prospective jurors, including 6 of the 7 African Americans it had the opportunity to empanel in his case.
Read More 20,611 reads
Arizona Prisoner Asks U.S. Supreme Court To Declare State's Death Penalty Unconstitutional
An Arizona death-row prisoner has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the state's capital punishment statute, arguing that Arizona's sentencing scheme "utterly fails" the constitutionally required task of limiting the death penalty to the worst crimes and worst offenders. On August 15, lawyers for Abel Daniel Hidalgo (pictured) wrote that a study of more than a decade's worth of murder cases from Maricopa County, where Hidalgo was tried, showed that aggravating factors that could make a defendant eligible for the death penalty were present in 99% of all the cases. This, they say, violates the Eighth Amendment requirement established by the Court that a capital-sentencing statute must “genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty.” They wrote that evidence presented to the Arizona state courts showed that "every first degree murder case filed in Maricopa County in 2010 and 2011 had at least one aggravating factor" that made a defendant eligible for the death penalty, and that over the course of eleven years, 856 of 866 first-degree murder cases filed in the county had one or more aggravating circumstances present. In a press statement, Hidalgo's defense team says that, as a result, "geography and county resources—rather than the characteristics of the offender or the crime—play an outsized role in Arizona’s arbitrary application of the death penalty." With the fourth largest death row in the U.S. as of January 2013, Maricopa County imposed the death penalty at more than double the rate per murder as the rest of the state, and its 28 death sentences imposed between 2010-2015 were the third most of any U.S. county. Hidalgo's petition notes that defendants of color accused of killing white victims "are more than three times as likely to be sentenced to death as minorities accused of killing other minorities ... [a]nd a Hispanic man accused of killing a white man is 4.6 times as likely to be sentenced to death as a white man accused of killing a Hispanic victim." This, they say, makes Arizona's death penalty unconstitutionally arbitrary. In the alternative, the petition argues—citing national legislative and sentencing trends—that the death penalty nationwide now offends "evolving standards of decency" and should be declared unconstitutional. The lawyers write, "[t]he long experiment ... in whether the death penalty can be administered within constitutional bounds has failed. It has failed both in Arizona in particular and in the Nation more broadly."
Read More 3,589 reads
Oklahoma Prisoners Argue State's Application of the Death Penalty Is Racially Biased, Unconstitutional
Newly available evidence shows that Oklahoma's death penalty unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of race, according to petitions filed by lawyers seeking to overturn the death sentences imposed on two African-American defendants, Julius Darius Jones (pictured) and Tremane Wood. Jones—a high school athlete and honor student who did not fit the description of the shooter and who has continuously maintained his innocence—and Wood were convicted and sentenced to death for killing white male victims in separate cases. Both men's claims are based on data from a study of race and the death penalty that was released as part of the April 2017 report of the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission showing that, for the period 1990-2012, Oklahoma defendants convicted of killing white victims were more than twice as likely to be sentenced to death as those convicted of killing victims of color. For cases like Jones's and Wood's that involved only white male victims, defendants were nearly three times more likely to be sentenced to death. The study also showed that defendants of color were nearly three times more likely to be sentenced to death if convicted of killing a white victim than a victim of color and nearly twice as likely as a white defendant to be condemned for killing a white victim. Jones's petition argues that his death sentence violates the state and federal constitutions because he "faced a greater risk of execution by the mere happenstance that the victim who he was accused and convicted of killing was white.” Both Jones and Wood were capitally charged in Oklahoma County, one of the 2% of American counties responsible for more than half of all prisoners on the nation's death rows. 54 men and women were sent to death row during the 21-year administration of District Attorney “Cowboy” Bob Macy, who retired in 2001. The judge who presided over Wood's trial has made openly racist remarks, saying in 2011 that Mexicans are “nothing but filthy animals.” Jones was sentenced to death by a nearly all-white jury, following what his current lawyers describe as “pervasive and highly racialized pre-trial media coverage” and “racialized remarks made by prosecutors and at least one juror” during his trial. Jones has also filed a motion with the Oklahoma County court seeking DNA testing on a red bandana that an eyewitness said the shooter was wearing over his face at the time of the murder. His lawyers say the bandana may contain DNA evidence that would identify the shooter and exonerate Jones.
Read More 6,909 reads
Equal Justice Initiative Report on Lynchings Outside the Deep South Suggests Links to Capital Punishment
Lynching has long been regarded as a regional phenomenon, but in an updated edition of its landmark 2015 report "Lynching in America: Confronting the Legacy of Racial Terror," the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) has now documented more than 300 lynchings of African Americans in states outside the Deep South. "Racial terror lynching was a national problem," said EJI Director Bryan Stevenson (pictured). More than six million African American migrants fled "as refugees and exiles from terror in the American South," but the racial terror often followed them. "Hundreds of lynchings took place outside the American South," he said. The original EJI lynching report documented more than 4000 racial terror lynchings in 12 Southern states, and described the historical link between lynching and the modern-day death penalty. The new edition tracks lynchings in eight states in the Midwest and Upper South: Oklahoma (76), Missouri (60), Illinois (56), West Virginia (35), Maryland (28), Kansas (19), Indiana (18), and Ohio (15). The pattern of lynchings suggests a continuing link to modern capital punishment: Oklahoma and Missouri rank second and fifth in the number of executions in the U.S. in the last fifty years and have executed far more prisoners than any other states outside the Deep South. Working with Google, EJI has created an interactive website providing audio, video, and maps to tell the stories of the victims of racial terror and illuminate the geographic patterns of lynching. “These lynchings were intentionally barbaric, torturous, gruesome,” Stevenson said, and often whole communities actively participated in the public spectacle. "Our collective failure to acknowledge this history has created a contemporary political culture that doesn't adequately value the victimization of people of color today," he said. In an interview with The Washington Post, Stevenson explained how the legacy of lynching affects today's criminal justice system, and the death penalty in particular. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld capital punishment in 1976, Justice Potter Stewart justified capital punishment as an advance from "self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law." “They started trying people inside." Stevenson said, "and they had the same kind of unreliable verdicts and the same kind of death sentencing and the same kind of abuse of people of color in the courtroom that existed outside the courthouse during the lynching era."
Read More 2,049 reads
New Podcast: Duane Buck's Appeal Lawyer Tells Story of His Case, Discusses Future Dangerousness and Racial Bias
In DPIC's latest podcast, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Litigation Director Christina Swarns (pictured, center, outside the U.S. Supreme Court following the argument in Buck v. Davis) discusses the issues of race, future dangerousness, and ineffective representation presented in the landmark case. She calls the case—in which a Texas trial lawyer who represented 21 clients sent to death row presented an expert witness who testified that his own client was more likely to commit future acts of violence because he is black—"astonishing" and "a complete failure, literally, of all aspects of the criminal justice system." Swarns argued in the Supreme Court on behalf of Texas death-row prisoner Duane Buck, one of seven death-row prisoners whose trials were tainted by the racist testimony of Texas psychologist Dr. Walter Quijano, who testified that Buck presented a greater risk of future dangerousness because he is black. The Texas Attorney General's office conceded the impropriety of the testimony and agreed to new sentencing hearings in the other cases, but when a new attorney general was elected, opposed relief for Buck. In Texas, a jury must find that a defendant is a future danger to society as a prerequisite to imposing the death penalty, and the prosecutor seized on Dr. Quijano's testimony as a reason to sentence Buck to die. On February 22, 2017, nearly 20 years after his trial and after all state and federal courts to have considered his case had denied relief, the Supreme Court overturned Buck’s death sentence. In a conversation with DPIC Executive Director Robert Dunham, Swarns explains how Buck's case made its way to the Supreme Court, and how racial bias and the concept of future dangerousness are inextricably linked. Texas had argued that Quijano's testimony, while improper, was harmless because his and the prosecutor's comments on race were very short. Swarns, however, explains that "[t]he race-as-dangerousness link is so pernicious and so ingrained in history and culture and the death penalty in this country, that ... the explicit introduction of that evidence by a defense expert can only be deeply prejudicial ... no matter how many lines of transcript space it occupies." Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the Court's majority opinion, agreed, stating, "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." Later in the discussion, Swarns places the Buck case in the broader context of the historically racially discriminatory application of the death penalty in the U.S. "This is a story as old as the death penalty itself," she says. "There has never been a time, there has never been a place in the administration of the death penalty where there isn't a race effect. Period. Hard stop."
Read More 1,925 reads
Duane Buck's Lawyer Discusses How Future Dangerousness Taints Texas Death Penalty System
Thirty years ago, filmmaker Errol Morris, who directed the documentary “The Thin Blue Line,” helped to exonerate Texas death-row prisoner Dale Adams, falsely accused of murdering a police officer. During the course of making the film, Morris met the notorious Texas prosecution psychiatrist, Dr. James Grigson, who routinely testified that capital defendants—including the innocent Mr. Adams—posed a risk of future dangerousness. Morris recently interviewed Christina Swarns (pictured, center), litigation director for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, about the case of Duane Buck and the hazards of Texas’s continued use of the concept of future dangerousness in sentencing defendants to death. Swarns argued Buck v. Davis in the U.S. Supreme Court, a case tainted by the testimony of Dr. Walter Quijano, a psychologist who told the jury that Buck was more likely to commit future crimes because he was black. On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court overturned Buck’s death sentence, saying “Our law punishes people for what they do, not who they are.” Swarns said "[t]he introduction of evidence linking race to dangerousness — like that which was presented in the Duane Buck case — was an inevitable product of future dangerousness in the capital punishment system in Texas.” With a death penalty system already “contaminated and corrupted by racial bias,” she said, Duane Buck’s death sentence “was a predictable outcome of that mess." Swarns called the future dangerousness requirement "insane," saying "The business of predicting future dangerousness without becoming corrupted by the various factors that are so tied to human functioning is impossible. It’s an absurd requirement." She added that Buck's perfect disciplinary record in his more than 20 years in prison is evidence that predictions of future dangerousness are unreliable. On August 19, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Jeffery Wood a stay of execution to litigate his claim that the testimony Dr. Grigson presented in his case claiming that Wood was certain to pose a future danger to society if he was not executed was false and scientifically baseless. While the Supreme Court did not address the issue of future dangerousness determinations in its Buck decision, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, sharply condemned the racially biased testimony from Buck's trial. "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," Roberts wrote.
Read More 2,237 reads
Alabama Governor Signs Law Shortening Death-Penalty Appeals
On Friday, May 26, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (pictured) signed into law a statute denominated the "Fair Justice Act," which is designed to shorten the state death-penalty appeals process. The law constricts the amount of time death-row prisoners have to file appeals, imposes time limits for judges to rule on appeals, and requires prisoners to pursue their direct appeal and post-conviction appeal simultaneously, including raising claims of appellate counsel's ineffectiveness while appellate counsel is still handling the case. Governor Ivey characterized the law—which will apply to all defendants sentenced to death on or after August 1, 2017—as "strik[ing] an important balance between protecting the rights of a defendant and the state's interest in allowing justice to be achieved effectively and swiftly." Alabama Attorney General, Steve Marshall, said the statute "streamlines the appellate process" but "does not diminish the thoroughness of appellate review of death penalty cases." Critics of the law, however, say that is precisely what it does. Linda Klein, the President of the American Bar Association—which calls for fair process in the administration of capital punishment but takes no position on the death penalty itself—said that the new law "unduly limit[s] counsel’s ability to conduct that critical post-conviction investigation" and will "make Alabama an outlier on how appeals and post-conviction cases are handled." Birmingham civil-rights attorney Lisa Borden said Alabama capital cases typically suffer from a lack of “detailed investigation" into what the issues in the case actually are and if the state curtails the time for post-conviction investigation, "you are going to have people whose valid claims, whose important claims [are] cut off forever and people are going to die.” She said, "If Alabama really wants to fix the process[, it should] . . . provide competent representation and resources to people from the beginning." The National Registry of Exonerations has found that more than half of all murder exonerations involved prosecutorial failures to disclose exculpatory evidence, and that official misconduct was present in 87% of death-row exonerations of black defendants and 67% of death-row exonerations of white defendants. The study also showed that it took an average of four years longer to exonerate an innocent black defendant wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to death than a wrongly convicted white death-row prisoner. Anthony Ray Hinton, an innocent African-American man who spent nearly 30 years on Alabama's death row for a crime he did not commit, has said that if he were convicted under the Fair Justice Act, "I would have been executed despite my innocence." Hinton says it took more than 14 years before he was able to obtain the competent representation and expert assistance necessary to prove his innocence.
Read More 2,684 reads
White Texas Judge Reprimanded for Facebook Comment Suggesting "A Tree And A Rope" For Black Murder Suspect
The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct has issued a formal reprimand to a sitting Burnet County judge who posted on Facebook a photo of a black murder suspect accused of killing a police officer with the comment, "Time for a tree and a rope." Judge James Oakley (pictured), who is white, denied that the comment about Otis Tyrone McKane was a race-based reference to lynching. "My comment was intended to reflect my personal feelings that this senseless murder of a police officer should qualify for the death penalty. In my mind, the race/gender of the admitted cop killer was not relevant," he told the commission. That is not how observers of the post saw it: 18 people filed written complaints to the Commission about Oakley's comment. The reprimand said, “Multiple Complainants also questioned Judge Oakley’s suitability for judicial office, and expressed doubts that he could perform his duties impartially." Oakley will be required to attend a 30-hour training for new judges and receive 4 hours of racial sensitivity training with a mentor, but will not be removed from office or excluded from presiding over any class of cases. In its reprimand, the Commission wrote, “During the appearance, Judge Oakley made certain statements that indicated to the Commission that he could benefit from racial sensitivity training with a mentoring judge." The incident was reminiscent of an incident in March in which a white Seminole County, Florida court employee posted a comment on Facebook that black State Attorney Aramis Ayala "should be tarred and feathered if not hung from a tree," for announcing that she would not seek the death penalty. After an investigation into the circumstances surrounding that posting, the clerk resigned his position.
Read More 1,971 reads
Florida House Issues Apology for 1949 Lynchings and Wrongful Convictions
In 1949, Norma Padgett, a white 17-year-old, falsely accused four young black men in Groveland, Florida of kidnapping and raping her. Nearly 70 years later, the state of Florida is apologizing to the families of the "Groveland Four," two of whom were murdered and two of whom were wrongly sentenced to death. After the false accusations, enraged white residents of Lake County went on a violent rampage, shooting at and burning the homes of black residents. The Governor sought help from the National Guard to quell the violence. One of the falsely accused young men, Ernest Thomas, escaped from the county jail and was shot dead by an angry mob of 1,000 men led by Lake County sheriff Willis V. McCall. Thomas was shot 400 times. The three others who had been falsely accused were beaten into giving false confessions, then quickly tried and convicted by an all-white jury. The youngest, Charles Greenlee, who was only 16 years old, was sentenced to life in prison. Samuel Shepherd and Walter Irvin, both Army veterans, were sentenced to death. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed their convictions and ordered a new trial. During their transport from the county prison for court proceedings, Sheriff McCall claimed the pair tried to escape and shot both men, killing Shepherd. Irvin played dead, survived the shooting, and was again tried and sentenced to death. Irvin received a last-minute reprieve from execution and his sentence was commuted by the Governor. Greenlee and Irvin were both granted parole in the 1960s. Irvin died in 1970 and Greenlee in 2012. The Groveland Four, as the men came to be known, were finally given a formal apology from the Florida House of Representatives on April 19, 2017, nearly 70 years after they were first accused. Rep. Bobby DuBose (D-Fort Lauderdale), sponsored the bill and said, "This resolution, while seemingly minute, symbolizes the great state of Florida looking those families in the eyes — families, with children, who grew up not knowing their fathers but only knew their records. This resolution is us simply saying, ‘We’re sorry’ — understanding we will never know or make up for the pain we have caused." The resolution, which says the Groveland Four, “were the victims of gross injustices and that their abhorrent treatment by the criminal justice system is a shameful chapter in this state’s history,” and calls on Gov. Rick Scott to expedite posthumous pardons, passed the House unanimously. The Senate is expected to vote soon on its version of the bill. [UPDATE: On April 27, 2017, the Florida Senate approved an identical resolution.]
Read More 7,353 reads
Florida Black Caucus, Victim's Parents Urge Governor to Rescind Order Removing Prosecutor For Not Seeking Death Penalty
The Florida Legislative Black Caucus has joined more than 100 lawyers and legal experts and the parents of murder victim Sade Dixon in urging Governor Rick Scott to rescind his order removing Orange-Osceola County State Attorney Aramis Ayala (pictured) from a high-profile double murder case in which she decided to not seek the death penalty. The other victim in the case, Lt. Debra Clayton, was an Orlando police officer. Governor Scott did not speak with Dixon's family before issuing an order removing Ayala and appointing a Special Prosecutor to the case. At a press conference on March 23, Sen. Perry Thurston (D-Lauderhill), chairman of the legislative black caucus, said "Gov. Scott's hasty response to State Attorney Ayala's announcement set a dangerous precedent and is a slap in the face of the voters who carried her into office." He called the order "little more than an unfettered and uninformed power grab by the governor's office over a difference of opinion." Rep. Sean Shaw (D-Tampa) highlighted the racial history implications of the Governor's action, saying, "Clearly all the data and all the studies show that the death penalty is applied with racial bias, particularly in Florida. This is still the case and has always been the case, and by standing against the death penalty, State Attorney Ayala is standing with communities of color." Ayala, Florida's first African-American elected state attorney, was removed by a white governor and replaced with a white prosecutor. The defendant, Markeith Loyd, is black. Both parents of Sade Dixon, Loyd's ex-girlfriend who was pregnant at the time of the murder, supported State Attorney Ayala's decision not to subject them to the ordeal of extended death penalty proceedings, and oppose Gov. Scott's decision to remove her from the case. "Life, no chance of parole, we get closure," said Ron Daniels, Dixon's father, "but now if you give him the death penalty, he comes back. Every time he appeals this family or any family has to relive that case all over again." Ayala also received support from a group of 100 law professors, judges, and attorneys, who said in a letter to Gov. Scott, "We believe that this effort to remove State Attorney Ayala infringes on the vitally important independence of prosecutors, exceeds your authority, undermines the right of residents in Orange and Osceola counties to the services of their elected leaders, and sets a dangerous precedent." Following her decision not to seek the death penalty, a white employee of the Seminole County clerk of courts wrote on Facebook that Ayala "should be tarred and feathered if not hung from a tree." Rep. Shaw responded: "It's 2017 and the newly elected state attorney was threatened with a lynching. That's why we're here today. The death penalty is a link to the sordid past of Florida where lynching was used to terrorize our community." The courts' employee subsequently resigned.
Read More 4,693 reads