Texas Executes Another Defendant of Color Over Objection of Victim’s Family

Against the wish­es of the vic­tim’s fam­i­ly and amidst charges that the rejec­tion of his clemen­cy appli­ca­tion was root­ed in racial bias, Texas exe­cut­ed Christopher Young (pic­tured) on July 17, 2018. Young — who had been drunk and high on drugs when he killed Hashmukh Patel dur­ing a failed rob­bery in 2004 — had repeat­ed­ly expressed remorse for the mur­der and had been men­tor­ing trou­bled youth in an effort to pre­vent them from repeat­ing his mis­takes. The vic­tim’s son, Mitesh Patel, had urged clemen­cy for Young, say­ing that he did­n’t want Young’s chil­dren to grow up with­out a father, and that Young could be a pos­i­tive influ­ence by con­tin­u­ing his mentorship activities. 

Mitesh Patel, who had an emo­tion­al vis­it with Young the day before the exe­cu­tion, said the meet­ing left him with ​“a sense of sad­ness.” ​“I real­ly do believe Chris Young today is not the per­son he was 14 years ago,” Patel said. ​“It’s real­ly unfor­tu­nate that the [par­dons] board did­n’t hear our request for clemen­cy. I feel sad­ness for his fam­i­ly. They’re going to be walk­ing down the same path my fam­i­ly has been on the last 14 years.” 

On July 13, the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole vot­ed 6 – 0, with one absten­tion, to deny Young’s clemen­cy appli­ca­tion. Young’s attor­neys then filed a civ­il-rights suit in fed­er­al court, seek­ing a stay of exe­cu­tion on the grounds that the board­’s deci­sion had been racial­ly biased. Young’s lawyer, David Dow, said fam­i­ly mem­bers of the mur­der vic­tim have asked the par­dons board six times this cen­tu­ry to com­mute the death sen­tence imposed on the per­son con­vict­ed of mur­der­ing their loved one. “[O]f those six,” Dow said, ​“three are black, two are Hispanic and one is white. Only in the case of the white guy [Thomas Whitaker] did they vote to recommend commutation.”

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison denied Young’s request for a stay, but expressed extreme dis­plea­sure about the con­strict­ed time­frame for judi­cial review and the state’s lack of con­cern about the pos­si­bil­i­ty of racial bias. The case, he said, ​“dra­ma­tizes much of what is most trou­bling about the pro­ce­dures by which we exe­cute crim­i­nal defen­dants.” He con­tin­ued, ​“In a ratio­nal world, the Court would be able to autho­rize dis­cov­ery and sift through the evi­dence obtained there­by. … Here, … the time frame is designed to ren­der impos­si­ble intel­li­gent and dis­pas­sion­ate judi­cial review. Applicable prin­ci­ples of law seem nonex­is­tent.” ​“Those engag­ing in race dis­crim­i­na­tion sel­dom announce their moti­va­tions,” Judge Ellison said, and the time­frame made it ​“well-nigh impos­si­ble” for Young to prove his claims. ​“Ideally,” Ellison wrote, Texas ​“would be deter­mined to show that racial con­sid­er­a­tions had not infect­ed the clemen­cy pro­ceed­ing. … [H]owever, the State is eager to pro­ceed with [Young’s] exe­cu­tion with­out either side hav­ing any oppor­tu­ni­ty to explore the [issue].”

In his final state­ment, Young said ​“l want to make sure the Patel fam­i­ly knows I love them like they love me. Make sure the kids in the world know I’m being exe­cut­ed and those kids I’ve been men­tor­ing keep this fight going.” The exe­cu­tion was the eighth in Texas and the thir­teenth in the U.S. in 2018.