Texas is prepar­ing to exe­cute Travis Runnels (pic­tured) on December 11, 2019 based on the expert” tes­ti­mo­ny of a pros­e­cu­tion inves­ti­ga­tor whose false depic­tion of prison con­di­tions has helped to put fif­teen defen­dants on the state’s death row. If Runnels is exe­cut­ed, he will be the third per­son put to death in Texas this year after for­mer Texas Special Prosecution Unit crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tor, A.P. Merillat pro­vid­ed false tes­ti­mo­ny at their trials.

Runnels was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death for killing a prison employ­ee while serv­ing time for rob­bery. His defense lawyer pre­sent­ed no mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence to spare Runnels’ life. Under the Texas death-penal­ty statute, that meant that whether Runnels was spared or sen­tenced to die depend­ed upon whether the pros­e­cu­tion proved that Runnels would pose a con­tin­u­ing threat of vio­lence if sen­tenced to life without parole. 

Merillat worked with Texas pros­e­cu­tors as an expert wit­ness on con­di­tions of incar­cer­a­tion and the like­li­hood that defen­dants could com­mit future acts of vio­lence in the con­di­tions in which they would be impris­oned. In at least fif­teen cap­i­tal tri­als, includ­ing Runnels’, Merillat false­ly assert­ed that pris­on­ers con­vict­ed of cap­i­tal mur­der would be auto­mat­i­cal­ly” placed in mid-lev­el secu­ri­ty, where they would be in fre­quent con­tact with prison guards and non-vio­lent offend­ers. He also false­ly claimed that If [a defen­dant] had pri­or con­vic­tions … the prison is not going to look at those pre­vi­ous con­vic­tions” in deter­min­ing the type of facil­i­ty in which the pris­on­er would be incar­cer­at­ed. Runnels’ defense lawyer made no attempt to rebut Merillat’s false claims. 

Runnels’ cur­rent lawyers have argued that Merillat’s tes­ti­mo­ny was espe­cial­ly prej­u­di­cial in his tri­al, giv­en the nature of the charges against him. Frank Aubuchon, a 26-year employ­ee of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which runs Texas’ pris­ons, told Texas Monthly, that a pris­on­er with Runnels’ record would have gone into admin­is­tra­tive seg­re­ga­tion,” where he would be held in soli­tary con­fine­ment 22 hours per day with no con­tact with oth­er pris­on­ers and only min­i­mal inter­ac­tion with guards. There is no way in God’s green earth” that Runnels would have been placed in the gen­er­al prison pop­u­la­tion, Aubuchon said. 

In his Texas Monthly inter­view, Aubuchon said Merillat’s tes­ti­mo­ny was just bulls**t. What Merillat would do for years, when he got on the stand, I’ve seen it described by some­one else as throw­ing a skunk in the jury box. His job was to scare the jury into killing the guy. And that’s what he did, for years.” 

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has reversed two death sen­tences that were taint­ed by Merillat’s tes­ti­mo­ny, when defense lawyers raised the issue on the defendant’s ini­tial appeal. However, it has allowed oth­er cas­es in which Merillat tes­ti­fied to pro­ceed to. Texas exe­cut­ed Billie Wayne Coble and Robert Sparks ear­li­er in 2019, despite evi­dence that Merillat pro­vid­ed false or mis­lead­ing tes­ti­mo­ny at their tri­als. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) has reject­ed Runnels’ appeal on pro­ce­dur­al grounds, leav­ing the U.S. Supreme Court or exec­u­tive clemen­cy as the only means to stop his execution. 

Mark Pickett, one of Runnels’ defense lawyers, said, The state is not even deny­ing that Merillat tes­ti­fied false­ly. They aren’t deny­ing it because they know they can’t deny it. The best thing they could come up with is that maybe Travis’ coun­sel should have found the claim a few years ago. People com­plain about crim­i­nals get­ting off on tech­ni­cal­i­ties, but that’s what this is: the state put on a lying wit­ness, whether they knew it or not. And now they want every­one to ignore it because it took peo­ple too long to notice what they did.” 

On December 6, 2019, Runnels filed a peti­tion for writ of cer­tio­rari in the U.S. Supreme Court, ask­ing the Court to stay his exe­cu­tion and to review his claim. He has asked the Court to adopt a rule that a con­vic­tion or death sen­tence must be over­turned when the prosecution’s pre­sen­ta­tion of false tes­ti­mo­ny under­mines con­fi­dence in the out­come of the trial.” 

Mental health experts have long argued that pre­dic­tions of future dan­ger­ous­ness are noth­ing more than junk sci­ence that con­tribute to arbi­trary and racial­ly dis­crim­i­na­to­ry death sen­tences. Runnels’ peti­tion asserts that Texas pros­e­cu­tors have a long his­to­ry of rely­ing on false, mis­lead­ing, and dis­cred­it­ed expert tes­ti­mo­ny” to con­vince juries that a defen­dant will pose a con­tin­u­ing threat to soci­ety if spared the death penalty. 

According to Runnels’ peti­tion, Dr. James Grigson — a psy­chi­a­trist nick­named Dr. Death” — pro­vid­ed false and uneth­i­cal tes­ti­mo­ny on future dan­ger­ous­ness in hun­dreds of Texas cap­i­tal cas­es and was even­tu­al­ly expelled from the American Psychiatric Association and the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians. Another psy­chi­a­trist, Dr. Richard Coons, tes­ti­fied with near cer­tain­ty” in approx­i­mate­ly 50 Texas death penal­ty cas­es that the defen­dant would pose a future dan­ger, reach­ing that opin­ion based on a com­plete­ly untest­ed method­ol­o­gy and with­out even inter­view­ing the defen­dant.” Psychologist Dr. Walter Quijano pro­vid­ed false and racist tes­ti­mo­ny in sev­en Texas death-penal­ty cas­es that blacks and Latinos were more like­ly because of their race to com­mit future acts of violence. 

Citation Guide
Sources

Christopher Hooks, Who Gets to Live and Die When the State Relies on False Testimony in Death Penalty Cases?, Texas Monthly, December 9, 2019; Brant Bingamon, Death Watch: Without Intervention, Travis Runnels Will Be the Ninth Texan Executed in 2019, Austin Chronicle, December 62019

You can read the U.S. Supreme Court plead­ings in Runnels v. Davis here.