Jeffrey Wood is sched­uled for exe­cu­tion on August 21 for a mur­der com­mit­ted by anoth­er man dur­ing a botched rob­bery at a gas sta­tion. Wood did not fire the gun that killed the vic­tim and was not inside the sta­tion when anoth­er man, Danny Reneau, com­mit­ted the mur­der. At Reneau’s tri­al, the pros­e­cu­tion had argued that Reneau was the per­son chiefly respon­si­ble for the crime and that Wood’s role was sec­ondary. The pros­e­cu­tion in Wood’s case changed their the­o­ry and argued that he was equal­ly liable for the death under Texas’ ​“law of par­ties,” even though he was not present at the killing. (The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a death sen­tence for a sim­i­lar crime in 1982, but allowed the death penal­ty in a lat­er case if the defen­dant exhib­it­ed a ​“reck­less indif­fer­ence for human life.” It is not clear that Texas’ statute offers defen­dants the nec­es­sary con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­tec­tions.)

Wood’s attor­neys argued that he did not even know that Reneau was going to rob the store, or that he was car­ry­ing a gun, much less that he might com­mit mur­der. Scott Sullivan, who has rep­re­sent­ed Wood for 10 years, also con­tra­dict­ed the prosecution’s argu­ment that Wood was the ​“mas­ter­mind” of the botched rob­bery, observ­ing, ​“His men­tal capac­i­ties are not suf­fi­cient to make him a mas­ter­mind.” As a child he was diag­nosed with learn­ing dis­abil­i­ties and was cat­e­go­rized in school as emo­tion­al­ly stunt­ed. His fam­i­ly adds that he was eas­i­ly influ­enced by oth­ers and always sought approval for his actions. After he was ini­tial­ly found incom­pe­tent to stand tri­al because he could not help his attor­neys, he tried to fire his coun­sel and ordered them not to cross-exam­ine state wit­ness­es or show the evi­dence of his trou­bled youth.
(J. Smith, ​“Defense Lawyers Try to Halt Execution,” Austin Chronicle, April 14, 2008). See Arbitrariness.

Tags
Citation Guide