Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Clarence Brandley: Ex-Death Row Inmate Still Fighting for Restitution

Clarence Brandley, who spent nearly 10 years on death row for a murder he did not commit, will be back in the news today.

He and supporters are holding a press conference this afternoon to push for restitution from the state for being wrongly imprisoned. Like Anthony Graves, another Texan who spent time in prison for a murder he did not commit, Brandley is being denied compensation because the court order freeing him does not include language declaring him innocent.

"This is a righteous cause to bring justice and have it work the way it is supposed to work," said his brother, Ozell Brandley. "We will hold those public officials accountable for their actions of refusing compensation for those who were wrongfully imprisoned. Their careers should be over if they cannot dispense justice. My brother Clarence and the families of the wrongfully convicted as well as the victims' families deserve more. Clarence and my family have paid a high price for their injustice."

Brandley was convicted for the 1980 rape and murder of a 16-year-old student at the Conroe school where he worked as a janitor. He was freed in 1990.

The judge who heard his plea for exoneration famously said, ""In the thirty years that this court has presided over matters in the judicial system, no case has presented a more shocking scenario of the effects of racial prejudice, perjured testimony, witness intimidation (and) an investigation the outcome of which has been predetermined."

The case became the subject of a made-for-cable movie.

Brandley has faced issues with child support since his release, and has lost a huge lawsuit he filed against various state agencies.

At today's press conference, organizers say, "Representatives of civil rights and community organizations, including Witness to Innocence, the National Black United Front, the Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement, and others will be present Wednesday in support of Brandley's claim for compensation."

Source: Houston Press, May 18, 2011
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

U.S. State Department releases its annual report on human rights

On Friday, April 8, the U.S. State Department released its annual report on human rights. The report included sharp criticism of the human rights records of China, North Korea, Cuba, Burma and Belarus, among others.

The US is arguably a/the leader of the free world, and it is correct to point out serious human rights issues and violations in other countries. But the report would be more meaningful if our own national human rights record was seriously improved, and if the US itself was a model of human rights and ethical consistency at home and abroad.

The USA (other than Somalia) is the only country in the world which has not ratified the Convention of the Rights of the Child; we have not signed the Landmine Treaty, the Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and a host of other major human rights instruments.

Most blatantly, the USA remains a major human rights violator with its ongoing and despicable usage of the death penalty. This nation consistenly ranks in the top 5 executing jurisdictions in the world behind China and Iran; we have and use more methods of execution than any country in the world, and, as has long been documented, the system of capital punishment in the US is plagued with issues of racism, prejudice, mistakes, arbitrariness, and numerous examples of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.

It is not a cliche...human rights begin at home. The USA needs to commit itself to (seriously) improving its own human rights record before it tries to claim any moral high ground while criticizing the human rights record of others.

Source: Rick Halperin, Amnesty International, Letter to the Editor, Dallas Morning News, April 9, 2011
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

He was 14 years, 6 months and 5 days old --- and the youngest person executed in the United States in the 20th Century

George Junius Stinney Jr.
1929-1944
In a South Carolina prison sixty-six years ago, guards walked a 14-year-old boy, bible tucked under his arm, to the electric chair. At 5' 1" and 95 pounds, the straps didn’t fit, and an electrode was too big for his leg.

The switch was pulled and the adult sized death mask fell from George Stinney’s face. Tears streamed from his eyes. Witnesses recoiled in horror as they watched the youngest person executed in the United States in the past century die.

Now, a community activist is fighting to clear Stinney’s name, saying the young boy couldn’t have killed two girls. George Frierson, a school board member and textile inspector, believes Stinney’s confession was coerced, and that his execution was just another injustice blacks suffered in Southern courtrooms in the first half of the 1900s.

In a couple of cases like Stinney’s, petitions are being made before parole boards and courts are being asked to overturn decisions made when society’s thumb was weighing the scales of justice against blacks. These requests are buoyed for the first time in generations by money, college degrees and sometimes clout.

“I hope we see more cases like this because it help brings a sense of closure. It’s symbolic,” said Howard University law professor Frank Wu. “It’s not just important for the individuals and their families. It’s important for the entire community. Not just for African Americans, but for whites and for our democracy as a whole. What these cases show is that it is possible to achieve justice.”

Some have already achieved justice. Earlier this year, syndicated radio host Tom Joyner successfully won a posthumous pardon for two great uncles who were executed in South Carolina.

A few years ago Lena Baker, a black Georgia maid sent to the electric chair for killing a white man, received a pardon after her family pointed out she likely killed the man because he was holding her against her will.

In the Stinney case, supporters want the state to admit that officials executed the wrong person in June 1944.

Stinney was accused of killing two white girls, 11 year old Betty June Binnicker and 8 year old Mary Emma Thames, by beating them with a railroad spike then dragging their bodies to a ditch near Acolu, about five miles from Manning in central South Carolina. The girls were found a day after they disappeared following a massive manhunt. Stinney was arrested a few hours later, white men in suits taking him away. Because of the risk of a lynching, Stinney was kept at a jail 50 miles away in Columbia.

Stinney’s father, who had helped look for the girls, was fired immediately and ordered to leave his home and the sawmill where he worked. His family was told to leave town prior to the trial to avoid further retribution. An atmosphere of lynch mob hysteria hung over the courthouse. Without family visits, the 14 year old had to endure the trial and death alone.

Frierson hasn’t been able to get the case out of his head since, carrying around a thick binder of old newspaper stories and documents, including an account from an execution witness.

The sheriff at the time said Stinney admitted to the killings, but there is only his word — no written record of the confession has been found. A lawyer helping Frierson with the case figures threats of mob violence and not being able to see his parents rattled the seventh- grader.

Attorney Steve McKenzie said he has even heard one account that says detectives offered the boy ice cream once they were done.

“You’ve got to know he was going to say whatever they wanted him to say,” McKenzie said.

The court appointed Stinney an attorney — a tax commissioner preparing for a Statehouse run. In all, the trial — from jury selection to a sentence of death — lasted one day. Records indicate 1,000 people crammed the courthouse. Blacks weren’t allowed inside.

The defense called no witnesses and never filed an appeal. No one challenged the sheriff’s recollection of the confession.

“As an attorney, it just kind of haunted me, just the way the judicial system worked to this boy’s disadvantage or disfavor. It did not protect him,” said McKenzie, who is preparing court papers to ask a judge to reopen the case.

Stinney’s official court record contains less than two dozen pages, several of them arrest warrants. There is no transcript of the trial.

The lack of records, while not unusual, makes it harder for people trying to get these old convictions overturned, Wu said.

But these old cases also can have a common thread.

“Some of these cases are so egregious, so extreme that when you look at it, the prosecution really has no case either,” Wu said. “It’s apparent from what you can see that someone was railroaded.”

And sometimes, police under pressure by frightened citizens jumped to conclusions rather than conducting a thorough investigation, Wu said.

Source: Bluffton Today - 'Crusaders look to right Jim Crow justice wrongs' by Jeffrey Collins - Photo: South Carolina Department of Archives and History
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

University forum speaker: ‘Dead Man Walking’ author learned from victims’ families

Sr. Helen Prejean
Sister Helen Prejean, by her own admission, met Lloyd LeBlanc at the worst possible time. But what he taught her made LeBlanc the hero, she says, of the story that made Prejean possibly the best-known opponent of the death penalty in America.

In 1982, the New Orleans nun became a pen pal with, and then spiritual advisor to, Patrick Sonnier, an inmate on Louisiana’s death row for the 1977 murders of teenagers Loretta Bourque and David LeBlanc. Familiarizing herself with the graphic details of the case, Prejean both questioned her relationship with Sonnier and received a “nudge” to contact the victims’ families—a prod she didn’t heed, she recalled March 1 at Bluffton University.

As a result, she had no contact with the families until a Louisiana Pardon Board hearing, the last legal hurdle to the execution that she was there to oppose. Meeting outside while the board was voting, the outraged Bourque family avoided her. She was prepared for the same response from the LeBlancs, but what came next surprised, and instructed, her.

Telling Prejean that the family name died with his only son, Lloyd LeBlanc reminded her that “you never once came to us” and added that she couldn’t imagine the pressure on the families due to the death penalty. Shocked, she thought to herself, “What does he mean, ‘pressure,’?” she remembered.

LeBlanc told Prejean she needed to pray with him and, as they knelt in a chapel, he prayed for everyone involved, including Sonnier’s mother, on whom a town’s hatred was also being poured, Prejean related.

As she and LeBlanc became friends, he took her through his journey of trying to follow the Gospel after being “thrown into the fire” by his son’s murder. He felt he had to be in favor of the death penalty or it would appear he didn’t love his son, he explained. “That’s what he meant by the ‘pressure,’” Prejean said.

LeBlanc acquiesced to the pro-death penalty voices at first, he admitted to her. But the hatred connected with wanting to see someone suffer and die “gets inside you,” he added, and “I didn’t like the way it made me feel.” He decided he wouldn’t let the state kill him, and the person he was, too, Prejean said, quoting LeBlanc as saying “I’m gonna do what Jesus said to do” and forgive.

Although forgiveness is often equated with weakness, it actually “preserves love and integrity,” she told her Bluffton audience, calling LeBlanc the first of many victims’ family members who have taught her lessons on her journey with the death penalty.

Prejean’s experience with the Sonnier case became her best-selling, Pulitzer Prize-nominated book, “Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the United States.” The 1995 film adaptation of the book starred Academy Award-winner Susan Sarandon as Prejean, who spoke at Bluffton as part of the Smucker Distinguished Lectureship Series.

She advocated for restorative justice—which she credited the Mennonite community for helping implement in many places—and for greater support for murder victims’ families, rather than redemptive violence. She had been stunned to learn, she said, how victims’ families are left alone because others don’t know how to deal with their pain. Thus, she continued, they become pariahs along with the murderers. “Do we have to have another death?” she asked. “We have life without parole in every state."

Prejean, who began her prison ministry in 1981, acknowledged that it took her a while to come to an understanding about Jesus siding with outcasts in the Gospel. “For a long time, I didn’t get it,” said the Baton Rouge, La., native, who admittedly grew up in privilege and with black servants in a segregated society.

Moving into the St. Thomas Housing Project in New Orleans, where she saw black people struggling for their lives, changed her heart, Prejean said. “Seeing people suffering—that’s what changed me,” she added.

“Racism is integral in the application of the death penalty,” she argued, citing statistics that 80 % of U.S. death-row prison cells hold people who have killed whites, while half of all American murder victims are people of color. She said, too, that less than 1 percent of convicted murders are ultimately executed, and they tend to fit a profile of being poor and killing white people. The system is “so filled with fluke,” she continued, noting that the state where the crime is committed is also a prime factor in determining whether capital punishment will be applied.

“Consciousness triggers conscience,” said Prejean, who has accompanied six men to the execution chambers of Louisiana and Texas and also wrote “The Death of Innocents: An Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions,” in 2004. “We have a lot of reasons not to think of people in prisons,” she said, but when people become aware, “consciousness brings with it a responsibility."

“We need to end this government killing of people."

The Smucker series, which brings significant contributors to the field of social work to the Bluffton campus, is named for Carl Smucker, who taught social work at Bluffton for 34 years beginning in 1944.

Source: Bluffton Icon, March 2, 2011
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Monday, February 7, 2011

Virginia - A Year of History: Martinsville 7 executions remain 'a raw wound' for many

On April 19, 1949, Judge Kennon Whittle addressed prosecutors and defense lawyers gathered in his 2nd-floor chambers of the Henry County courthouse.

They would soon be handling the volatile case of seven black men charged with raping a white woman, and Whittle admonished them that the accused "will be tried as though both parties were members of the same race. I will not have it otherwise."

At the time, all 45 men executed for rape in Virginia since the state began using the electric chair in 1908 were blacks convicted of attacking white women. 2 weeks after Whittle's warning, the Martinsville defendants were convicted and sentenced to join them.

The sentences were carried out in February 1951, the largest group of executions for crimes against a single victim in state history and 1 of the largest in U.S. history. Virginia would later execute 3 more men for rape, the last in 1961.

Rape is no longer a death-eligible crime in the U.S., but 60 years later, the executions of the Martinsville 7 still provoke strong feelings in Martinsville's African-American community and among death-penalty critics.

Washington and Lee University law professor David Bruck said that even if the trials were fair and the men guilty, "the idea that you could have a 45-to-0 ratio and that does not prove anything ... tells you that this was simply a judicial system that was not prepared to do the right thing."

What the Martinsville case lacked in legal import, it made up for politically by drawing national and worldwide attention to the death penalty as a civil-rights issue.

Much of that attention was focused on Richmond, home of the governor, the legislature and the state's top civil-rights lawyers, as well as the location of what was then the Virginia State Penitentiary and its electric chair.

In Martinsville, the executions are no longer a common topic of conversation, but they remain on the minds of many African-Americans.

"It's such a raw wound," said Naomi Hodge-Muse, president of the Martinsville chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "The older people all know about it, and it's so hurtful that they don't really want to talk about it.

"No one believed they should get off free … " she said. "But to kill them and not even really know that all of them even committed this crime?"

She also asked, "How many black women have been raped in Virginia and nobody has ever been executed?" (Figures for 1949 are not available, but 1/3 of the 1,505 rape victims in the state in 2009 were black women.)

As far as Hodge-Muse and many others are concerned, the case "was just such an evil miscarriage of justice."

The original trial records, including hundreds of pages of transcripts, are on file at the Martinsville Circuit Court clerk's office.

Each man was charged with rape and aiding and abetting rape — both crimes punishable by death at the time. All but 1 were young and single, and all were employed — 3 in a sawmill, 1 a plasterer's helper, 1 a stonecutter and 1 a foundry man.

There were 6 trials — 2 defendants elected to be tried together — held back to back, none of them lasting more than a day. Prospective jurors in each trial included some blacks, but all 72 jurors selected to try the cases were white.

Eric W. Rise, author of "The Martinsville 7, Race, Rape and Capital Punishment" and a professor of criminal justice at the University of Delaware, said prospective black jurors were excused for expressing reservations about the death penalty or struck by prosecutors.

After the verdicts and sentencings, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals later rejected a racial-prejudice claim filed on behalf of the Martinsville 7, ruling that sentences did not, "depend upon the race of the accused, but upon the circumstances, aggravation and enormity of the crime proven in each case." And in the justices' unanimous opinion, as far as the Martinsville 7 case was concerned, "one can hardly conceive of a more atrocious, a more beastly crime."

The trial transcripts show that on the evening of Saturday, Jan. 8, 1949, Ruby Stroud Floyd, the 32-year-old wife of a department-store manager, entered a black area of the city to collect money owed her by Ruth Pettie, a woman to whom she had sold clothing.

Floyd did not know where the woman lived, so she enlisted the help of 11-year-old Charlie Martin, son of a "colored" woman she knew, to guide her. Martin and his uncle later testified that the uncle warned Floyd not to make the trip in the dark.

Though they varied somewhat in detail, the accounts of what happened that night from the perpetrators, the victim, Martin and other witnesses in large part agreed.

Joe Henry Hampton, 21, was the first man tried. His signed confession, like those of the others, was read into the record and can be found in the old files.

Hampton said he, Howard Hairston, Booker T. Millner and Frank Hairston Jr., were drinking wine near some railroad tracks that Saturday night. "A white lady and a little colored boy came by and the lady asked where Ruth Pettie lived ... we all planned to get her when she came back."

When she and the boy returned, Hampton said he grabbed her and the others joined in the assault, according to his confession.

"Booker T. gave the little colored boy a quarter and told him to go (away)," Hampton told police. Later, 3 other men, Francis DeSales Grayson, John Clabon Taylor and James Luther Hairston joined the other 4 in the assault, according to the confessions.

A physician who treated Floyd after the attack testified that she suffered a swollen lip, scratches on the back of her neck, the back of her right chest and on her buttocks. She also had abrasions on her elbows, forearms, knees, lower legs and thighs. She was emotionally upset, said the doctor, her underclothing was missing and her coat, dress and slip were "extremely dirty."

Although it was dark, Floyd testified in all 6 trials identifying each of the 7.

4 of the 7 testified at their own trials. Some questioned the accuracy of parts of the confessions, and at least one said he did not have intercourse with Floyd and that he did not see Floyd resist anyone.

Among the key witnesses against the men was 11-year-old Charlie Martin. A prosecutor asked him: "Charlie, do you know what happens to little boys who tell lies when they die?"

"Yes, sir," responded the youth.

"What?" he was asked.

"Go to hell," he responded.

Other prosecution witnesses included Grayson's wife, Josephine, who also testified for the defense in some of the cases; a sister of 1 of the defendants; and a black woman who assisted Floyd after the attack.

Unanimous juries recommended death sentences at the end of each trial. The longest deliberations lasted less than 2 hours, Rise said.

After the convictions, the 7 were represented by Richmond-area civil-rights lawyers Martin A. Martin, Samuel W. Tucker, Roland D. Ealey and Oliver W. Hill, and others.

In their 1st appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in 1950, the lawyers argued among other things that the death sentence for rape in Virginia was reserved for blacks.

Records unavailable at the time of the Martinsville 7 appeals show that from 1626 until 1908, at least 3 whites and 99 blacks were hanged for rape or attempted rape in Virginia. After Virginia became a state and until the end of the Civil War, state law allowed only blacks to receive a death sentence for rape. In 1866, the state legislature changed the law so that execution remained an option for both races in rape cases.

In 1908, Virginia became the 5th state in the U.S. to use the electric chair, and executions were carried out by the Virginia Department of Corrections at the State Penitentiary in Richmond. For the 1st time, records were kept at a central location.

The 1st man to die in Virginia's electric chair was Henry Smith, a black man who raped an elderly white woman.

The Library of Virginia has the letter from the lawyer, Martin, asking for execution data. W.F. Smyth Jr., the penitentiary superintendent, wrote a succinct response: "No white person has ever been electrocuted in Virginia for the crime of rape; or attempted rape."

The lawyers used the figures in their clemency petition to Gov. John S. Battle. But on July 24, 1950, Battle turned them down, writing: "No fair minded person can read the evidence in these cases without being convinced, beyond the shadow of a doubt, of the guilt of all the defendants."

"It is worthy of note that none of the defendants claimed that promises or threats were made by anyone before the confessions were signed," he wrote.

Rise said that after Battle's clemency rejection, Martin filed a writ of habeas corpus — a civil challenge to the death sentences — arguing that the seven were denied equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

That appeal failed, too, however. The judge ruled that there was no evidence that discrimination was involved in imposing the Martinsville death sentences. Appeals to the Virginia and U.S. supreme courts followed but also failed.

Bruck said the Martinsville 7 case was the 1st in which statistics were used in a racial challenge to death sentences. And, he asserts, it is "the most dramatic example of how the American judicial system has simply refused to face the facts about race and capital punishment."

It was not until a 1977 Georgia case that the U.S. Supreme Court ended death sentences for rape, but because the death penalty was a "grossly disproportionate" punishment for rape, and not on the basis of race.

As the final execution dates of Feb. 2 and Feb. 5, 1951, approached the governor's office was flooded with thousands of telegrams, including 1 from Moscow, asking that the men not be executed.

Still, preparations for the executions proceeded. The night of Feb. 1, 1951, hundreds of people of both races gathered at the state Capitol to pray.

The next morning, a Friday, 75 people were praying at the Capitol when several blocks away at the penitentiary on Spring Street, Department of Corrections records show that Hampton, 21, was seated in the electric chair at 8:04 a.m. He was pronounced dead at 8:12 a.m. 3 more executions quickly followed.

2 days later, on Sunday, 100 people picketed the White House in Washington, and Josephine Grayson, wife of Francis Grayson, unsuccessfully sought to see President Harry S. Truman.

In Richmond, more than 200 people, most wearing black armbands, marched to Capitol Square from a memorial meeting at Third Street Bethel AME Church.

But the remaining 3 men were executed on Monday, Feb. 5. The last was Grayson, 38, who was pronounced dead at 8:15 that morning.

In his study on the case, Rise concluded that, "At a time when African-Americans were beginning to assert their civil rights vigorously, the executions provided a stark reminder of the harsh treatment reserved for blacks who violated Southern racial codes."

Martinsville remained quiet. There had been no threats of lynching before the trials and no disturbances after the executions.

Tony L. Millner, vice president of the Martinsville NAACP chapter, said he was a child when it happened. "I was maybe 10 years old, and it was very, very, very hush-hush," he said.

"Most of the time, the families, the people who were of age in that era, they talked about it in private homes, in churches and other places ... and always felt as though it was really a serious injustice."

Hodge-Muse says, "This community does not have a hateful attitude that would lend itself to violence ... that's not our culture, and I think it speaks well of the black and white community that we have never had that type of meanness."

But Hodge-Muse, Millner and others also believe that not all the facts came out during the trials and that there are many unanswered questions.

Hodge-Muse said it was common knowledge that the victim spent a great deal of time in the black community. "This was the Jim Crow South; this was prior to the civil-rights movement ... why would she be there," she asked.

"I am not excusing rape. It is a filthy, sick crime," Hodge-Muse said. "But we don't really know what happened."

Another person who wants to learn more is Denise Grayson, 46, of Raleigh, N.C., a granddaughter of Francis Grayson.

Reached by telephone, she said her family will not talk about her grandfather or what happened. "They won't discuss that at all," she said.

Grayson said she once told her father that she wanted to meet her grandfather. "I think I touched a nerve. He said, 'Well, read the book the Martinsville 7.'"

She said her grandmother, Josephine Grayson, now living in Maryland, "will not speak on that at all under (any) circumstances."

It is not known whether Floyd is still alive and if so, where.

Doris Gravely, 80, of Martinsville, a 1st cousin of Joe Henry Hampton, the 1st of the 7 executed, talked about the case in her living room last month.

"My daddy was Hampton's uncle," she said. She said her father, her uncle and Hampton's brother visited Hampton at the jail while he was awaiting trial and that Hampton told them they were making him sleep on the cement floor without clothes.

Gravely also does not believe everything has come out about the case. But, she said, "It's been so long, ain't no need of digging in it now."

Another who believes the past is best left alone is Charlie Martin, the young boy who accompanied the victim and repeatedly testified at the trials. He is now in his 70s and lives just outside the city of Martinsville.

"I won't talk about that," Martin said. "I don't want to bring that up again."

Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch, February 5, 2011
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Ohio: Mercy plea rejected for convicted killer, Nazi sympathizer

The Ohio Parole Board says Spisak does not accept responsibility for his actions.The Ohio Parole Board has unanimously rejected a mercy plea by convicted killer and Nazi sympathizer Frank Spisak of Cleveland.

Spisak, 59, is scheduled to be executed on Feb. 17. He would be the 1st to die under the watch of Gov. John Kasich unless the Republican governor grants clemency.

The board, in a 9-0 decision, said that Spisak's argument that his life should be spared because his case was not "the worst of the worst" is invalid.

"Spisak killed 3 people, tried to kill at least 1 other, and shot at a 5th in his admitted plan to kill as many African Americans as possible and start a race war in Cleveland," the board said. "His victims were innocent, unsuspecting strangers."

The board said Spisak, who once asked the state to pay for a sex-change operation when he was in prison, does not accept responsibility for his actions and continues to blame others.

Kasich, who supports the death penalty, has the ultimate clemency power to spare Spisak's life, grant a reprieve for a period, or allow the execution to go forward.

Spisak committed the murders in 1982 on the campus of Cleveland State University. He blamed mental illness for his actions.

Source: Columbus Dispatch, January 21, 2011
_________________________
Use the tags below or the search engine at the top of this page to find updates, older or related articles on this Website.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Condemned Ohio killer of 3 asks panel for mercy

A condemned Ohio inmate with Nazi sympathies who killed 3 men at Cleveland State University is asking the state's new governor for mercy.

Frank Spisak blamed the 1982 murders on his hatred of gays, blacks and Jews and also claimed his crimes were sparked by mental illness related to confusion about his sexual identity.

His attorneys planned to tell the Ohio Parole Board Thursday that Spisak suffers from a severe bipolar mood disorder that was not diagnosed until years after he was convicted.

The lawyers argue the information could have led jurors to consider a different sentence.

Spisak's plea to spare his life will be the 1st death penalty case to come before newly sworn-in Republican Gov. John Kasich

Source: Associated Press, January 13, 2011

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Texas Defender Service: The 6 best arguments against the death penalty in Texas

Execution chamber
Huntsville Unit, Texas
The following guest blog post was written by Andrea Keilen, Executive Director of Texas Defender Service.

This week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stevens published an essay detailing the Court's decisions that created a system infected with problems, and one he now believes is unconstitutional. Since 1976, 138 people have been exonerated from death row nationwide.

12 of them were in Texas.

The fact that some mistakes were discovered in time and innocent people were exonerated strongly suggests that there have been other occasions when mistakes were not discovered in time and innocent people were executed.

Beginning Monday, December 6, at a hearing next week in a Harris County District Court, expert witnesses will testify about the numerous flaws that leave Texas' system riddled with errors, inherently unreliable, and unconstitutional as applied.

Attorneys for John Green, who is charged with capital murder, will urge the court to rule the Texas death penalty statute unconstitutional because it creates an unacceptable risk that innocent people have been, and will be, wrongfully convicted and executed.

When innocent people are exonerated, it is often a matter of dumb luck . For example, the real killer confesses or pro bono law firms take an interest in the case. It is rarely because the system catches errors and corrects itself.

Both Ernest Ray Willis and Cameron Todd Willingham were convicted of murder by arson and sentenced to death on the basis of junk fire science. Mr. Willingham is dead and Mr. Willis is alive -- and free -- because a pro bono law firm took Mr. Willis' case.

At the hearing, witnesses will testify about the following factors, which taken together, create an unacceptable risk of wrongful conviction in capital cases:

1st, Texas has no standards to ensure that eyewitness testimony is obtained in ways that protect against the risk of mistaken identification.

Texas does not follow the scientific research or best practices on eyewitness identification recommended by the U.S. Department of Justice, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, or the ABA. Nationwide, more than 75% of individuals exonerated by DNA evidence were convicted because of faulty eyewitness identifications .

2nd, Texas allows the introduction of confessions that have been obtained without safeguards to protect against false confessions. Texas law does not require recording interrogations . 25 % of the exonerations in the U.S. revealed through DNA testing involved a false confession .

3rd, use of informant testimony is largely unregulated in Texas.

Although in 2009 Texas began to require corroborating evidence for jailhouse informant testimony, that standard is loosely defined. Further, Texas has not implemented other important safeguards involving greater transparency and pretrial reliability screenings which more fully protect against false testimony. In one study, nearly 50% of wrongful murder convictions involved perjury by a jailhouse snitch or another witness who stood to gain from false testimony. (Professor Gross study, p. 39)

4th, pervasive flaws have been identified in the analysis of presentation of forensic evidence that result in unreliable results. In a study of DNA exonerations , the prosecution provided invalid forensic testimony in 60% of the cases, that is, testimony that misstated the data or was not supported by the data. (Garrett and Neufeld, p. 41) The National Academy of Sciences recently issued a broad critique of the nation's forensic system. The risk of wrongful conviction due to faulty forensic science at the is, standing alone, constitutionally intolerable.

5th, pretrial discovery procedures are inadequate to safeguard against the prosecution's suppression of evidence favorable to the accused.

A survey of published capital cases in Texas documented state misconduct in 41 capital convictions. (Texas Defender Service, p. 48)

6th, Texas prosecutors in Harris County and elsewhere have a shameful history of excluding African Americans from juries. Although this practice has been illegal for more than a century, recent research shows that discrimination in jury selection increases the risk of wrongful convictions by reducing the thoroughness and accuracy of jury deliberations.

Texas routinely fails to provide competent counsel and adequate defense funding in state habeas corpus proceedings. Extensive research, and a State Bar Task Force have all reached this conclusion. In almost 40% of state habeas cases, the petitions did not include any materials beyond the existing record, a clear indication of a lack of investigation.

The Texas clemency procedure lacks most elements of a sufficient clemency review and fails in its role as the last safeguard against executing the innocent. For example, Claude Jones was executed in 2000 based on false evidence. During the clemency review, then-Governor Bush was not informed that Mr. Jones had requested DNA testing that might have exonerated him. Ten years after Mr. Jones' execution, a DNA test showed that the hair sample at the crime scene was not his.

All 3 branches of Texas government have created entities to review issues in the criminal justice system based on the risk of error:

•In 2005, the Texas legislature created and Governor Rick Perry signed legislation creating the Texas Forensic Science Commission .

•By executive order, Governor Rick Perry created the Criminal Justice Advisory Council .

•In 2008, the highest criminal court in Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, created a Criminal Justice Integrity Unit .

•In 2009, the legislature created and the governor approved the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions .

But virtually nothing has been done to reduce the most prevalent causes of wrongful convictions Innocent people can and do get sentenced to death in Texas. Action by the courts and legislature to address these serious problems is long overdue.

Source: Dallas Morning News, December 3, 2010

Connecticut: Hayes' Execution Many Years Away; Appeals could take more than 20 years

In about 3 months, appellate lawyers for convicted triple-murderer Steven Hayes will file an appeal of Hayes' death sentence to the state Supreme Court.

A ruling will take 4 to 5 years.

After that, barring a reversal by the court, the process settles in for the long haul — a progression of state habeas corpus motions and federal appeals that can raise issues ranging from purported mistakes by the trial lawyers or judge to claims that the death penalty is arbitrary and influenced by the race and economic status of the victim.

Even though Hayes told Superior Court Judge Jon C. Blue on Thursday that he views death as a "welcome relief,'' it could easily be 20 years or longer before Hayes is wheeled into the execution chamber at Northern Correctional Institution in Somers and given a lethal injection.

2 of the 9 inmates currently on Connecticut's death row — convicted killers Robert Breton and Sedrick "Ricky" Cobb — were sentenced to death in 1989 and 1991, respectively, and have yet to exhaust their appeals and federal habeas motions.

Serial killer Michael Ross spent 18 years on death row before he was executed at his own insistence in 2005.

In Connecticut, the initial appeal to the state Supreme Court is automatic and mandatory.

The court must uphold the sentence unless it finds it was the product of passion or prejudice or the evidence fails to support the finding of an aggravating factor.

If the inmate loses there, "the process, in a real sense, starts all over again with the habeas phase,'' said Senior Assistant Public Defender Mark Rademacher, who is handling the appeals of several inmates on death row.

State habeas actions often involve claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Rademacher noted that Hayes was represented by 2 of the most experienced public defenders in Connecticut, Thomas Ullmann, who directs the New Haven office, and Patrick Culligan, who specializes in capital cases.

"But everyone makes mistakes,'' said Rademacher. "A mistake is not a scarlet letter. What happened on 1 day in court during the trial, I have the luxury of taking 3 days to think about it for the appeal.''

Hayes, 47, enters death row at a time when his fellow inmates are challenging the death penalty in Connecticut on racial grounds. The contention, said Rademacher, is that the race of the victim improperly influences whether a defendant is sentenced to death. Hayes and his accomplice, Joshua Komisarjevsky, are already included in the racial disparity case.

A victory in the race case would mean the end of the death penalty in Connecticut and the conversion of death sentences to life without the possibility of release, Rademacher said. A loss would mean that the inmates would have to pursue their claims individually, which could take years. Hayes was convicted of attacking and killing three members of Dr. William Petit Jr.'s family — his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, and their two daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11. Petit, severely beaten, was the sole survivor of the home-invasion robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault and arson. Komisarjevsky is scheduled for trial next year.

Source: Connecticut Now, December 3, 2010

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Reggie Clemons - The Flaws in the U.S. Death Penalty System

Reggie Clemons was sentenced to death in St. Louis as an accomplice in the 1991 murder of two young white women, Julie and Robin Kerry, who plunged from the Chain of Rocks Bridge into the Mississippi River. Two other black youths were also convicted, including Marlin Gray (executed in 2005). Clemons has consistently maintained his innocence. His case illustrates many of the flaws in the U.S. death penalty system.

At the time of the trial, the prosecution conceded that Clemons neither killed the victims nor planned the crime; there is no physical evidence that ties him to the crime itself or the events leading up to it. Clemons alleges that he confessed under the pressure of police brutality to raping one of the victims. He never confessed to the murders. He subsequently retracted his confession. Two other suspects independently alleged mistreatment by the police. Witnesses attest to Clemons' face being swollen after his interrogation.

Four federal judges have agreed that the prosecutor's conduct was "abusive and boorish." The prosecutor had a history of criticism from both state and federal courts, and compared Clemons to two convicted serial killers, despite Clemons' clean record. Clemons' lawyer had experienced some past complaints as well. His co-counsel had a full-time job in another state during her representation of Mr. Clemons, resulting in poor preparation for the trial.

Of equal importance when considering the case of Mr. Clemons, is the question of race; not only were the murder victims white, but the two crucial witnesses were as well. The three convicted defendants were black, and during jury selection, blacks were disproportionately dismissed, resulting in an unrepresentative jury, given St. Louis' sizeable black population. The jury's flaws were also noted in 2002 by a U.S. District Court judge who ruled Clemons' death sentence should not stand because six prospective jurors had been improperly excluded at jury selection. 


Source: Amnesty International USA, December 1, 2010

Hearing on Constitutionality of Texas Death Penalty - Monday Dec. 6 in Houston Judge Fine's Courtroom

Judge Kevin Fine
A hearing on the constitutionality of the Texas death penalty will be held in Judge Kevin Fine's courtroom in Houston on Monday, December 6, at 9 AM.

Texas' use of capital punishment will undergo legal scrutiny at this hearing. Evidence and arguments will likely be presented that there is substantial risk that the state's death penalty law does not adequately protect against the execution of an innocent person.

John Edward Green, Jr., the defendant in Texas v. Green, is charged in the fatal shooting of a 34-year-old Houston woman during a 2008 robbery. Green’s defense attorneys will argue that a number of factors in Texas' death penalty system increase the risk of wrongful executions in Texas, including a lack of safeguards to protect against mistaken eyewitness identification, faulty forensic evidence, incompetent lawyers at the appellate level, failures to guard against false confessions and a history of racial discrimination in jury selection.

State District Judge Kevin Fine of the 177th Criminal Court in Harris County (Houston) set the hearing for Dec. 6 as part of a pretrial motion in which two defense attorneys for a Houston man facing a possible death sentence asked that Texas' death penalty statute be declared unconstitutional.

In March, on a motion filed by attorneys for John Edward Green Jr. (facing death for the 2008 robbery and murder of Huong Thien Nguyen in Houston), Fine ruled that capital punishment as practiced in Texas is unconstitutional for failing to adequately protect the innocent. Fine quickly rescinded that original order, but he has granted Green's attorneys the right to a hearing on the matter. Green's attorney Casey Keirnan told the Associated Press that he expects the hearing could last up to two weeks and that death penalty experts from around the country will likely testify. "I think everybody in the United States would agree that the possibility exists" that an innocent person has already been executed, he said.

TEXAS MORATORIUM NETWORK: If you live in Houston or can be there, there will be a demonstration against the Texas death penalty outside the courthouse at 8 AM on Monday Dec. 6, 2010 (RSVP on the Facebook event page). Location: Harris County Criminal Justice Center, 1201 Franklin, 19th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002

Source: Texas Moratorium Network, December 1, 2010


Texas Judge to Rule on Death Penalty Constitutionality

Texas' messy death penalty saga continues Monday in a Houston courtroom, where a district judge will for the first time in state history consider whether the risk of executing an innocent person makes capital punishment unconstitutional.

Harris County District Judge Kevin Fine is set to hold a hearing in the case of John Edward Green, who is charged with fatally shooting a Houston woman during a robbery in June 2008. Harris County prosecutors are seeking the death penalty in the case. But Green’s attorneys and capital punishment opponents want Fine to rule that prosecutors can’t seek the death penalty because the way it is administered in Texas is unconstitutional. They say they have proof that at least two wrongfully convicted men have been executed. With so many chances for error in the courts, they argue, Texas shouldn't risk putting an innocent person to death. “The current system is profoundly and fundamentally flawed from top to bottom,” says Andrea Keilen, executive director of the Texas Defender Service.


Source: The Texas Tribune, December 2, 2010


Death Penalty May Be Ruled Unconstitutional In Texas

WASHINGTON -- At a hearing scheduled for Monday, December 6, a district court in Texas will decide whether the death penalty is unconstitutional in the state based on the disproportionately high risk of wrongful convictions in Texas. This is the first time in the state's history that a court will examine the problem of innocent people being executed in a Texas capital trial.

John Edward Green, Jr., the defendant in Texas v. Green, is charged in the fatal shooting of a 34-year-old Houston woman during a 2008 robbery. According to legal documents obtained by HuffPost, Green's defense attorneys will be arguing on Monday that a number of factors in Texas's legal system increase the risk of wrongful executions there, including a lack of safeguards to protect against mistaken eyewitness identification, faulty forensic evidence, incompetent lawyers at the appellate level, failures to guard against false confessions and a history of racial discrimination in jury selection.

The death penalty in Texas came under fire earlier this month when a DNA test conducted on a single hair undermined the evidence that convicted a Texas man of capital murder over ten years ago. The hair had been the only piece of evidence linking Claude Jones to the crime scene, but the new test results revealed that the hair likely belonged to the murder victim instead of Jones.

Maurie Levin, a law professor at the University of Texas and an expert on capital punishment, said she would not be surprised if Judge Kevin Fine ruled the death penalty to be unconstitutional in Texas on Monday.

"I would think that Judge Fine would have substantial basis in the evidence that I'm aware of that would lead to a conclusion that the Texas death penalty is unconstitutional as applied," she told HuffPost.

Since 1976, twelve people have been exonerated from death row in Texas out of 139 nationwide, and four study commissions set up by the Texas government have formally recognized the serious risks of wrongful convictions there. Out of the 464 people that have been executed in Texas, about 70 percent have been minorities, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Andrea Keilen, executive director of Texas Defender Service, said it is clear to her that the death penalty is handed down unfairly and erratically in Texas.

"It is my opinion and the opinion of many people close to this issue that the Texas system is wholly incapable of carrying out the death penalty in a fair and reliable way," she told HuffPost. "Texas is remarkably out of step with the rest of the country and certainly out of step with what the average Texan would expect when dealing with capital punishment. We're seeing in case after case that the system is just inherently prone to the risk of wrongful convictions and has a complete inability to correct its mistakes."

Keilen said that while the state has a history of strong popular support for capital punishment, she thinks Texans would feel differently about the practice if they knew all the facts.

"I think there is support for the idea of the death penalty among the average Texan, but that if the average Texan were to get a closeup view of how the system actually operates, that support would significantly wane," she said. "It's an abstract concept to most people, but if they saw how abysmal the quality of representation can be, how the system is biased racially, how prosecutors can not disclose evidence, or how DNA testing can be wrong, my opinion is that they as reasonable people would find it unacceptable."

Source: The Huffington Post, December 2, 2010

Monday, November 29, 2010

Former Justice John Paul Stevens Criticizes Death Penalty

WASHINGTON — In 1976, just six months after he joined the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens voted to reinstate capital punishment after a four-year moratorium. With the right procedures, he wrote, it is possible to ensure “evenhanded, rational and consistent imposition of death sentences under law.”

In 2008, two years before he announced his retirement, Justice Stevens reversed course and in a concurrence said that he now believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional.

But the reason for that change of heart, after more than three decades on the court and some 1,100 executions, has in many ways remained a mystery, and now Justice Stevens has provided an explanation.

In a detailed, candid and critical essay to be published this week in The New York Review of Books, he wrote that personnel changes on the court, coupled with “regrettable judicial activism,” had created a system of capital punishment that is shot through with racism, skewed toward conviction, infected with politics and tinged with hysteria.


Source: The New York Times, November 28, 2010


Stevens' Powerful Anti-Death-Penalty Views

Former Justice John Paul Stevens (left), who retired from the Supreme Court in June after turning 90, has come out swinging in the past few days against the death penalty. In an appearance on 60 Minutes this past Sunday and a New York Review of Books essay that is now online, Justice Stevens makes the case that capital punishment as it is now administered in the U.S. is hopelessly flawed  and unconstitutional.

In so doing, he is pushing the death-penalty debate just where it needs to go. Supporters and opponents generally argue over whether capital punishment is right in the abstract. The discussion often comes off as little more than late-night dorm-room philosophizing: "Killing is killing, even if the state does it," or "Are you saying that if the allies caught Hitler, they shouldn't have executed him?"

Yet as Justice Stevens frames the question, it isn't whether you believe in a death penalty, it's whether you believe in this death penalty, the one the U.S. is currently using. It is a more relevant issue for those who care if the justice system is doing the right thing, and he makes a compelling case that none of us should.

Justice Stevens, who was appointed by a Republican President, Gerald Ford, has not always opposed capital punishment. In 1976, shortly after he joined the court, he provided a key vote in Gregg v. Georgia, one of a group of cases that ended a de facto death-penalty moratorium that had been in place since 1972. He did not join the most liberal Justices at the time, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, who insisted that any executions violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In 2008, Justice Stevens famously changed his mind. In a case challenging Kentucky's method of lethal injection, he said in a separate opinion that the court's decision in 1976 that capital punishment is constitutional was based on a belief that it would be applied in a way that would not be discriminatory, arbitrary, excessive or racially discriminatory. After three decades on the court, it had become clear to him that those conditions were not being met.

In his New York Review of Books essay, Justice Stevens gives a fuller explanation of what made him turn away from the death penalty. As he saw it, the 1976 ruling argued for a careful and narrow use of capital punishment, but since then, the Supreme Court has made its use increasingly less careful and less narrow.

One factor that has Justice Stevens and many other people questioning the death penalty is its unreliability. As Justice Stevens points out, more than 130 people have been exonerated and released from death row since 1973, a number of them based on DNA evidence.

Another chief concern is race. In 1987, a challenge was brought to the death penalty that showed it was being used in a highly disparate way: in Georgia, murderers who killed white people were 11 times more likely to get capital punishment than those with black victims. Justice Stevens, who dissented from that ruling, writes in his essay that the far greater punishment the system imposes for the killing of whites "provides a haunting reminder of once prevalent Southern lynchings."

Justice Stevens is also troubled by the way key procedural rules have been rewritten to make it easier to put people to death. One change involves so-called death-qualified juries -- that is, juries that don't include people who oppose the death penalty. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that opposition to the death penalty is not a valid reason to exclude someone from a jury. If you allow jurors to be excluded on this basis, you end up with juries that are much more pro-prosecution, and pro-death penalty, than society as a whole. But three years ago, a bitterly divided Supreme Court undid that ruling -- and cleared the way for death-qualified juries.

Another change is in the use of victim-impact statements. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that having a jury hear the often emotionally wrenching stories of victims could unfairly inflame jurors and was inconsistent with the "reasoned decisionmaking we require in capital cases." 4 years later, after turnover among the Justices, the court reversed itself - over Justice Stevens' dissent - and ruled that these statements can be used.

Justice Stevens' critique of death-penalty law is exactly right. It is also badly needed, as the current court is becoming ever more enthusiastic about capital punishment and ever more indifferent to important details -- like how certain we are that the person facing execution is even guilty.

Last year, Justice Antonin Scalia wrapped that indifference in constitutional theory, strongly suggesting in a dissent in a Georgia death-penalty case that there is nothing unconstitutional about executing someone who turns out to be actually innocent, so long as they had a proper trial and appeals process.

A great deal of death-penalty arguments, both pro and con, fall on deaf ears. If you oppose the death penalty as morally wrong, you are not likely to be impressed by reasoned (if flawed) arguments -- that it might deter crime, for example, or that it has long had a central place in western civilization. If you believe in capital punishment, you are unlikely to be moved by someone who simply says the state has no right to take a life.

Justice Stevens' arguments are powerful precisely because they come from someone in the middle of the debate -- a man who long believed capital punishment was constitutional provided it was properly applied. His sharp critique should reinforce the resolve of those who do not support the death penalty and raise unsettling questions for those who do.

Source: TIME Magazine; Adam Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board. Case Study, his legal column for TIME.com, appears every Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Outsourced

Usually I would not waste my readers' time writing about a TV "comedy" show, but since this we were told that this one has a "real Sikh" in it, I thought perhaps it might be worth at least checking out.  OK, there is a "real Sikh."  At least he looks like a Sikh.   Here is a little quiz.  I took a few screenshots of this "comedy."  In each of the pictures below, is The Sikh.  Find him, if you can!  Some are very easy; some are more difficult.  Answers below.  (Yes, I know the pictures extend into the sidebar, but there was no other way to get the pictures big enough to actually see him.  I promise, he's still visible in each picture.)


 



I rarely watch TV comedies because I find them a bit depressing.  My expectations of this show were very low; the show itself was worse.  Just to focus on the Sikh character.  He made a few minor appearances, spoke no lines and each time was glowering, glaring, angry, a bit scary, even to me.  Even the "Kiss me, I'm Irish"t-shirt didn't help.  Of course, he had some cause;  the lead character joshing about his turban isn't a very good start.  I recommend that all Khaliblog readers watch this show once just to see how drearily dismal this thing is..  I have read an on line review of this show, which I am in complete agreement with, although the author might have used less profane language.  The Eight Most Racist Jokes from the Outsourced  Pilot.  Pity me.  To get these screenshots I had to watch the whole dreary thing very closely.  Finding Mr. Singh wasn't always easy.


I would call this show a real dog, except I see no reason to insult our canine friends and companions.  It bears no resemblance to any animal.  It is simply gross, insulting and stupid.
If you'd like to waste a half hour while being insulted, the episode can be seen at   http://www.nbc.com/outsourced/video/pilot/1251026 at least in the USA.  On second thought, you'd be better off doing some naam-jap, though.

Here's the answer sheet.





Kiss me I'm Irish?

What on earth was SALDEF - a great organisation - thinking when they gave the OK to this drivel?