Archive | death penalty

27 May 2010 ~ Comments Off

Update on Judge Fine in Houston

Here’s an update from the Houston Chronicle regarding Judge Kevin Fine. This spring, in the case of John Edward Green, Judge Fine ruled the administration of the death penalty unconstitutional due to the risk of wrongful conviction and wrongful execution. He later rescinded the ruling but scheduled a hearing on the motion. He will remain the judge on this case.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7023883.html
Thursday, May 27, 2010 | Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle

DA’s effort to recuse judge in murder case rejected
By BRIAN ROGERS | Houston Chronicle

A Houston judge who declared the procedures surrounding the death
penalty unconstitutional in March, then rescinded his ruling to hear
more information, will stay on the case, a special judge has ruled.

State District Judge L.J. Gist denied the district attorney’s motion
to recuse Kevin Fine, who presides over the 177th state District
Court.

“It is the finding of this court that the totality of evidence does
not support the state’s motion to recuse Judge Fine nor that his
impartiality might be reasonably questioned,” Gist wrote.

Gist said he filed the denial Tuesday, but clerks said they had not
received it until Wednesday.

On April 1, Harris County’s District Attorney Pat Lykos asked that
Fine be recused after he ruled that the Texas capital murder statute
violates due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

“A reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances involved, would
harbor doubts as to the impartiality of Judge Fine,” according to
court documents filed by prosecutors.

If Fine rules the same way after hearing arguments on the issue and
his ruling survives appellate review, it will take the death penalty
off the table for John Edward Green. The 25-year-old Green is accused
in the robbery and fatal shooting of Huong Thien Nguyen, 34, on June
16, 2008.

Fine’s original ruling drew swift rebukes from Lykos, Texas Attorney
General Greg Abbott and Gov. Rick Perry.

Continue Reading

21 May 2010 ~ Comments Off

Urge Clemency for David Lee Powell

David Lee Powell, who was sentenced to death in 1978 for the murder of Austin Police Officer Ralph Ablanedo, is scheduled for execution on June 15, 2010. He has accepted responsibility for his crime and repeatedly expressed his remorse to Officer Ablanedo’s family and the law enforcement community in Austin.

In his 32 years on death row, David has been a model prisoner and has assisted his fellow inmates in numerous ways – diffusing conflicts, teaching others to read, and advocating for those with disabilities. His case starkly demonstrates the fallacy of the “future dangerousness” argument that prosecutors in Texas often use to convince jurors to sentence a defendant to death. At a resentencing hearing for David Powell in 1999, former Texas State Legislator Sissy Farenthold, Ronald Hampton, Executive Director of the National Black Police Association, and several prison guards from death row who had known David for years testified on his behalf. They all attested to his upstanding character and firmly stated that he was no longer a threat to society. David had no history of violence before or since the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to death.

You can read more about David Lee Powell in an article that appeared this week in the Austin Chronicle (“The execution of David Powell will not serve justice”).

Please send a letter to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, urging clemency for David Lee Powell. Letters from Travis County residents are particularly valuable. You can take action through the website of Amnesty International USA or compose your own letter based on AIUSA’s Urgent Action. Here are some suggested talking points:

-Note that Mr. Powell does not pose a threat or future danger to society, according to several law enforcement officers who testified on his behalf.

-Note that the death penalty issue has changed dramatically in Texas in the last 30 years and that the number of new death sentences has declined more than 60% in recent years.

-Urge the Board to grant clemency as a way to restore the community, rather than move forward with an execution that will lead only to more pain and divisiveness.

For more information, visit www.letdavidlive.org.

Continue Reading

29 April 2010 ~ Comments Off

Texas Executes 7th Death Row Inmate this Year

Samuel Bustamante, convicted of the 1998 fatal stabbing of a man, was put to death in Huntsville, Texas on Tuesday April 27, 2010. This execution was Texas’s 7th this year, with at least 7 more scheduled through July. So far the executions that have taken place in Texas this year total 1 less than all the other states combined.

Continue Reading

29 April 2010 ~ Comments Off

Coverage of Texas Forensic Science Commission Meeting

On Friday, April 23, 2010 the Texas Forensic Science Commission met in Irving, Texas to discuss a number of cases that have been postponed since Governor Rick Perry replaced three of the commission’s members last year. One case under consideration was that of Cameron Todd Willingham. Willingham (additional coverage available here) was executed in 2004 for arson, although a number of forensic science reports have raised serious concerns regarding the evidence which led to Willingham’s death sentence and his possible wrongful execution.

Despite the commission’s meeting, substantial progress was not made on the case with newly appointed commission chairman John Bradley offering no timeline for deciding on Willingham’s case and commission member Sarah Kerrigan stating that a decision on Willingham’s case was “still in its infancy”. The sub-commission which is reviewing the file did add a fourth member on Friday- Lance Evans, a Fort-Worth criminal defense attorney.
A number of news publications have spoke out regarding the commission’s meeting:
“The Big Stall”- Texas Tribune, available here.
“More Time for Willingham”- Texas Tribune, available here.
“Forensic panel ‘just beginning’ Willingham arson inquiry”- Austin American Statesman, available here.
“Four member panel to discuss Willingham case in private”- Fort Worth Star Telegram, available here.

Continue Reading

22 April 2010 ~ 1 Comment

Coverage of Supreme Court denial to hear Hood’s Appeal

On Monday, April 19, 2010, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in the case of Charles Dean Hood and his 1990 death sentence which was prosecuted by a district attorney engaged in a sexual extra-martial affair with the presiding judge. Judge Verla Sue Holland presided over the trial while Tom O’Connell, then Collin County district attorney, prosecuted Hood; the couple had been involved in a secret affair for years, but did not admit to the accusations until 2008. The case has gained both national and international notoriety with extensive coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision, which was made without comment, coming forth over the course of the week.
Hood’s appeal to the Supreme Court was supported by 30 top legal ethicists and an array of high-profile judges and prosecutors, including former FBI director William Sessions and Texas’s former governor and attorney general Mark White. Although Hood was granted a re-sentencing trail in February by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, this was granted on a legal issue unrelated to the affair. Essentially, both the Texas and national Court’s refusal to acknowledge the conflict of interest in the case, has left many to question how constitutionally complying the judicial system is.
The following are links to various articles available since the Supreme Court’s decision:

Hood case not heard by U.S. Supreme Court“- Plano Courier Star

Continue Reading

19 April 2010 ~ Comments Off

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Cert for Charles Hood

Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in the case of Charles Hood, a Texas death row inmate. This case has garnered national attention from numerous attorneys and legal ethicists because of the troubling questions it raises as to whether Hood received a fair trial.


Andrea Keilen, Director of Texas Defender Service, which represents Mr. Hood, issued the following statement:

“We are disheartened that the United States Supreme Court ruled not to hear the case of Charles Hood in which the trial judge and district attorney who prosecuted Hood engaged in a secret, long-term, extra-marital affair. This is particularly disappointing given that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to date has ignored this obvious and outrageous constitutional violation. Dozens of former state and federal prosecutors and judges and the nation’s leading legal ethicists have criticized the handling of this case by the Texas death penalty system. No one should be prosecuted for a parking ticket let alone for capital murder by the district attorney who has had a sexual affair with the judge handling the case and despite the Court’s decision today, we will continue to zealously represent Mr. Hood as we believe his case was marred by a fundamental injustice.”

##
According to the Dallas Morning News:

“In February, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that Hood was entitled to a new sentencing hearing — for reasons unrelated to the sexual relationship between the judge and the prosecutor. The court said the jury that sentenced him was not given proper instructions on how to consider his background when determining his punishment.”

Read more from the Dallas Morning News:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/041910dnmethoodcase.26259a024.html..

Continue Reading

06 April 2010 ~ Comments Off

UT Law Presents: The American Death Penalty in the 21st Century

The University of Texas School of Law’s Capital Punishment Center will host a conference on legislative developments concerning the American death penalty on April 9–10. “The American Death Penalty in the Twenty-first Century: the Direction of Legislative Change and the Prospects for Legislative Abolition” will bring together lawyers and lawmakers from around the country to talk about efforts to abolish the death penalty (New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Colorado, Kansas) as well as efforts to expand it (Georgia, Massachusetts, Virginia, New Hampshire) and reform it (North Carolina, Maryland, California).


The event is free and open to the public, with conference events beginning on Friday April 9 at 10:15 AM in the Eidman Courtroom.

The following is the conference schedule:

Friday April 9th

10:15 – 10:30 Welcoming Remarks
Dean Larry Sager, UT School of Law
Jordan Steiker, Professor, UT School of Law

10:30 – 12:00: National Perspective on Recent Developments
Shari Silberstein, Executive Director, Equal Justice USA
Dick Dieter, Executive Director, Death Penalty Information Center
Diann Rust-Tierney, Executive Director, National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
Moderator: Maurie Levin, UT School of Law

12:00 – 1:30: Lunch

1:30 – 3:00: Abolition Achieved : The Experiences in New Mexico, New Jersey, & New York Shari Silberstein, Executive Director, Equal Justice USA
Viki Elkey, Director, New Mexico Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty
Jonathan Gradess , Executive Director, New York State Defender’s Association
Moderator: Jordan Steiker, UT School of Law

3:15 – 4:30: Study and Reform of the Death Penalty: Maryland & California
Dick Dieter, Executive Director, Death Penalty Information Center
Amy Fusting – Program Director, Maryland Citizens Against State Executions
Gerald Uelman, Dean, Santa Clara School of Law
Moderator: Jim Marcus, UT School of Law

Saturday April 10th

8:30 – 9:45: Reintroduction, Expansion and Administration of the Death Penalty: Georgia, Virginia & Massachusetts
Chris Adams, Law Office of Chris Adams, Atlanta, Georgia
Beth Panilaitis, Executive Director, Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty
Renny Cushing, New Hampshire House of Representatives; Executive Director, Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights
Moderator: Rob Owen, UT School of Law

9:45 – 11:00 Abolition Contested: The Experiences in Colorado, Kansas & New Hampshire Michael Radelet, Professor, University of Colorado at Boulder
Donna Schneweis, State Death Penalty Abolition Coordinator, Amnesty International
Renny Cushing, New Hampshire House of Representatives; Executive Director, Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights
Moderator: Jordan Steiker, UT School of Law

11:00 – 12:15: Reform to Redress Race Discrimination: The experience in North Carolina
Rob Owen, Professor, UT School of Law
Ken Rose, Senior Attorney, Center for Death Penalty Litigation
Larry Womble, State Representative, North Carolina
Moderator: Maurie Levin, UT School of Law

Continue Reading

05 April 2010 ~ Comments Off

Letter to the Editor re Hank Skinner

The following letter regarding the case of Hank Skinner appeared on Sunday, April 4, 2010 in the Amarillo Globe News:


Every time we have heard about a new execution date for Hank Skinner, we’re anxious for that day to come so our family can have some closure.

But then, he has always gotten a reprieve over the DNA testing. We are Lisa Busby’s aunt and uncle and her caretakers. Lisa Busby is Twila Busby’s daughter. She survived because she was spending New Year’s Eve 1993 with poppa and grandma when Hank Skinner killed her mother and two brothers in Pampa.

This has been happening for ten years because the Gray County district attorney will not let Skinner’s DNA be tested. Lynn Switzer does not need anyone’s permission to have the DNA tested. She spent more than $1 million in the unsuccessful Doan murder trials. There is a lab in Arizona that will do the DNA testing for free. It’s not like it’s going to cost a million taxpayers’ dollars to have closure for OUR family. Is the district attorney treating all families equally?

She could have allowed the testing a long time ago. What is the real reason she has not allowed the Hank Skinner DNA testing? We would like to know.

David Brito Garcia

Pampa


Go to http://www.amarillo.com/stories/040410/opi_opin6.shtml to read other letters and online comments.

Continue Reading