Campaign to End the Death Penalty

Join the peoples protest against Judge Sharon Killer Keller

2007-11-13T17:30:00.001-08:00

Why: Judge Sharon Keller has violated the Judicial Code of Conduct and damaged the integrity of the Texas judiciary. She should resign or be removed from office. On Sept 25, Keller said "We close at 5" and refused to accept an appeal 20 minutes after 5pm from a man set to be executed at 6 pm that day. She did not consult with the duty judge or any other judges on the court before refusing to accept the appeal. Michael Richard was executed on Sept 25, but he would not have been executed that night if Keller had not acted unethically and violated his constitutional rights. Richard was the last person executed in the U.S.before the start of the current de facto moratorium pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Baze v. Rees case on the constitutionality of lethal injection as a method of execution.

Date: Friday, Nov 16 at 4:45

Schedule:

4:45 pm Start to gather and get in line to deliver letters urging Keller to resign and the copy of the judicial complaint to the Clerk of the Court.
5:00 The court closes, but we want to have people standing in line with letters to deliver, so that they are inconvenienced and forced to stay open an extra 20 minutes to serve everyone in line.
5:20 Rally with speakers outside on the Court plaza.

Place: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,
201 West 14th Street (This is the official address. We will meet on the plaza around the corner facing Congress Ave.)
Austin, Tx

Action: We will be delivering a copy of a judicial complaint against Sharon Keller signed so far by more than 1300 members of the public.

You can still sign the complaint by clicking here or visiting the website www.SharonKiller.com

We ask that people bring their own personally written letters urging Keller to resign and you can deliver yours to the Clerk of the Court.

WE SAVED KENNETH!

2007-11-06T13:11:00.001-08:00

Movement to Save Kenneth Foster Wins Historic Victory

August 30, 2007

Movement to Save Kenneth Foster Wins Historic Victory

Family members and supporters of Kenneth Foster, Jr. are jubilant in the reaction to Texas Governor Rick Perry's today's announcement today that he would commute the death sentence of Kenneth Foster, who was convicted under the controversial "Law of Parties" for a 1996 murder in which he had no actual involvement. The Board of Pardons and Paroles had recommended clemency by a vote of 6-1. Foster's execution had been scheduled for tonight.

In a statement announcing the commutation, Perry said, "I am concerned about Texas law that allowed capital murder defendants to be tried simultaneously and it is an issue I think the Legislature should examine."

Reaction among Foster's family and friends included both joy and disbelief. "We felt a bit of disbelief because Perry's decision was so unprecedented." said Dana Cloud of the Save Kenneth Foster campaign. "But everyone is so happy that Kenneth will be able to touch his wife and daughter and that we have a chance of seeing him free. Anything is possible when you are alive."

Claire Dube, a close high-school friend of Kenneth's and an active member of the Save Kenneth Foster Campaign, broke into tears when she heard the news. "We don't even know what to say. It's incredible."

Keith Hampton, Foster's attorney, also expressed relief and happiness at winning his client's life. Hampton thanked the activists of the grassroots movement that started in Austin and spread around the world for putting the necessary pressure on the Board and the Governor to win. "Extra-legal means work," he said.

"Governor Perry once said that there was no hue and cry against the death penalty in Texas," commented Lily Hughes of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty. "Well, here was your hue and cry."

Foster's family and other supporters will continue to work to free him from prison. "It seems like ten years on death row under 23-hour lockdown could amount to time served for any crime that Kenneth ever committed," Cloud said.

Perry's decision is historic. Not only has the Board of Pardons and Paroles rarely recommended clemency (by one count, 3 times since 1982), but Rick Perry has overseen more executions than any Governor of the State of Texas, including George Bush.

"This case demonstrated to the world just how arbitrary and capricious capital punishment is," Cloud said. "It gives people pause when someone who killed no one could come this close to being executed."

"Public sentiment has been turning against capital punishment," Hughes said. "We've seen a lot of states stop executing people. Winning Kenneth's life might be a real turning point in the history of the death penalty in Texas."

STATEWIDE MEETING FOR KENNETH FOSTER

2007-05-29T08:58:00.000-07:00

STOP THE EXECUTION OF KENNETH FOSTER, JR. !
The Time is Now To Save an Innocent Man!

STATEWIDE MEETING:
Wednesday May 30, at 6:30PM
Carver Library
1161 Angelina Street
(off Rosewood and Angelina – Take 11th Street east from I-35 about 7 blocks
At the light, bear left onto Rosewood, then take a left on Angelina)

Kenneth Foster, Jr. was sentenced to death in May 1997 for driving a
car from which Mauriceo Brown got out and shot Michael LaHood, Jr.
Kenneth's case is currently at a critical juncture, as the state of
Texas has recently given him an execution date of August 30, 2007.
Kenneth could be killed simply because of the gross misuse of the Law
of Parties. As the Austin Chronicle has put it, he was in "the wrong
place at the wrong time."

Kenneth is a founding member of D.R.I.V.E., a group of death row
prisoners who organize using methods of nonviolent resistance, to
fight for humane conditions on death row in Texas. Go to
freekenneth.com, www.myspace.com/kf999232, or drivemovement.org.

Join a campaign to save the life of Kenneth Foster, Jr. and help shine
a light on the injustice of the Texas death penalty system! Join us
for an organizing meeting of groups and individuals who want to work
together on this campaign.

For more information call 494-0667 or email cedpaustin@gmail.com or
check out myspace.com/cedpaustin.

Happy Hour Tomorrow!

2007-04-22T15:49:00.000-07:00

CEDP Happy Hour tomorrow!

The Campaign to End the Death Penalty is hosting a happy hour for Rodney Reed tomorrow, Monday, April 23, at 7:00pm at Double Dave's, on Duval near the intersection of Duval and San Jacinto on the north side of the UT campus.

Rodney Reed is an innocent man on Texas' death row. He was wrongly convicted in Bastrop County of the 1996 murder of Stacey Stites. The pattern of police and prosecutorial misconduct,existing physical evidence not heard at trial, and the overall racist tone of Rodney's trial cast strong doubt on Rodney's guilt. CEDP is working together right now with Rodney's family, Texas death penalty abolition groups, and other community organizations to call for a new trial for Rodney Reed at which all the evidence of his innocence can be presented. You can learn more and sign a petition calling for a new trial at www.freerodneyreed.org.

Roderick Reed, one of Rodney's brothers, and Bryce Benjet, one of Rodney's attorneys, will be there to discuss the case, Rodney's innocence, and how the public can help win justice for Rodney Reed. Please join us for this important, informative, and fun event! Beer, pizza, and other refreshments will be available.

For more information, email stfcollins@yahoogroups.com or call 512-784-8550.

Dallas Morning News Calls for Abolition of the Death Penalty

2007-04-18T10:15:00.000-07:00

Death no more: It's time to end capital punishment 
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/
DN-toy_01edi.ART.State.Edition1.43b925d.html
Sunday, April 15, 2007

Ernest Ray Willis set a fire that killed two women in Pecos County. So
said
Texas prosecutors who obtained a conviction in 1987 and sent Mr. Willis
to
death row. But it wasn't true.

Seventeen years later, a federal judge overturned the conviction,
finding that
prosecutors had drugged Mr. Willis with powerful anti-psychotic
medication
during his trial and then used his glazed appearance to characterize
him as
"cold-hearted." They also suppressed evidence and introduced neither
physical
proof nor eyewitnesses in the trial – and his court-appointed lawyers
mounted
a lousy defense. Besides, another death-row inmate confessed to the
killings.

The state dropped all charges. Ernest Ray Willis emerged from prison a
pauper.
But he was lucky: He had his life. Not so Carlos De Luna, who was
executed in
1989 for the stabbing death of a single mother who worked at a gas
station.
For years, another man with a history of violent crimes bragged that he
had
committed the crime. The case against Mr. De Luna, in many eyes, does
not
stand up to closer examination.

There are signs he was innocent. We don't know for sure, but we do know
that
if the state made a mistake, nothing can rectify it.

And that uncomfortable truth has led this editorial board to re-examine
its
century-old stance on the death penalty. This board has lost confidence
that
the state of Texas can guarantee that every inmate it executes is truly
guilty
of murder. We do not believe that any legal system devised by
inherently
flawed human beings can determine with moral certainty the guilt of
every
defendant convicted of murder.

That is why we believe the state of Texas should abandon the death
penalty –
because we cannot reconcile the fact that it is both imperfect and
irreversible.

Flaws in the capital criminal justice system have bothered troubled us
for
some timeyears. We have editorialized in favor of clearer instructions
to
juries, better counsel for defendants, the overhaul of forensic labs
and
restrictions on the execution of certain classes of defendant. We have
urged
lawmakers to at least put in place a moratorium, as other states have,
to
closely examine the system.

And yet, despite tightening judicial restrictions and growing concern,
the
exonerations keep coming, and the doubts keep piling up without any
reaction
from Austin.

From our vantage point in Dallas County, the possibility of tragic,
fatal
error in the death chamber appears undeniable. We have seen a parade of
13 men
walk out of the prison system after years – even decades – of
imprisonment for
crimes they didn't commit. Though not death penalty cases, these
examples –
including an exoneration just last week – reveal how shaky
investigative
techniques and reliance on eyewitnesses can derail the lives of the
innocent.

The Tulia and the fake-drug scandals have also eroded public confidence
in the
justice system. These travesties illustrate how greed and bigotry can
poison
the process.

It's hard to believe that such pervasive human failings have never
resulted in
the death of an innocent man.

In 2001, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "If statistics
are
any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent
defendants to be
executed."

Some death penalty supporters acknowledge that innocents may have been
and may
yet be executed, but they argue that serving the greater good is worth
risking
that unfortunate outcome. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues
that the
Byzantine appeals process effectively sifts innocent convicts from the
great
mass of guilty, and killing the small number who fall through is a risk
he's
willing to live with. According to polls, most Texans are, too. But
this
editorial board is not.

Justice Scalia calls these innocents "an insignificant minimum." But
that
minimum is not insignificant to the unjustly convicted death-row
inmate. It is
not insignificant to his or her family. The jurist's verbiage
concealsThis
marks a transgression against the Western moral tradition, which
establishes
both the value of the individual and the wrongness of making an
innocent
suffer for the supposed good of the whole. Shedding innocent blood has
been a
scandal since Cain slew Abel – a crime for which, the Bible says, God
spared
the murderer, who remained under harsh judgment.

This newspaper's death penalty position is based not on sympathy for
vile
murderers – who, many most agree, deserve to die for their crimes –
but rather
in the conviction that not even the just dispatch of 10, 100, or 1,000
of
these wretches can remove the stain of innocent blood from our common
moral
fabric.

This is especially true given that our society can be adequately
guarded from
killers using bloodless means. In 2005, the Legislature gave juries the
option
of sentencing killers to life without parole.

The state holds in its hands the power of life and death. It is an
awesome
power, one that citizens of a democracy must approach in fear and
trembling,
and in full knowledge that the state's justice system, like everything
humanity touches, is fated to fall short of perfection. If we are
doomed to
err in matters of life and death, it is far better to err on the side
of
mercycaution. It is far better to err on the side of life. The state
cannot
impose death – an irrevocable sentence – with absolute certainty in
all cases.
Therefore the state should not impose it at all.

Kerry Max Cook speaking at UT Law tomorrow!

2007-04-16T09:17:00.000-07:00

The Texas Journal of Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Cordially Invites You to Attend:

Reexamining incarceration: A Discussion on Civil Rights and the Prison System

April 17, 2007

12:00 – Catered Lunch (Free!)
Francis Auditorium, 2nd Floor, UT Law

Kerry Max Cook, author of Chasing Justice

exonerated after spending two decades on Texas ’

death row for a crime he did not commit

(Please RSVP for lunch to tjclcr@law.utexas. edu)

1:30 – Panel : “Juvenile Justice: How do we fix this mess?", Eidmann Courtroom

featuring speakers Scott Medlock , Texas Civil Rights Project, Will Harrell, ACLU of Texas, and Isela Gutierrez, Texas Coalition Advocating for Juvenile Justice

3:00 – Panel: “Fighting from the outside: Civil Society Challenges to the Conditions of incarceration” , Eidmann Courtroom

Nicole Porter, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Michele Deitch, Professor, LBJ School of Public Policy, University of Texas, J. Rogue, AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, Andria Shively, Inside Books Project

All events at UT School of Law, www.utexas.edu/law, 727 E. Dean Keeton, Austin TX 78705

Capital Punishment: At a Crossroads? Washington Post Editorial

2007-01-20T09:20:00.000-08:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/13/AR2007011301271.html
Sunday, January 14, 2007 | D01

Dead End
Capital Punishment: At a Crossroads, or Is This the Exit?

By Neely Tucker
Washington Post Staff Write


Gary Gilmore, patron saint of the modern American execution, hear our
plea.

Give us potassium chloride, give us death, but give us two good grams
of
sodium thiopental first.

Give us the long drop, the 2,000-volt surge, the Cor-Bon 185-grain
jacketed
hollow-point .45, but let the country give up this quest for a painless
execution.

Is it even possible? It has been the holy grail of executioners for
more than
a century, and we are still plodding along the capital punishment road,
vast
horizons ahead.

Lethal injections, once thought of as perfection revealed, are now on
hold in
Maryland, California, Florida, Missouri, South Dakota. Doctors say
that, if
improperly administered, they might cause the condemned to die in pain.
Since
this pain violates constitutional protections against cruel and unusual
punishment, and since lethal injections are now the method of choice
for
almost all executions, opponents think they may have found the way to
do away
with capital punishment in America.

"I don't think we've changed morally, but we may be in that process" of
abolishing the penalty, says Richard Dieter, executive director of the
Death
Penalty Information Center.

"A pivotal moment in history," editorialized the Lancet, a medical
journal
that has played a key role in the latest attempts to outlaw lethal
injection.

Is this it? Are we approaching the end?

Thirty years ago this week, Gary, is the anniversary of your execution,
the
one you worked so hard to bring about, the one that reintroduced the
nation to
the moral complexities of capital punishment after a decade's respite.
Did you
feel pain in that squalid Utah state prison room, strapped into an
office
chair in front of a grimy mattress, five rifles pointed toward the
white
circle over your heart?

The press reported your last public words:

"Let's do it."

Less known were your actual final words to a priest:

Dominus vobiscum.

The Lord be with you.

And then, the blood dripping onto your shoes.

* * *

Hanging. People used to like hanging.

It worked pretty well. (See: Hussein, Saddam -- the hanging, not the
chaos and
hooting.) It asphyxiated, it snapped spinal cords. A big hit for
centuries the
world over. It clearly was less sadistic than disembowelment, the
crucifix,
the pyre, the garrote.

It didn't require much -- knotted rope, height -- and was rich in
symbolism.
Hangman. Gallows. Noose.

But hanging was so easy that lynch mobs used it, which led to nasty
image
problems, and it wasn't all that painless or quick, unless you knew how
to
calculate prisoner weight, length of fall, pressure required to break
the
neck. People tended to squirm up there on the rope, which made people
squirm
down there on the ground.

So, about 140 years ago, Americans turned to their new god of Science
for even
better ways to kill the condemned. Anesthesia was in its infancy, and
this
would have a profound change on human existence and its termination --
pain
was no longer inevitable. It could be avoided and, in terms of
executions,
people came to feel it should be.

Now, according to the Associated Press, at least 19 of the country's 38
death-penalty states offer sedatives and anti-anxiety drugs to
condemned
inmates before execution, almost as if they're putting the family's
golden
retriever to sleep.

"A great deal of effort goes into preparing the condemned felon
mentally for
what he's about to face," says Edwin Voorhies, warden at the Southern
Ohio
Correctional Facility. "Our goal is to get them to walk peacefully into
that
chamber."

This anesthetic concept introduced the fundamental American paradox of
execution that continues to this day: It is constitutional to execute
condemned criminals. It is not constitutional to hurt them while you do
it.

"The proper punishment was viewed as death, not death plus lots of
pain," says
Stuart Banner, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and author of "The
Death
Penalty: An American History." "The driving force behind the changes in
executions ever since has been minimizing the pain for the condemned,
both for
their sake and that of the spectators."

Ah, yes. Less discomfort for spectators. Absolution for the living. We
promise
the condemned a painless death, something that none of the rest of us
are
given, and we employ the most modern means of science to accomplish
this. The
care taken is evidence that this is not revenge, or a continuation of
what
scholar Francis Zimring calls "the vigilante tradition."

"The sensitivity is not for people opposed to the death penalty,
because they
are opposed to it on any grounds," says Zimring, a law professor at the
University of California, Berkeley, and author of "The Contradictions
of
American Capital Punishment." "It's for people who are ambivalent
supporters."

And Americans (including the president) do support the death penalty.

They do so at 67 percent, though their betters -- newspaper editorial
writers,
the French -- tell them they shouldn't. The United States is one of
four
countries that account for about 95 percent of the world's executions
(the
others being China, Saudi Arabia and Iran). Americans support it three
decades
after all of Western Europe stopped, calling it outdated, unfair and
barbaric.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch -- oh, you know.

Opponents generally portray it as being on its way out, though that is
hardly
clear.

Two months ago, voters in Wisconsin asked to reinstate the death
penalty --
153 years after abolishing it. The non-binding referendum, which said
the
penalty would be used only for vicious crimes where DNA evidence proved
guilt,
passed at nearly 56 percent.

"It passed in 71 of 72 counties, and in some counties the vote was at
68
percent," said state Sen. Alan Lasee (R), who pushed the bill.

This despite the patchwork nature of capital punishment, the fact that
there
is really little rhyme nor much reason as to who gets executed, and
why. (A
man is executed in North Carolina for killing his stepdaughter, but the
BTK
Killer in Kansas and the Green River Killer in Washington get life in
prison.)
It is so seldom used (56 times last year) that it has long since
stopped being
a working part of the criminal justice system. In the past 20 years,
prosecutors and supporters have begun saying it is needed because it
"brings
closure" to victims' families, but they can't possibly mean that,
because that
would imply that 99 percent of the families of victims never get
closure. The
system is filled with what Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun once
called
"arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice and mistake."

With so much imperfection about crime and punishment, it seemed the
least
thing the nation could do was to find the perfect means of execution.
There
would be one perfect note in the whole process, and it would be, with
morbid
certainty, the last one.

By killing painlessly, we would accommodate the Constitution and
assuage our
conscience -- the condemned would have a gentler death than they dealt
out.
(Or, at least, than they were convicted of having dealt out.)

This search started long ago. For a while, back in the 1800s, there was
something called the "upright jerker." It was inverted hanging -- you
still
had the noose, but you didn't drop -- a contraption snapped you up in
the air!
It was supposed to be a quicker death.

But it was still so low-tech.

By 1886, a New York commission sat down and considered 34 different
means of
doing the deed. There were three desirable criteria, which have been
the
hallmarks of executions in America ever since: (a) speed, (b) absence
of pain
and (c) lack of blood.

Their answer then, much as it would be 100 years later, would be to
turn to
the science of the day. Electricity was the latest thing. It had never
been
used to intentionally kill anyone before, and it wasn't even known how
it
caused death (ventricular fibrillation, it would turn out).

But new science? Technology?

Brilliant!

Edison was involved in the design. The big decision was whether to use
direct
or alternating current.

William Kemmler was the first killer strapped in, electrodes attached
to the
base of his spine, to a metal cap strapped onto his head. Press
accounts say
he told the prison authorities to take their time and do it right.

Boy, did they!

Capillaries in his face burst. Blood oozed onto his face. Burnt flesh.
Singed
hair. The 25 spectators were nauseated. He was dead, all right, but it
wasn't
quite what people pictured.

But you can't stop Americans from improving on things. The kinks were
worked
out. The chair remains in use today, though rarely, and not without the
occasional mishap.

There were other developments, too, some rehashed, some new.

Firing squad?

Dramatic, instant. Excellent! (But bloody.)

Gas?

1924's brainchild! Used in 1960 for Caryl Chessman, best-selling prison
author
and worldwide sensation for death-penalty opponents! One could not help
thinking about that pause between the gas pellets dropping and the
first whiff
of lethal fumes. And wondering about just how long human beings can
hold their
breath.

Lethal injection?

What could be better?

Oh. Wait.

* * *

Stanley "Tookie" Williams did not die well.

The "execution team" at San Quentin didn't set the intravenous line in
his arm
properly in 2005 when the Crips co-founder lay strapped to the gurney.
This
meant he may have been conscious to feel the deadly potassium chloride
pour
into his veins.

"It would be a cruel way to die: awake, paralyzed, unable to move, to
breathe,
while potassium burned through your veins," said the Lancet.

Nobody really knows if Williams died in pain, but the process didn't
look
good. When a federal judge questioned the executioners about the
errors, one
team member said the crew wasn't exactly broken up about it:

"[Expletive] does happen," the witness said.

It turned out the executioners had no training in mixing the lethal
drugs.
Also, one member had been disciplined for smuggling illegal drugs into
prison.
Also, the team leader had received a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress
disorder. Also, a bunch of sodium thiopental -- an addictive controlled
substance -- was taken from the prison pharmacy by execution team
members and,
um, not used or returned. (At least somebody out at San Quentin was
feeling no
pain.)

Four hundred years of execution in this country (the first one was at
Jamestown, 1607, firing squad), and this is where we are.

Then, in 2006, Angel Nieves Diaz in Florida took twice as long to die
as the
15-minute procedure usually takes, because the technicians had put the
needle
all the way through his vein, delivering the mix into the tissue of his
arm,
not the bloodstream. He had chemical burns on his arm at autopsy. Some
24
minutes into the procedure, technicians reported he was blinking,
licking his
lips. It led to a halt of all executions in Florida.

This, coupled with the judge's hold on executions in California, became
national headlines. Now all lethal injections across the country are
pretty
much on hold while the courts sort it all out.

Shocking! Lethal injection errors! People act like this is new.

Did everyone forget John Wayne Gacy?

Chicago's killer clown, strangler of 33 teenage boys and young men, was
due
for lethal injection in 1994. Gacy ate a last meal of fried chicken,
said he
was innocent, said, "Kiss my ass," and lay down on the table for his
lethal
injection.

The intravenous tubes clogged. The drugs wouldn't go through.

Prison officials had to close the blinds to the execution chamber,
reset the
IV, then open the blinds. Then they killed him.

Nobody really cried, because nobody really liked John Wayne Gacy,
anyway,
though he could paint a nice clown picture.

* * *

People forget, Gary, they do.

They forget what you knew, as soon as you shot those men out in Utah:
Killing
a man is easy.

The living with it after. That's what's hard.

That's what maybe this country has learned: We are a society that kills
certain prisoners. We kill more in some years, less in others. It comes
and
goes. But there is no perfect, painless, fair way to do it. It turns
out there
is no absolution for the living. It turns out the dead haunt us. It is
a
thought as disturbing as the bodies of Richard Hickock and Perry Smith,
the
killers in Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood," dying the old-fashioned
way,
swinging at the end of a rope in the middle of the Kansas night.

The images do not lie easy on us, not in our sleep, not in yours, and
it seems
they never will.

Perhaps that is as it should be.

Start off the new semester-- Fight the Death Penalty!

2007-01-11T22:38:00.000-08:00

Join the Campaign to End the Death Penalty at our exciting upcoming events!

Monday, January 15: Martin Luther King Day March!
Join Campaign members as we add our voices against the death penalty at this annual march honoring the civil rights hero. Meet at the Martin Luther King statue on the UT Campus at 9am. That evening, CEDP will be having its first formal meeting of the semester at 7pm at CMA A3.112.

Thursday, January 18: "Let's REALLY Go to Prison" Table on UT Campus
Stop by the Campaign's table on campus, where we will be hosting a display on the real horrors of Texas prison conditions, including Texas' death row, and the truth, which is far from entertaining or funny, on what its really like to be sent to a Texas prison.

Monday, January 22: Regular CEDP meeting
Join the Campaign for our regular Monday meeting, where we will be discussing our work and our upcoming events. The meeting will be at 7pm on CMA A3.112.

Wednesday, January 24 (TENTATIVE): Delivery of petitions demanding a fair retrial for Rodney Reed
Campaign members and Sandra and Walter Reed, parents of Rodney Reed, will hand deliver to the judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals petitions signed by the people of Texas declaring their belief in Rodney's innocence and demanding the Court of Criminal Appeals allow him a new, fair trial. Join us for a press conference prior to delivery and as we drop the petitions at the Court. Meet outside the Court of Criminal Appeals at 12 noon.

Saturday, January 27: Austin Anti-War Rally and March
March with the CEDP! Gather at City Hall at 3:00 PM.

Monday, January 29: Debate on the Death Penalty
Members of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty will debate the Young Conservatives of Texas at this Oxford-style debate on capital punishment. Come out to learn ... and help us kick some ass during the open-mic, Q & A period! We need supporters there to help the crowd understand that our movement is strong, we have the facts on our side, and we want the death penalty abolished now! The debate will be held at Jester Auditorium and starts at 7:30pm.

Monday, February 26: Witness to an Execution!
The Campaign will be hosting "Witness to an Execution", a panel event featuring speakers who have witnessed the horrible reality of modern-day lethal injections. This event is part of a national series organized by other Campaign to End the Death Penalty chapters across the country. A time and place for this event will be announced as those details are more firmly set.

In Memory of Michael Johnson

2006-10-19T09:14:00.000-07:00

Michael John, scheduled to be executed in Texas this evening, has
deprived the executioner of its delight in murdering an innocent man.

At 3:30 AM today Michael took his life in his "death watch"cell by
slitting his throat.  In his own blood, he wrote on the wall of the cell "I
didn't do it."

Our condolences to his family.  Michael took this last act of courage
to let the world know he was innocent.

Last evening Radio Station KDOL in Livingston had a show dedicated to
Michael.  A & E from Chicago filmed the radio show.  thanks to Joy Weathers for
this last tribute to Michael.

The theme of this years March to Stop Executions is "The System is
Broken" and we will be featuring the innocent people executed--Carlos de Luna,
Ruben Cantu, and Todd Willingham.  Michael Johnson should also be remembered.  Be in
Austin on October 28th!

Stop the crimes of the state of Texas!  Abolish the racist, anti-poor
death penalty Now!

March to Stop Executions

2006-10-09T18:33:00.000-07:00

7th Annual March to Stop Executions

"The System is Broken"

Saturday, October 28th, 2006
Austin, Texas

3 PM Meet at Texas Governor's Mansion (between 10th & 11th Streets on Lavaca)

3:30 March around mansion, down Congress Ave to Austin City Hall

for a rally at Austin City Hall Plaza

Speakers include: Rose Rhoton, sister of Carlos De Luna. "If God ever gave me a second chance," Rhoton has said, "I would fight harder for Carlos." Darby Tillis, who was exonerated from death row in Illinois, will also speak. Other speakers to be announced soon.

Each October since 2000, people from all walks of life and all parts of Texas, the U.S. and other countries have taken a day out of their year and gathered in Austin to raise our voices together and loudly express our opposition to the death penalty.

Get on the Bus From Houston: Bus tickets are $20.00. Call or email TDPAM in Houston to reserve a seat or buy a ticket for a student, a senior or a person on fixed income who wants to go. AbolitionMovement@hotmail.com or call 713-503-2633.

Join us in Austin on Oct. 28th to demand a Stop to All Executions!

The march is organized by people from many different groups working together as the March to Stop Executions Coalition. If your organization wants to be listed as a sponsor of the march, please let us know. The 7th Annual March to Stop Executions Coaliton includes:

Campaign to End the Death Penalty, Texas Moratorium Network, Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement, Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Committee to Free Frances Newton, Inside Books Project, Texas Students Against the Death Penalty, Texas Death Penalty Education and Resource Center, National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, Journey of Hope, International Socialist Organization, Democrats for Life, Death Penalty Reform Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party, Victims of Texas, Amnesty International, Texans for Peace, Austin Mennonite Church, CodePink Austin, El Pasoans Against the Death Penalty, Students Against the Death Penalty (the national group), Libertarian Longhorns, Catholic Longhorns for Life, the Social Justice Committee of the University Catholic Center, Howard Guidry Justice Committee, The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Friends Meeting of Austin, The Texas Civil Rights Project

To become a sponsor or get involved, email us at: admin@texasmoratorium.org

Or call us at: 512-302-6715.

Another possibly innocent man on TX death row

2006-10-05T13:17:00.000-07:00

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/15663297.htm

Monday, October 2, 2006

New evidence surfaces in bombing case

By MAX B. BAKER
Star-Telegram Staff Writer


Six years ago, Texas Death Row inmate Michael Toney made headlines when
he
tried to sell seats to his execution over the Internet.

But now Toney, convicted of blowing up three people in Lake Worth on
Thanksgiving Day in 1985, may create another stir as he tries to avoid
the
death chamber for one of North Texas’ most notorious crimes.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently ruled that new evidence —
including reports from the federal bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and
Explosives discrediting the prosecution’s key witnesses — is sufficient
to
support Toney’s innocence claim and warrants another review by state
District Judge Everett Young.

The Tarrant County district attorney’s office says that some of the
claims
have been made in previous appeals. But a defense attorney representing
Toney says he is convinced that Toney is innocent.

“It’s one of the most egregious cases I’ve seen,” said Jared Tyler, an
attorney with the Texas Innocence Network. “For me, there is not a
shred of
evidence that he did it.”

Toney, 40, was sentenced to death in 1999 for the briefcase bombing
that
killed Angela Blount, 15; her father, Joe Blount, 44; and her cousin
Michael
Columbus, 18.

The case had gone unsolved for a decade until Toney, who was in jail
for
another offense, told another inmate that he was hired to put the
briefcase
bomb at the mobile home. Investigators later presented evidence showing
that
Toney — who they said was to be paid $5,000 for the bombing — put it at
the
wrong trailer.

Toney always proclaimed his innocence and his efforts in 2000 to sell
seats
to his future execution to the highest bidder was part of a publicity
stunt
to attract attention to his case. The state forbade him to sell the
seats.

Nicknamed “Cowboy,” Toney is a prolific e-mail correspondent, writing
regularly not only to reporters but also to members of the jury that
convicted him. He also has a Web site on which he proclaims his
innocence.

“Lies got me sentenced to death for a crime I did not commit,” Toney
writes
on his Web site. “Since the charade of a Texas trial people have came
forward and told me who killed the Blounts and why they did it.”

Tarrant County Assistant District Attorney Debra Windsor, who will
defend
her office in court, says the way the case is being presented by the
defense
attorneys involves more than questions about Toney’s innocence.

“It is actually an attack on this office,” she said.

A troubling case
Tyler and David Dow, attorneys for the Innocence Network at the
University
of Houston Law Center, accuse Tarrant County District Attorney Tim
Curry’s
office of offenses including withholding reports from the Texas
Department
of Public Safety and the ATF that attack the credibility of the state’s
key
witnesses, Chris Meeks and Michael Toney’s ex-wife, Kimberly Toney.

Released to the defense this year for the first time, the reports
suggest
that Meeks and Toney may have been manipulated and intimidated into
giving
statements fitting investigators’ preconceived notions of how and why
the
crime occurred.

Defense attorneys point out that by the time Michael Toney was indicted
in
1997, the crime was 12 years old. The Lake Worth incident was the
longest-running unsolved bombing investigation in the country, court
papers
state. Defense attorneys suggest that there was a renewed interest in
this
case by a federal agency trying to rebuild its image after the Oklahoma
City
bombing.

Prosecutors were led to Toney when he allegedly confessed to committing
the
crime to Charles Ferris, a fellow inmate in the Parker County Jail.
Already
serving time in prison on a burglary charge, Toney had been transferred
to
the Weatherford jail on an unresolved burglary charge. Toney reportedly
told
Ferris that he had put the explosive briefcase on the front porch of
the
mobile home.

After that, investigators began looking into Toney’s possible
involvement in
the case, which led them to Meeks and Kimberly Toney. Neither one had
ever
talked to authorities about Toney’s role in the bombing.

Kimberly Toney testified during the trial that she, Meeks and Michael
Toney
went out together the day of the bombing and that they drove to a
business
near the mobile home park where the Blounts lived. She said Michael
Toney,
who was then her boyfriend, got out of their pickup, grabbed a
briefcase and
disappeared behind the business. He came back later without the
briefcase.

Meek told basically the same story during the trial.

Defense attorneys contend that recently released reports from the DPS
and
the ATF show that investigators used what they call “cognitive
interviewing
techniques” to plant false memories into Meeks’ and Kimberly Toney’s
minds.
Those reports should have been released to Michael Toney’s attorneys at
the
time of the trial, to show that they had not always given the same
account
of the crime.

Both witnesses’ testimony was crucial to the state’s case against
Toney.

Kimberly Toney’s memories in particular were “unscrupulously recovered,
reshaped, and reformed, by aggressive investigators desperately trying
to
close” the case, court papers said.

The defense also contends that Kimberly Toney’s testimony is
questionable
because of recently uncovered evidence that she may have suffered
memory
loss from chemicals she was exposed to in 1991 during the Persian Gulf
War.

“At the time the investigation into the Blount bombing was reopened, it
was
the longest-running unsolved bombing investigation in the country. The
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City had
just
occurred, and the ATF was determined to solve this crime, one way or
another,” court papers state.

Testimony recanted
A memorandum from Tarrant County Assistant District Attorney Mike
Parrish
and two ATF reports that cast doubts on the testimony of Tucker Finis
Blankenship were also not provided to defense attorneys at the time of
the
trial. Blankenship met Toney while they were in jail together,
according to
court documents.

Blankenship said Toney said that another man was going to pay him
$5,000 for
making and delivering the bomb, but that he had put it by the wrong
mobile
home. Since then, Blankenship has recanted those statements, and court
papers indicate that Blankenship believed the cases against him would
be
dropped in return for his testimony.

Information was also uncovered that pointed to another man who had
built a
pipe bomb similar to one used in the Blount bombing and that the man’s
family told authorities that components used in the briefcase bomb were
missing from their home. The man had also told more than one other
person
that he was responsible for the three deaths, court papers state.

“The fact of the matter is that the Blount bombing remains unsolved to
this
day, even as Mr. Toney remains on death row,” court papers state.

But during the trial, Toney also admitted that he lied frequently.
During
the trial he acknowledged telling some people that his father is dead,
others that his mother is dead, and others that he had a master’s
degree in
chemistry.

He has also said since his conviction that he unwisely told Ferris that
he
could tell authorities he was involved in the Blount bombing if it
would
help him get out of jail by getting his charges reduced or dismissed.
Ferris
has since recanted that testimony, too.

Parrish has no doubts that he convicted the right person. The district
attorney’s office has until early next year to file its initial
response to
Toney’s request for a review of the evidence and possibly a new trial.

“All that’s been raised on state appeal,” Parrish said. “There must be
some
new, slightly different kitchen sink they are throwing in here.”
- - - - -
Max B. Baker, 817-390-7714
maxbaker@star-telegram.com

Express-News Analysis of Texas Habeas Corpus provisions

2006-09-29T08:03:00.000-07:00

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA092406.01A.BadLawyering.3
0a3c2d.html
Sunday, September 25, 2006

Shoddy lawyering can prove fatal in death row appeals

Maro Robbins
Express-News Staff

With his client's life on the line, the lawyer appointed to file the
death
row inmate's final state appeal cobbled together arguments that were
incomplete, vague and, in at least one place, just plain wrong.
They perplexed the prosecutor and provoked a 606-page response from the
judge.

"Applicant totally misinterprets what actually occurred in this case,"
State
District Judge Noe Gonzalez of Edinburg wrote about one of the
attorney's
claims.

Appalled by the lawyer's work, a committee of attorneys and citizens
formally complained to the agency that polices attorney misconduct, the
State Bar of Texas.

The result?

The attorney, Mark Alexander of McAllen, remains on the state's list of
136
lawyers who can be appointed to the cases that challenge convictions
and
help ensure no one unfairly convicted reaches the execution chamber.

The State Bar dismissed the grievance against Alexander. His former
client,
Arturo Eleazar Diaz, remains on death row, arguing the courts never
really
reviewed his case because Alexander botched the appeal.

Confusing as they may have been, Alexander's arguments are the last
words
Texas courts are likely to hear about Diaz. They remain fixed in the
record,
an example of a dilemma apparent to observers of all political stripes:

Texas tolerates and even finances questionable legal work in the
closing
chapters of its death penalty cases — the court challenges known as
applications for writs of habeas corpus.

"It's a problem. It needs to be addressed," said Judge Cheryl Johnson,
a
Republican on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. "But I don't think
there
are any easy solutions to it."

Examples of troubling habeas cases abound, activists say. Just last
month,
Texas executed Justin Fuller, whose appointed lawyer filed a habeas
challenge with rambling claims, glaring typos and incoherent
repetitions.

Another execution is scheduled in January for an inmate whose appointed
lawyer filed two pages — upward of 100 is more common — that raised
only one
claim, and experts say it was fatally flawed.

Yet another habeas attorney failed to show the main witness against his
client had recanted. With help from other lawyers, that inmate, Anthony
Charles Graves, now is off death row and awaiting a retrial.

The habeas attorney's job is to catch misconduct and mistakes made by
the
defendant's trial lawyers, as well as the investigators, prosecutors,
judges
and jurors who touched the case beforehand.

If the state habeas attorney misses a detail, the inmate may never get
another chance to raise it. An inmate can try filing in federal court,
but,
except in rare extenuating circumstances, federal judges won't consider
anything that wasn't already raised in state court.

It's an area of law that goes largely unchecked by traditional
safeguards
against shoddy legal work. For instance:

The State Bar disciplines lawyers who file nothing at all for their
clients,
but not necessarily attorneys who file worthless paperwork. It leaves
those
to malpractice lawsuits.

Lawyers who mishandle divorces, employment disputes or other civil
matters
can be sued by their clients. But not in criminal cases. The law
essentially
forbids malpractice claims from convicts.

The Court of Criminal Appeals decides who's qualified to handle habeas
appointments, but has done little, if anything, to ensure lawyers
actually
live up to their credentials.

Trial attorneys in death penalty cases must, by law, perform to certain
constitutional standards. When, for example, lawyers fail to adequately
investigate, their clients can get do-overs. Not in Texas' habeas
cases. By
contrast, 14 of the nation's 37 states with the death penalty hold
habeas
attorneys to the same standards as trial lawyers.

"We don't have any watchdog organization that checks for quality
control" in
capital habeas cases, said Catharine G. Burnett, a South Texas College
of
Law professor and a member of the committee that complained about
Alexander.

A poor track record


Habeas corpus is the Latin term for the centuries-old legal tool that
double-checks the fairness of a conviction or punishment. In capital
cases,
it acts as the executioner's gatekeeper.

Unlike the direct appeals that automatically follow every death
sentence and
examine what might have gone wrong at trial, applications for writs of
habeas corpus dig deeper.

Not confined to what occurred in the courtroom, habeas attorneys are
supposed to consider the whole picture, from what detectives did at the
crime scene to what jurors discussed in the deliberation room.

It's a daunting responsibility, and many qualified attorneys steer
clear of
it, partly because they say the amount the state will pay — up to
$25,000 —
won't cover what's required for the sizable task. Comparable cases in
federal court normally pay up to $35,000 in legal fees alone, not
including
investigative expenses.

Texas started supplying habeas lawyers for death row inmates in 1995.
Seven
years later, a nonprofit monitor of capital cases, the Texas Defender
Service, looked at what the state was getting for its money.

Reading all but a dozen of the 263 habeas applications bankrolled by
Texas,
the nonprofit found nearly 40 percent had fatal technical flaws and
provided
"nothing for the courts to consider."

Since the study, "nothing has improved," said Andrea Keilen, director
of the
Defender Service.

Mark Alexander was preparing a habeas application around the time the
Defender Service completed its study. His client, Arturo Eleazar Diaz,
had
been convicted of stabbing his victim dozens of times during a 1999
robbery
in McAllen.

Filed in 2002, Alexander's petition crammed 19 separate arguments into
35
pages. Its brevity came at the expense of clarity.

When Alexander complained the prosecutor had made inflammatory remarks
to
the jury, he never cited specifics. Judge Gonzalez responded with a
shrug,
writing: "It is practically impossible to discern which particular
comment,
if any, he believes had been objectionable."

When Alexander criticized the trial attorneys for failing to discover
potentially significant evidence, specifically "the tape" and "all the
witnesses," he never identified the tape. Or the witnesses.

Two paragraphs long, his final assertion was that jurors hadn't been
told
how long parole laws would keep Diaz locked up if he received a life
sentence — crucial information for any jury weighing between prison
time and
lethal injection.

"Simply not true," the judge stated in his order rejecting all
Alexander's
claims. The record showed the jury had been given precisely that
information.

What Alexander's petition failed to include was Diaz's contention that
his
trial lawyer spent only 15 minutes discussing the plea bargain offered
by
prosecutors.

Had Diaz better understood the plea and the risks of trial, the inmate
says,
he would have accepted a life sentence. When he tried raising this
issue in
federal court, the judge there said it was too late.

No way to grade quality


By chance, Diaz's case caught the attention of a State Bar group
concerned
about the quality of appointed counsel, the Committee on Legal Services
to
the Poor in Criminal Matters.

Alarmed by the Defender Service's study, committee members decided to
look
at random habeas petitions. Overall, they weren't impressed. One case
especially disturbed them.

The committee's minutes show the group voted 8-1 to file a grievance.

Committee members wouldn't name in interviews the subject of their
complaint, but court documents identified Alexander as the target and,
although he says it was unjustified, he acknowledged the grievance.

Three months ago, committee members learned the State Bar's
disciplinary
office had dismissed the complaint against Alexander without a hearing.
By
its standards, his work didn't violate the bar's rules.

"It was frustrating to us," said Michael K. Moore, a committee member
and
political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington.
"It
never saw the light of day."

Reached by phone, Alexander said the grievance, together with the heart
attack he survived about a year ago, have convinced him to steer clear
of
capital cases.

Alexander said his medical problems have blurred his memory so that he
no
longer remembers enough to explain every assertion in Diaz's case. But,
he
insisted he labored long and dutifully on the case.

The $13,040 bill he submitted to Hidalgo County listed 326 hours of
work,
the equivalent of two months. Primarily, Alexander said, he knew the
habeas
represented Diaz's last chance to present new claims.

As a result, Alexander said he alleged things he couldn't prove simply
to
put them on the record. That way, if someone eventually found evidence
to
bolster them, the issues could be resurrected in federal court.

It wasn't a perfect legal brief, Alexander concedes, but in his defense
he
says it was only his second habeas case. "I was learning," he said.

"It wasn't like I just neglected it or whatever," he added. "I had
reasons
for what I did. I think my reasoning was sound."

Neglecting a case would violate ethical rules for attorneys. The State
Bar
regularly disciplines lawyers who collect fees and then file nothing or
abandon a case before it's over. But if attorneys file glaringly bad
claims,
the bar typically does nothing.

The bar's investigators find it difficult to prove that someone who
worked
on a brief for more than 100 hours neglected the case, said Betty
Blackwell,
chairwoman of the State Bar's Commission for Lawyer Discipline.

Grading the quality of legal briefs is another challenge.

"Are you going to discipline somebody for a C, D or F?" she said. "The
rules
don't really address that."

Blackwell, like many others, believes the job of watchdog belongs to
the
Court of Criminal Appeals, the tribunal that reviews every habeas
application and vets the list of attorneys who can be appointed to
capital
habeas cases.

Members of the court, in turn, want the State Bar to take the lead.

Cheryl Johnson, one of two judges at the court who vet the list of
habeas
lawyers, said the nine judges there disagree about what to do with
attorneys
who submit abysmal habeas petitions.

Some believe that only a formal reprimand from the State Bar would
justify
yanking a lawyer's name from the roster. That was the issue with at
least
one attorney whose name, Johnson said, doesn't belong on the list.

"I've been trying to get him off since I reached the court in 1999,"
she
said, "and I cannot get any support for it because he has no
disciplinary
history with the bar."

A check on the system


As with anything involving the death penalty, personal biases cloud the
discussion of habeas cases.

Judges and lawyers comfortable with capital punishment won't
necessarily be
troubled by a habeas application that fails to make any reasonable
arguments.

In their eyes, lousy arguments in a habeas case are likely the sign of
a
defense lawyer grasping at straws because the conviction was fair and
just.

"I'm not aware of and I don't believe there are cases where there's
gross
injustices based on ineffective assistance at the post-conviction writ
stage," said Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, who once
worked at the Court of Criminal Appeals.

By contrast, opponents of the death penalty believe reasonable claims
can be
found in most capital cases. To them, superficial habeas applications
signal
a lack of effort or ability.

"In every case I know of ... where someone didn't do their duty as a
habeas
lawyer and someone else came along and did it, there were new claims
that
were found," said Jim Marcus, a lawyer with the University of Texas
Capital
Punishment Clinic.

Marcus can point to such a case in Bexar County. As much as any, it
demonstrates why the quality of habeas counsel matters.

Ricky Eugene Kerr was sentenced to death in 1995 for the murder of his
new
landlady and her 42-year-old son after they cut off his water and moved
to
evict him.

His appointed habeas lawyer, Robert A. McGlohon Jr., had three years'
experience as a lawyer and, though he had been a staff attorney for the
Court of Criminal Appeals, he never had handled a death penalty case.

Suffering from a debilitating illness and a serious misunderstanding of
habeas law, McGlohon filed a single, generic claim critiquing habeas
law.
Nowhere did his brief say anything about Kerr's trial.

The trial court, State District Judge Sharon MacRae, rejected the
petition.
So did the Court of Criminal Appeals.

A few months later, Marcus, then with the Defender Service, interceded.
He
took the case to federal court, where he showed how McGlohon had
mishandled
Kerr's habeas application. The federal judge was appalled.

Concluding that Kerr never had a fair habeas petition, U.S. District
Judge
Orlando Garcia kicked the case back to the state courts. Confronted by
the
judge's ruling, the Court of Criminal Appeals relented and made an
unusual
exception. It allowed him to refile his habeas petition.

The second time around, Kerr was represented by Marcus and Kathryn
Kase, an
attorney with the Defender Service. They had plenty to say about Kerr's
trial.

They showed that Kerr's trial attorneys had never shown jurors a full
picture of the man on trial. The defense team had been so confident it
would
win, it only started preparing for the punishment phase after the
guilty
verdict.

By then it was too late to complete the detailed research expected in
capital cases. Kerr's relatives testified, but the jury never heard
several
potentially mitigating details about the tattooed defendant with a
history
of domestic violence and petty crimes.

Kerr had endured an abusive childhood and had helped care for two
brothers
with mental retardation and an ailing grandmother. He had a history of
head
injuries, drug abuse and learning disabilities, possibly because of
fetal
alcohol syndrome.

At least one juror said the new information might have convinced her to
spare Kerr, and Judge MacRae revised her previous findings. Earlier
this
year MacRae sent her conclusions to the Court of Criminal Appeals,
where
they are under review.

This time, she urged the court throw out Kerr's death sentence.
- - - - -
mrobbins@express-news.net
Staff Writer John Tedesco contributed to this report.

CEDP weekly meetings move back to UT

2006-09-24T21:52:00.000-07:00

The new school year is underway, and the Austin chapter of CEDP has moved back to the UT campus for weekly meetings. These will be held in CMA 3.130 at 7pm on Mondays.

A map to CMA can be found here.

Justin Fuller Press Conference

2006-08-15T15:25:00.000-07:00

Austin Activists Call Execution Into Question, Plead for Life of Justin Fuller

Austin, August 15--On Thursday, August 17, at 5:00 p.m., Austin anti-death penalty activists will hold a press conference to focus attention on a troubling death penalty case, that of Justin Fuller. The event will take place on the east (Colorado Street) side of the Governor¹s Mansion, on the front steps of the mansion.

Justin Fuller is scheduled to be executed on August 24. He was convicted of robbery and capital murder in the 1997 murder of Donald Harrison. Fuller was 19 at the time of conviction and 18 at the time of his crime.

The August 17 event will feature as a speaker University of Texas Law professor Robert Owen, who has defended people facing the death penalty since 1989. A Harvard Law graduate, he co-directs the Capital Punishment Clinic at the University of Texas. He is a recipient of the Thurgood Marshall Award, recognizing his work in fighting the death penalty, from the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Lily Hughes, a longstanding member of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty and close friend of Justin Fuller, will also speak.

The press conference will show that Fuller¹s case raises serious questions about the inaccessibility of adequate legal representation to indigent defendants. Fuller did not receive adequate representation from the state of Texas.

Of his two lawyers, second-chair James Volberding had minimal criminal court experience and was not qualified to try a capital case. Several months prior to the trial, his main lawyer Donald Killingsworth was suspended from practicing law because he had not paid his state bar dues. During this time, Volberding was lead counsel.

Killingsworth failed to mention to Fuller that the prosecution had discussed a possible plea bargain. This plea bargain would have offered Fuller life in prison rather than the death sentence he received.

Volberding wrote several memos that stated that he believed that Killingsworth was not providing adequate counsel to Fuller and that he was picking up the slack. The above claims were brought forth in appeals, all of which were denied.

Furthermore, Fuller¹s state habeas lawyer filed a writ for Fuller that was actually a writ he had done for a previous client named Henry Dunn. He didn't even change the name to Fuller¹s in parts of the writ, and the document contained facts that had to do with Dunn's case. To this day Fuller denies being the triggerman who shot and killed Harrison. He claims Samhermundre Wideman, another man arrested for his involvement, was the shooter.

Elaine Hays, another participant in the crime, has said publicly that Wideman was the shooter. She explains that after Fuller and Wideman returned to the vehicle, where she had been waiting for the two men, Wideman said, "It felt good to shoot someone." This fact was brought up in a later defeated appeal.

The state of Texas denied the appeal based on the ground that the state can still execute "non-triggermen." Wideman was sentenced to life for his involvement in the crime. Like Wideman, Fuller might have received a life sentence if he had been tried as a "non-triggerman" or even if his counsel had done their job properly.

"If the public only knew about the mistakes in the application of the death penalty and how it targets minorities and the poor, no one would support it," commented Lily Hughes, a member of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty. "Justin should not die.

"And his case is just the tip of the iceberg."

Please join us for this press conference. After this, we will join others in protesting the execution of Richard Hinojosa at our usual spot behind the governor's mansion on Lavaca, in between 10th and 11th Streets.

Come to our Meeting Tomorrow

2006-08-13T18:55:00.000-07:00

This is an exciting time to be an abolitionist. Join us this week for our weekly meeting at Kasbah, a coffeeshop on Guadalupe across from the Blockbuster. Please see our website for directions. The meeting starts at 7pm.

We strongly encourage you to join us this week, since we are beginning to get things ready for the new school year and will be planning many activites for the Fall. We want your input, and will need energetic and dedicated individuals to help implement our plans.

Since the school year is about to begin, we will soon be moving our regular weekly meetings back to the UT campus. As soon as we have a room reserved, we will announce the location. Please consider becoming involved.

Also, the state of Texas has plans to execute Richard Hinojosa on Thursday, August 17th. Join us behind the governor's mansion on Lavaca Street, in between 10th and 11th Streets, from 5:30-6:30pm as we protest this execution. More information about Richard Hinojosa can be found here.

Lastly, one of our members, Lily Hughes, sent out a message last week calling for an action opposing the execution of her friend and pen pal Justin Fuller. Justin is scheduled to be executed on July 24th. The CEDP is in the process of planning such an execution. We will send out an announcement in the next couple of days with those details.

We hope to see you at the meeting tomorrow.

North Carolina gives Texas a model to follow

2006-08-10T11:57:00.000-07:00

North Carolina's Innocence Commission is the first of its
kind in the nation.  While far from perfect, it presents a
clear example of the kind of safeguards Texas is obligated to
implement based on the evidence that Texas has incarcerated and
executed innocent people. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300
801.html

N.C. Gov. Sets Up Innocence Commission

By GARY D. ROBERTSON
The Associated Press


RALEIGH, N.C. -- Inmates in North Carolina who claim they were wrongly
convicted got a new avenue of appeal Thursday as Gov. Mike Easley
signed a
law creating a state innocence commission described as the first of its
kind
in the nation.

The commission, modeled after one in the United Kingdom, was created
after
several high-profile convictions were overturned in North Carolina.

The North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission will review innocence
claims
from people who can present new evidence that hasn't been considered in
court.

The eight-member commission will begin accepting claims in November. If
five
or more commission members agree there is enough evidence of potential
innocence, the case would be sent to a panel of three Superior Court
judges.
Overturning a conviction would require a unanimous decision by the
three
judges.

Easley, a former prosecutor and attorney general, said North Carolina
residents should be proud of the commission.

"Its creation gives our criminal justice system yet another safeguard
by
helping ensure that the people in our prisons in fact, belong there,"
Easley
said in a statement after signing the bill without a public ceremony.

Among the high-profile cases of wrongful conviction was that of Darryl
Hunt,
who served 18 years in prison for the 1984 murder of a Winston-Salem
newspaper employee before he was exonerated in 2003 by DNA evidence.
Easley
later pardoned him. In 2004, Alan Gell, a onetime death row inmate, was
retried and acquitted in a 1995 killing after it was revealed
prosecutors
withheld key evidence.

While other states have created panels to improve legal procedures to
reduce
the likelihood of wrongful conviction, North Carolina's commission will
consider individual cases.

"It is the first of its kind in the nation," said Eric Ferrero with the
Innocence Project, a New York-based legal clinic that handles cases
where
DNA testing can lead to overturning a conviction.

Convicts who pleaded guilty in their original cases will not be
eligible to
submit their claims for two years. After that time, the eight-member
commission would have to agree unanimously to send the case to the
judges'
panel.

The North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys had objected to
that
provision because people who pleaded guilty in court can now proclaim
their
innocence. Garry Frank, the group's president, said it was "kind of
making a
mockery of the system."

The legislation allows the commission to hear claims filed through
2010,
after which the law that created it would have to be renewed.

© 2006 The Associated Press

In Memoriam: William Wyatt, Jr.

2006-08-07T22:19:00.000-07:00

The following message was sent to us by Delia Perez Meyer, a long-time friend of William Wyatt, Jr. Delia's brother, Louis Castro Perez, is on death row as well. Please email us if you'd like to learn more about Louis's case and how you can get involved.

I wanted to say a few words about William Wyatt's execution yesterday. I went to visit my brother, so that he could say goodbye to William. They were allowed to touch hands and say a little prayer together through the holes in their cages, and in handcuffs. William was a strong warrior, as his family filed in to say their last goodbyes. William was one of my pen pals for the last 8 years, he was a very good man, and was totally innocent of the crime he was accused of. Because he is poor, he never had the proper representation and therefore, he never stood a chance against this killing machine!

As he was led away by 4 higher rank employees, his family was flanked by 4 guards as they were escorted off the property, and were told, "We know you're a little emotional, but you need to get off this property now!" It was the most cruel and unnusual, disgusting, sickening treatment of a family I have ever seen.

We went with the family to the Hospitality House where we all awaited for a greuling 6 hours until it was time to go to the Walls Unit where William was murdered by this State of Texas. I stood outside the prison walls by myself, because none of his family could stand to go and watch. There were 3 other ladies from Spring, Texas - God Bless them!

His family and I cried, wailed, prayed all day - they were so sad, so hurt, so shocked, and completely unconsolable. They all knew he was innocent and they all loved him so very much.

I spoke to William at length just before he was executed and told him that we loved him, we knew he was innocent, and we would continue the fight to abolish the evil death penalty, and to someday get to the truth in his case.

I have to tell you it was the most gut wrenching, horrific, disgusting day of my life. We should all be ashamed, and livid, and horrified by what this state continues to do, day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year – executing, killing, murdering our loved ones!

I will never be the same again - we all have blood on our hands for not doing enough, for not fighting hard enough, for not coming to the aid of each and every single man being executed. It has given me just the kick in the ass that I needed to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! - a moratorium is not enough - we need to ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!

William's last words to me were, "Please tell everyone who is fighting against the death penalty that I said thank you"; and William's last words on this Earth were, "I did not kill that baby" and "I am going home to my heavenly Father." As William was executed, the skies opened up, a beautiful moon shone through the clouds, and incredibly, many beautiful birds poured in from the heavens, and hovered around the death chamber. God Bless William and God Bless his family today, as they bury their beloved son.

Has the Bexar County DA's office already made up its mind on Cantu?

2006-08-02T13:09:00.000-07:00

Investigators from the DA's office looking into Ruben Cantu's
wrongful execution seem to have already made up their minds that
witnesses, who happen to be ex-cons, are "liars" and anyone,
such as Cantu's surviving family, who bring a wrongful execution suit
against SAPD, the DA's office, and/or TDCJ are "money-grubbing...bastards".

You can see this bias against those from the criminalized
classes all the time. It was present in the Rodney Reed trial and many others.
Certain groups, such as young black men and young, poor Latinos, are
incarcerated at much higher rates than other segments of the population.
If, therefore, you are a young Black or Latino man, like Reed or Cantu,
your friends and personal contacts, the only people usually
who can testify as to your whereabouts or facts concerning your personal life,
such as the existence of a sexual relationship, are probably going to be
young Black and Latino men, and because of the high incarceration rates,
they are more likely to have criminal records.  This itself, whether
or not it is related to the crime or relevant in any way, automatically
discredits them and makes them bad witnesses. 

Therefore, accused people from these groups are more likely to be
impeded in their ability to provide "believable" witnesses than
middle-class whites in both the trial and the sentencing
phases before the trial court.  This is just another way racism
is a decisive factor in who becomes a victim of the criminal justice
system in the US today. 


Candid phone calls cast doubt on Cantu review
Investigators are heard mocking the claim of wrongful execution, but DA
denies any bias

By LISE OLSEN and MARO ROBBINS
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle AND San Antonio Express-News

SAN ANTONIO - The Bexar County district attorney's investigation into a
possibly wrongful execution had barely started earlier this year, but
already
DA investigators were scoffing at the three witnesses who contend Texas
sent
an innocent man named Ruben Cantu to his death.

"They're lying. They're all lying, and they know they're lying," Mike
Beers,
the senior DA investigator, told the retired sergeant who drove the
homicide
investigation against Cantu and whose actions, along with other
officers in
that case, are under review by the DA's office.

That was in February, before DA investigators had spoken with two of
the three
witnesses who say Cantu was innocent. By March, another top
investigator was
forecasting the outcome:

"It's going to go forward with the fact that it was justified and
everything
was correct, and that's the way it is," James Moore, one of the primary
DA
investigators on the case, told Bill Ewell, the retired sergeant, on a
routinely recorded phone line March 7.

Obtained through a public-records request, these recorded conversations
open a
window into one of the highest-profile and politically polarizing
investigations under way in Texas, a review of allegations that the
state made
a mistake when it executed Cantu for a 1984 robbery and murder.

Both DA investigators ridicule the case and openly mock the notion that
Cantu
might have been innocent. They describe the witnesses as liars and
bastards;
one dismisses the possibility of a future wrongful-execution lawsuit as
"chicken shit."

Together, the recorded statements stand in contrast to public
assurances that
the Bexar County DA's Office will fully and fairly examine assertions
that
Cantu played no part in the 1984 robbery that left one man dead and
another
bleeding from nearly a dozen wounds.

A spokesman for District Attorney Susan Reed characterized the
conversations
as harmless "shop talk" and speculation, sprinkled with the salty
language of
tough cops. First Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg said any
doubts
about the case are natural, because two of the witness who vouch for
Cantu are
ex-convicts and liars.

Herberg said the investigators did not disclose any confidential
information
or violate ethical rules and would not be disciplined. Yet, he did say
he
regretted the remarks had been made on a publicly recorded telephone
line
because they could imply that his office had "prejudged the case."

"We want people to have confidence in the integrity of the
investigation. This
obviously does not help that," Herberg said. "But all of the people
that are
involved are professionals ... and they will do the job that needs to
be done
to the best of their ability regardless of what their personal opinions
may be."

Several ethicists and lawyers asked to review the information are more
skeptical.

"I do think (the DA) needs to determine whether or not the lead
investigators
have done a good job, based on these phone calls. Because it sounds to
me that
this important team has prejudged the case," said Linda Eads, an
ethicist and
former prosecutor who is chairwoman of the professional disciplinary
rules
committee for the State Bar of Texas.

Investigators Beers and Moore work under the direction of Herberg and
other
attorneys in the DA's office. Through Herberg, both refused to comment
but
stressed they had done nothing improper. Herberg quoted Moore as
saying:
"There is no conspiracy by us to cover up any actions by anybody."
Ewell,
through an attorney, also declined to comment.

At the time of the conversations, Ewell served as police chief for the
North
East Independent School District, which routinely records calls on its
police-department phone line. Ewell, who is now retired from the school
district as well as the San Antonio Police Department, is not the
target of
any criminal investigation, Herberg said, though the actions of
officers
involved in the Cantu case are under review.

'They're all lying'
In 1985, it was Ewell and his detectives who, on the third attempt,
obtained
the key evidence against Cantu, an eyewitness identification from the
lone
surviving victim of the robbery, a witness who now says police
pressured him
to identify Cantu.

Reed reopened the case in December after the Houston Chronicle
published
wrongful-execution claims made by the shooting victim, along with
Cantu's
convicted co-defendant and a potential alibi witness who says Cantu was
in
Waco stealing cars about the time of the murder.

Reed testified in June that she hadn't formed any conclusions, but
months
earlier, her senior investigator already had given his opinion.

"They're all lying," said Beers, the DA's senior investigator, in that
February phone conversation.

"Yeah, I think so. I mean I know so," Ewell replied. "But, I mean, I
hope the
DA knows that."

"Oh yeah," Beers assured him. "All they're just trying to show is that
... the
case was handled ethically and it was done correctly."

A month later, Moore, the head investigator in the DA's
white-collar-crime
section, gave Ewell information and advice.

In one conversation, Moore, who informally interviewed Cantu's
co-defendant
David Garza, dismissed Garza with an expletive. In another call, he
predicted
the investigation would prove everything was "justified" and "correct."

In an interview, Herberg, the first assistant district attorney, said
that he
understood Moore's dislike of Garza, a convicted felon who through the
years
has flip-flopped about what happened the night of the murder. But
Herberg said
Moore's "forward looking" and "optimistic" prediction about the case
was
premature and did not reflect his bosses' views.

"We're not ready to make that kind of statement," Herberg said.

Legal experts and attorneys for the witnesses have challenged the DA's
objectivity in the case because in her previous job as judge, Reed
denied one
of Cantu's appeals and set his execution date. But no one has
previously
questioned the staff's conduct in the case.

Beers is a former motorcycle cop and mayoral driver who joined the SAPD
in
1969, two years after Ewell. The former colleagues occasionally lunch
together, according to the taped conversations.

Five days after his formal interview with the DA's office about the
Cantu
execution, Ewell invited Beers to lunch. Ewell told his friend he
wanted "to
see what you've heard."

Beers oversees all DA investigators but has played only a minor role in
the
Cantu review — retrieving some documents — and would know only what he
read in
the newspaper or heard around the office, according to Herberg. Still,
when
Ewell worried aloud about whether the Cantu case might later result in
a
wrongful-death lawsuit, Beers replied:

"That just tells me a whole lot about people like that. Y'know, just
money-hungry sorry bastards."

Police not suspects
Moore had been the one who formally interviewed Ewell for the Cantu
investigation Feb. 1. After that, Moore talked with Ewell on the phone
several
times.

On March 28, Ewell had a question for Moore.

"Am I being investigated, or what are we doing here? That's, that's my
concern," Ewell said. "Does the DA's office think that I'm guilty of
some
wrongdoing?"

"No," Moore said. "Not that I'm aware of, no."

Later, Moore added , "There's no investigation by us ... or anybody
else that
I'm aware of."

What Moore meant, Herberg said in an interview, is that the police
officers
are not suspects because the recanting eyewitness, Juan Moreno, who has
not
been interviewed by the DA's office since the case was reopened, has
never
publicly claimed that police did anything illegal.

But the DA has said Moreno could be prosecuted for the unusual crime of
murder
by perjury if he lied during Cantu's trial.

Ewell began contacting friends soon after the Chronicle and San Antonio
Express-News published investigations about new innocence claims in the
Cantu
case in late November, recordings show. He called the outgoing SAPD
chief, a
couple of deputy chiefs and the former judge in the Cantu trial, Roy
Barrera
Jr., among others.

First of many conversations
Ewell, who has refused to give an interview about his role in the Cantu
case,
gave his official sworn account to the DA's office Feb. 1.

The meeting introduced Ewell to Moore, who had joined the DA's office
after
years as an investigator with the state pharmacy board. Other calls
followed.

In one conversation, Moore described his informal interview with Garza,
one of
the men who now claims Cantu was wrongly executed.

Garza was convicted at 15 of being Cantu's accomplice in the 1984
murder and
robbery of a Mexican-born contractor. He originally pleaded not guilty,
later
entered a guilty plea on the robbery charge but never testified about
the murder.

Last year, Garza signed a sworn statement saying Cantu was innocent and
named
another teen as the killer. But when the DA's team went to interview
Garza,
then in prison for an unrelated crime, he initially refused a
lie-detector
test, Moore told Ewell.

"We went down there and interviewed that little bastard," Moore,
laughing,
told Ewell. " ... He's very anti-death penalty."

In an interview, Herberg said he understood Moore's low opinion of
Garza.

"David Garza is an admitted Mexican Mafia member. He's an admitted
liar. He's
an admitted participant in a capital murder. He's a three-time
convicted
felon," Herberg said. "What would you call him? I would not call him a
Boy Scout."

Garza refused to cooperate with the DA's office when he was in prison
because
he claimed its investigators and prosecutors are biased.

Now out on parole, Garza gave an interview to the DA's office June 28
after
having been summoned to testify in front of a grand jury.

In another March conversation, Moore called Ewell to give him a
"heads-up" at
Herberg's direction. A Chronicle reporter had requested the DA's file
on the
1981 robbery in which Ewell and others arrested two innocent people.

Moore told Ewell that reporters were "trying to smear you ... is what
it looks
like, trying to ... raise a bunch of doubt and all this stuff."

"Well, how does Judge Reed feel about me?" Ewell asked.

Moore again reassured him. "She doesn't pay any attention to that."

Reed refused to be interviewed for this report through Herberg, her
spokesman.

Defending the investigation
Instead, Herberg offered a nuanced defense of the investigators in a
two-and-a-half-hour interview about the recordings, which the
newspapers
provided for his review.

Herberg said he agreed with most of what the investigators said but
described
their remarks as idle speculation that doesn't warrant public airing.
He also
insisted that the investigation's outcome has not been predetermined
even as
he acknowledged that some in the office may have a bias toward Cantu's
guilt.

The investigators also have another predisposition: They're reluctant
to
believe ex-cons who, presumably, aim to discredit or abolish the death
penalty, he said.

"The problem with this article is it's going to make out this point
that
somehow this has been prejudged. ... We're looking at everything,"
Herberg
stressed. "But we are adults, we do have a little experience here and
didn't
fall off the turnip truck yesterday."

He said officials have yet to speak to the most intriguing witness,
Moreno.
Unlike the others, Moreno isn't an ex-con. Instead, he's a shooting
victim who
visibly bears the scars of the attack and whose testimony put Cantu on
death row.

In the recorded conversations, investigators also dismissed Moreno as a
liar
or speculated he'd been hoodwinked into recanting.

But Herberg insisted that no one's mind is made up.

"I hope, at least, the article conveys we understand the sensitivity of
the
investigation," he said. "I wish these (recordings) were not public. I
wish
they had not occurred. But that said, the officers can do their job.
And will
do their job."
- - - - -
lise.olsen@chron.com
mrobbins@express-news.net

All Out For Rodney Reed!

2006-07-29T00:30:00.000-07:00

The CEDP, in conjunction with Rodney Reed's family, is holding a rally for justice for Rodney this evening, Saturday (7/29), in front of the Texas Capitol on 11th and Congress. The rally begins at 5:30pm. Sandra Reed, Rodney's mother, will be on hand to discuss her son's case. There will also be several other speakers, including Nelson Linder of the NAACP.

A proper flyer can be found at the new website devoted to Rodney and his case. Visit http://freerodneyreed.org for the latest info on Rodney. The site is still under construction, so check back often.

We hope to see you at the rally.

Screening of State vs. Reed at MonkeyWrench Books

2006-07-08T12:46:00.000-07:00

CEDP will be screening State vs. Reed at MonkeyWrench Books on Tuesday, July 11 at 8:00 PM. Sandra Reed, Rodney's mother, will be there to lead a discussion on his case after the screening. CEDP will be requesting a $3 donation at the door which will help cover expenses associated with fighting for Rodney's freedom.

Hope to see you there!

Texas killed an innocent man

2006-06-26T05:02:00.000-07:00

Statement by Austin chapter of Campaign to End the Death Penalty on the wrongful execution of Cameron Todd Willingham:

Members of the Austin chapter of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, a national organization whose aim is the abolition of the death penalty, are horrified and saddened by the recent conclusion of a panel of prominent fire experts convened by Barry Scheck of The Innocence Project that a 1991 house fire in Corsicana, Texas could not have been intentionally set.

A Texas jury at the time found based on mistaken testimony of officials who had investigated the scene that the fire was indeed arson. It convicted Cameron Todd Willingham, owner of the home and father of the three children that died in the fire, of capital murder. He received the death sentence for these crimes. Throughout the trial and subsequent appeals, Willingham adamantly maintained his innocence, yet the highest judges in the state of Texas and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his wrongful conviction and death sentence. This ordeal culminated in Willingham’s execution in 2004.

The Texas Pardon and Parole Board and Governor Rick Perry received a report written by another arson expert commissioned by Willingham’s defense team detailing the exact same conclusion, that the fire could not have been intentional and therefore Willingham was innocent, in the days leading up to Willingham’s execution. The majority of the Pardon and Parole Board and Governor Perry rejected the findings of this report and allowed Willingham’s execution to proceed. Only now, two years after the execution when proper reparations are not possible are state officials recognizing that this execution was in error.

The panel’s findings mean one thing: Texas executed an innocent man. Willingham was telling us the truth when he repeatedly claimed that he was innocent, that he had not intentionally set his home on fire, and that he had not murdered his children. The report received by the Pardon and Parole Board and the Governor before the execution took place surely raised a significant doubt about Willingham’s guilt. This should have been enough to get this innocent man a reprieve from execution until all questions were settled regarding his case. Instead, the state chose to allow a man to die that should not have.

This is the first instance in the history of the nation in which we can be as certain as possible that the state executed an innocent man. CEDP of Austin calls for immediate action on the part of officials in the state of Texas to ensure that an error of this gravity is never committed again.

We call on the state of Texas, including Governor Rick Perry, the newly formed Forensic Science Commission, and the Texas legislature, to readily undertake a full investigation of Willingham’s case and ensure that every error in the case is uncovered and made public. If the commission finds that any of these errors were the product of willful neglect or malicious wrongdoing, we must hold those responsible, including members of the Pardon and Parole Board and Governor Perry, accountable and remove them from any position of power that would allow them to influence the course of a criminal case again. We also demand a public apology from the Texas Pardon and Parole Board and Governor Perry for failing to stop the execution of an innocent person. Willingham’s family should also receive compensation for their loss if appropriate.

The Texas legislature must fully fund the Forensic Science Commission and empower them to investigate the evidence used to convict the other 666 people incarcerated in Texas for arson crimes. The commission must have the power to determine if the same errors that wrongfully sent Cameron Todd Willingham to the death chamber in Huntsville were factors in other arson convictions.

Further, we call on the Texas legislature, Governor Perry, and all Texas citizens to reexamine the application of the death penalty in Texas. The most poor, abused, and ill members of society have shouldered the consequences of error in the administration of the death penalty. Cameron Todd Willingham was only one of many uneducated, poor people executed by the state of Texas. The overwhelming majority of those executed by Texas were low-income people who had little access to the excellent legal representation and resources at trial needed to avoid a conviction and a death sentence.

Cameron Todd Willingham was one also of many death row residents whose claims of innocence went unheeded. All those in power who heard his claims of innocence thought that the physical evidence collected from the fire was unquestionable proof that a crime had been committed. Willingham’s case teaches us that physical evidence, however convincing at the time, might not be completely conclusive. Rodney Reed, who now resides on Texas death row and continues to maintain his innocence, was convicted of the murder of Stacey Stites based on one single piece of physical evidence. There was other existing physical evidence pointing to other suspects collected from the crime scene. This evidence, however, was not introduced at trial, and serious questions of egregious error remain about the forensic evidence used to convict Reed. It would be tragic if the state executed Reed and other men and women in his situation only to find out later that they were indeed, like Willingham, innocent.

We must implement needed reforms to our criminal justice system. However, no matter how close the state of Texas reaches to near perfect administration of the death penalty, a chance will always exist that the state could execute an innocent person. However small that chance becomes, it will always carry huge consequences. The Campaign to End the Death Penalty finds that these brutal consequences far outweigh any possible benefit a reasonable person could find in continuing executions. One innocent person’s life is too high a price to pay to continue the use of this outdated, inhumane punishment. This system has claimed the life of one innocent person already, and it would be an embarrassment and a source of shame to let this happen again.

Besides the actions it must take on Willingham’s case specifically to rectify their errors, the state of Texas must proceed quickly and in a manner most likely to protect all innocent life. The safest and most reasonable action the state can take is to declare a moratorium on executions now. During the moratorium, the state would suspend all executions and an independent panel would thoroughly investigate the death penalty’s administration in Texas in order to uncover injustices in its application.

In spite of any support a particular legislator or state official might have for the death penalty, CEDP expects them to support an investigation into its application in order to find existing errors and injustices. This could save the lives of innocent persons who are still on death row. Cameron Todd Willingham cannot be brought back to life, but his memory can propel us to justice for others. We must together send our state a message: no more wrongful executions!

Remembering Shaka Sankofa (Part 2)

2006-06-22T10:07:00.000-07:00

Here is an excerpt from the Last Statement of Shaka Sankofa, an innocent black man, who was executed on June 22, 2000.

here

We have a lot of work to do!

Remembering Shaka Sankofa

2006-06-22T09:53:00.000-07:00

Shaka Sankofa was executed on June 22, 2000. The CEDP was intimately involved in protesting his execution. Below is a letter from Howard Guidry in memory of Shaka, his friend.

Written by

on June 22, 2005, from the Harris County Jail.

Howard Guidry is an innocent man who has spent the last decade on death row in Texas after being forced into confessing to a crime he knew nothing about. In September, 2003, Federal Judge Vanessa Gilmore threw out the forced confession, overturned his conviction and ordered Harris County to release or retry him in 180 days. Texas appealed her ruling but lost, so in April of this year Howard was sent from the Polunsky Unit to the Harris County Jail. He is now set to be retried on July 17. Without the coerced confession, the Houston DA has no evidence on Guidry. Support this young man's fight for freedom!

(Special thanks to Gloria Rubac and TDPAM for passing this along.)

Rodney Reed Update

2006-06-18T10:59:00.000-07:00

District Judge Reva Towslee Corbett, the daughter of the judge who presided over the trial that sent Rodney Reed to death row, has recommended that the Texas Court of Appeals not grant Rodney a new trial. The case will now go before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals who can agree or disagree with Corbett's decision and determine if Rodney deserves a new trial.

While this was not a suprise to any of us who attended the hearing, as Corbett had a clear pro-prosecution bias, this is nonetheless a sad and frustrating setback. However, the fight to save Rodney's life is by no means over. This unjust decision demands that we move quickly to mobilize and act.

Rather than holding our traditional Monday meeting at 7pm at the Kasbah coffeehouse, our membership will be attending a special screening of State vs. Reed at the Alamo Drafthouse, downton at 4th and Colorado. We will have a table set-up with copies of the New Abolitionist and fact sheets on Rodney's case and the many others we are working on. Admission is the standard $7 ($5.50 for students) and half of the proceeds will go to the Reed family, who are facing considerable financial difficulties in the midst of this nightmare.

We may have lost this battle, but the war for Rodney is far from over. The Rodney Reed case, unique in several respects, is also a prime example of what is the norm in Texas and throughout the country when it comes to capital punishment. Now is the time to raise our voices and let the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals know that we DEMAND a new trial for Rodney Reed!

Support for D.R.I.V.E.

2006-06-08T00:00:00.000-07:00

The Austin chapter of the CEDP has recently sent the following out to several activist organizations around Texas. To learn about the individuals in D.R.I.V.E., visit this site.

The D.R.I.V.E. Movement: Resources for Education and Action

Introduction

Background

Life on the Polunsky Unit

The D.R.I.V.E. Movement

* Actively seek to consistently voice complaints to the administration
* Actively seek to organize grievance filing to address problems
* Occupy feeding slots when feeding procedures are improperly done (Lack of sanitation by officers) and when food is improperly prepared (meager, malnourished portions: under cooked, spoiled) until changed
* Occupy day rooms when there is an act of abuse of authority by guards (verbal abuse; physical abuse; meals/recreations or showers being wrongly denied; unsanitary day rooms and showers being allowed to persist; medical being denied; paper work being denied; refusing to contact higher rank to address the problems and complaints) and when retaliation (thefts, denials, destruction of property; food restrictions; wrongful denials of visits; abuse of inmates) is carried out in response to our grievances, outside support and collective protest:
*Initiate sit-ins in visiting rooms, hallways, pod runs and recreation yards (when the above takes place)
*Deploy the use of Polunsky Unit video cameras so that protest may be documented (which can be accessed by the public)
*Non-violently refuse to evacuate cells when the above mentioned problems occur. Occupation will persist until change is implemented
*Seek to organize supporters on the outside to write petitions, letters, make phone calls, e-mail and send faxes to address problems and abuses at hand (and protests in front of the prison when possible)
*Educate prisoners to intelligently handle cases of abuse, attacks and oppression

Barriers to Victory

Toward Solidarity

Conclusion

Appendix: Contact Information