U.S. Supreme Court grants stay to convicted Alabama killer Thomas D. Arthur

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1196932637200060.xml&coll=2

Thursday, December 06, 2007

STAN DIEL

News staff writer

The U.S. Supreme Court late Wednesday granted a stay of execution to convicted killer Thomas D. Arthur, just one day before he was to be executed for the 1982 murder-for-hire killing of Troy Wicker Jr. of Muscle Shoals.

It was the second time this year Arthur had come within a day of being executed.

Sherrie Arthur Stone, Arthur's daughter, blasted the state of Alabama for scheduling the execution despite what amounts to a national moratorium on the death penalty.

Only one state has executed a prisoner since Sept. 25, when the Supreme Court announced it would hear a Kentucky case challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection. Even that state, Texas, has since halted executions.

"I think it was irresponsible for the state to set this at this time," she said. "They wasted a lot of taxpayers' dollars."

The Supreme Court, in a three-sentence order, delayed Arthur's execution until it determines whether it will hear an appeal in which he challenges Alabama's lethal injection procedure on the same grounds being challenged in the Kentucky case, Baze v. Rees. The court is not expected to decide whether to hear Arthur's case until after it hears the Kentucky case in the spring.

In Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General Clay Crenshaw, the state's capital punishment chief, said he was disappointed with the high court's decision.

He said Arthur's conviction and sentence for "horrible crimes" have been upheld "by every court that's ever looked at it." But he said he wasn't surprised by the high court's action because stays have been granted in other states based on the Kentucky case.

Procedure changed:

Gov. Bob Riley already delayed Arthur's execution once, to allow the Department of Corrections to add a step to its lethal injection procedure after the court announced it would hear the Kentucky case. Before Alabama changed its procedure, it was identical to the one used by Kentucky.

Alabama added a step meant to confirm that the condemned is unconscious. After a barbiturate is administered to render the inmate unconscious, a guard is to speak the prisoner's name, brush a finger over the prisoner's eyelashes and pinch his arm. If the prisoner is deemed unconscious, the execution is to continue, Department of Corrections officials have said.

The state keeps most details of its execution procedure secret, but court documents indicate the state uses the drug Thiopental to cause unconsciousness, Pavulon to cause paralysis and halt breathing, and potassium chloride to stop the heart. Those three drugs make up the most commonly used lethal injection cocktail.

Arthur, now 65, was convicted of killing Wicker, 35, who was shot through the right eye as he slept.

Wicker's wife, Judy, initially told police that a man had raped her and killed her husband. But she later recanted and said she paid Arthur, a work-release inmate with whom she was having an affair, to kill her spouse so she could collect $90,000 in life insurance proceeds.

Advocates, including Amnesty International and The Innocence Project, have championed Arthur's case because of irregularities in each of his three trials, and because they believe modern DNA testing of evidence in the case could prove he is innocent.

Trial irregularities:

Arthur's first two convictions were overturned on appeal. The first was overturned because prosecutors wrongly introduced evidence about a prior murder conviction, and the second because he was questioned after requesting a lawyer. After the second conviction Arthur shot a guard in an escape. The guard survived and Arthur was captured.

Among the trial irregularities cited by Arthur's supporters:

The district attorney who prosecuted Arthur during the final trial represented Wicker's wife as a private attorney when she negotiated early release for testifying against her husband.

Witnesses, some of whom were convicted criminals, drastically changed testimony between the second and third trials, saying they had been bribed or pressured to testify for the prosecution.

Arthur acted as his own counsel during the third trial, and asked for the death penalty even as he professed his innocence. He said at the time that being sentenced to death would give him an advantage on appeal.

Amnesty International and The Innocence Project had appealed to Riley, requesting that he issue a stay and order DNA testing.

A spokeswoman for the governor said Wednesday afternoon that Riley would not stop the execution. Efforts to reach a representative of the governor after the stay was issued were not successful.

Stone, who lives in Tampa but was in Atmore Wednesday to witness her father's execution, said his lawyers notified her of the stay late Wednesday afternoon, and she was still waiting to learn the details.

"We don't know the legalities of it yet, but we got the stay," she said. "We're very happy."

The Associated Press contributed to this report sdiel@bhamnews.com

US Supreme Court grants stay of execution for Thomas Arthur

By Garry Mitchell

http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071206/APN/712060689&template=apart

Associated Press

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a stay of execution for Alabama death row inmate Thomas Arthur, who for the second time since September came within a day of lethal injection.

The 65-year-old Arthur was facing lethal injection Thursday at Holman prison, but the high court, in a one-paragraph order, blocked his execution until the court decides whether to review his lethal injection challenge.

That's not expected until the Supreme Court settles a lethal injection challenge in a Kentucky case. A ruling in that case is expected next year and a stay for Arthur was anticipated by attorneys on both sides.

Arthur was sentenced to death for the 1982 killing of Troy Wicker, 35, of Muscle Shoals.

Arthur's attorney, Suhana Han of New York, had argued for a stay citing the Kentucky case. Arthur also had filed a lawsuit challenging lethal injection as cruel and unusual punishment.

The state's attorneys contended Arthur had offered no proof of that claim and that he had waited too late to file it in court. Arthur's suit was rejected by a federal judge in Montgomery and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which led to the Supreme Court petition.

Han said she's pleased with the high court's decision.

"Alabama should not be permitted to execute Mr. Arthur by the very same method of execution being reviewed by the Supreme Court," she said via e-mail. "This stay provides a critical opportunity for the governor of Alabama to put to rest any lingering doubts about Mr. Arthur's culpability."

She repeated a call for the governor to grant her request to conduct DNA testing -- "at our expense -- on evidence that has never been subjected to such testing." That request has been rejected by the courts.

In Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General Clay Crenshaw, the state's capital punishment chief, said he was disappointed with the high court's decision.

He said Arthur's conviction and sentence for "horrible crimes" have been upheld "by every court that's ever looked at it." But he said he wasn't surprised by the high court's action because stays have been granted in other states based on the Kentucky case.

Arthur came within hours of lethal injection at Holman prison on Sept. 27, when Gov. Bob Riley granted a 45-day reprieve so the state could make minor changes in its execution procedure.

Riley acted after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Kentucky challenge to lethal injection.

Arthur has been on death row about 16 years after being convicted for capital murder and sentenced to death in 1992 at his third trial. His first two convictions and death sentences in the Wicker murder were overturned on appeal.

Alabama's next execution is set Jan. 31, for James Harvey Callahan, who has asked for a stay in lower court, and attorneys expect it also will be delayed by the Kentucky case.

The high court has allowed only one execution to be completed since it agreed to hear the Kentucky case. It occurred in Texas on Sept. 25, the same day the court agreed to take the Kentucky case, Baze vs. Rees.

Thomas Arthur's Case Exposes the U.S. Legal System's Sordid Plea Bargaining

Thomas Arthur's Case Exposes the U.S. Legal System's Sordid Plea Bargaining Obsession

Justice:Denied Editorial
December 3, 2007

http://justicedenied.org/arthurs_obsession.html

Thomas Arthur’s case exposes the sordid underbelly of how the processing of a criminal case in the United States has evolved into a system that is not dissimilar from the operation of an assembly line.

An indicted or otherwise charged person begins their travail at the system’s induction end and (unless their case is rejected as a defective for some reason) they exit at the other end stamped guilty or not guilty with as little interruption as possible to the smooth functioning of the process. This necessitates obtaining an overwhelming percentage of convictions by a guilty plea, since a trial clogs the system. The three most obvious factors pressuring a guilty plea are prosecutors overcharging a defendant with alleged crimes, judges who make prosecution favorable rulings, and the over-burdening and under-funding of court-appointed lawyers that most defendants must rely on for representation.

A prosecutor’s guilty plea offer for reduced charges is a no-brainer for most defendants when the alternative is a much more severe sentence after a likely conviction resulting from representation by an overmatched court-appointed lawyer. The fabulous success of this strategy is evidenced by the 96% of convictions obtained nationwide by a guilty plea.

The system’s regularity of processing defendants is, however, interfered with by the low percentage of defendants who insist on a trial at the peril of facing an enhanced sentence if they are convicted. That peril is magnified by the Byzantine rules governing the direct appeal and post-conviction appeal process that follows a conviction.

When Thomas Arthur protested his innocence and went to trial in 1991 for the 1982 murder of a man in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, he did so with a court-appointed lawyer paid the $1,000 mandated by Alabama law. Arthur received the representation $1,000 will pay for – which isn’t much. Among other things his lawyer made no effort to investigate alibi witnesses that Arthur told him could establish that at the time of the murder he was more than an hour away in Decatur, Alabama. One thing the lawyer did do right was file a pre-trial motion for forensic testing of crime-related evidence that could exclude Arthur as being present at the crime scene. That evidence includes sperm, hairs, blood, and a bullet and bullet cartridges. The prosecutor opposed testing the evidence, and the trial judge denied the motion.

The prosecution’s “star witness” was Judy Wicker. When interviewed at the crime scene, she told officers that her husband, Troy, was shot by a black man who beat and raped her. A rape kit that included semen collected from her was preserved. Suspicious circumstances led to Judy being charged with her husband’s murder. At her trial she testified a lone black man committed the crime, just as she had told the police. Judy was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

At the time of Arthur’s 1991 trial his prosecutor was Wicker’s former lawyer. He made a deal with Wicker that if she testified that Arthur murdered her husband she would be released on parole. She was released within days after Arthur’s conviction and sentence of death.

Again represented by an underpaid court-appointed lawyer, Arthur’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Alabama does not provide post-conviction legal counsel to death row prisoners, and Alabama’s death row lacks a law library. So a death row prisoner without financial resources is dependent on finding a lawyer who will represent him (or her) pro bono. By the time Arthur found a law firm willing to represent him, Alabama’s courts ruled the time had expired for him to file a state post-conviction appeal, so his petition was dismissed as procedurally defaulted. Likewise, the federal courts ruled that the one-year time limit for filing a federal habeas corpus petition challenging Arthur’s conviction had expired. So the merits of Arthur’s post-conviction challenges to his conviction, which include the constitutional inadequacy of his trial counsel, have never been considered by any state or federal court.

On April 12, 2007, Arthur’s lawyers filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (42 USC §1983) for an order compelling Alabama to do what they had refused since 1991 to do voluntarily – allow forensic/DNA testing of the evidence. Arthur’s pro bono law firm was willing to have the evidence tested at their expense. Testing the sperm collected from Judy Wicker could prove Arthur didn’t rape her (or otherwise have sex with her), it could identify who did, and the other untested evidence could possibly also be linked to that same man – further identifying him as the actual murderer.

The lawsuit was filed five days before Alabama Attorney General Troy King requested that the Alabama Supreme Court set Arthur’s execution date, which on June 22 it set for September 27, 2007. Alabama opposed the DNA lawsuit, claiming it was a ploy to delay Arthur’s execution and they argued testing the evidence would not directly prove his innocence of committing the murder. After the U.S. District Court agreed with Alabama and dismissed the lawsuit, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Arthur’s attorneys then filed a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.

While the Supreme Court was considering whether to review the dismissal of Arthur’s DNA lawsuit, Alabama Governor Bob Riley ordered a 45-day stay six hours before Arthur’s scheduled execution on September 27. The stay was to allow the state Department of Corrections time to revise its lethal injection protocol. The Alabama State Supreme Court subsequently set a new execution date of December 6, 2007. On November 26, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the dismissal of Arthur’s DNA lawsuit.

So as this is written on Monday, December 3, 2007, Arthur is three days away from his scheduled execution for Troy Wicker’s murder. The jury that convicted him did not make an informed decision. Their verdict was based on incomplete evidence because the prosecutor, with the trial judge’s aid, successfully blocked forensic testing of the crime-related evidence by techniques available in 1991. Why did the prosecutor who bribed Judy Wicker to lie under oath want so desperately to prevent the testing of the evidence? Is there any reasonable explanation other than that he knew it would have excluded Thomas Arthur from being present at the crime scene? Furthermore, the only reasonable explanation for Alabama’s continued opposition to the testing of that evidence by today’s most sophisticated forensic/DNA techniques is the fear of what the result would be – the exclusion of Arthur, and the identification of the DNA profile of who in fact murdered Troy Wicker.

The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted two cases that challenge the constitutionality of execution by lethal injection, so either the Court or Governor Riley may issue a stay of Arthur’s execution pending the Court’s decision in those cases sometime next year.

A stay, however, would have no effect on Arthur’s conviction. Arthur’s conviction resulted from a pop-gun defense by a grossly underpaid and ill-equipped court appointed lawyer, a prosecutor hell-bent on concealing the truth and getting Arthur’s conviction by any tactic no matter how unethical or even illegal, and a judge all too eager to be a modern day Judge Roy Bean. Arthur’s inability to get his conviction overturned is not because he doesn’t have issues that compel the granting of a retrial that comports with basic notions of due process, but because with very few exceptions, state and federal judges worship at the alter of maintaining procedural regularity at the price of disregarding the substance of a defendant’s claims. The hurdles a defendant must overcome to successfully challenge a conviction – no matter how shaky or insubstantial it may be – is indicated by the fact that the considerable legal and investigative efforts for six years by the New York law firm representing Arthur pro bono have been for naught.

If Arthur had pled guilty to Troy Wicker’s murder he would have been sentenced to life in prison. So his punishment for insisting on his innocence and going to trial was having his sentence upgraded from life to death. That was his “trial penalty.” Consequently, Arthur is not facing execution by the State of Alabama because he was convicted of Wicker’s murder, but because he demanded his right to a trial. Arthur’s conviction, and his sentence, are products of this country’s intolerance for the small percentage of people foolhardy enough to buck the assembly-line guilty plea bargaining system by publicly asserting they are in fact not guilty.

Thomas Arthur’s case exposes for anyone who cares to look, that the underbelly of the United States’ legal system is sordid: Its obsession with extracting guilty pleas to keep the system smoothly operating is based on a fundamental disregard for the truth of whether a conviction is based on the reality of the person’s guilt or innocence. Arthur may be actually innocent of Tony Wicker’s murder, but the legal system doesn’t care to find out as it hurtles toward his execution that every court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, has thus far sanctioned without considering if his conviction is actually legitimate.

Statement of Sherrie Stone - Thomas Arthur`s daughter - to the US Supreme Court stay

Statement of Sherrie Stone - Thomas Arthur`s daughter - to the US Supreme Court stay :

We feel it is very irresponsible of the State of Alabama wasting tax payers dollars rescheduling executions.

The United States Supreme Court has decided to review the constitutionality of lethal injection and 11 other states are delaying executions waiting on the USSC ruling.

We are going to use this time to focus on the real issue in this case, testing of the DNA evidence.

It is a travesty of justice when in the United States, a person is denied access to their own evidence, denied the right to an attorney, and denied DNA testing of evidence that can conclusively prove your innocence.....

Sherrie Stone from Alabama.

sherriestone4you@aol.com
www.thomasarthurfightforlife.com

USSC order for Thomas Arthur stay

US Supreme Court order for stay :

http://www.floridasupport.us/alabama/ThomasArthur/Document1.pdf

Court delays another execution

Court delays another execution

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-delays-another-execution/

Wednesday, December 5th, 2007 5:00 pm | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post

Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

The Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon delayed the execution of Thomas D. Arthur, previously scheduled for 6 p.m. on Thursday. Arthur has a petition pending (Arthur v. Allen, 07-395) challenging the state’s use of a lethal injection protocol to carry out executions. The Court has not acted on the petition. Its order on Wednesday stayed the execution until it acts on the petition, or, if the petition is granted, until the case is decided. Besides raising a constitutional challenge to the lethal injection method, Arthur’s appeal raises another issue the Court has yet to decide: when a constitutional challenge to this method of execution is considered timely filed, when the issue is raised under federal civil rights law, rather than federal habeas law.

The Court in recent weeks has not permitted any execution to proceed when the inmate has sought a stay while challenging lethal injection. It is scheduled to hold a hearing on such challenges on Jan. 7 at 10 a.m.

US Supreme Court grants stay of execution for Thomas Arthur

12/5/2007, 4:02 p.m. CST The Associated Press http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-32/119689255971870.xml&storylist=alabamanews

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a stay of execution for Alabama death row inmate Thomas Arthur.

The 65-year-old Arthur was facing lethal injection Thursday at Holman prison, but the high court blocked his execution Wednesday afternoon.

The court already is considering a challenge to lethal injection in a Kentucky case. A ruling in that case is expected next year and a stay for Arthur was anticipated by attorneys on both sides.

Arthur was sentenced to death for the 1982 killing of Troy Wicker of Muscle Shoals.

Letter from The Innocence Project to Governor Bob Riley

http://www.floridasupport.us/alabama/ThomasArthur/theletter.htm

http://www.floridasupport.us/alabama/ThomasArthur/IP_to_Riley_re_Thomas_Arthur_120307.pdf


December 3, 2007

By Facsimile and Overnight Mail

The Honorable Bob Riley

Governor of the State of Alabama

State Capitol

600 Dexter Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36130

Re: Thomas Arthur, Set to Be Executed December 6, 2007

Dear Governor Riley:

On November 5, 2007, in response to a request from your Policy Director Bryan Taylor, for guidance on how the Governor's office should address requests for post-conviction DNA testing in capital cases, even where the courts have declined to do so, we sent Mr. Taylor a letter (enclosed here) outlining general guidelines to apply to such requests. We also specifically applied the guidelines to Mr. Arthur's case and provided our assessment that Mr. Arthur's request to the Governor's office for DNA testing should be granted because of the clear way in which DNA testing could provide compelling evidence of Mr. Arthur's innocence. We are now days away from Mr. Arthur's scheduled execution, and we have received no response to our letter or calls we made to Mr. Taylor's office seeking to follow up on the letter.

We are deeply disappointed by the manner in which the Governor's office has handled Mr. Arthur's request for testing thus far and do not understand the reason for its failure to take action. Your office long ago stated that you did not want to order testing that would delay execution, yet had your office ordered testing when Mr. Arthur first requested your office to do so at the end of August or even after receiving our letter of November 5, we would already have the results. Thus your decision not to order testing had absolutely nothing to do with not wanting to delay the execution. Had you authorized testing, those results could have provided evidence of Mr. Arthur's innocence and even identified the true killer, or alternatively confirmed Mr. Arthur's guilt and put to rest any lingering doubts about who killed Troy Wicker, without any delay to the execution.

The time for inaction is now at an end, and the Governor's office has only a few days remaining. We urge your office to issue a stay immediately and implement the DNA testing we recommended. If your office fails to do so, there is much to lose.

Allowing an execution to go forward without first conducting DNA testing that could scientifically confirm or refute guilt not only risks putting to death an innocent man, but also does irreversible damage to the public's confidence in the state's criminal justice system and its elected officials.

Sincerely,

Peter Neufeld

Olga Akselrod

Enc.

===========================================

November 5, 2007

Bryan Taylor

Policy Director

Office of the Governor of the State of Alabama

State Capitol

600 Dexter Avenue

Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Dear Mr. Taylor:

Thank you for your request for guidance on how the Governor's Office should approach requests for post-conviction DNA testing in capital cases. Especially since Alabama is one of the few states without a statute allowing for access to post-conviction DNA testing, 1) it is crucial that the Governor's Office have a just and sound policy on when such requests should be granted.

Requests for post-conviction DNA testing are made in a few different contexts, such as to develop evidence in support of a motion to vacate a conviction or to modify a sentence, or in support of a request made directly to the executive for communication, clemency, or other relief. In capital cases where a governor, as opposed to the courts, is considering whether to authorize DNA testing, testing should be authorized where such testing has the potential - assuming that testing will produce an exclusion 2) - to raise doubt about the conviction or the appropriateness of the sentence. Instances where testing should be granted include, but are not limited to, where testing could possibly produce evidence that casts doubt on: the defendant's culpability or participation in the crime; the extent of such culpability or participation; or a finding of any aggravating circumstances. Obviously, testing should be conducted where it could possibly refute forensic evidence used to convict the defendant. In addition, testing would be authorized, irrespective of whether the state or defense introduced that forensic evidence as an exhibit at trial, if it meets the above criteria.

It is important to note that the standard we are suggesting deliberately bases decisions as to whether to grant DNA testing on the impact that a DNA exclusion(s) would have on a given case and not the likelihood that DNA testing will produce an exclusion(s). This is crucial, because so many DNA exonerations have involved cases where evidence of the defendant's guilt seemed solid and overwhelming, only to be proven wholly unreliable through DNA testing. 3) Our fifteen years of litigating DNA cases has taught us that there is simply no way to know prior to the DNA testing whether the DNA results will be exculpatory or inculpatory.

Finally, in light of these suggested guidelines, we very much hope that you will reconsider your decision to deny DNA testing in the Thomas Arthur case. As you know, the Innocence Project has reviewed the facts of the case, and has contacted your office to request DNA testing on certain items collected from the crime. We believe that the Arthur case easily fits within the category of cases where DNA testing should be granted.

Unlike prosecutors or defense attorneys, we are not proclaiming the guilt or innocence of Mr. Arthur. Instead, we are advocates fro utilizing science to ascertain the truth. Here, science is capable of determining the truth. In fact, DNA testing has the potential to conclusively prove that Mr. Arthur was not the perpetrator of this crime and to identify the real killer. Judy Wicker, the wife of the murder victim, testified under oath while on trial for conspiring to murder her husband that her husband was murdered by a lone African-American gunman who broke into their home, raped her, and then shot her husband. Mr. Arthur was convicted when, years later, she changed her story in exchange for an early release from prison and stated that she had in fact hired Mr. Arthur to kill her husband and that the original story about the unknown perpetrator who had raped her and killed her husband was a fabrication. DNA testing has the potential to resolve which of Judy Wicker's sworn versions is true. For example, testing on semen in Judy Wicker's rape kit, contact DNA that may have been left by the perpetrator on Mrs. Wicker's clothing during their struggle, and "Negroid" hairs found in her car, could reveal a DNA profile that excludes Mr. Arthur and also "cold hit" in the DNA database to a person who fits the original description that the victim gave to police. In addition, testing on these same items could reveal a common "redundant" profile that excludes Mr. Arthur. Even without a CODIS "cold hit," if testing reveals that the "Negroid" hair in the car was from the same person who also deposited semen detected in the rape kit or blood or skin cells on Mrs. Wicker's clothing, such a redundance would provide compelling evidence of Mr. Arthur's innocence.

Notably, such testing can be authorized without even delaying the execution, since the execution date is currently set for December 6, 2007 and testing could be completed in less than four weeks. We very much hope that you will authorize testing without further delay so that it cam be completed before the execution date.

We trust that this information is useful to you as you consider the DNA testing request in the case of Thomas Arthur and any others that come before you. We are happy to speak in more depth about these suggested guidelines and are available to you if you have any further questions.

Sincerely yours,

Peter Neufeld

Olga Akselrod

================

Footnotes:

1) Currently, 42 states have legislation allowing defendants post-conviction access to DNA testing. The states that do not have such legislation are Alabama, Alaska, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Wyoming.

2) Exclusions can occur in three distinct contexts:

First, testing can produce an exclusion on a material piece of evidence where this exclusion is by itself enough for relief.

Second, there are cases in which testing produces an exclusion and additionally identifies a third-party suspect either through a match of the DNA profile to the profile of a known alternate suspect or through a "cold hit" to a convicted offender profiles in the national DNA databank system, available at: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/pdf/codisbrochure.pdf, and to date, CODIS has aided over 45,000 investigations nationwide through databank hits, including almost 1,800 in Alabama alone. See FBI, CODIS - Investigations Aided, available at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/html/codis2.htm

Jeffrey Deskovic and Douglas Warney are just two examples of defendants who were exonerated when DNA profile developed through post-conviction testing "cold hit" to a convicted offender who had not been suspected of having committed the crime. in both cases, the convicted offender who was identified through the CODIS match subsequently confessed and pled guilty.

Finally, there are cases in which an exclusion on a single piece of evidence would not be sufficient for relief, but where an exclusion on multiple pieces of relevant items plus the identifications of the same foreign profile on those multiple items can cumulatively justify relief.

Such results, where DNA testing establishes that the same genetic profile exists on a number of relevant items of evidence, are referred to as "redundancies" and have resulted in several exonerations. For example, Kenneth Wyniemko was convicted in 1994 of rape and exonerated in 2003 after a redundant profile was obtained on numerous pieces of evidence. Saliva from a cigarette butt, on nylons that had been stuffed into the rape victim's mouth, and on blood and skin scraped from beneath the victim's fingernails yielded a single male profile that excluded Kenneth Wyniemko as the source of the DNA. While the results from each piece of evidence alone would not necessarily have been sufficient to exonerate Wyniemko, the combined effect of the results of the sophisticated DNA testing performed in 2003 caused the original prosecutor to concede that "the DNA absolutely excludes him" as the perpetrator. See Kim North Shine, "DNA Tests Exonerate Man After Nearly A Decade in Prison, Suspect Is To Be Set Free," Detroit Free Press, June 12, 2003.

3) For example, Kirk Bloodsworth was exonerated in Maryland in 1993 after being sentence to die and serving eight years in prison for the grisly rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl. He was convicted based on the testimony of five eyewitnesses, all of whom identified Mr. Bloodsworth as the man they saw with the little girl prior to her murder. In addition, prosecutors presented evidence that Mr. Bloodsworth had made incriminating statements and mentioned crime details to police that were not publicly known. DNA testing revealed that he was not the source of sperm found on the victim's underwear, proving that this seemingly airtight evidence was wrong. See Nat'l Instit. Just., Off. Just. Programs, U.S. Dept. Just., Pub. No. 161258, Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial, at 35-37 (June 1996), available at:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/dnaevid.pdf .

"The time for inaction is now at an end," Peter Neufeld,

Supreme Court doesn't stop Thursday execution Tuesday, December 04, 2007 From staff and wire reports WASHINGTON - Convicted killer Thomas D. Arthur got no help from the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, and came a day closer to Thursday's scheduled execution with no promise of relief. The court had indicated it would announce Monday if it would hear an appeal regarding whether Arthur waited too long to challenge the constitutionality of lethal injection, but it was not on the list of decisions released. In a separate request also pending before the Supreme Court, Arthur asked for a stay until the court rules on a Kentucky case in which Death Row inmates argue that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court has not indicated when it might rule on that request. Also on Monday, the advocacy group The Innocence Project urged Gov. Bob Riley to issue a stay and order modern DNA testing of evidence in the case. "The time for inaction is now at an end," Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the organization, wrote in a letter to Riley. "Allowing an execution to go forward without first conducting DNA testing that could scientifically confirm or refute guilt not only risks putting to death an innocent man, but also does irreversible damage to the public's confidence in the state's criminal justice system and its elected officials." The Innocence Project advocates the use of DNA testing for Death Row inmates, and has claimed such testing could prove Arthur innocent. Riley delayed Arthur's execution once already, to allow the state to change its execution procedure, but has refused to halt it. Lower courts said that Arthur, convicted in a 1982 murder-for-hire case, unreasonably delayed filing his challenge to the way lethal injection is carried out in Alabama by waiting until just four months before his scheduled execution. The issue of time limits is a side issue to a larger debate before the Supreme Court over whether the three-drug form of lethal injection used in many states violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. A federal judge ruled that Arthur knew no later than August 2006 of the issue over pain in lethal injection. Arthur filed his challenge last May, the month after Alabama officials asked the state Supreme Court to set his execution date. Arthur was convicted in the 1982 killing of Troy Wicker, based on the testimony of the victim's wife. She testified that she had sex with Arthur and paid him $10,000 to kill her husband, who was shot in the face as he lay in bed. At the time of his arrest, Arthur was serving a sentence at a prison work release center for an earlier murder. Arthur's attorney, Suhana Han of New York, said a recent decision by the state of Alabama to change the lethal injection protocol amounted to the state conceding its execution procedure was deficient. On the Net www.supremecourtus.gov www.governor.state.al.us www.thomasarthurfightforlife.com

‘Governor Riley is out of excuses.

Read the Innocence Project’s Sept. 19 Press Release on This Case

42 States Have Laws Providing Access to DNA Testing. Is Yours One?

Alabama Governor’s 45-Day Stay of Execution for Thomas Arthur Should Immediately Lead to DNA Testing, Innocence Project Says

[Print Version]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/904.php

‘Governor Riley is out of excuses. The 45-day stay of execution gives us more than enough time to conduct and complete DNA testing that could show whether Thomas Arthur is guilty or innocent,’ Neufeld says

(MONTGOMERY, AL; September 27, 2007) – Today, Alabama Governor Bob Riley issued a 45-day stay of execution for Thomas Arthur so that the state can change its lethal injection protocol. Arthur was set to be executed this evening. The Innocence Project, which represents prisoners seeking to prove their innocence through DNA testing, has been asking Governor Riley to issue a stay of execution in Arthur’s case in order to conduct DNA testing that could prove his guilt or innocence. The Innocence Project said today that Governor Riley should immediately order DNA testing in Arthur’s case – and that DNA testing could be completed well within the 45 days granted in the stay of execution.

Arthur’s case is the second in less than two months in which Governor Riley has refused to allow for DNA testing before an execution. In July, Darrell Grayson was executed in Alabama without DNA testing that could have conclusively proven his guilt or innocence. The Innocence Project, which does not represent Arthur and does not have a position on his guilt or innocence, said DNA testing in Arthur’s case could show whether the initial story from the victim’s wife was, in fact, accurate. (She initially claimed a stranger – someone other than Arthur – broke into their home, raped her and killed her husband. Police suspected she was lying, and she was charged and convicted in the murder. She then changed her story and testified against Arthur in order to be released from prison earlier.) Her motive to lie is obvious, the Innocence Project says. Several pieces of evidence – the victim’s wife’s blood-stained clothing, a rape kit collected from her after the crime, and hairs in the victim’s wife’s car – could be subjected to DNA testing. The testing could show that her testimony against Arthur was false, and the DNA testing could identify the true perpetrator. For example, it’s possible that the testing could show that her original story was true and that she was raped, and the DNA profile from evidence in the rape could be entered in the federal DNA database and yield a hit to a man matching her initial description of the intruder at the couple’s home.

Following is a statement from Peter Neufeld, Innocence Project Co-Director, on today’s developments in the Arthur case:

“Governor Riley said last week that DNA testing was only a tactic to delay this execution. It’s not. Now that the execution is delayed for other reasons,

DNA testing should be started immediately. By the time Governor Riley made his statements last week that we were simply trying to delay this execution, weeks had passed since we first requested DNA testing – and the testing could have already been conducted.

“The 45-day stay of execution gives us more than enough time to conduct and complete DNA testing that could show whether Thomas Arthur is guilty or innocent. Governor Riley is out of excuses. There is no reason to continue denying DNA testing – and every reason to start the process for DNA testing immediately.

“As we have said before, we do not have a position on whether Thomas Arthur is guilty or innocent. Our concern is that biological evidence may exist that could be subjected to DNA testing and prove whether or not he is guilty. The victim’s wife in this case was convicted of murdering her husband and then changed her story; DNA testing could show that she changed her story only to get out of prison sooner, and that in fact someone other than Thomas Arthur committed this crime.

“In 42 states, Darrell Grayson or Thomas Arthur would have been able to get DNA testing that could resolve their cases and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. Governor Riley, who has refused DNA testing before executions twice in the last two months, has made it clear that he isn’t concerned with getting to the truth in these cases. Nationwide, 15 people who served time on death row have been exonerated through DNA evidence. Sometimes within days of execution, DNA proved they were innocent. If any of those 15 people had been in Alabama, they would be dead today.

“This indifference to the power of DNA to determine the truth through hard science is unconscionable. It is nothing short of a national scandal that Governor Riley is repeatedly refusing DNA testing before executions when testing could confirm guilt or innocence. With this 45-day window of time, Governor Riley has an opportunity to restore faith in the system and restore credibility to his office.”

Alabama Governor Refuses to Hear How DNA Testing Could Impact Case Set for Execution

Alabama Governor Refuses to Hear How DNA Testing Could Impact Case Set for Execution

[Print Version]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/887.php

‘Rather than looking at the science, he is burying his head in the sand,’ says Innocence Project, noting that this is the second execution in two months where Riley has denied DNA testing

(MONTGOMERY, AL; September 19, 2007) – Today, Alabama Governor Bob Riley refused to discuss DNA testing in the case of Thomas Arthur with Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld and Staff Attorney Olga Akselrod. Less than two months ago, Darrell Grayson was executed in Alabama without DNA testing that could have conclusively proven his guilt or innocence. The Innocence Project worked with Riley and his senior advisers in the days leading up to Grayson’s execution, unsuccessfully pressing for DNA testing. Arthur is set to be executed next week.

The Innocence Project, which does not represent Arthur and does not have a position on his guilt or innocence, said DNA testing in the case could show whether the initial story from the victim’s wife was, in fact, accurate. (She initially claimed a stranger – someone other than Arthur – broke into their home, raped her and killed her husband. Police suspected she was lying, and she was charged and convicted in her murder. She then changed her story and testified against Arthur in order to be released from prison earlier.) Several pieces of evidence – the victim’s wife’s blood-stained clothing, a rape kit collected from her after the crime, and hairs in the victim’s wife’s car – could be subjected to DNA testing. The testing could show that her testimony against Arthur was false; hers was the only testimony linking him to the crime. For example, it’s possible that the testing could show that her original story was true and that she was raped, and the DNA profile from evidence in the rape could be entered in the federal DNA database and yield a hit to a man matching her initial description of the intruder at the couple’s home.

Following is a statement from Peter Neufeld, Innocence Project Co-Director, on today’s developments in the Arthur case:

“We do not have a position on whether Thomas Arthur is guilty or innocent. Our concern is that biological evidence may exist that could be subjected to DNA testing and prove whether or not he is guilty. Governor Riley this afternoon refused to even meet with us to get a clearer understanding of what DNA testing could show in this case and why testing should be conducted. Rather than looking at the science, he is burying his head in the sand.

“As we told the governor’s senior advisers today, 42 states in the country now allow post-conviction DNA testing. In 42 states, Darrell Grayson or Thomas Arthur would have been able to get DNA testing that could resolve their cases and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. Governor Riley, who has refused DNA testing before executions twice in the last two months, has made it clear that he isn’t concerned with getting to the truth in these cases.

“Nationwide, 15 people who served time on death row have been exonerated through DNA evidence. Sometimes within days of execution, DNA proved they were innocent. If any of those 15 people had been in Alabama, they would be dead today. This indifference to the power of DNA to determine the truth through hard science is unconscionable for a governor who holds the fate of so many in his hands."

Chad Heins exonerated after 13 years behind bars - Florida

		Chad Heins exonerated after 13 years behind bars Innocence Project client Chad Heins (left) walked out of a Florida jail this afternoon, a free man for the first time since he was 20 years old. New DNA evidence proves that another man committed the murder for which Heins was incarcerated for 13 years. Today, Heins' long wait for justice came to an end and he became the 209th person nationwide — and the ninth in Florida — to be exonerated by DNA evidence. Heins was convicted in 1996 of killing his sister-in-law, Tina. He always said he had nothing to do with the crime and was convicted despite DNA tests at his trial showing that hairs in the victim's bed came from an unknown man. New DNA tests now show that the same unknown man also left other biological evidence at the scene. Read more about Heins' case on our website. Your role as a member of our online community is vital to the success of criminal justice reforms nationwide based on the lessons of wrongful convictions. Forward this email to one friend today and help us spread the word. By educating more people about wrongful convictions, you're helping us to fix our broken criminal justice system. Your friends can sign up for email updates at www.innocenceproject.org/signup. The Innocence Project at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law 100 Fifth Ave. 3rd Floor - New York, NY 10011 www.innocenceproject.org

Attorney: Berry case may not be at rest

12/4/2007 6:52:37 AM
Daily Journal


BY PATSY R. BRUMFIELD
Daily Journal

JACKSON - The attorney for murderer Early Wesley Berry says that even though the U.S. Supreme Court did not decide last week whether they will hear Berry's death penalty appeal, it doesn't mean they won't.

Jim Craig of Jackson, Berry's attorney, said Monday it's hard to predict exactly what the justices are thinking but he thinks they probably decided to hold his case over for a decision on the Baze case.

Baze is a Kentucky case that challenges legal injection procedures as cruel and unusual punishment. Berry was barely an hour away from his own execution by lethal injection when the Supreme Court stopped it. Berry has raised the same argument as the Kentucky case.

Friday, the nation's highest court took up Berry's case but did not make a decision.

Craig said he thinks the court's non-decision in the Berry case means they could issue a ruling after they decide Baze. It's likely to be late in the term, near the end of June, he noted.

Berry was sentenced to die for beating and stomping Mary Bounds to death in 1987.

Berry was convicted of kidnapping and killing Bounds on Nov. 29, 1987, outside the First Baptist Church in Houston. Eleven months later, Berry was sentenced to death by a Chickasaw County jury. His confession was used against him during the trial.

The Supreme Court did not delay Berry's execution indefinitely, saying the stay would remain in effect until the justices take action on Berry's petition for review of his case.

The Supreme Court has allowed only one execution to go forward since agreeing to hear the Baze case.

If the court decides not to review the appeal, the attorney general's office would ask the Mississippi Supreme Court to seek a new execution date. It has not done so yet, a spokesman said Monday.

Innocence Project calls on Alabama governor to stop execution and grant DNA tests

Get Breaking News Email Updates

Download the Innocence Project’s Dec. 3 Letter to Gov. Riley

Innocence Blog: Innocence Project calls on Alabama governor to stop execution and grant DNA tests (12/03/07)

Breaking News December 3, 2007

Innocence Project calls on Alabama governor to stop execution and grant DNA tests

The execution of Tommy Arthur is set for Thursday in Alabama, despite a pending appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Innocence Project’s repeated requests that Gov. Bob Riley stop the execution and order crucial DNA testing that could prove Arthur’s innocence or guilt. The Innocence Project has been requesting DNA testing in the case for several months. Testing would take less than four weeks to complete, and Arthur would pay the costs of testing. If Riley had ordered DNA testing when the Innocence Project first requested it – or as the result of numerous subsequent requests – the state would already have DNA results in the case.

We will send a breaking news email to subscribers as soon as developments in the case happen.

Sign up now to be among the first to know about Tommy Arthur’s case and more breaking news from the Innocence Project.


Get the case details:

• In a letter sent today to Gov. Bob Riley, Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld and Staff Attorney Olga Akselrod wrote that “allowing an execution to go forward without first conducting DNA testing that could scientifically confirm or refute guilt not only risks putting to death an innocent man, but also does irreversible damage to the public's confidence in the state's criminal justice system and its elected officials.”

Read the full letter here.

• Arthur was convicted in 1982 of killing Troy Wicker, a crime he has always said he didn’t commit. He was allegedly hired to commit the crime by the victim’s wife, who served 10 years in prison for her role but was released shortly after testifying against Arthur in a retrial.

Get background on Tommy Arthur’s conviction and the proposed DNA testing here.

• After the Innocence Project formally asked Riley to stay Arthur’s execution in order to conduct DNA testing, his office asked for guidelines on how to approach requests for post-conviction DNA testing in capital cases. Read the Innocence Project’s November 5 letter to Bryan Taylor, the governor’s policy director, outlining our recommendations for granting testing in capital cases. Tommy Arthur’s case clearly meets this criteria. It has been a month since the Innocence Project sent the guidelines to Taylor, but the governor’s office has failed to follow up on the letter or return repeated calls about it. If Riley had ordered DNA testing as recently as November 5 (months after the Innocence Project first requested testing), the results would already be complete, and serious questions about Arthur’s guilt or innocence could have been resolved.

Innocence Project calls on Alabama governor to stop execution and grant DNA tests

Innocence Project calls on Alabama governor to stop execution and grant DNA tests

http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/Blog.php

Posted: December 3, 2007 5:25 pm

The execution of Alabama death row inmate Tommy Arthur is set for Thursday, despite a pending appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Innocence Project’s repeated requests that Gov. Bob Riley stop the execution and order crucial DNA testing that could prove Arthur’s innocence or guilt.

Read a new letter from the Innocence Project to Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, as well as more of today’s breaking news on the case here.

Updates will be posted throughout the week here on the Innocence Blog.

United Nations Calls for Moratorium on Executions

A resolution for a global moratorium on executions was passed on Nov. 15 by the UN General Assembly's Third (Human Rights) Committee by a vote of 99-52, with 33 abstentions.

The General Assembly is expected to endorse the decision in a plenary session in December. Similar resolutions were introduced in 1994 and 1999 but were either narrowly defeated or withdrawn.

The resolutions calls on countries to:

Progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offenses for which it may be imposed;

Establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty;

and calls upon States which have abolished the death penalty not to reintroduce it.

United States and European representatives had different reactions to the resolution. "This is a good day for human rights and the European goal of achieving the abolition of the death penalty all over the world," said Commissioner for External Relations of the European Union Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

"Based on this broad coalition we will continue our efforts to reach this objective in the interest of humanity."However, Robert Hagan, the U.S.'s representative in the committee, said, "The United States recognizes that the supporters of this resolution have principled positions on the issue of the death penalty. But nonetheless it is important to recognize that international law does not prohibit capital punishment."(The Guardian, Nov. 16, 2007).

Global Moratorium Resolution
Vote Results:
99 States in Favor of Resolution
52 States Against Resolution
33 Abstentions
- Sponsored by 87 States

The resolution carries considerable moral and political weight, although it is not legally binding on states. 133 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Only 25 countries actually carried out executions in 2006. In 2006, 91% of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and the USA.

Amnesty International's statistics also show an overall decline in the number of executions in 2006 - a recorded 1,591 executions, compared to 2,148 in 2005, though many executions are unrecorded.

For more information See: Amnesty International's Press Release and the European Union's News Release.

A LETHAL COMBINATION

Painful chemicals, unqualified personnel quash notions of humane executions

By ERIC BERGER

Special to the Los Angeles Times
Article Last Updated: 12/02/2007 09:35:55 AM PST


For years, the conventional wisdom has been that lethal injection is a humane means of execution. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
In one case, which the Los Angeles Times recently reported on, the federal government is carrying out executions with the assistance of a doctor who was barred from participating in Missouri's lethal-injection procedure. In 2006, a federal court in Kansas City, Mo., found that Alan R. Doerhoff's dyslexia interfered with his ability to administer the drugs correctly — making him the only doctor in the United States who has been barred by a federal court from participating in lethal-injection executions. Despite this finding and his public reprimand for failing to disclose more than 20 malpractice lawsuits against him, Doerhoff continues to assist with federal executions in Indiana.

Thirty-seven states have selected potentially excruciating chemicals, and many have delegated administration of those drugs to unfit personnel. As a result, it is virtually certain that inmates have needlessly suffered painful deaths and that more will continue to do so — unless states and the federal government substantially revise their methods.

In January, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Baze v. Rees, a case that will set the standard for determining whether the pain and suffering inflicted during lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Governments thus might be required to take greater care in administering lethal injections.

The prevailing method of lethal injection employs three drugs that simultaneously create a risk of terrific pain and conceal that pain from all observers. The first chemical is a volatile, difficult-to-administer anesthetic. The second paralyzes all the inmate's muscles, including his diaphragm. The third burns intensely as it courses through the veins toward the heart, where it induces cardiac arrest. Insufficiently anesthetized inmates thus lie paralyzed while experiencing conscious suffocation and searing pain before death.

Execution by lethal injection need not be so inherently painful. Experts agree that other drugs could cause death without the risk of also causing undue suffering. Because the states have selected drugs that are so sensitive to error, however, it is imperative that they employ the right people to administer them. But numerous states employ people who are manifestly unfit.

States try to conceal their personnel's qualifications, but some details have begun to emerge. In one California case, an execution team leader had sole control over the addictive anesthetic, even though he had been disciplined for bringing illegal narcotics into the prison. Other members of that same team allegedly were never trained in the procedures and became so confused when preparing the anesthetic that they might have administered one-tenth of the intended dose. Separately, massive quantities of the anesthetic disappeared, and no one knows how much was actually administered to inmates.

Unsurprisingly, courts presented with such evidence in California and other states have begun to find that unqualified personnel's participation in executions creates a significant risk of excruciating pain.

If they fail to employ people capable of, among other things, correctly mixing the drugs and setting the intravenous lines, states are inviting problems. The paralyzing drug usually hides the execution team's mistakes, but occasionally the errors are in plain, gruesome view. Last year in Florida, for instance, Angel Diaz writhed on the gurney, gasping for breath for more than half an hour before death. An autopsy revealed that his IV lines had been improperly set.

It is disturbing that states not only use needlessly painful chemicals but that some also employ unqualified people to administer them. What is intolerable, though, is for states to insist on retaining those same chemicals and personnel once they have been alerted to the significant risk of profound suffering. Numerous states have done exactly this — and then sought to conceal all information about their procedures.

Regardless of one's views on the death penalty, carrying out executions is a solemn responsibility that should be approached with care and deliberation. Government's failure to act responsibly is a disservice not only to inmates but to the citizens who have made the death penalty state policy. As a federal judge in California explained, if the state wants to resume executions, its refusal to recognize its procedure's many problems is "self-defeating."

It is outrageous that states and the federal government have elected to carry out executions with dangerous, painful chemicals and then abdicated responsibility for the procedures to untrained, unqualified personnel. Government owes its citizens a transparent, careful reconsideration of this deeply flawed procedure that, as currently constituted, is bound to fail.

Eric Berger teaches constitutional law at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

Docket of Thomas Arthur in USSC

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-395.htm No. 07-395	*** CAPITAL CASE ***
Title:	Thomas D. Arthur, Petitioner v. Richard F. Allen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.
Docketed:	September 24, 2007
Lower Ct:	United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Case Nos.:	(07-13929)
Decision Date:	September 17, 2007
Discretionary Court
Decision Date:	August 10, 2007

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 22 2007	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 24, 2007)
Sep 22 2007	Application (07A252) for a stay of execution of sentence of death, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Sep 24 2007	Brief of respondents Richard F. Allen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al. in opposition filed.
Sep 25 2007	Supplemental brief of petitioner Thomas D. Arthur filed.
Sep 26 2007	Supplemental response filed by respondents Richard F. Allen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.
Sep 26 2007	Second supplemental brief of petitioner Thomas D. Arthur filed.
Sep 26 2007	Second supplemental response filed by respondents Richard F. Allen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.
Sep 27 2007	Application (07A252) completed. Reprieve granted by Governor of Alabama. New date of execution to be set after the expiration of 45 days from the date of the grant of the reprieve (September 27, 2007).
Oct 4 2007	Reply of petitioner Thomas D. Arthur filed.
Oct 10 2007	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2007.
Nov 14 2007	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 30, 2007.
Nov 28 2007	Application (07A451) for stay of execution of sentence of death, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 29 2007	Response to application (07A451) from respondent Richard F. Allen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al. filed.

---

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Suhana S. Han	125 Broad Street	(212)-558-4647
	New York, NY 10004
Party name: Thomas D. Arthur
Attorneys for Respondents:
J. Clayton Crenshaw	Alabama State House	(334) 242-7300
	Office of the Attorney General
	11 South Union Street
	Montgomery, AL 36130-0152
Party name: Richard F. Allen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.