Saturday, 10 October 2009

Craig Watkins, `rock star' DA at a crossroads


DALLAS — Craig Watkins, the first black district attorney in the history of Texas, is having a midterm crisis.

At 41, he has his own cable TV series. His novel determination to free the wrongly convicted landed him on "60 Minutes." He is a national champion of turning the penal system on its head and a "rock star" to many constituents.

But this is Texas, and certain law-and-order traditions still stand. More inmates are executed here than anywhere else. Legislators are allowed to carry guns onto the floor of the statehouse. And prosecutors are better known for slamming cell doors than opening them.

As his re-election campaign rattles to life this fall, Watkins finds the national halo he's been standing under has become more of a local floodlight magnifying frailties and foibles. His trailblazing has become irksome to older politicians, who consider it arrogant to break the rules before playing by them.

Among them is John Wiley Price, the only black Dallas County commissioner, who says Watkins has "gotten to be a show horse instead of a work horse."

"I had a lot of high hopes for Craig," the outspoken fellow Democrat adds. "It appears he's gotten public policy confused with personality politics."

And a Republican has stepped forward for the 2010 election, when it was expected the party wouldn't field anyone because Watkins was considered unbeatable.

Like President Barack Obama, a man he idolizes, Watkins is learning a hard lesson: Making impassioned speeches and election history doesn't carry the day in the daily brawl of politics.

Especially when it comes to reforming a giant institution — whether it be health care or criminal justice.

To spend a day with the maverick prosecutor is to watch a dogged attorney with oddly opposing traits — he is not afraid to speak his mind, but can be easily wounded. He is smart and savvy, but sometimes surprisingly naive. He speaks of grand reforms to a behemoth criminal justice system, but chronicles slights small and large.

For the rest of his term, Watkins wants to focus on the hard task of rehabilitating, as well as punishing, those in prison.

His opponents accuse him of being soft on crime — "hug-a-thug" sums it up, Watkins jokes. But his office's conviction rate is more than 98 percent, higher than the figures of some tough-on-crime predecessors.

In his first trial, district attorney Watkins stood before jurors and said the accused, who'd murdered members of his family, deserved to be executed.

"That was difficult," he says. "Getting up in that courtroom and saying this man should die."

He'd long opposed the death penalty. Now he's not sure. "It's my job," he says, "whether I like it or not."

What brought him national fame was opening the Conviction Integrity Unit, which has reviewed more than 300 convictions where DNA evidence remained in custody.

His unit, working with the Texas Innocence Project, found 15 inmates who'd been wrongly convicted in a county that already had the highest number of exonerations in the nation.

That's not enough to appease local critics. "They just can't accept that I'm intelligent enough to do this job without sitting at someone's knee," says Watkins, who at 6-foot, 5-inches, doesn't so much sit in a chair as occupy it like an invading army.

The voice of Stevie Wonder billows from somewhere in his small, cluttered office on the 11th floor of a bland, brown court building.

He is not a showman, he says. He's a serious-minded prosecutor.

"To me, it's an insult," he says. "Why not give me the credit to have the intelligence to think this through?" He stops for a moment.

"And I may be thin-skinned about it, I admit it."

___

Watkins doesn't write speeches, or read from a prepared text. He wings it, much to the annoyance of his unflappable public information officer Jamille Bradfield.

"I wish he'd let me write a speech for him," she says with a mischievous smile.

He concedes her point, but that doesn't mean he'll change anytime soon. Definitely not today.

"Are we taking your van?" he asks absent-mindedly, checking the pockets of his baggy, pinstriped suit before wandering to his wooden desk, where he finds a wad of gum and plops it in his mouth.

His first speech of the day: a Junior Chamber of Commerce luncheon. Bradfield drives. Watkins squeezes in back, his long legs straddling the passenger seat.

All day, he consults his BlackBerry for online comments regarding a rebuttal he wrote to a local paper's editorial. It blasted him for staying silent in a brewing, convoluted scandal involving allegations of stolen cars, county officials and a local towing company.

"It's a lot of silliness," he says, and it's nobody's business how, or if, his office is investigating.

Arriving in the parking lot of a glass high-rise, he steps into a blinding sun and temperatures hovering at 95 degrees. He jettisons the gum, but somehow a long string sticks to his jacket.

"What do you want me to talk about?" he asks an event sponsor. Personal development, he's told.

Bradfield tells him, in a stage whisper, that there's gum on his backside. Watkins grabs a patch of the offending goo, but a noticeable trail remains as the district attorney of Dallas County lopes into an austere conference room.

About 20 men and women, none of them African-American, pick at boxed lunches. As they eat, the guest speaker is introduced.

"I get to decide if a person's freedom is taken," Watkins says somberly. "I get to decide if a person lives or dies."

He is met by the crinkling of unsuccessful attempts to noiselessly open potato chip bags.

He tells of growing up in an all-black neighborhood, of being given a Bible as a youngster by a white man who said Watkins "had been called to something greater," of wanting to change things, of daring to dream instead of settling for being average.

His listeners — all under 39 and all climbing the corporate ladder — regard him with expressions ranging from distant to polite.

Afterward, Watkins frowns. "I think I should have been a little more prepared for that one," he says.

"You did fine," Bradfield tells him, patting his shoulder.

"Really?" he asks.

"Yes," she replies, giving him a knowing look. "Considering the audience."

That brief exchange illuminates the fissure in Watkins' constituency. Dallas County's traditional power base of conservative, white voters is being eclipsed by a growing liberal population that, according to 2008 Census figures, is nearly 39 percent Hispanic and more than 20 percent black.

The Dallas DA's office has a hard, and sometimes backward, legacy. Until the 1980s, prosecutors where told to not pick minorities during jury selection. It gained infamy for sending Randall Dale Adams to death row in a case detailed in "The Thin Blue Line," an award-winning documentary showing how prosecutors railroaded Adams for the murder of a police officer. He was freed in 1989.

Watkins' most well-known predecessor was Henry Wade, who ruled from 1951 to 1986 on a mandate of convict at all costs, critics say. Wade prosecuted Jack Ruby for the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald and was famously sued in Roe v. Wade, the lawsuit that legalized abortion in the United States.

In 2006, when Watkins was elected in a Democratic landslide that also claimed 42 judgeships, he used the back elevator to enter his new office. He didn't come in the front because he hated the looks on the mostly white faces of the staff he inherited, he says. He saw flickers of racism, he says, and "disgust, fear and 'Is my career over?'" He fired a handful of top lawyers — "I couldn't fire all of them," he says ruefully — and brought in a woman and people of color.

Straight out of Texas Wesleyan University law school, Watkins tried to become a prosecutor, but couldn't get hired. Born and raised in Dallas, he opened a criminal defense and bail-bond office in a house on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.

His clients included a lot of drug dealers. "I began to see that I was actually contributing to the problems of the criminal justice system."

So he decided to try the other side of the courtroom, but lost his first run for DA in 2002.

His wife, Tanya, now runs a consulting business out of his former his law office. His childhood was solidly middle class. His mother runs a senior citizens' day care next door. His father owns a customized T-shirt business, where Gregory, his younger brother by 12 years, helps out.

The Watkinses have three children, Chad, 11, Cale, 8 and Taryn, the only girl, who at age 3 is called The Contessa because "she rules the house," Tanya says when Watkins stops by after lunch.

"That's her main subject, right there," she says, pointing to her husband of 13 years. He grins and looks sheepish. "Yeah, I love it," he says.

His tight-knit family stands solidly behind him, he says, which softens the sting of not fitting in with some of his comrades.

"You still see all these DA's in Texas with their cowboy hats on, and they've got their cowboy boots on, and they're saying, 'We're going to lock them all up.'

"That's not my approach."

But Watkins has on cowboy boots. Black ones, made of ostrich skin.

"I have to wear these," he says, so Texans will take him seriously.

Those who don't, no matter what he puts on his feet, are jealous, Watkins says.

"I'm too successful. I'm on TV too much. We're setting the agenda for public prosecutors across the country," he says.

Some colleagues say Watkins' agenda is the same one they pursue every day of their career.

"There's almost this media notion that he's the only one concerned with justice," said Scott Burns, executive director of the 7,000-member National District Attorneys Association.

"But all prosecutors go to work everyday to do justice, not to convict just to convict," said Burns, a former Utah district attorney who also served in the national drug czar's office.

Watkins has explained his brand of justice to lofty groups including the Congressional Black Caucus in Washington and the Harvard Club in New York.

Yet ordinary things can baffle him.

He doesn't know, for instance, how many bedrooms are in his house. "Seven, eight?" he replies, driving his Mercedes SUV past a three-story estate he bought because it reminded him of South Fork, the palatial Texan home of the 1980s television series "Dallas."

He acknowledges bad publicity as a consequence of political life, but is perplexed by being its target. He doesn't understand a media ruckus that erupted late last year when the state suspended his law license. He'd forgotten to pay his Texas Bar Association dues. "Why is that a story?" he asks, clearly irked. "I forgot. I was kind of busy."

___

Becoming a district attorney is not a popular goal for African-Americans, says Carmen Lineberger, president of The National Black Prosecutors Association and an assistant U.S. attorney in Florida.

"Prosecutors are looked at as traitors by the community," says Lineberger. Some say "How can you do that to your own people?

"I always say, 'I am helping my people.'"

Like Watkins, Lineberger sees rehabilitation as the prison system's future and drug treatment as the fix for junkies busted on possession charges.

"The urge to use crack cocaine is stronger than the urge to eat," she says. "Jail's not going to break it. Treatment will change it." She pauses. "Sometimes."

She praises Watkins for pursing justice for those already convicted. "Law and order serves no purpose in having the wrong person in prison, because that means the doer is still out there."

Defense attorneys are also strong supporters. They laud his "smart justice" approach, including a diversion program allowing first-time, nonviolent drug offenders to avoid jail if they stay clean and hold a job or go to school.

"None of us had any experience with a DA whose job was broader than just prosecuting people," said lawyer Gary Udashen. He represented Patrick Waller, freed in 2007 after serving 16 years for kidnapping and rape. Genetic testing ordered by the integrity unit proved another man committed the crimes.

"If Craig Watkins had not become DA, Patrick would still be in prison," Udashen said. "He's a rock star in some parts of the community."

___

At his last appearance of the day, Watkins is the keynote speaker at a graduation ceremony for youths who'd had brushes with the law. They've just completed a course in construction work.

About 100 African-Americans — graduates, parents, children and teachers — fill a small auditorium.

He doesn't know exactly what this group does. Naturally, he has no speech.

At the podium, teachers extol the virtues of hard, honest work. "That's right," the audience answers. "You tell it. Mmm, hmm." Seemingly everyone has a comment — babies cry, children babble without being shushed, cell phones ring.

A local businesswoman introduces the keynote speaker: "Please stand to recognize and help me thank God for Craig Watkins."

The graduates, in maroon caps and gowns, jump up, clapping and hooting.

The first black district attorney in Texas history tells them, with compassion and steel, to hold their heads high.

"I take pride in everything I do," he says.

Around the room, mortarboards nod in assent. Tassels bounce.

"Don't focus on that mistake you made in the past," he says.

"That's right," his listeners murmur. "That's right."

"Don't let that mistake define you," he admonishes, his voice rising.

"That's right," they answer, their voices louder.

"It's your responsibility to prove them wrong. To prove that you can make a difference. Always reach back and help someone else."

To a person, the audience is on its feet.

Source(www.chron.com)

Wednesday, 7 October 2009

Perry's decision to dump forensics chairman came despite advice to keep him


AUSTIN — A statewide lawyers group that recommends nominees to the Texas Forensic Science Commission urged Gov. Rick Perry to retain commission Chairman Sam Bassett less than four weeks before the Austin lawyer was ousted in a commission shake-up that has stalled an inquiry involving a 2004 execution.

Three members of the commission, including two who were dismissed in the shake-up, also wrote Perry to urge Bassett’s reappointment, according to interviews and letters obtained Tuesday.

Perry has drawn national attention for his dismissal of Bassett and commission members Alan Levy, a prosecutor in the Tarrant County district attorney’s office, and Aliece Watts, a forensic scientist who lives in Burleson.

The dismissals were announced two days before the nine-member panel was scheduled to review a forensic report challenging the arson findings that that led to Cameron Todd Willingham’s execution five years ago.

Willingham, of Corsicana, was found guilty in the deaths of his three daughters in a 1991 fire. He said he was asleep in his house when the fire started and denied that he deliberately killed them.

Perry has defended the dismissals as part of the normal appointments process, but critics have accused the state’s long-serving governor of gutting the commission to avoid potentially embarrassing findings while he is battling for re-election.

Bassett, offering fresh details of events preceding his firing, said Tuesday that he first realized that his position might be in danger after learning that Perry’s office had asked the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association to recommend possible replacements.

The association, one of the groups that make recommendations on nominations to the panel, submitted a list of 10 names but strongly recommended that Bassett be reappointed.

"In our opinion, he has done an excellent job and there is a great deal of unfinished business that should not be interrupted," Stanley G. Schneider, president of the association, said in a Sept. 4 letter to Perry. The association "believes that he will bring continuity and unique experience to the Commission which will aid the Commission in its important work."

Bassett said that Levy, Watts and a third commission member — forensic scientist Sarah Kerrigan of The Woodlands — also wrote letters to Perry in Bassett’s behalf after the chairman e-mailed fellow members saying that he may not be reappointed.

"I just wanted to let them know," Bassett said. "I kept the language neutral because I didn’t want them to think I was pressuring them to support me."

Katherine Cesinger, deputy secretary in the governor’s office, said in an e-mail that Perry appointed "new individuals" to fill terms that expired on Sept. 1 "as a routine part of the appointments process.

"There are a number of things taken into consideration when selecting appointees to fill a position, including letters from concerned stakeholders, among other considerations, which is ultimately the governor’s decision," she said.

No timetable

The commission’s new chairman, Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley of Georgetown, told the Star-Telegram on Tuesday that he "has a lot to learn and absorb" and does not have a timetable for putting the Willingham case back before the commission.

"I don’t know enough about that case or the commission to answer that question," Bradley said in a telephone interview, saying that it’s "going to take quite a while" to get up to speed on the Willingham case.

Baltimore arson expert Craig Beyler, in a report disputed in a recent rebuttal by the city of Corsicana, has challenged the arson investigation that contributed to Willingham’s capital murder conviction. Beyler was scheduled to appear before the commission last Friday, but the meeting was canceled after Perry’s dismissals.

Levy said he wrote a letter saying that Bassett should be reappointed "because continuity was important in the commission’s business because of this particular case," the Willingham inquiry.

Watts, a forensic scientist at Integrated Forensic Laboratories in Euless, said by e-mail that she was backed up by casework and has "nothing else to add."

In a Sept. 4 letter, Kerrigan recommended Bassett’s reappointment "in the strongest possible terms," saying that the chairman had helped the panel get on track after it confronted a lack of funding and a backlog of complaints.

She told Perry that reappointing Bassett "will ensure a measure of stability to the Commission during a time of great scrutiny."

Schneider’s letter, also dated Sept. 4, pointed out that Bassett had been twice confirmed by the Senate Nominations Committee.

"He has never missed a meeting," said the association president. "Under his leadership, the Commission has developed a reporting system and a website for the filing of complaints by members of the criminal defense bar, laboratory personnel and the public."

Elements of the letter-campaign were reported in an online article Monday by Time magazine, the latest of several reports into the dismissals by the national news media.

Science called flawed

The Forensic Science Commission agreed to investigate in 2008 after defense attorneys claimed that Willingham was wrongfully convicted on the basis of flawed scientific evidence. Beyler, a nationally recognized fire investigator in Baltimore, was commissioned by the state panel to conduct an independent review. He submitted his 55-page report in August, saying methods used in the investigation could not fully support a finding of arson.

But Corsicana released a 21-page response last week accusing Beyler of distorting the facts. The report in the "Willingham matter" was prepared by Corsicana Fire Chief Donald McMullen.

"Contrary to what has been reported in the media, Dr. Beyler did not conclude that the cause of the fire was accidental and he did not conclude that the fire was not arson," McMullen said. "In addition, Dr. Beyler did not prove (or apparently attempt to prove) that Todd Willingham did not murder his children."

McMullen said that Beyler’s "reliance" on Willingham’s statements and testimony "is puzzling because Mr. Willingham gave materially inconsistent accounts of what happened." For example, Willingham said he kicked down the front door while it was burning to escape but did not sustain injuries to his feet, McMullen said.

Source(www.star-telegram.com)

Texas executeerde onschuldige man

Use google translation .

Todd Willingham, liggend in zijn dodencel, april 1994. Hij weigerde schuld te bekennen, ook al had dat zijn leven gered. (Ken Light)

WASHINGTON -
Het systeem is onfeilbaar, zeggen voorstanders van de doodstraf. Nu stopt gouverneur Perry van Texas de zaak-Willingham in de doofpot.

Todd Willingham kon zijn jonge kinderen niet meer redden. Hij sloeg met een stok het raam van hun slaapkamer in, maar er barstte een ondoordringbare muur van vlammen uit.

Toen een brandweerman met zuurstofmasker zijn 2-jarige dochter uit het brandende huis haalde – ze was gestorven aan koolmonoxidevergiftiging – probeerde de vader naar de tweelingbaby’s te rennen. Politiemensen moesten hem tegengehouden.

Show

Niet veel later werd Willingham verdacht van drievoudige moord op zijn eigen kinderen. Ervaren justitiƫle branddeskundigen onderzochten het huis in Corsicana, een stadje in Texas, en concludeerden dat de brand was aangestoken. Getuigen verklaarden dat Willingham zich vreemd had gedragen buiten het huis, alsof zijn reddingspogingen alleen voor de show waren geweest.

Aanklagers vonden aanvullend bewijs in Willinghams levenswandel: hij dronk te veel, had zijn vrouw mishandeld en was eerder gearresteerd wegens dronken rijden en winkeldiefstal. Hij was ‘een psychopatisch individu’ en had zijn kinderen uit de weg geruimd omdat ze zijn ‘bier drinken en darten in de weg stonden’, stelden ze.

Zelfs zijn (pro deo) advocaten gingen ervan uit dat hij het had gedaan. Het proces duurde twee dagen. ‘Het vuur liegt niet’, zei brandonderzoeker Vazquez. Een forensische psychiater met de bijnaam ‘Dr. Death,’ die later uit de beroepsvereniging werd gezet omdat hij verdachten zonder onderzoek beoordeelde, stelde dat Willingham gestoord was, en ‘geen pil hem kan helpen’.

Levenslang

De jury had een uur nodig om Willinghams schuld vast te stellen. Hij werd ter dood veroordeeld, maar kreeg een aanbod van justitie: als hij schuld bekende, zou de straf worden omgezet in levenslang. Willingham weigerde schuld te bekennen ‘voor iets dat ik niet heb gedaan, vooral het vermoorden van mijn eigen kinderen’.

Twaalf jaar bracht Willingham door op death row, terwijl de beroepsprocedures liepen. Steeds weer keek hij naar een fotootje van zijn kinderen en zijn vrouw, die inmiddels bij hem weg was. Hij had alleen nog contact met zijn ouders en met een penvriendin, die lerares en toneelschrijfster was. Die begon te twijfelen aan zijn schuld en onderzocht de zaak. Uiteindelijk stelde Gerald Hurst, een bekende branddeskundige, vast dat de brand in Corsicana helemaal niet was aangestoken. De gevonden sporen van brandstichting ontstaan ook bij spontane brand, hebben wetenschappelijke experimenten aangetoond.

Hurst voltooide zijn ontlastende rapport net voor de geplande executie. Willinghams nieuwe advocaat bracht het onder de aandacht van de Texaanse pardoncommissie en gouverneur Rick Perry, die beslist over alle executies. Ze schonken er geen aandacht aan.

Injecties

Op 17 februari 2004 werd Willingham terechtgesteld met dodelijke injecties. Hij kreeg gelegenheid tot een laatste woord. ‘De enige verklaring die ik wil afleggen is dat ik een onschuldig man ben, veroordeeld voor een misdaad die ik niet heb gepleegd’, zei hij.

Willingham had zijn ouders gevraagd na zijn dood verder te vechten voor zijn goede naam. Dat lukt inmiddels. In de New Yorker stond vorige maand een aangrijpend artikel van 16 duizend woorden, waarin journalist David Grann zijn onschuld minutieus aantoont. De beschrijving van Willinghams ondergang is feitelijk en geserreerd, maar leest als een aanklacht tegen de doodstraf en het rammelende Amerikaanse rechtsysteem. ‘Ik begon dit te lezen als voorstander van de doodstraf en kwam eruit als tegenstander’, schreef een lezeres.

Inmiddels steunen Amerika’s meest gerenommeerde branddeskundigen de conclusie van Hurst. Een van hen, Craig Beyler, rapporteerde in augustus in opdracht van de staat Texas dat de onderzoekers in Corsicana ‘geen enkele wetenschappelijke basis’ hadden voor hun beschuldiging, bewijsmateriaal negeerden en vertrouwden op ‘folklore’ die toen al in diskrediet was geraakt.

Uitgesteld

Maar vorig week, twee dagen voordat deze conclusies zouden worden gepresenteerd aan een Texaanse regeringscommissie voor forensische fouten, ontsloeg gouverneur Perry de voorzitter en twee leden van de commissie. De nieuwe voorzitter, een politieke bondgenoot van Perry, heeft de behandeling van de zaak voor onbepaalde tijd uitgesteld.

De Texaanse media concluderen in afkeurende hoofdartikelen dat Perry de zaak in de doofpot wil stoppen. Nu er verkiezingen aankomen, zou hij niet de eerste gouverneur willen worden die een burger heeft laten executeren van wie de onschuld is vastgesteld.

Ook Scott Cobb van het Texas Moratorium Network is hiervan overtuigd. Maar hij hoopt dat deze zaak de politieke mening zal doen omslaan. ‘In andere staten gebeurt het al. Dit is onze kans om ook in Texas de doodstraf af te schaffen.’

Source(www.volkskrant.nl)


Junk politics and junk science: Rick Perry and Todd Willingham


I'm not the only one who thought Governor Perry's decision to replace the chair and two other members of the Forensic Science Commission was an outrageous example of politicizing Texas' investigation into junk science. In a post titled "The Cover Up," Paul Burka writes:
It’s not hard to figure out why Governor Perry removed the chairman and two members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission just before its scheduled meeting: He was about to be embarrassed, and not just in Texas but nationally. The commission was going to hear a report from an arson expert that the investigation leading to the conviction and execution of Cameron Willingham for the murder of his three daughters was flawed. The case has received national attention because of the possibility that Texas executed an innocent man on Perry’s watch. The removal of the three members forced the cancellation of the meeting and prevented the report from being heard. ...

Let’s call this what it is: a cover-up. The new chairman, Williamson County district attorney John Bradley, is a political ally of Perry’s who [is] famously tough on crime. It would be a conversion of mythic proportions if he were to agree with the investigators’ criticism. He now controls when the commission will meet, and you can bet that the report will not be heard or discussed in a public forum before the March 2 primary.
The Dallas News editorialized that "Gov. Rick Perry looks like a desperate man with his decision to jettison the chairman of the state's forensic science panel." At the Houston Chronicle, Rick Casey contacted state Sen. John Whitmire who told him the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee would be questioning Bradley's decision to cancel the hearing:

“I know John well,” said Houston Sen. John Whitmire, who chairs the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and pushed for the Forensic Science Commission after Houston's police lab blew up into a national scandal.

Whitmire said Bradley worked for that committee during legislative sessions when he was an assistant district attorney.

“I've never questioned his integrity,” Whitmire said. “He is very transparent.”

Whitmire said he talked to Bradley on Thursday morning and is “taking a wait-and-see approach” in hopes that “he won't let Perry's politics pull him down.”

“I told him, John, this is an opportunity to show what you're made of,” he said.

But Whitmire also said he will schedule a committee hearing in about a month to ask Bradley in what direction he plans to take the commission. One likely question, said Whitmire: Will Bradley reschedule the Willingham arson matter before the March primary?

That likely will a laboratory test of the hypothesis that Perry appointed him as a political puppet.

I'm definitely looking foward to Whitmire's hearing on this. Like Burka, I find it nearly unimaginable that the hearing will be rescheduled before the primary. Indeed, according to the New York Times Bradley is considering shutting down the investigation altogether:

Mr. Bradley said he did not know if he would continue the inquiry into the Willingham conviction that his predecessor had started. He said he wanted to consult with the lawmakers who created the commission about its mission.

Of course, the Willingham investigation precisely fits with the commission's "mission." The real problem is that the inquiry's outcome doesn't mesh with the governor's campaign themes. Perry told the Times it was "premature" to exclude arson in the Willingham case, but in reality all the same evidence was available when the governor approved Willingham's execution in 2004: Admitting this wasn't arson isn't "premature" but in fact egregiously belated.

David Grann, the author of a major New Yorker article on the case, commented on the replacements on the magazine's blog yesterday, calling the process "tainted." At The Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates writes "I'm not even surprised. Again, it's very hard for people to admit error. They will lie, cover evidence, kill the messenger before admitting that they're wrong. The higher the stakes, the harder the heart, and the deader the mind."

I particularly enjoyed coverage of the incident from the Fort Worth Star Telegram. A Tarrant County prosecutor kicked off the commission told the paper, "I feel like a jilted lover, except that [the Governor is] prettier than I am." The same fellow said, "I felt like a decaying fish they were trying to dispose of [but] .... Since the job doesn't pay anything, I've been thrown out of better places."

This whole episode has recalled for me when the Governor eliminated the Criminal Justice Policy Council with a line item veto in 2005 because then-director Tony Fabelo wouldn't craft his findings to fit the Governor's agenda. Perry seemed to get a pass on that cynical maneuver back then, but this time it's coming back to bite him in the national press.

Source(gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com)

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

Ohio considering bone, muscle for lethal injection


COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio is considering administering lethal drugs into inmates' bone marrow or muscles as an alternative to — or a backup for — the traditional intravenous execution procedure, a prisons department spokeswoman said Tuesday.

"Everything is on the table" as the state researches ways to adjust its death chamber procedure in the wake of a failed execution last month, when officials couldn't locate suitable veins on inmate Romell Broom, said Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction spokeswoman Julie Walburn.

Broom's execution is on hold at least until a federal court hearing takes place on Nov. 30. Gov. Ted Strickland issued reprieves for two other death-row inmates on Monday, saying that more time is needed to study the execution procedure.

The changes could include a different procedure to access veins, the use of a device to inject lethal chemicals directly into an inmate's bone marrow, or injection into muscles.

"We don't believe that this exam or the reprieve are a reflection of the skills and ability of our team," Walburn said. "This was a rare and exceptional circumstance, but we want to make sure we have a contingency plan if this were to reoccur."

Richard Dieter, director of the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center, said he isn't aware of any other states that have considered, or currently use, injections into bone marrow or muscle as part of their protocol.

Ohio's current procedure gives officials as much time as they need to locate suitable veins, but other states have procedures for dealing with inmates in such circumstances.

In Kentucky, the execution team can only try for one hour. Other states, including Florida, allow for a procedure in which the team cuts the skin to find a vein.

Ohio officials also are exploring whether to keep the state's three-drug regimen — a sedative, a paralyzing agent and a chemical to stop the heart — or to rely on a single drug, Walburn said. It could be used as a backup if officials encounter difficulty locating veins, or as a new procedure to replace the old one.

Officials were able to locate Broom's veins, but the veins collapsed when a saline solution was administered to test whether they could accept the flow of the lethal drugs. Broom later said he was stuck with a needle as many as 18 times, including painful sticks into his muscle and bone.

Officials have had difficulty locating suitable veins in at least two other executions.

Strickland stopped Broom's execution after two hours, an unprecedented order since the United States resumed executions in the 1970s. Ohio has put 32 people to death since 1999, when executions resumed in the state.

Source(www.google.com)

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland Begins De Facto Moratorium on Executions


CNN is reporting that the Governor of Ohio has stayed Thursday's scheduled execution in his state and won't reschedule it until March, which means that Ohio has a de facto moratorium on executions. Meanwhile Texas plans to continue executions even though it has become known that Texas executed an innocent person in 2004. The Governor of Ohio is acting sensibly in response to a death penalty crisis in Ohio, while the governor of Texas is attempting to cover up the greatest death penalty crisis in the history of capital punishment - the proven execution of an innocent person.

Watch CNN video "Is Texas Governor Rick Perry Trying to Cover Up Execution of Innocent Man on His Watch".

From CNN:

A legal tug-of-war over Ohio's execution procedures grew more confused Monday as Ohio's governor granted a temporary reprieve to a murderer scheduled for lethal injection this week.

Lawrence Reynolds is on death row for killing his neighbor in 1994 during a robbery in suburban Cleveland.

The action came just hours after the state's attorney general's office asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and allow Thursday's execution of Lawrence Reynolds Jr. after a federal appeals court blocked it.

Gov. Ted Strickland announced he would delay Reynolds's execution until next March at the earliest.

Reynolds was sentenced to die for beating and strangling Loretta Mae Foster, his 67-year-old neighbor, during a robbery in suburban Cleveland.

The flurry of activity came after a failed attempt to execute another death row inmate raised serious questions about the state's lethal injection procedures.

"Additional time is needed to fully conduct a thorough and comprehensive review of an alternative or backup lethal injection protocol that is in accordance with Ohio law," Strickland said in his announcement.

Darryl Durr, a death row inmate scheduled to be put to death in coming weeks, also was given a reprieve until at least April 2010.

Don't Miss
Execution problems prompt reprieve for inmate
The state was expected to ask the Supreme Court for dismissal of the pending appeal. No explanation was offered as to why Ohio's executive branch switched its position.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati blocked Reynolds' execution Monday, citing problems over accessing the veins of Romell Broom in a failed execution attempt last month.

Strickland delayed Broom's execution after technicians tried for two hours on September 15 to find suitable veins to insert the chemicals. That execution has not been rescheduled.

Reynolds' lawyers have argued the state's lethal injection protocols violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Broom will get a hearing before a federal judge next month. His lawyers argue allowing a second execution attempt would be unconstitutional.

Judges on the appeals court were at odds over the Reynolds appeal.

"Given the important constitutional and humanitarian issues at stake in all death penalty cases, these problems in the Ohio lethal injection protocol are certainly worthy of meaningful consideration," wrote Judge Boyce Martin.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton dissented.

"Why assume an execution protocol is unconstitutional when one of the humane features of the protocol -- that the state will not continue trying to access a usable vein beyond a sensible time limit -- is being followed?
Sign the petition to Governor Rick Perry and the State of Texas to acknowledge that the fire in the Cameron Todd Willingham case was not arson, therefore no crime was committed and on February 17, 2004, Texas executed an innocent man.

Source(stopexecutions.blogspot.com)

Governor’s Statement Regarding Reprieves



Columbus, Ohio – Governor Ted Strickland today released the following statement regarding his decision to issue temporary reprieves of Thursday’s and next month’s scheduled executions to allow more time for a review of the lethal injection protocol in Ohio: “Since September 15, the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections has been working to establish a back-up or alternative lethal injection protocol in the unlikely event similar circumstances arise when implementing the death penalty in the future. “While the department has made progress, additional time is needed to fully conduct a thorough and comprehensive review of an alternative or back-up lethal injection protocol that is in accordance with Ohio law. Therefore, I have decided to issue two reprieves as follows: -- Lawrence Reynolds until March 9, 2010 -- Darryl Durr until April 20, 2010. “I have asked Director Collins to continue working to ensure the death penalty is administered fairly and effectively here in Ohio.” The full text of the warrants of reprieve signed today is as follows: Warrants of Reprieve

1. Lawrence Reynolds is currently in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, has been sentenced to death, and is scheduled to be executed October 8, 2009. Darryl Durr is currently in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, has been sentenced to death, and is scheduled to be executed on November 10, 2009. Kenneth Biros is currently in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, has been sentenced to death, and is scheduled to be executed on December 8, 2009. Vernon Smith is currently in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, has been sentenced to death, and is scheduled to be executed on January 7, 2010. Mark Brown is currently in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, has been sentenced to death, and is scheduled to be executed on February 4, 2010.

2. On September 15, 2009, Romell Broom was scheduled to be executed. On that day, personnel at the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction were unable access a vein able to sustain the injection of the drugs which would bring about Mr. Broom’s death. After attempting to do so on and off for approximately two hours, I decided to issue a reprieve for Mr. Broom to allow the Department to determine the best approach to proceeding with Mr. Broom’s execution in accordance with Ohio law. Mr. Broom’s execution has since been stayed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and any further execution date for Mr. Broom will be set by the Ohio Supreme Court.

3. The circumstances faced by the Department on September 15 were truly extraordinary, and Department personnel acted with dignity and professionalism in attempting to fulfill their legally mandated obligations. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the assigned Department personnel would ever face such a situation again. Nonetheless, and although not legally or constitutionally required to do so, since September 15, the
Department has been working to establish a back-up or alternative lethal injection protocol that would be available should those responsible for carrying out executions for the State ever again be unable to access a sustainable vein at the time of an execution.

4. Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a stay of execution with respect to Mr. Reynolds. The Court’s majority determined that Ohio’s administration of its current lethal injection protocol should be reviewed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Even the judge dissenting from that decision broadly suggested that further scrutiny of Ohio’s administration of its lethal injection would be appropriate, even if not constitutionally required.

5. Since September 15, Department personnel have diligently researched a range of potential back-up or alternative procedures for lethal injection that would comply with Ohio law. Although they have made substantial progress in this regard, more research and evaluation of back-up or alternative procedures is necessary before one or more can be selected. In addition, the selection of a back-up or alternative procedure will require training and other preparation by the Department in order to incorporate it fully into the Department’s lethal injection protocol.

6. Accordingly, in order to provide the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction the time it needs to finalize a back-up or alternative lethal injection protocol and prepare fully for its primary or secondary use, I direct that the sentences of death in the following cases be reprieved until after the Biros, Smith and Brown executions, as follows:


a. Lawrence Reynolds until March 9, 2010.
b. Darryl Durr until April 20, 2010.

7. While I believe that the Department will be able to complete its research and evaluation, select an appropriate back-up or alternative lethal injection procedure, and conduct any training or other preparation necessitated by that selection by the time of Mr. Biros’ scheduled execution in December, I will issue any additional reprieves I deem necessary to the appropriate administration of executions under Ohio law.

8. Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Durr should remain incarcerated in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The Department should carry out their sentences on the last date of their respective reprieves at a time established on that day by the Department.

9. I signed these Warrants of Reprieve on October 5, 2009.

Source(www.facebook.com)

Did Texas execute innocent man?


CNN's Randi Kaye looks at whether politics is behind the delayed hearing on a controversial Texas execution.

klick on the heading to watch the video .

Source (www.cnn.com)

Hutchison disagrees with Perry on commission move AUSTIN (AP) — U.S. Sen.


AUSTIN (AP) — U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison says she disagrees with Gov. Rick Perry’s decision to remove three members of the forensic science commission right before they were to hear evidence in an arson capital murder case.

Hutchison says the hearing that was to have been Friday but was canceled could have shed light on whether arson was involved in the case of Todd Willingham, who was executed for the deaths of his three daughters.

Hutchison said Monday she supports the death penalty, but said all evidence should be examined.

Questions have been raised about whether Willingham committed arson, as was alleged.

Perry spokesman Mark Miner said terms were expiring for the members of the commission who were removed. He said new members will investigate the case. He said Hutchison doesn’t have all the facts.

Source(www.corsicanadailysun.com)

Why Did Texas Gut Its Forensics Commission?


Cameron Todd Willingham, left, who was put to death in 2004 for the murder of his three children in a 1991 house fire; Texas Governor Rick Perry, right.

His predecessor left office to become President but Rick Perry has now become the longest-serving and most powerful governor in the history of the state of Texas. That is very much due to his use of wide-ranging appointment powers that have allowed him to dominate state boards, commissions and courts that control many aspects of daily life in Texas. But, in the past week, a brouhaha over his refusal to reappoint three members of an obscure forensic-science commission has political observers wondering if Perry, who is facing a potentially bruising GOP primary battle, has made a political misstep.

A well-placed source has confirmed to TIME that Perry ignored the written pleas from several members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, including two of his own appointees, to reappoint the board's well-respected chairman, Austin lawyer Sam Bassett. Bassett's departure has resulted in a delay in an important investigation of evidence in a death-penalty case that critics say will prove an innocent man was executed on Perry's watch. (Read 10 stories of wrongfully imprisoned men exonerated by DNA evidence.)

The Texas Forensic Science Commission evaluates forensics standards in a state that too frequently has been in an unwelcome spotlight on issues of crime and punishment. Recently, Texas has been working to show that it is not all frontier justice and, indeed, the day Perry's office announced he was dropping Bassett and appointing a new commission chairman, the governor also issued a "pardon for innocence" for James Lee Woodard, released last year after serving 27 years in prison for a murder and rape he did not commit. Woodard was exonerated on the basis of DNA testing urged by the New York City–based Innocence Project, led by noted defense attorney Barry Scheck. (Read "Texas: The Kinder, Gentler Hang 'Em High State.")

Scheck's group is also pressing the case that is at the heart of Perry's moves at the forensics commission: that of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was put to death in 2004 for the murder of his three children in a 1991 house fire in Corsicana, Texas. In September, Willingham's story was detailed in a New Yorker investigative report by David Grann. It details the conclusions of two noted experts that the fire was accidental and that the arson evidence presented at Willingham's trial was not based on science. "The New Yorker's investigation lays out this case in its totality and leads to the inescapable conclusion that Willingham was innocent," Scheck says. (Read about the decline in death sentences in Texas.)

On the apparent cusp of the forensics board's re-examination of the evidence in the Willingham case, Perry has not only dropped forensics chairman Bassett but two other members of the body, Fort Worth prosecutor Alan Levy and forensics expert Aliece Watts, both of whom had written letters to Perry in support of Bassett continuing as commission head so their work could continue without interruption. Scheck compared Perry's failure to reappoint the three to the infamous Saturday Night Massacre of 1973 when President Nixon fired the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal. But Perry's office said the changes were "business as usual" and the governor added, "Those individuals' terms were up, so we're replacing them."

Sarah Kerrigan, a forensic toxicologist who was appointed by Texas attorney general Greg Abbott, told TIME that she had circulated a letter she had sent "three or four weeks ago" in support of Bassett to Perry among the commission's members and she was aware of similar letters written by Watts and Levy. (The governor appoints four members of the forensics board; the state attorney general appoints two and the lieutenant governor appoints three. In this case, Bassett, Levy and Watts were all Perry appointees. Bassett was first named to the commission in 2005 and reappointed in 2007.)

Much of the case for Willingham's innocence rests on the conclusions of two prominent forensic arson experts including Craig Beyler, who was scheduled to testify before the commission last week. But Perry's new forensics chairman, Williamson County district attorney John Bradley, a well-known, tough-on-crime prosecutor, cancelled last week's meeting on Willingham, saying he needed time to get up to speed on the commission's work. Beyler's testimony in the Willingham case has now been put off until Bradley sets a hearing, and he has not indicated when, or if, he will, saying he needs to talk to state leaders about the role of the commission. So far, leading Democrats in the state senate who pressed for the creation of the commission are praising Bradley's integrity, but say they will call a hearing in a few weeks to hear what his plans are.

Kerrigan says the members believe it is important for continuity to keep Bassett on board in order to wrap up not only the Willingham report, but also preside over several important roundtables aimed at improving forensics standards — part of a nationwide initiative prompted by a report on forensic shortcomings by the National Academy of Sciences. Bassett told TIME he was dismayed and puzzled by Perry's decision. "I certainly hope this change is not about political concerns," Bassett says.

Some political observers speculate that Perry's actions may have something to do with the potentially bruising March 2, 2010, Republican gubernatorial primary in which he is set to face off against U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. The Senator has already raised forensic accuracy as an issue. "I am for the death penalty," Hutchison told the Dallas Morning News in response to Perry's actions, "but always with the absolute assurance that you have the ability to be sure, with the technology that we have, that a person is guilty." It is a stance Bassett agrees with. He supports the death penalty in some cases but adds, "We just have to make damn sure we are relying on the best quality evidence possible." (Read a story about Hutchison's candidacy.)

But Perry stands by the decision to execute Willingham. "I am familiar with the latter-day supposed experts on the arson side of it," Perry told the Dallas Morning News last month. Over the weekend, his office told the Corsicana Daily Sun: "Governor Perry has reviewed the totality of the facts of the case, and has stood by the conclusions reached by the courts ... To suggest the arson testimony was the only evidence presented to the jury is grossly inaccurate. The jury also heard testimony of inaccuracies in Willingham's statements."

Still, last week's decision has prompted head-scratching by political observers, even those with ties to the Republican Party. The commission's final report on the Willingham case would not have been issued until late spring or summer of 2010, after the State Fire Marshal's Office would have responded to Beyler's report. The political reality is that the death penalty is unlikely to be an issue in the March Republican primary, says Bill Miller, an Austin political consultant, and it has never had much traction in fall contests, given the wide support for the penalty among both Democratic and Republican voters in the state. Could it be simply an expression of his power? Hubris? Acting because he can? "Well, it is his board," says Miller with a laugh.

Source(www.time.com)

Ohio gov. delays 2 executions to review injection


COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Gov. Ted Strickland on Monday delayed the state's next two executions to allow a full review of lethal injection procedures, the latest in a series of unprecedented capital punishment developments in Ohio.

Strickland ordered the reprieves for condemned inmates Lawrence Reynolds, scheduled to be executed Thursday, and Darryl Durr, scheduled to die next month, in the midst of a legal battle over Reynolds' execution.

Reynolds' execution was delayed until March 9, Durr's until April 20. Strickland said the Ohio corrections department needed more time to finish updating protocols for dealing with long delays in finding suitable veins on inmates.

The surprise announcement Monday came as the U.S. Supreme Court weighed whether to allow Reynolds' execution, for strangling his 67-year-old neighbor in 1994, to proceed. Earlier Monday, a panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had delayed the execution, citing problems with the planned Sept. 15 execution of Romell Broom.

Strickland stopped Broom's injection after executioners failed to find a vein after two hours. Until it was halted, the execution had taken the longest in Ohio to date, and Strickland's order to stop it was unprecedented nationally since the country resumed executions in the 1970s.

Ohio has put 32 people to death since 1999, when executions resumed there.

Strickland said prison staff has been researching backup or alternative procedures for lethal injection since Sept. 15 that would comply with Ohio law.

"Although they have made substantial progress in this regard, more research and evaluation of back-up or alternative procedures is necessary before one or more can be selected," Strickland said.

The backup procedure will also require training and other preparation, Strickland said.

Death penalty experts say it could be months before it's clear what effect Broom's case could have on executions elsewhere.

Texas executed two people immediately after Broom's execution was stopped. Virginia is preparing to put Washington-area sniper John Allen Muhammad to death next month.

Jon Sheldon, Muhammad's attorney, said he had no plans to raise an injection issue as part of an upcoming appeal. He said it's difficult to challenge the constitutionality of injection in Virginia because the state keeps many details of its process secret.

Virginia, unlike Ohio, does not permit witnesses to view the insertion of the IVs. It also shields its protocols, considering them related to security, said Larry Traylor, spokesman for the Virginia Department of Corrections.

Texas also does not permit anyone to witness the placement of the IVs.

Broom's execution is on hold while his attorneys prepare for a Nov. 30 federal court hearing. They argue that an unprecedented second execution attempt on Broom violates a constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The impact of Broom's case nationally will probably become clearer once U.S. District Judge Gregory Frost holds that hearing, said Deborah Denno, a Fordham University law professor and lethal injection expert.

The reprieves Strickland issued Monday provide some insight into the governor's position on how Ohio executes people, since he could have gone even further, said Lori Shaw, a University of Dayton death penalty expert.

"What he hasn't done is put a moratorium on executions," she said. "He took this step, but he didn't take a greater leap."

Judge Boyce Martin said Broom's case raises questions about Ohio's lethal injection procedures, including the competence of the state's execution team.

"Given the important constitutional and humanitarian issues at stake in all death penalty cases, these problems in the Ohio lethal injection protocol are certainly worthy of meaningful consideration," Martin wrote.

He said Frost should consider the cases of Broom and Reynolds together in November.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton dissented, arguing that the state's policy addresses a scenario in which executioners can't find suitable veins after repeated attempts.

"Why assume an execution protocol is unconstitutional when one of the humane features of the protocol - that the State will not continue trying to access a usable vein beyond a sensible time limit - is being followed?" Sutton wrote.
The state argues that problems accessing Broom's veins don't mean that other inmates can't be executed properly.

Inmates in several states have experienced delays with the injection of lethal chemicals, but those executions always proceeded the same day.

Prosecutors say Reynolds strangled Loretta Foster, who lived three doors down in their neighborhood in Cuyahoga Falls near Akron, when he needed money to fuel his alcohol addiction.

"We are disappointed for Loretta Foster's family, who has waited a very long time to see Reynolds' sentence carried out, and ultimately, to see final justice for her murder," said Brad Gessner, criminal division chief at the Summit County prosecutor's office.

Durr, of Elyria in Lorain County, was scheduled to die Nov. 10 for raping and strangling a 16-year-old girl, Angel O'Nan, in 1988.

Source(www.washingtonpost.com)

Cullman Man Scheduled For Execution This Week

Max Landon Payne scheduled to die Thursday for the 1992 kidnapping and murder of a Cullman grocery store owner.

ULLMAN, AL - A Cullman man is scheduled to die by lethal injection this Thursday. Max Landon Payne will be put to death for the 1992 kidnapping and murder of a Cullman grocery store owner.

Payne, also of Cullman, lost his last appeal in May when the U.S. Supreme Court turned down his case.

The victim, Braxton Brown, was found shot to death a day after he was taken from the store. Police caught Payne a day later in Miami.

Source(www.whnt.com)

Free Scott Sisters


Video and song written about the wrongful conviction of Gladys and Jamie Scott in the state of Mississippi. They each are serving a life sentence for the theft of $11 which never happened. No one was killed or injured in this make-believe crime.

Link to the song on facebook klick on the heading.

Source(Videos Posted by David Rosser)

75 GuantƔnamo Prisoners Cleared For Release; 31 Could Leave Today



There's no reason for any of these prisoners, several of whom were cleared under Bush, to be held for one minute longer.

Last week, the Obama administration finally admitted that it might not be possible to close GuantĆ”namo by the President's self-imposed deadline of January 22, 2010, when defense secretary Robert Gates told ABC News' "This Week" that it was “going to be tough” to meet the deadline. The announcement followed what appeared to be strategic leaks by administration insiders, which were designed to blame White House Counsel Greg Craig for the government's woes.

Why it has taken so long to clear 75 prisoners for release

It was Craig who had pushed for the deadline, but although the Washington Post, in a joint article with ProPublica, reported several critical comments from current officials, claiming that Craig's drive to set a deadline flew in the face of conflicting advice -- in particular, a claim by "a senior government lawyer" that "The entire civil service counseled him not to set a deadline" -- others were more supportive. The Post closed its article with a comment from an administration official who was "more effusive," and who stated, "Greg Craig is a hero. He took responsibility for this policy from the beginning, and he has guts and character. If we can't get it done by the deadline, then at least we'll have done as much as we can as smoothly as we could have." In addition, in his interview with ABC News, Secretary Gates also declared his support for the initiative:

When the president elect met with his new national security team in Chicago on December 7th … last year, this issue was discussed, about closing GuantĆ”namo and executive orders to do that and so on. And the question was, should we set a deadline? Should we pin ourselves down? I actually was one of those who said we should because I know enough from being around this town that if you don’t put a deadline on something, you’ll never move the bureaucracy. But I also said and then if we find we can't get it done by that time but we have a good plan, then you're in a position to say it’s going to take us a little longer but we are moving in the direction of implementing the policy that the president set. And I think that’s the position that we’re in.

Moreover, the lion's share of the blame for delays in the closure of GuantƔnamo actually lies with lawmakers and with other officials in the Obama administration. After the President issued executive orders on his second day in office, which included the GuantƔnamo deadline, the administration then dithered, failing to support GuantƔnamo's most celebrated innocents, the Uighurs, whose release into the United States was ordered by District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina last October, by backing the Court of Appeals in its decision to overturn that ruling in February this year.

This cowardice then allowed paranoid and opportunistic right-wingers to seize the initiative, reviving the Bush administration's deceitful claims that GuantƔnamo is "full of terrorists" (as particularly promoted by former Vice President Dick Cheney), and encouraging both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House of Representatives to pass legislation preventing the transfer of prisoners to the United States and withholding funding for the prison's closure.

In addition, the government's decision to support the Court of Appeals in the Uighurs' case was not the only example of the Justice Department's distressing failure to confront the many injustices inherited from the Bush administration. Since Obama came to power, those charged with preparing the government's opposition to other prisoners' habeas corpus petitions -- apparently functioning without adequate insight from above -- have persistently failed to recognize the weaknesses in the government’s case against a large number of the prisoners, and have repeatedly humiliated themselves in court, challenging habeas corpus petitions that they have not only lost, but that have been accompanied by withering criticism from the judges involved (see the cases of Abdul Rahim al-Ginco and Fouad al-Rabiah for the most severe examples).

The only apparent explanation for this lack of oversight is that, rather than focusing on the supposed evidence -- or lack of it -- in the habeas cases, the administration has focused instead on its own alternative to the court reviews, an interagency Task Force that has been reviewing the cases independently.

Last week, amidst the general gloom, some good news emerged from the Task Force, when a military spokesman announced that the interagency review had, to date, cleared 78 of the remaining prisoners. Three were released on the eve of the announcement (a Yemeni, Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed, who was repatriated five months after a judge ordered his release, and two Uzbeks, Oybek Jabbarov and Shakhrukh Hamiduva, cleared by military review boards under the Bush administration, who were sent to Ireland), but the information released in connection with the remaining 75 prisoners provides a fascinating snapshot into the workings of the Task Force and some of the difficulties of dealing with the toxic legacy of the Bush administration, even though, in other ways, the announcement also confirms the existence of an unnerving paralysis on the part of the Obama administration when it comes to actually releasing prisoners, and also raises questions about what the Task Force has actually been doing for the last eight months.

The 31 prisoners who could be released today

Of the 75 prisoners cleared for release, 18 had their release ordered by the courts, after successful habeas petitions, and of the remaining 57, at least 21, and probably as many as 36, were, like the Uzbeks mentioned above, cleared for release between 2006 and 2008 by Bush-era military review boards. For the first time, the Obama administration identified prisoners cleared for release by their nationalities, and although no names were given -- to protect those who cannot be repatriated because of fears that they would face torture on their return, for whom delicate negotiations are ongoing with third countries who might take them -- it is readily apparent from the list that, in the cases of 31 of these prisoners -- from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Yemen -- the need for anonymity is unnecessary, as none of these men have any reason to fear being returned to their home countries.

More significantly, there is no reason for any of these men to be held at GuantĆ”namo for one minute longer, and no reason why they should not be put on a plane and flown home today, but such is the taint of GuantĆ”namo that the administration has found reasons to delay releasing these men, even though they have been cleared for release by a combination of Bush-era military review boards, the U.S. courts, and the Obama administration’s own interagency Task Force.

Of these 31 men, two -- Khalid al-Mutairi and Fouad al-Rabiah -- are Kuwaitis, who secured resounding victories in their habeas cases (especially Fouad al-Rabiah, whose extraordinarily story of torture and false confessions was mentioned above). Inexplicable delay forms part of their story too, as al-Mutairi was cleared two months ago and is still held, but I am optimistic that both men will soon be repatriated.

Three others are Saudis, and although their identities have not been revealed, and it is uncertain if they are the three remaining Saudis who were cleared for release during the Bush administration, there appears to be no good reason for their continued detention, as I explained in an article in March, when six cleared Saudis were held, and before three were released (see here and here).

Paranoia regarding the Yemenis

However, the biggest story by far, when it comes to prisoners cleared for release who are still held, concerns the Yemenis, who make up 26 of the 75 prisoners cleared for release (and around 95 of the 223 prisoners still held in GuantĆ”namo). They include Yasim Basardah, who was cleared for release by a District Court judge in April, and Ayman Batarfi, a doctor whose release was approved by the Task Force that same month, essentially to head off a humiliating defeat in court. The others have not been identified, although it seems likely that they include some, if not all of the 12 Yemenis approved for release between 2006 and 2008 by Bush-era military review boards. And yet, despite the fact that some of these men have been cleared twice over the last three years, and despite the fact that, in April, the judge in Ayman Batarfi’s case, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, criticized the government’s behavior in the strongest possible terms, these 26 men are still imprisoned in GuantĆ”namo.

To understand quite how severely the courts regard the continued detention of men who have been cleared for release, it is worth recalling that, back in April, when Judge Sullivan accepted the government’s sudden decision to release Batarfi, he made a point of publicly stating that he hoped it was not “another ploy not to return Dr. Batarfi to his country of origin but to continue with his deprivation of his fair day in court,” and requested status reports every 14 days. He also stated:

I’m not going to continue to tolerate indefinite delay on the part of the United States government. I mean, this GuantĆ”namo issue is a travesty. It ranks up there with the internment of Japanese-American citizens years ago. It’s a horror story in the American system of jurisprudence, and quite frankly, I’m not going to buy into an extended indefinite delay of this man’s stay at GuantĆ”namo, or anyone else on my calendar.

That was six months ago, and I take it that, as a result, Judge Sullivan has now had to endure twelve status reports explaining why the government has not yet been able to free Dr. Batarfi (which must have pushed his patience to its limits). However, as an article in Sunday’s New York Times explained, the fear of releasing Yemenis is so deep-seated that the administration will resort to the most ludicrous claims to prevent their release.

The Times article discussed Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed, the man freed last weekend, five months after District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ordered his release, but although the author, Scott Shane, spelled out that Ali Ahmed, a teenager seized in a guest house in Pakistan, was cleared by Judge Kessler, who “ruled that his incarceration had never been justified and ordered the government to get to work ‘forthwith’ on his release,” and although he added that his lawyer, Brent N. Rushforth, stated that his client was known as “the sweet kid” to other prisoners in GuantĆ”namo, this was not enough for the government, and it appears that Ali Ahmed may only have been released because Judge Kessler was on the verge of openly criticizing the government. As the Times described it, she “appeared to be losing patience with the delay in complying with her May 11 release order,” and this coincided with Ali Ahmed’s release.

For some time now, the government has been trying to persuade the Saudi government to extend its successful rehabilitation program -- which processed over a hundred Saudi ex-prisoners in 2006 and 2007 -- to the Yemenis, because it fears that, even though cleared for release, they might still constitute a threat. Negotiations have proven to be thorny -- in particular, it seems, because the Saudi model relies upon strong family support that would not be available for the Yemenis in Saudi Arabia — but when the administration’s fears are spelled out, as they were in the Times on Sunday, it is clear that they are, to put it bluntly, completely unreasonable. In Scott Shane’s words, Obama administration officials explained that, “Even if Mr. Ahmed was not dangerous in 2002 …GuantĆ”namo itself might have radicalized him, exposing him to militants and embittering him against the United States.”

The officials have valid fears about political instability in Yemen, and the existence of terrorist groups, even though the Yemeni authorities have stated that none of the 16 Yemenis returned from GuantĆ”namo “have joined terrorist groups,” but whatever their fears, they do not seem to have reflected that, if their rationale for not releasing any of the Yemenis from GuantĆ”namo was extended to the U.S. prison system, it would mean that no prisoner would ever be released at the end of their sentence, because prison “might have radicalized” them, and also, of course, that it would lead to no prisoner ever being released from GuantĆ”namo.

To me -- and to many other readers, I hope -- this is simply unacceptable, but it demonstrates yet again that only at GuantƔnamo can fear trump justice to such an alarming degree.

In a second article to follow soon, I’ll look at the cases of the other 44 prisoners cleared for release by the GuantĆ”namo Task Force, from countries including Algeria, China, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Uzbekistan, who cannot be repatriated because of fears that they will face torture on their return, and ask why the Task Force’s decisions so closely mirror those already taken by Bush-era military review boards, and whether the administration is doing all it can to mitigate the taint of GuantĆ”namo and to find new homes for these men in other countries.

Source(www.alternet.org)

Monday, 5 October 2009

Ohio to appeal execution delay to U.S. Supreme Court


COLUMBUS — The state plans an immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of a decision delaying an execution three weeks after problems with a separate lethal injection attempt.

Ohio Attorney General spokeswoman Holly Hollingsworth says the state will file an appeal Monday opposing any delay in Thursday's planned execution of Lawrence Reynolds Jr.
A panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled 2-1 Monday to halt the execution of Reynolds, sentenced to die for strangling his 67-year-old neighbor in Cuyahoga Falls in 1994.

The judges based their decision on problems accessing the veins of condemned killer Romell Broom that led Gov. Ted Strickland to stop that execution Sept. 15.

The state argues that problems accessing Broom's veins doesn't mean that other inmates can't be executed properly.

Source(www.toledoblade.com)

Does a Botched Execution Constitute Double Jeopardy?


When I hear that a man has raped and murdered a young child, terrorists have killed innocent women and children, a store keeper dies during a petty robbery, a man has kidnapped and repeatedly raped a teenage girl or a political leader has committed mass genocide, I want the perpetrators executed -- killed -- dead! But, nonetheless, I am opposed to the death penalty. Its imposition has become too erratic and flawed to be permitted to continue.

First, there is the obvious moral opposition to the death penalty. Despite our personal desire for vengeance and punishment, it should not be the function or policy of the government to impose the ultimate penalty. The United States is one of the last countries among those we respect to retain the death penalty. However, I recognize that others feel differently and that debate has been fully aired over the years, but there are additional reasons for ending the death penalty.

The system is too fraught with variables to survive. Whether or not one receives the death penalty depends upon the discretion of the prosecutor who initiates the proceeding, the competence of counsel who represents the defendant, the race of the victim, the race of the defendant, the make-up of the jury, the attitude of the judge, and the attitude and make-up of the appellate courts that review the verdict. The costs and time spent are exorbitant. The appeals are endless, and in many instances, the verdict is never carried out despite exhaustion of the system. Closure is postponed and sometimes never realized. Rather than satisfy the families of the victims, the unending system frequently frustrates and angers them. The innocent have been executed.

And finally, we confront the flaws in the execution itself. The methods are under challenge as being cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution. Botched executions are widely reported, such as the recent attempt in Ohio to execute >Romell Broom.<>

Double jeopardy prohibits a person from being tried twice for the same crime. Should it not protect a person from being subjected to execution twice for the same crime?

Source(www.huffingtonpost.com)

Botched Executions


I just finished reading a great New York Times editorial from yesterday on screwy executions on account of incompetent technicians. Much like I felt after reading about Romell Broom’s lethal injection problems a few weeks ago, I was appalled and depressed by the mistakes made in prior executions. We’re talking electrocutions that burst into flames and burned the flesh of the death row inmate (who survived the fire), and lethal injections that needed multiple shots because the first one didn’t suffice.

Mistakes like these cannot happen. It’s cruel for anyone to have to experience anything like that. They’ve turned what is supposed to be quick and painless into long, drawn-out torture. If you insist on killing people, then at least educate your executioners properly. And until you reform your system then you should halt all the executions (which Ohio isn’t doing after Broom).

Probably the most nauseating thing for me is the realization of humanity’s immorality. Someone sat by while all this happened and didn’t say anything, told themselves it was ok. I will never understand how people can justify unnecessary tragedies like these and not only let them slide, but not even attempt to do anything to make it better – like taking preventative measures for the future. I guess they think “if they are going to die anyway, who cares if it’s in a horrible way.”

In their mind they are making the world safe by ridding it of the “evil” members of society, but are completely ignorant to the evil they create.

Source(floridainnocence.org)

Sunday, 4 October 2009

Will Texas admit to executing an innocent man?


Klick on the link and to see the video on youtube.

Source(www.youtube.com)

Tenth Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty


The 10th Annual March to Abolish the Death Penalty will be held in Austin on October 24, 2009. Join the Facebook event page.

Now is one of the most critical times ever to march against the death penalty.

We just learned from a state-funded report that Texas executed Todd Willingham for arson/murder even though the fire was not arson it was just a fire, so Texas executed an innocent person.

Sharon Keller, the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, could lose her job based on testimony at her recent trial on charges of incompetence and misconduct for saying “we close at 5″ on Sept 25, 2007 when lawyers called her court to submit a late appeal for a person later executed that same day.

Now is the time to join the fight to end the death penalty!

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 Texas to raise their voices together and loudly express their opposition to the death penalty. The march is a coming together of activists, family members of those on death row, community leaders, exonerated prisoners and all those calling for abolition. The march started in Austin in 2000. In 2007 and 2008, the march was held in Houston. This year, it is coming back to Austin.

The annual march is organized by several Texas anti-death penalty organizations, including the Austin chapter of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, Texas Moratorium Network, the Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement, Texas Students Against the Death Penalty, Texas Death Penalty Education and Resource Center and Kids Against the Death Penalty.

Cameron Todd Willingham (below) – Innocent Person Executed by Texas
Read more about Todd in the Sept 7, 2009 New Yorker article by David Grann

Source(marchforabolition.org)

Texas governor accused of covering up innocent man’s execution


The head of a Texas anti-death penalty group has accused that state's governor of scuttling an investigation into a possible wrongful execution for political reasons.

"[Texas Governor Rick] Perry saw the writing on the wall," Scott Cobb, president of the Texas Moratorium Network, told CNN. "He moved to cover that up."

The "writing on the wall" Cobb was referring to was the investigation by the Texas Forensic Science Commission into the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was put to death in 2004 for the 1991 arson deaths of his three daughters.

Forensic investigations done since Willingham's conviction have found no evidence of arson. Nonetheless, Perry refused to grant Willingham a stay of execution in 2004, even though credible questions had already been raised about Willingham's guilt.

On Wednesday, Gov. Perry ordered the removal of three members of the forensics commission, and instituted a "political ally," as CNN described him, to head the committee. That ally is reported to have ordered the investigation into Willingham's execution delayed indefinitely, saying he "couldn't begin to guess" when the commission would reconvene.

Source(rawstory.com)

Saturday, 3 October 2009

Is Perry trying to cover up wrongful execution in Texas?


AUSTIN — Three ousted members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission said Thursday that their abrupt removal by Gov. Rick Perry this week could slow the panel’s efforts to determine if a flawed arson investigation led to the execution of an innocent man five years ago.

But Perry said the commission's inquiry will continue, telling reporters that his decision to replace the three commission members was part of the normal appointments process. Their terms expired Sept. 1.

Perry removed Chairman Sam Bassett and commission members Alan Levy and Aliece Watts on Wednesday, two days before the obscure panel was scheduled to discuss a forensic report challenging the arson findings that that led to Cameron Todd Willingham’s execution in 2004.

Willingham, of Corsicana, was found guilty in the deaths of his three daughters in a 1991 fire. Willingham said that he was asleep in his house when the fire started and denied that he deliberately killed his daughters.

In telephone interviews, the commission members who got the boot said they were surprised and disappointed with Perry’s decision to replace them and expressed concern that the shake-up could disrupt or at least slow the pace of the panel’s inquiry. Levy is a top prosecutor in the Tarrant County district attorney’s office. Watts, who lives in Burleson, is a forensic scientist at Integrated Forensic Laboratories in Euless. Bassett is an Austin attorney.

The panel had been scheduled to meet today in Irving to hear expert Craig Beyler, who authored the report challenging the conclusions of the arson investigation. The meeting was canceled after the dismissals.

Read the complete story at star-telegram.com

Source(www.miamiherald.com)

More on Linda Carty



Clive Stafford Smith's OpEd, "The final act of Linda Carty's tragedy," is in the Guardian. Stafford Smith is the director of Reprieve.

All of this leads up to last week's final tragedy. The fifth circuit court of appeals turned down the penultimate appeal of British grandmother Linda Carty, which means she has only the supreme court and Governor Rick Perry between her and an encounter with the executioner.

As to whether she should even have been convicted, the court found it a "close case", but the verdict was good enough for government work. An unfair trial is apparently OK, so long as it is not "fundamentally unfair."

But the court had to indulge in greater contortions to justify Carty becoming the first black British woman to be executed in over a century. She is not only a black woman, she is a battered woman, herself the victim of rape. So what? The court refused even to consider it. Her court-appointed advocate is, quite clearly, the worst capital defence lawyer in the country: he has had more clients facing execution than the death row population of 25 of the states. But the court blamed Carty for his inaction, accepting without question his statement that she refused to talk to him until he "bribed her with a bar of chocolate". While this was not the only dubious assertion the lawyer made, it was perhaps the most flagrant: Carty is allergic to chocolate.

None of this caused the court to doubt the infallibility of the Texas death penalty. The court concluded that Carty should die.

Even so, in a sane world there would be no chance that Carty would be executed. The supreme court would reverse her case, or the governor would grant clemency. But Death Row USA leaves little room for hope. The supreme court hears only one capital case in 30. And few observers expect Texas to clean up its own mistakes. Far from being a heartless killer, Cameron Willingham was the victim of a terrible tragedy, yet Perry sanctioned his execution. It is farcical to suggest that Charles Hood had an impartial judge, yet he is slated to die. And if Texas doesn't manage to kill Carty the first time, it'll probably put her back in the holding cell and have another go seven days later.

The Fifth Circuit ruling is here, in Adobe .pdf format.

Kevin Quinn reports, "Death row inmate speaks after losing appeal," for Houston television station KTRK. Video is available at the link.

Her current attorney says the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called this a close one, finding that her trial attorney acted unreasonably. But the court also concluded that even if her attorney had done everything she asked at trial, the evidence against her was overwhelming.

Inside the Mountain View unit in Gatesville, where all women sentenced to death in Texas are housed, we met Tuesday with Linda Carty.

"I want my name cleared. I know I didn't do it," said Carty.

She was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2001 abduction and murder of Joana Rodriguez. Prosecutors say Carty kidnapped Rodriguez and her infant son because Carty wanted the baby. Rodriguez was found dead in the trunk of a car Carty had rented. She had been suffocated with a plastic bag over her head.

"I had nothing to do. I could never do something like that," Carty said.

Carty at one time was a confidential informant for the Drug Enforcement Agency. She has maintained her innocence all along, saying she was framed by folks she met while working undercover.

She blames her conviction on her trial attorney who she claims failed to do his homework. She said he neglected to present witnesses at trial who would speak favorably of her and refused to spend more than 15 minutes with her prior to trial.

Just last week, a human rights group erected a cardboard cutout of Carty in a public square in London while playing an audio recording of her pleading for help from the British government. She was born on the Caribbean island of St. Kitts so she is considered a British national.

"There are very, very strong legal reasons why the case needs to be looked at again," said Paul Lynch, British Consul General in Houston.

Lynch says Carty deserves a new trial because the British Consulate was not notified of her capital murder charge prior to her conviction.

"Because we were not informed, Linda Carty was not given all the assistance she should have been given by her government. And therefore she did not get the representation that she should have had at her first trial," said Lynch.

The appeals court ruled Carty's request for help from the British government came too late. Carty's attorney says still that their quest to save her life is not over.

Earlier coverage begins here.

Source(standdown.typepad.com)