Death penalty

  • April 27, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Matt Kelley, Online Communications Manager, The Innocence Project 

    A Texas state panel was expected on Friday to discuss of the hot-button case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was convicted of murder based on flawed arson science and executed in 2004. Unfortunately, the case got just 15 minutes of a six-hour meeting, and the panel's chairman continues to choose bureaucracy and secrecy over real case work.

    The Willingham case -- like countless other cases involving unvalidated forensics or outright misconduct -- requires a thorough, open investigation to repair broken forensic systems and prevent future injustice. Since becoming the Texas Forensic Science Commission (TFSC) chairman in October, prosecutor John Bradley has not demonstrated a desire to pursue these investigations, instead focusing on the commission's structure and procedures.

    The Innocence Project formally submitted the Willingham case to the commission for review in 2006, and it was accepted in 2008, but a member of the panel said Friday that the commission's investigation of the case "is in its infancy." And now, Bradley says case-specific discussions will take place behind closed doors. Bradley appointed himself to serve on a four-member committee that will review the Willingham case in secret.

    Critics have complained that Bradley has used his tenure to slow the commission's work and move it behind closed doors.

  • March 25, 2010
    BookTalk
    The Autobiography of an Execution
    By: 
    David R. Dow

    By David R. Dow, Distinguished University Professor, University of Houston Law Center & Litigation Director, Texas Defender Service, a non-profit law corporation that represents death row inmates.

    My recent book, The Autobiography of an Execution, is about the death penalty, but it is not really a polemic. It is more a memoir about what it is like to be a death penalty lawyer - about how I try to not let days spent with murderers ruin me as a husband and a father. Before I wrote it, I had mixed feelings about memoirs. The entire genre seemed arrogant. But I discovered some things I wanted to say.

    I was out having a drink with a colleague of mine. He asked me what I was working on. It was a typical case: a young black man had grown up without a dad and with a mentally unstable and abusive mom. When he was eight, his only brother, who was also his best friend, committed suicide. He joined a gang and started robbing people. One robbery included the brutal murder of an elderly white woman. His court-appointed lawyer went through the motions. When a poor black gang member kills a white woman, it's essentially inevitable. He wound up on death row.

    In twenty years as a death penalty lawyer, I've represented more than a hundred death row inmates. All murders are tragic and irreparable, but you don't hear about most of them. There was no reason for my colleague to know anything about the case I was working on. It was not from the part of the state where we live; it was not high-profile. But I could tell from the look on his face that the case was familiar to him. Finally I realized why: He knew the murder victim and her family, and he was close to them.

    I felt a need to tell him that I was not indifferent to the pain that the murder victim and her family had suffered, just because I was representing the man who was in part responsible for inflicting it. I didn't want him to think I cared more about my client than I cared about him. I know how easy it is to confuse the belief that murderers are entitled to vigorous legal defenses with the conclusion that the lawyers who provide that defense are insensitive to the injuries their clients have inflicted. I wanted to try to correct that mistake.

    There was something else. I had a friend who was murdered. Years later the murderer asked me to represent him. He did not know that I knew his victim. I wrote him and said I couldn't help. I'm against the death penalty. I did not think the man who murdered my friend should be executed. But I was incapable of being the lawyer who tried to stop it. That's another reason I wrote this book: to try to communicate to death penalty supporters that I know what they feel. I know, because I feel it, too.

  • March 25, 2010

    Twila Jean Busby's family has waited over 16 years to witness the execution of Hank Skinner, who was convicted of murdering Busby and her two adult sons on New Year's Eve in 1993. After yesterday's reprieve, granted by the U.S. Supreme Court, their wait continues.

    Skinner, who adamently proclaims his innocence, was spattered in blood and hiding in a neighbor's closet when he was tracked down by police three hours after the murders. He claims that he could not have committed the murders on account of having passed out next to the victims after using vodka and codeine.

    DNA evidence from the crime scene remains untested. Skinner argues that the evidence will prove his innocence. His lawyer, however, refused to test the evidence in preparation for trial, fearing that it would only add to the case against Skinner.

  • March 9, 2010

    Convicted murderer Lawrence Reynolds now has until next Tuesday to recover from an apparent suicide attempt before Ohio state officials carry out his death sentence.

    When Reynolds was found unconscious in his cell over the weekend, the state faced a predicament: save the inmate scheduled to undergo lethal injection in a matter of days at taxpayer expense, or let him die. The state chose the former option, and has rescheduled his execution, which was previously planned for today.

    "We have a constitutional duty to provide health care for this inmate until the execution commences," said a spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. "And we are legally responsible to carry out executions under the law. We will meet both our legal obligations."

  • March 4, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Scott Phillips, associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminology, University of Denver. Phillips is author of a recent ACS Issue Brief, Hire A Lawyer, Escape the Death Penalty?

    Since the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in the landmark 1976 case of Gregg v Georgia, 1,195 people have been executed in the United States. Texas is often considered the epicenter of the death penalty, accounting for 449 executions. But executions are not evenly distributed across Texas. Harris County - home to Houston - is the true capital of capital punishment. With 112 executions, Harris County has executed about the same number of offenders as all of the other major urban counties in Texas, combined. In fact, if Harris County were a state it would rank second in executions after Texas.

    Perhaps not coincidentally, Harris County is also the largest jurisdiction in the nation to use the appointment method of indigent defense - meaning the judge assigns a private defense attorney to the case. Critics have argued that the appointment method is plagued by five problems: (1) flat fee compensation (defense counsel receives a standard fee regardless of the number of hours worked, so each hour of work reduces the rate of compensation and detracts from private clients); (2) the potential for insufficient support services (defense counsel must receive approval from the judge to hire support services such as investigators and experts); (3) a potential conflict of interest for the defense attorney (defense counsel's personal income depends on remaining in the good graces of the judge to secure future appointments); (4) a potential conflict of interest for the judge (the judge must balance the defense counsel's requests for support services with the county commissioner's requests to control the costs of indigent defense; the judge must also consider the possibility that generous spending on indigent defense could hurt his/her chances of re-election); and (5) questionable appointment practices (some evidence suggests that judges occasionally make appointments for inappropriate reasons, such as whether the potential appointee is a friend or campaign contributor).

    Despite such serious criticisms, researchers have not answered the most basic questions: Do procedural problems produce differences in case outcomes? Is the district attorney (DA) more likely to seek death against defendants who have appointed counsel? Is the jury more likely to impose death against defendants who have appointed counsel? Put differently, is the appointment method merely procedurally flawed or truly a matter of life and death?