If you buy from the TMN online shop at Amazon, we get 15 percent of the purchase price. Once you are in the shop, you can search for any product sold at Amazon. Shop online at Amazon and help support TMN at the same time!
On June 2, 2009, the 200th execution under Texas Governor Rick Perry took place. Since he became governor of Texas in December 2000, Perry has allowed more executions to proceed than any other governor in U.S. history. There are protests planned in cities in Texas, Canada and Europe.
In Texas demonstrations were carried out in Austin, Huntsville and Houston. Other demonstrations were held in Albuquerque; Paris, France; Leipzig, Germany, Brussels, Belgium, and Montreal, Canada.
In Houston, activists gathered at “The Old Hanging Tree” located at the former site of a county courthouse. This 400-year-old oak tree was likely the site of lynchings in the 1800’s and is now a recognized historic site by the City of Houston. In Huntsville, the protest was held outside of the death house, the Walls Unit, where the execution was carried out. In Austin, a demonstration was held at the Texas Capitol on the sidewalk at 11th and Congress.
In Paris, there was a protest June 3 on the Place de la Concorde, Tuileries/US Consulate side from 6pm to 7pm. In Leipzig, Germany, activists organized by Amnesty International placed 200 white paper crosses and 200 candles outside the US Consulate on June 2. Leipzig is a sister city of Houston. In Brussels, Belgium, protesters with banners came and stood in front of the US Embassy until the Embassy called the police who forced the protesters to leave. In Montreal there was a Die-In organized by Amnesty International where the 200 executions were reenacted.
The Texas anti-death penalty community asked people around the world to focus their attention on Texas and join us in protesting the 200th execution carried out under Rick Perry. Altogether, Texas has executed 439 people since 1982, including 152 under former Texas Governor George W. Bush.
Dr. Jerry Williams (above), a SFA sociology professor spoke at the Walls Unit protest in Huntsville.
Williams' sister was brutally murdered and her killer only spent 15 years in prison. He explains why he doesn't believe in execution. "I hated him. I wanted to see him die. I wanted to see him suffer in prison. And I thought justice would be done only in the way, but what I realized over time was that my hate really diminished me. It damaged me and did nothing for him," explained Williams.
How you can protest the 200th execution under Texas Governor Rick Perry
1) On the day of the 200th execution, call Governor Perry at 512-463-1782 and tell him your opinion on the death penalty. If you live in the U.S., you can use his the form on his website to email him. We suggest you both call him and email him. If you live outside the U.S., you can fax him at (512) 463-1849 or send him a letter in the postal mail. We would like to hand deliver letters to him, so please send your letter to the address below and we will deliver it to Rick Perry: You can send us your letter to Perry for us to deliver whether you live in the U.S. or another country.
Texas Moratorium Network
3616 Far West Blvd, Suite 117, Box 251
Austin, Texas 7831
2) Attend a protest in your city either on the day of the 200th execution or sometime before. If a protest is not scheduled, you can organize a protest. If you live outside the U.S., organize a protest at the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate. Send us a photo or video of your protest by email and we will post it on this website and on YouTube. Or you can upload your photos and videos yourself to our social networking site or directly to our group on YouTube.
If your organization is planning a protest, please let us know so that we can list your protest on this site.
3) Sign the petition and add your name to the list of people who are raising their voices to protest the 200th execution under Texas Governor Rick Perry.
4) Donate a symbolic 200 cents towards helping us organize against the Texas death penalty. That is one penny for every execution under Rick Perry. We are asking everyone to donate $2, which is the equivalent of 200 pennies. You are welcome to donate more if you can afford it, but everyone can afford to donate $2.
The artwork at www.protest200executions.com is by German artist Jasmin Hilmer and represents the isolation of Texas in the world community. While most of the rest of the world, including all of Europe, have turned their backs on the use of capital punishment, Texas continues to execute people at a shocking rate.
Was the Law of Parties Provision in HB 2267 Scuttled in Senate Committee Based on Misinformation?
The Law of Parties provision of HB 2267 was taken out of the bill in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee yesterday after Governor Perry threatened to veto it if the bill was sent to him in the same from that it passed the House last Friday. I am concerned based on a couple of quotes in newspaper articles that the Law of Parties provision was scuttled based on misinformation and misunderstanding about the Law of Parties and about HB 2267.
For instance, the Austin American-Statesman has a quote from Williamson County Attorney John Bradley that indicates that he does not understand what the Law of Parties is and how HB 2267 would have affected it. He says in the Austin American-Statesman: "To exempt all defendants in capital cases because they didn’t pull the trigger “is irrational,” said Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley. “Under that reasoning, Hitler, Osama bin Laden and Charles Manson could never get the death penalty. You have to look at the facts of each case … whether their participation merits holding them culpable".
People like Hitler, Manson and Osama bin Laden would not have been prosecuted under Section 7.02(b) of Texas' Law of Parties, which is the section that would have been affected by HB 2267. Furthermore, for those people who are and would continue to be prosecuted under section 7.02 (b) (again not Hitler, Manson or bin Laden), HB 2267 would still hold them culpable, it just would limit the maximum punishment for non-killers convicted solely under that section to life in prison without parole.
HB 2267 said
(b) A defendant who is found guilty in a capital felony case only as a party under Section 7.02(b), Penal Code, may not be sentenced to death, and the state may not seek the death penalty in any case in which the defendant's liability is based solely on that
section.
Bradley's statement is one of the most absurd, irresponsible comments by a legal professional that I have ever heard. It is no wonder that prosecutors were able to get Perry to threaten to veto HB 2267 if they were telling lies like Bradley.
The Law of Parties in section 7.02 (b) says "If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy".
That section, together with Article 37.0711 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allows the state to prosecute and sentence to death people who have no intent to kill and who in fact do not kill anyone, people like Kenneth Foster, Jr and Jeff Wood.
The Austin American-Statesman has a front page article in today's paper that also contains misinformation from Austin lawyer William "Rusty" Hubbarth, vice president of Justice for All. Hubbarth claims that a 1992 murder-for-hire case was a law of parties case, but he is wrong about murder-for-hire falling under the Law of Parties statute. The article says:
Austin lawyer William "Rusty" Hubbarth, vice president of Justice for All, a national victim advocacy group based in Houston, applauded the veto threat.
"I congratulate Gov. Perry for showing he has the courage to protect the interests of victims," Hubbarth said.
The problem with the bill, he said, was letting all capital co-defendants off the hook if they didn't pull a trigger.
As proof, he cited a 1992 case in which a husband hired a hit man through Soldier of Fortune magazine to kill his wife; the husband was convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to death.
Hiring someone to kill someone else is not a Law of Parties case. Murder for remuneration is itself a capital crime in Texas.
A person who who hires someone to kill another person is charged with capital murder under section 19.03 of the Texas Penal Code, not under Section 7.02 of the Texas Penal Code, which is the Law of Parties section. Both the hiring of the person and the one who actually commits the murder is charged with capital murder and can receive the death penalty.
The Law of Parties is a different concept in which a person can be charged with capital murder if they are participants in another felony, such as robbery, and in the course of that first felony, an accomplice commits a second felony (murder), then anyone who was an accomplice in the first felony (robbery) can be charged with the second felony (murder), because the law says they "should have anticipated" that a murder could occur.
Law of Parties cases are very rare. There have been only 3 Law of Parties executions in Texas out of the total of 438 executions, which is less than one percent.
The Statesman is doing a disservice to its readers by publishing misinformation from people like Bradley and Hubbarth. Ignorant misinformation given out by an elected county attorney like Bradley is particularly appalling. A newspaper has an obligation to correct false information it gives out, so that its readers can make informed judgments about public policies reported in the news. It is just this sort of false understanding of the Law of Parties that leads some people to oppose ending the death penalty under the Law of Parties without understanding what the Law of Parties actually is. It is a law that allows people who have not killed anyone and who had no intention to kill anyone to be sentenced to death.
Bradley and Hubbarth made their statements for the Statesman after the action in yesterday's committee meeting, but I am concerned that similar misinformation may have been spread before the committee meeting. In light of the possibility that the Law of Parties provision in HB 2267 was taken out based on a misunderstanding of the bill and of the Law of Parties, I urge senators to have an informed discussion of the Law of Parties when HB 2267 reaches the floor of the senate and to then decide based on actual facts whether the Law of Parties provision should re-attached by amendment to HB 2267.
Texas House of Representatives Passes "The Kenneth Foster, Jr Act"
House Bill 2267, "The Kenneth Foster, Jr Act", passed the Texas House of Representatives Friday, May 15. Sponsored by Rep. Terri Hodge (D - Dallas), the bill would eliminate the death penalty as a sentencing option under the controversial Texas Law of Parties. It would also require separate trials of co-defendants in capital cases. The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.
The Texas Law of Parties gained national prominence in 2007 during the high profile case of Kenneth Foster, Jr., whose death sentence was commuted by Governor Rick Perry following a national grassroots movement to halt his execution.
"It is my hope that in the future no other families have to deal with the emotional, psychological and financial hell associated with having a loved one on death row for a murder they factually did not commit, like my family has had to deal with for the last 13 years," said Terri Bean, sister of Texas death row inmate Jeff Wood. Wood was sentenced to death under the Law of Parties.
"This bill, when passed, will make me even prouder to be a resident of Texas," said Kenneth Foster, Sr., father of Kenneth Foster, Jr. "Our family knows first hand the injustices of the Law of Parties, and Rep. Hodge's bill is a step in the right direction."
Although Hodge's bill is not retroactive, and therefore would not affect any current cases like Jeff Wood's, several families of death row inmates convicted under the Law of Parties have lobbied in favor of the legislation.
"This is a major victory for the families impacted by this unfair law," said Bryan McCann of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty. "We are told the death penalty is reserved for the worst of the worst, but its application under the Law of Parties affords prosecutors far too much discretion in pursuing the most severe form of punishment."
Executions under the Law of Parties are very rare. Three people have been executed in Texas under the Law of Parties, which amounts to 0.6 percent of the 437 total executions in Texas. The last such execution in Texas was in 1993.
The Kenneth Foster, Jr Act is a much-needed reform. The current law allowing accomplices who have not killed anyone to pay the ultimate penalty for a murder committed by another person is fundamentally unjust.
Urge Texas State Senators to Vote "Yes" on the Kenneth Foster Jr Act (HB 2267)
Please call Texas State Senators and Urge Them to Vote for HB 2267
Sample Message (change it to your own words) "Hello, I am calling to urge Senator X to vote in favor of HB 2267, the "Kenneth Foster, Jr Act". It has already been approved by the Texas House of Representatives. HB 2267 would require separate trials for co-defendants in capital trials and would prohibit the state from seeking the death penalty for people who do not kill anyone but are convicted under the Law of Parties. I do not believe it is fair to sentence someone to death, like Kenneth Foster was, if they did not kill anyone.
The Law of Parties allows people who "should have anticipated" a murder to receive the death penalty for the actions of another person who killed someone. A person sentenced to death under the Law of Parties has not killed anyone. They are accomplices or co-conspirators of one felony, such as robbery, during which another person killed someone, but a person should not be executed for the actions of another person.
Thank you and call your state senator today!
Members of the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice
Chair, John Whitmire Phone: (512) 463-0115 Email Form
Vice-Chair, Kel Seliger Phone:(512)463-0131 Email Form
The resolution, HR 480 by Lon Burnam, would create a select committee in the House to investigate further whether Sharon Keller should be impeached for her refusal to accept an appeal 20 minutes after 5 PM for a person on the day of his execution.
The Chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, held a hearing April 27 on Lon Burnam's resolution (HR 480) to create a select committee to determine if Sharon Keller should be impeached. Contact Chair Hunter and tell him you support HR 480. His phone number is 512-463-0672. Or you can email him through his website form.
The Law of Parties bill today passed the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence.
HB 2267 in the Texas Legislature would prohibit the state from seeking the death penalty for people in Law of Parties cases, which is a law that allows non-killers to be sentenced to death for the actions of another person. Kenneth Foster was sentenced to death under the Law of Parties before his death sentence was commuted to life in 2007 by Governor Perry.
Rep Hodge's bill was approved in the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence on April 21. It now goes to the Calendars Committee.
We have a lot of work to do to get the bill passed by Calendars and through the entire House, but today's approval was a major victory. The victory was made possible by the efforts of many people, including Rep Hodge, Rep Dutton, their staffs, and the many people who attended the Lobby Day Against the Death Penalty on March 24 to visit legislators in person or called or emailed legislators urging them to pass the bill.
Special thanks go to all the family members of people on death row under the Law of Parties who came to Lobby Day or who testified in committee for the bill. This victory belongs to you!
We Won Amazee Contest and $1,000 to Use Against Death Penalty
Thank you to all our friends and supporters who added the project to their Facebook profiles!
And thank you to the people who founded and run Amazee.com. Your generosity in donating prize money to help groups working to change and improve the world is greatly appreciated.
The project that got the most people to add the project to their facebook profile won $1,000, which we are going to use towards the campaign to pass the bill in the Texas Legislature to end the death penalty under the Law of Parties.
The Law of Parties allows people to be sentenced to death even though they did not kill anyone. Kenneth Foster, Jeff Wood and others were sentenced to death under the Law of Parties, although they never killed anyone or intended anyone to be killed.
We held a press conference at the Texas Capitol on Tuesday, February 24 to advocate for an end to the death penalty for people convicted under Texas' Law of Parties. State Rep. Harold Dutton of Houston has filed HB 304, which would prohibit prosecutors from seeking the death penalty in the future under the Law of Parties.
Speakers were Rep Harold Dutton and family members of Kenneth Foster and Jeff Wood, including Lawrence Foster, Kenneth Foster Sr and Steven Been, brother in-law of Jeff Wood, plus Mary Ellen Felps and Scott Cobb
Lobby Day Against the Death Penalty was a Huge Success!
Tuesday March 24, 2009
Texas State Capitol
11th and Congress
Austin, Texas
People from across Texas came to Austin on Tuesday, March 24, for a Death Penalty Reform Lobby Day to speak with legislators about the injustice of the Texas death penalty system. Issues we discussed included the risk of executing an innocent person (HB788), the need for a moratorium on executions (HB 913, HJR 24), abolition of the death penalty (HB 297, HB 682), the Law of Parties (HB 304, HB 2267), and impeaching Sharon Keller (HR 480).
The Texas Legislature meets once every two years, so we conduct a lobby day during the time when they are in session. This year was the largest lobby day ever against the Texas Death Penalty. We held a training session in the morning from 10 AM to noon to discuss the bills and issues and to train people in how best to communicate with legislators. Two weeks ago we held a special training session in Houston, so the group of people who attended that session were able to start lobbying at 10 AM after leaving Houston at 7 in the morning to drive to Austin. There was also a group of people who drove all the way from the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas to come to Lobby Day, included in that group was the family of Humberto Garza and Robert Garza, both of whom are on death row in Texas. Members of the Garza family are in the picture below.
The main focus of the lobby day was to advocate for the bill that would end the death penalty for people convicted under the Law of Parties, which is the law that allows people to be sentenced to death even though they did not kill anyone. The families of Kenneth Foster and Jeff Wood were at Lobby Day and went to many legislative offices all day telling and retelling the stories of Kenneth and Jeff, two people who were sentenced to death even though they did not kill anyone. Kenneth's death sentence was commuted to life in prison in 2007, after a long campaign on his behalf by many of the groups and people who also organized lobby day. Jeff Wood remains on death row, but many people are still fighting and organizing to save his life. Jeff never killed anyone. He was sentenced to death under the law of parties because someone else killed someone.
The sponsor of the bill, State Representative Terri Hodge, met with us at 1 PM in the House Speaker's Committee Room. She gave us an inspiring speech and pledged to do everything in her power to work for this bill. She broke down in tears briefly telling us how emotionally affected she was by the testimony she heard from the family members of people convicted under the law of parties at last week's committee hearing.
You can watch the video of that hearing by clicking on this link, which will stream a video file to your computer. It is powerful stuff, so as Shakespeare wrote, "if you have tears, prepare to shed them now." The father of Kenneth Foster starts speaking at around minute 23. The girlfriend of Randy Halprin gives her moving testimony at around the one hour point. The sister of Jeff Wood, Terri Been, starts her powerful testimony at around minute 32. Terri does a wonderful job explaining to the committee the injustice of the Law of Parties.
In all we contacted 90 legislative offices on lobby day, the majority were in person visits by the people who came to lobby day, others were contacts by phone and email. We had many teams going to visit offices all day. We heard reports back from the teams that the receptions they got were overwhelmingly favorable. Based on the feedback we received, we believe that the bill to end the death penalty under the law of parties will receive a favorable vote in committee soon.
Lobby Day was Sponsored by:
Texas Moratorium Network, Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement, Campaign to End the Death Penalty - Austin Chapter, Texas Students Against the Death Penalty, Texas CURE, the Student Prison Caucus, the Eye & Tooth Project: Forum Theatre on the Death Penalty, Kids Against the Death Penalty, People Organized in Defense of Earth and Her Resources (PODER) and the Friends Meeting of Austin.
In 2007 Texas Moratorium Network was one of several groups that filed a judicial complaint against Sharon Keller. Our complaint was co-signed by almost 1900 people.
Please be advised that on December 2-4, 2008, following three informal hearings that took place before it on June 18-20, 2008, August 13-15, 2008, and October 15-17, 2008, the Commission voted to initiate formal proceedings against the judge who was the subject of your complaint. This process involves a public trial before a Special Master appointed by the Texas Supreme Court, after which findings of fact will be presented to the Commission. You will be notified in writing of the date, time and location of this trial. Based on the Report from the Special Master, the Commission may vote to dismiss the case, issue a public censure, or recommend to the Supreme Court that the judge be removed from office.
In the event that removal is recommended, a seven-member Review Tribunal of appellate justices, also appointed by the Texas Supreme Court, will review the record of the public trial and the hearing before the Commission to determine if the judge should be removed from office. The Review Tribunal could also dismiss the case or issue a public censure against the judge. Be advised that this process is lengthy and could take anywhere from six (6) to eighteen (18) months or more to complete.
Thank you for your continued patience and cooperation as we continue with this process. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the delay in resolving the complaint, as well as for our failure to communicate with you more often and in more detail regarding the status of the investigation. Due to confidentiality rules, we were greatly restricted as to what information we could provide and were concerned that any information we provided would be leaked to the media.
We appreciate that this case is very important to you. Like all cases filed with our agency, this matter was handled carefully and thoroughly investigated. Because the factual allegations and legal issues presented proved to be more complicated than most cases presented to the Commission, it simply required more time to resolve. In addition, please keep in mind that our Commission holds hearings only six (6) times per year, and handles hundreds of cases at each of those meetings. The thirteen volunteers who serve on the Commission take their responsibilities seriously and provide each case and decision the consideration it deserves. The members did not arrive at their decision in this matter lightly or prematurely.
We would also point out that we have a small, but dedicated staff that includes five lawyers and three investigators, who handle over 1,000 cases each year. Because of the significance of this matter, the investigation and presentation of the case was handled exclusively by the agency’s Executive Director and the Chief Investigator. It should be clear from a review of the Notice of Formal Proceedings how much time and effort has gone into this case so far.
On a final note, we are honored to have the services of John J. “Mike” McKetta, III, Michelle Alcala, and their firm, Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody, P.C., supporting the Commission as Special Counsel in this matter.
Let us know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this process.
Seana Willing
Executive Director
State Commission on Judicial Conduct
"If the facts are as reported, Judge Keller should be removed from the bench. It would show monumental callousness, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of justice, for a judge to think that a brief delay in closing a court office should take precedence over a motion that raises constitutional objections to an execution. If the facts have been misreported, the impeachment process would allow Judge Keller to set the record straight.
Impeaching a judge is not a step a legislature should take lightly. It is important that judges be insulated from political pressures so they have the independence necessary to administer justice fairly. But judges cannot be allowed to use their extraordinary discretion to deny litigants the fundamentals of due process. That is especially true if the stakes are literally life or death."
Take Action to Stop the Executions of Dale Devon Scheanette Feb 10 and Johnny Johnson Feb 12 in Texas
You have to go to the project page, click on "join project" on the right hand side, then click on "register". Amazee will send you a password. Log back in, return to the project page and click on "join project" again.
The total number of executions represented in this map is three less than the grand total, because three executions were conducted by the federal government and not by a state.
Jeff Wood Was Granted a Stay of Execution By a Federal Judge
More information on the stay: "With all due respect, a system that requires an insane person to first make 'a substantial showing' of his own lack of mental capacity without the assistance of counsel or a mental health expert, in order to obtain such assistance is, by definition, an insane system," U.S District Court Judge Garcia wrote in the order issuing the stay.
Thank you to everyone who called or emailed the Governor and Board of Pardons and Paroles!
Jeff Wood is waiting to die on Texas Death Row. Jeff was charged under the Law of Parties, and was not the shooter in this crime. Jeff could not anticipate that a murder would occur.The actual shooter in this case has already been executed by the state of Texas.
The above video is an episode of the ACLU's Freedom Files, featuring TMN's former chairperson Jeanette Popp
We received a copy yesterday of Jeanette Popp's long-anticipated new book in the mail. Mortal Justice: A True Story of Murder and Vindication. It was published March 1. Jeanette has worked long and hard for many years against the death penalty. She served several years as chairperson of Texas Moratorium Network. Her book tells the story of her daughter's murder, the wrongful conviction of two innocent men Chris Ochoa and Richard Danziger, their eventual exoneration, the subsequent conviction of the real killer, and Jeanette's long activism against the death penalty, including a jailhouse meeting with the real killer and her successful efforts to prevent him from being sentenced to death.
In her new book, Jeanette includes an account of a jailhouse meeting with the man who actually killed her daughter before his trial because she wanted to convince him to take a plea bargain and accept life in prison istead of going to trial and risking the death penalty. In the jailhouse meeting, she told him, "Mr Marino, you know I don't want you executed?"
"Ive heard that," he answered stoically.
"It's the truth. I don't want you to die."
He shook his head and told her, "Mrs Popp, I'd rather be executed than spend the rest of my life in prison."
Ms. Popp asked prosecutors not to seek the death penalty, because she says she did not want her daughter's memory stained with someone's blood. "I'm not a bleeding heart liberal," she says. "But I do have a heart."
Since the exoneration, she has been an outspoken opponent of the death penalty. That doesn't mean she wants Mr. Marino to ever walk free.
We talked to Jeanette yesterday and she plans to come to Lobby Day Against the Death Penalty on March 24 at the Texas Capitol in Austin. In 2001, Jeanette's testimony to the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee was instrumental in persuading that committee to vote in favor of a moratorium on executions. This year, the same committee will again consider a proposal by State Rep Harold Dutton to enact a moratorium on executions and create a commission to study the death penalty system in Texas.
|
Impeachment Resolution Filed Against Sharon Keller for "neglect of duty"
A Texas state lawmaker is trying to impeach a judge on the state's highest criminal appeals court.
Rep. Lon Burnam filed a resolution Monday seeking to start the process against Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Sharon Keller for what he calls "neglect of duty" in a death penalty case.
Keller refused to keep the court offices open after 5 p.m. back on Sept. 25, 2007, when attorneys for Michael Richard said they were having computer problems, causing troubles filing late appeals.
Richard was executed that night by lethal injection for the rape and murder of a Houston-area woman.
"I am trying to remove her from the bench," Burnam said. "It's one thing for a banker to close shop at five o'clock sharp. But a public official who stands between a human being and the death chamber must be held to a higher standard."
Keller refused to allow the Court of Criminal Appeals to stay open past 5 p.m. on Sept. 25, 2007, even though Richard's attorneys had called and asked for extra time to file their appeal because of computer problems. He was put to death by lethal injection hours later.
Earlier that day, the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to review the constitutionality of lethal injection in a Kentucky case.
Keller's refusal to keep the court open outraged defense attorneys and civil rights activists and led to the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Richard's widow. The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal court in Austin in 2008, said lawyer Richard Kallinen, who represented Richard's widow.
Text of the resolution:
81R8266 JSA-F
By: Burnam H.R. No. 480
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, The House of Representatives of the Texas Legislature has exclusive power to present articles of impeachment against a state officer under Section 1, Article XV, Texas Constitution, and Chapter 665, Government Code; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 81st Texas Legislature adopt the following procedures to consider the impeachment of Judge Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, for gross neglect of duty and conducting her official duties with willful disregard for human life: SECTION 1. SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON IMPEACHMENT. The House Special Committee on Impeachment composed of seven members of the House of Representatives shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House. The Speaker shall designate a committee member to serve as chair of the committee and a committee member to serve as vice-chair of the committee. SECTION 2. INVESTIGATION; ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. (a) The committee shall conduct an investigation to consider whether to recommend that under Section 1, Article XV, Texas Constitution, and Chapter 665, Government Code, the House of Representatives adopt and present to the Texas Senate articles of impeachment against Judge Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, for gross neglect of duty and conducting her official duties with willful disregard for human life in connection with her actions on the evening of September 25, 2007, including her apparent irresponsible refusal to abide by the prior practice of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in order to receive the appeal of Michael Richard, which conduct may have resulted in Mr. Richard's deprivation of life without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 19, Article I, Texas Constitution, by means of a potentially unlawful execution by lethal injection, and in the embarrassment of the State of Texas in a manner that casts severe doubt on the impartiality of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the entire criminal justice system of this state. (b) The committee shall submit a report of its findings to the Speaker of the House and the full House of Representatives as soon as reasonably practicable, but not later than the 90th day after the date the committee is appointed. If the committee recommends impeachment of the judge, the report shall contain a draft of articles of impeachment. SECTION 3. POWERS; ADMINISTRATION. (a) The committee shall meet at the call of the chair and may meet in executive session if approved by a majority of the members of the committee. (b) The committee has all the powers granted to a standing committee under the Rules of the House of Representatives and under Subchapter B, Chapter 301, Government Code, including the power to issue process to procure testimony or other evidence. (c) On the request of the committee, the House of Representatives or the Texas Legislative Council shall provide the staff necessary to assist the committee in carrying out its duties. (d) The operating expenses of the committee shall be paid as determined by the Committee on House Administration. SECTION 4. EXPIRATION. This resolution expires and the House Special Committee on Impeachment ceases to exist on January 1, 2010.
|
Sharon Keller Should Be Removed from Office for "willful neglect of duty"
Posted by admin on: Tuesday 09 December @ 19:09:41
When the Texas Legislature convenes in January, it should take action to remove Sharon Keller from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. We are still waiting for a report from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct regarding the reprehensible actions of Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The last communication we received from the Commission was that their investigation was nearing completion. That was in September. There were several judicial complaints filed against Keller (scroll down for list).
We do not know what, if any, action the Commission will take to discipline Keller for her violation of the unwritten policies of the Court of Criminal Appeals on Sept 25, when she neglected to inform the duty judge that the lawyers of Michael Richard wanted to submit an appeal 15 minutes after the end of the day's office hours. Keller said, "we close at 5" and refused to accept the appeal. In truth, the Court does not "close". Justice is always open. Keller knew it and yet she obstructed justice by her actions. The Commission could recommend that the Texas Supreme Court removes her from office. However, there are two other methods that could be used to remove Keller from her position.
The Texas Constitution Article 15, Section 2 says that "impeachment of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Commissioner of the General Land Office, Comptroller and the Judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and District Court shall be tried by the Senate."
Before such a trial can take place, the Texas House has to impeach the officer to be tried. "Impeachment" is the formal charging of misconduct.The actual removal of office would be by the Senate's trial. even if the Senate did not vote to remove her, being officially indicted by the Texas House could be encouragement enough to convince her to resign.
If the commission doesn’t act quickly, we’ll have to wait until January 2009, when the Legislature—which has the power to oust high judges—reconvenes, or worse, 2012, when Keller is up for reelection. The fact is, we need to do it now. Impeach Sharon Keller.
The Texas Constitution also says in Article 15, Section 8 that judges can be removed for causes that are not sufficient for impeachment:
The Judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and District Courts, shall be removed by the Governor on the address of two-thirds of each House of the Legislature, for willful neglect of duty, incompetency, habitual drunkenness, oppression in office, or other reasonable cause which shall not be sufficient ground for impeachment; provided, however, that the cause or causes for which such removal shall be required, shall be stated at length in such address and entered on the journals of each House; and provided further, that the cause or causes shall be notified to the judge so intended to be removed, and he shall be admitted to a hearing in his own defense before any vote for such address shall pass, and in all such cases, the vote shall be taken by yeas and nays and entered on the journals of each House respectively.
Texas Moratorium Network submitted a Public Information Request to Sharon Keller to receive a copy of the letter she wrote to the Houston Chronicle's R.G. Ratcliffe in response to Ratcliffe's own PIR. Ratcliffe wrote an article on his PIR on Dec 13 ("Judge in death case violated policies: Keller, who shut out appeal, says new written rules reflect unwritten ones on that day"). He wrote that "Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller apparently violated court policies for handling death penalty cases when she closed the court clerk's doors on Michael Richard's efforts to file a last-minute appeal before his execution."
Ratcliffe's reporting seems to have uncovered the smoking gun admission that Keller broke the CCA's policies in effect on the day of Richard's execution. He should be given a journalism award for his work. We congratulate him on his idea of asking for the policies in effect on Sept 25. His article left us wanting to see the entire text of the policies ourselves, so we submitted our own PIR.
Reading the entire text of the policies makes it very clear that Keller violated the rules by not contacting the assigned duty judge about the request by Richard's lawyers to file a late appeal.
We sent a copy to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct of Keller's letter to Ratcliffe and of the document "Execution-day Procedures".
A designated judge will be assigned to be in charge of each scheduled execution. Generally, judges will be assigned in rotating seniority order by the general counsel. Exceptions in order of assignment will be made for prior involvement in the death-row inmate's case as trial judge, prosecutor, or defense counsel, or for recusal. Judges may also trade assignments, with notice to all other judges and general counsel, for other good cause such as anticipated absence from court on the day of execution. Unless the Court has been informed by defense counsel that no pleadings will be filed, or pleadings have been filed and ruled on, general counsel shall be present at the Court on the date of the scheduled execution until the time of execution has passed. The assigned judge shall be present at the Court, or immediately available, on the date of the scheduled execution until the time of execution has passed. Support staff may be requested to remain, also, as needed.
All communications regarding the scheduled execution shall first be referred to the assigned judge. The term “communications” includes pleadings, telephone calls, faxes, emails, and any other means of communication with the Court. The assigned judge may call a special conference or gather votes by telephone, email, fax, or other form of communication.
If the communication includes a request for stay of execution, the assigned judge shall contact, by any reasonable means, the other members of the Court and request a vote on the motion to stay. Non-assigned judges will provide to the assigned judge an adequate means of contact. "Reasonable means" includes calling a special conference and contact by electronic communication.
Below are some of the people who filed complaints last year against Keller with the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
* A group of about 1900 people signed a complaint sent to the Commission by Texas Moratorium Network. * Twenty lawyers represented by Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project, including: o Dick DeGuerin o Chuck Herring o former State Bar President Broadus Spivey o University of Houston law professor Mike Olivas o former appellate Judge Michol O'Connor o State Representative Harold Dutton * Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, signed by more than 130 lawyers and others, including: o State Representative Dora Olivo o State Representative Garnet Coleman * National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers * Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association * State Representative Lon Burnam * State Representative Jessica Farrar
Several newspapers also called for Keller to be removed from office, including the Houston Chronicle, which wrote on Oct 15, 2007:
Judge Keller let her personal bias in favor of the death penalty trample the right of now-executed prisoner Michael Richard to access the courts and have due process. In doing so, she abdicated her role as the state's chief criminal justice to become its chief executioner.
Posted by admin on: Wednesday 06 August @ 02:37:12
Section 7.02 of the Texas Penal Code outlines the following:
A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if "acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense he solicits, encourages, directs, aids or attempts to aid the other persons to commit the offense" or "If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy." Article 37.071(b)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedures permits the infliction of the death penalty only if the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant "intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be taken."
PARTIES AND THE US SUPREME COURT The US Supreme Court held that imposition of the death penalty on a person who aids and abets a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill violates the 8th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. (Edmund v. Florida 458 US 782, 1982) Five years after the Edmund decision the Supreme Court created an exception to this general rule for those guilty of a murder that occurs in the commission of a felony who do not kill or intend to kill, but who have major personal involvement in the felony and display a reckless indifference to human life. (Tison v. Arizona, 481 US 137, 1987)
THE STANDARD NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE The Delaware Superior Court observed: "Major participation and reckless indifference to human life are more likely to be found where an accomplice defendant is present at and before a killing which involved considerable deliberation and the killing is preceded by physical or psychological abuse of the victim, including assault, torture or other acts of cruelty. Such a finding is less likely where the killing is sudden or impulsive and it is unclear that the defendant actually caused the victim’s death."
The application of Texas Penal Code 7.02, in combination with Texas Code of Criminal Procedures Article 37.071(b)(2), is unjust and unconstitutional because it permits the death penalty to be imposed for complicity in a capital crime without requiring a finding that the person intended to kill or that he was a major participant in a crime where he showed reckless disregard for human life. In other words, neglecting to anticipate another actor’s commission of murder in the course of a felony is all that is required to make a Texas defendant death-eligible, thus immensely lowering the standard the US Supreme Court has set. This is allowing the death penalty to be applied in a most immoral and liberal way
After 7 months without executions, Texas has scheduled two people for execution. Meanwhile, we are still waiting on a response from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to the complaint against Judge Sharon Keller that we sent them that was signed by around 1900 people regarding Keller's unethical behavior on Sept 25, the last time a person was executed in Texas and in the entire U.S.
From the Houston Chronicle:
At least two condemned Texas inmates already have execution dates following last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the lethal injection process.
Charles Dean Hood, convicted of a double slaying in the Dallas suburb of Plano more than 18 years ago, and Larry Donnell Davis, condemned for a 1995 robbery-slaying in Amarillo, are set to die, said the Texas Attorney General's Office, which handles federal appeals involving capital murder cases.
Hood, 38, was set for lethal injection June 17 by State District Judge Curt Henderson. Davis, 40, was set to die July 31 by State District Judge John Board.
Aims to speed up execution Selwyn Davis expected to pursue only a required appeal.
By Steven Kreytak AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Tuesday, April 08, 2008
In a move that could trim his stay on Texas' death row from the norm of about 10 years to less than two, condemned killer Selwyn P. Davis wants to waive most of his appeals, according to his lawyer.
Ariel Payan, Davis' appeals lawyer, declined to say why Davis doesn't want to carry out all of his appeals.
During his October trial in Travis County, Davis' lawyers said he conceded that he fatally stabbed Regina Lara, his ex-girlfriend's mother, at her 381/2 Street apartment. But they argued that his crime was not committed in the course of a burglary and robbery, as charged, and that therefore it didn't fit Texas' definition of capital murder.
Davis killed Lara during a two-day crime spree that began when he beat his ex-girlfriend, fracturing her eye socket, and poured rubbing alcohol over her head and threatened to set her on fire, according to testimony. During the capital murder trial, Davis stuck his middle finger up at Lara's family.
It is uncommon for death row inmates to waive their appeals, and some defendants who initially say they don't want to appeal change their minds, according to death penalty lawyers. These include William Murray, a North Texas man condemned in 1998.
Murray, convicted of killing an elderly woman in Kaufman, said in 1999 that he wanted his execution expedited. He is still on death row after years of appeals, including a legal fight to reinstate his appellate rights.
Just over a year after Angel Maturino Resendiz was sentenced to death in 2000 for killing a Houston doctor, the confessed serial killer acknowledged his guilt and said he wanted to waive his appeals in the case. But his mental competency to do so was questioned, and a series of appeals was eventually filed on his behalf. He was executed in 2006.
The average stay on Texas' death row is 10 years and three months, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Since Texas reinstated the death penalty in the early 1980s, the inmate with the shortest stay on death row before execution was Joe Gonzales, who was executed in 1996 after eight months there. Gonzales, a roofer, was convicted in Potter County of the murder and robbery of his boss in Amarillo and waived his appeals.
Davis, 26, was sent to death row in Livingston from Travis County on Oct. 17, 2007, two days after his death sentence was announced. On Nov. 20, he wrote the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals a letter.
"I would like to cancel my appeals," the letter said, in part. "All of them!"
Last month, the court entered an order stating that Texas law guarantees a review by the Court of Criminal Appeals of a death penalty conviction and sentence. Payan said Davis has agreed to cooperate in that so-called direct appeal. But Payan said that Davis wants to waive his right to file applications for writ of habeas corpus in federal and state courts, the process by which inmates can challenge the legality of their incarceration.
That process, which takes years to run its course, can be waived.
Once briefs are filed by Davis and the state in the direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals is under no time limit to issue an order. Payan said some decisions are reached within months and others take years. He estimates the quickest Davis' case could be disposed on appeal and ready for an execution date would be in a year and a half.
Executions in Texas have been on hold since September as the U.S. Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of lethal injection. A decision is expected this summer.
Davis is in the Travis County Jail and will appear Friday before state District Judge Julie Kocurek, who presided over his trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals ordered Kocurek to question Davis on a series of issues related to his appeals, including whether he wants to waive any rights, and if so, whether he makes that waiver knowingly and intentionally.
Even if he did waive his right to appeal, the court would examine the trial record in its own review of the case, said University of Texas law professor Rob Owen, co-director of the school's Capital Punishment Clinic.
"There is a very strong public interest in ensuring that the Court of Criminal Appeals reviews every death penalty at least once to ensure conformity with basic fundamental rights," Owen said.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA One county, 100 executions Harris County and Texas -- A lethal combination One of the cruellest anomalies of the modern system of capital punishment: Geography means everything Houston Chronicle(1)
In 1969, "Houston" became the first word to be spoken by a human being on the moon, beginning astronaut Neil Armstrong's famous message back to earth. Four decades later, the City of Houston, or rather Harris County where both the city and NASA's Johnson Space Center are located, has gained international notoriety for something that pushes the boundaries of human decency rather than space exploration.
For, while Texas is the execution centre of the USA, Harris County is that state's main supplier of condemned human beings. This is a lethally symbiotic relationship that helps to create geographic bias in the US capital justice system on a grand scale.
Harris County is the third largest county in the United States, with a population of a little under four million inhabitants, or about 1.3 per cent of the US population. Between one and two per cent of the USA's murders each year occur in Harris County. About four per cent of the country's current death row inmates were tried in Harris County. Nine per cent of the men and 18 per cent of the women executed in the United States since judicial killing resumed there in 1977 were condemned to death in Harris County.
Ninety-seven men and two women prosecuted in Harris County have been put to death since Texas carried out its first execution of the "modern" era in 1982. At the time of writing, Lonnie Johnson was set to become the 100th such prisoner to be put to death, his execution scheduled for 24 July 2007. Johnny Connor was set to become the 101st on 22 August and Michael Richards the 102nd on 25 September.
If Harris County was a state, it would rank 26th in population among the US states, one above Oregon. Oregon has executed two people since 1977, both of whom had given up their appeals. There are about three of four times as many murders each year in Harris County as there are in Oregon, but Harris County accounts for 50 times as many executions as that west coast state. Indeed, if Harris County was a state, it would rank second only to Texas in the number of executions carried out since 1977.
Poll: Americans Want Death-Penalty Moratorium Growing concerns about making sure the innocent aren’t sentenced to death has caused more Americans to support a moratorium on the death penalty.
WEB EXCLUSIVE By Kurt Soller Newsweek Updated: 4:34 p.m. CT June 15, 2007
June 15, 2007 - Even though most Americans support the death penalty, there’s rising concern about how the state’s ultimate punishment is levied. A new poll by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization that provides analysis on capital punishment, found that 58 percent want a national moratorium on executions. In 2006, there were fewer executions than in any year since the death penalty was reinstated over 30 years ago. NEWSWEEK’s Kurt Soller spoke with the director of the center, Richard Dieter, about the current state of capital punishment in America. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed want a moratorium in place. How surprising is that? Richard Dieter: It is counterintuitive, given that the majority of people support the death penalty nationally [65 percent according to a 2006 Gallup poll]. But even in the South, where most executions occur, there is a willingness to stop executions. If you’re concerned about killing innocent people, you want something done. [According to DPIC research], 62 percent support a death penalty [as long as it is administered fairly and the innocent are adequately protected]. But people have concerns: innocence. They don’t believe it’s a deterrent. Unfairness.
A decision by the Supreme Court on Monday that made it easier for prosecutors to exclude people who express reservations about the death penalty from capital juries will make the panels whiter and more conviction-prone, experts in law and psychology said this week.
The jurors who remain after people with moral objections to imposing the death penalty are weeded out, studies uniformly show, are significantly more likely to vote to find defendants guilty than jurors as a whole.
Back in 2001, both the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence and the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice approved measures for a moratorium on executions, primarily because of the powerful testimony from people such as Randall Adams and Kerry Cook about the risk of executing innocent people. See the news stories below.
The approval of a moratorium in the two committees in 2001 came as a complete surprise. This year, the two committees have not yet heard the moratorium issue. When hearings are scheduled, it is quite possible that we will see a repeat of 2001 because the of the reports in the past two years that as many as three innocent people may have been executed in Texas: Ruben Cantu, Cameron Willingham and Carlos De Luna. Also, Ernest Willis was exonerated and released from Texas death row in 2004 after spending 17 years there for a crime he did not commit.
Paper: Houston Chronicle Date: SUN 04/22/2001 Section: A Page: 1 Edition: 4 STAR
By JANET ELLIOTT, Houston Chronicle AustinBureau Staff
AUSTIN - After decades spent passing the toughest criminal laws and building the largest penal system in the nation, Texas lawmakers are taking a timeout.
This session, "tough on crime" talk has been replaced by discussions of reform and fairness. Instead of adding to the list of crimes for which a person can be executed, the Legislature is giving serious consideration to banning the execution of the mentally retarded and offering juries the option of sentencing capital murderers to life without parole.
Legislation to allow voters to decide whether executions should be halted for two years while the cases of the 445 individuals on death row are re-examined has made it out of committees in both the House and the Senate.
"Six months ago, had you told me we'd even be here, I wouldn't have believed it," former death-row inmate Randall Dale Adams told supporters of a death-penalty moratorium outside the Capitol last week.
In 1989, Adams was released from prison, where he spent more than a dozen years after being wrongfully convicted for the murder of a Dallas police officer. He said he is one of seven inmates in Texas and 95 nationwide who have been released from death row since 1971 after being exonerated of the crimes for which they were convicted.
Already this session, Gov. Rick Perry has signed into law a bill giving Texas inmates the right to petition a court for DNA tests using new technology that may not have been available at their trials.
The Senate has approved legislation setting minimum standards for court-appointed lawyers, for the first time kicking in state money to help pay the lawyers. The Senate also has passed bills to stop racial profiling and to provide more compensation for those who are wrongfully convicted.
The reforms may be an unintended legacy of President Bush. Bush was an ardent defender of the state's criminal justice system and presided over a record 40 executions during his last year as governor.
But his race gave a platform to critics who could point to flaws in the system such as ill-prepared lawyers appointed to represent poor defendants. The case of a lawyer who dozed during his client's capital murder trial became famous nationwide.
In 1999, Bush vetoed an indigent-defense reform bill, saying he supported the system that allowed trial judges to appoint defense attorneys. This year, Perry has expressed support for statewide standards for attorneys defending indigent clients.
Perry also has said the state should take a hard look at giving juries the option of sentencing capital murder defendants to life without parole. Bills to do that have been passed by committees in both chambers.
The House is scheduled to debate a bill Monday that would ban the execution of mentally retarded people.
"It's ironic because the changes that President Bush opposed are now coming about because of his presidential campaign," said Rep. Juan Hinojosa, a McAllen Democrat who serves as chairman of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee.
"The media, the different candidates that were running at that time, the different interest groups focused on the presidential race and the criminal justice system because we are executing more people than any other state in the nation," said Hinojosa, who is carrying many of the reform bills.
"Then, all of a sudden, we have the advancements made in forensic evidence such as DNA that showed we had convicted a whole bunch of people wrongly," continued Hinojosa, a lawyer who sometimes represents criminal defendants. "So that leads to the conclusion that there is a very strong possibility that there have been some innocent people executed in our state."
Bush maintained that no innocent person was executed in the state while he was governor.
Nearly a dozen men have been freed from Texas prisons in the past three years after DNA evidence cleared them of rape and murder charges.
One of those was Christopher Ochoa, who was released in January after he was exonerated by a DNA test and other evidence. Ochoa had been coerced by an Austin police officer into falsely confessing to raping and murdering Nancy DePriest at an Austin Pizza Hut in 1988. He implicated a friend, Richard Danzinger, who also was freed this year.
Jeanette Popp, the mother of the victim, has become an activist for an execution moratorium.
"There are those who say that the system isn't broken. I challenge them to listen to my story, to Randall's story, to look us in the eye and tell us justice was done," said Popp.
"DNA made everybody sit up and pay a little bit closer attention to the process," said Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston.
"Our criminal justice system is broken, and it needs to be repaired," said Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, the author of indigent-defense and hate-crime bills.
But not everyone is happy with the tinkering.
Harris County state District Judge Ted Poe said the system isn't broken. He said cases are thoroughly reviewed by state and federal judges.
"We want the judicial system to review cases," said Poe. "We don't want the Legislature to get involved in reviewing cases. That's not their area."
Advocates for crime victims also are watching some of the changes with dismay.
"This is one of the toughest sessions for victims in my memory," said William "Rusty" Hubbarth, who follows legislation for Justice for All, a Houston victims' rights group.
Chuck Noll, a prosecutor who is monitoring legislation for Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal, said the session is turning into a disaster for law enforcement.
"All the people in the Legislature heard was, `Texas is bad, Texas is bad,' " Noll said. "We as prosecutors didn't feel comfortable defending ourselves in the media, didn't respond to these charges publicly because we don't feel professionally that's our job.
"As a result, there was a drumbeat for two years about how evil Texas is and how bad the system is, with no response from anybody in law enforcement. So there's this general feeling, `Oh, gee, there must be something wrong, so let's pass all these bills to fix it.' "
Kenneth Armbrister, a conservative Democrat from Victoria who is chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, believes there is more at play than just a response to criticism from outside Texas. Armbrister said he traveled around the country last year campaigning for Bush and defending the state's criminal justice record.
"I don't mind taking that heat," said Armbrister, a former police officer.
But Armbrister said he supports the moratorium bill because legislators already have acknowledged criminal justice weaknesses by advancing the bills on DNA testing and defense lawyers. Perry even declared the DNA
![[Innocence Fund]](http://www.texasmoratorium.org/rgraphics/InnocenceFund2.jpg)
![[City Councils]](http://www.texasmoratorium.org/rgraphics/cities.jpg)
![[Click here to start shopping!]](rgraphics/OnlineStore.gif)
![[Sign Up]](rgraphics/cellphone.jpg)
![[Balancing the Scales]](http://www.texasmoratorium.org/rgraphics/video.jpg)
![[Speakers Bureau]](http://www.texasmoratorium.org/rgraphics/Jeanettepodium2.jpg)
