From www.savecathyhenderson.org

In their successful motion to vacate Cathy’s April execution date (see item below), Cathy’s lawyers stated:

We anticipate that, when he has completed his investigation, Dr. Plunkett [the defense expert in injury biomechanics] will be able to advise this Court and all others that the injuries sustained by [Brandon Baugh] were entirely consistent with an accidental fall, and that advances in science now show that the injuries were not ― as the State claimed at trial in 1995 ― the product of a willful, deliberate, and murderous blow delivered by Ms. Henderson.

Accident v. deliberate act

One of the most damning pieces of evidence against Cathy at her trial was the testimony of Drs Bayardo (then Travis County Chief Medical Examiner) and Veasey (then Lubbock County Deputy Chief Medical Examiner). Dr Bayardo performed the autopsy on Brandon Baugh; Dr Veasey reviewed the autopsy report and provided an opinion based on that report. Each of these witnesses stated that Brandon’s injuries could not possibly have been the result of an accident and that the nature of the injuries “proved” that Cathy deliberately killed Brandon by striking him with great force.

Dr Bayardo testified that in his opinion, Brandon died from skull injuries “consistent with striking his head against a blunt object,” that it would have been “impossible” for the injury to have been caused “by a fall of four to four-and-a-half feet”, that the baby would have to have fallen “from a height higher than a two-story building,” or have had his head “run over by a car” or have been “involved in a motor vehicle accident”.

The State offered no evidence that crime scene investigators found any evidence of the child’s death in any of the manners hypothesized by Dr. Bayardo.

Before her trial in 1995, Cathy’s counsel presented a motion asking the Court for the funds necessary to hire an expert to perform a biomechanical investigation. The Court denied the motion without comment or explanation.

Cathy’s defense team has now gained the services of an expert in injury biomechanics who will provide an in-depth analysis of the prosecution testimony about Brandon’s injuries. This recently developed science is the “DNA” of Cathy’s case. You can read more about it in the Motion to Vacate the Execution Date and the Memorandum in support of that motion presented to Judge Wisser by Cathy’s current lawyers.

---

Where to now?

April 20th

Here’s a quick update from Cathy’s lawyers about the status of her case after Judge Wisser granted the 60-day reprieve:

We are working on a subsequent habeas petition that we expect to file before the end of April or early in May. We are waiting for all of the expert reports to be finalized before we file the petition. The petition will be filed with the same court that tried Cathy. The state will have an opportunity to oppose that petition and then the court will decide whether further proceedings are necessary. If the court decides not to order further proceedings, we will file a similar petition in the federal court.

If the court does decide to hold further proceedings, then it is likely her execution date will be postponed further. The bottom line is that we do not know what the timing is going to be. Once we file our petition, we will know more and we will be sure to advise everyone of any future hearing dates.

Here is an easy way to donate to us if you live in Germany or other European countries. HelpDirect is Germany’s largest nonprofit online portal. You can make donations to stop executions in Texas by bank transfer on their site. Just follow this link then click on Ich will spenden

.

A proposal related to a moratorium on executions passed unsurprisingly out of the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence last Friday. The vote is below. TMN’s members sent hundreds of emails to the chair and committee members since January. We say unsurpisingly because there are 7 Democrats and only 2 Republicans on this committee, so we figured they would do the right thing.

Unfortunately, the proposal is not likely to get much support from Republicans for a reason that was mentioned during the committee hearing. One member of the committee asked Naishtat, “We heard this bill passed this committee in 2001. What’s the reluctance to pass it. What did you run in to.” Naishtat replied: “I don’t know. All I can guess is that the governor may not want the authority to be able to declare a moratorium. …. if we assume that the sitting governor does not want that authority, then I can understand there would be pressure from the governor’s office to stop the bill from getting through.”

There is a way to get around the governor’s objections and at the same time to have a chance of enacting a moratorium sooner, since even if Gov Perry had the power to call a moratorium, he is unlikely to ever use the power. A better proposal was filed most recently last session by Garnet Coleman. It would have enacted a moratorium directly upon approval of the voters through a constitutional amendment. Instead of giving the governor the power to call a moratorium, the Legislature should do what was proposed in 2001 by Shapleigh (SJR 25) and Dutton (HJR 56) and in 2005 by Garnet Coleman (HJR 73), to bypass the governor and give the people of Texas the authority to enact a moratorium. Governor Perry may be more willing to support such a proposal rather than the proposal to give him the power to call a moratorium, since he can put the question up to the people and get it out of his hands. In 2001, the El Paso Times endorsed the proposal to have a statewide vote on a temporary two-year moratorium: “Let the people decide, Moratorium on executions should go to voters“. The Legislature should also find a bill to amend to include a provision to create a commission to study capital punishment.

From the minutes of last Friday’s House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee:

The chair moved that HJR 23, without amendments, be reported favorably to the full house with the recommendation that it do pass and be printed. The motion prevailed by the following record vote:

Ayes: Representatives Pena; Vaught; Escobar; Hodge; Mallory Caraway (5).

Nays: Representative Riddle (1).

Present, Not Voting: None (0).

Absent: Representatives Moreno, Paul; Pierson; Talton (3).

Jose Moreno May 10

Write Gov Perry to Protest the Execution of Jose Moreno

TDCJ Info on Moreno

Charles Smith May 16

Write Gov Perry to Protest the Execution of Charles Smith on May 16, 2007

TDCJ Info on Smith

“The Texas Senate on Tuesday passed its version of “Jessica’s Law,” a get-tough measure on sexual predators that includes a possible death penalty for those who are twice convicted of raping children under 14″, reports the AP.

As soon as I read the news that Senator Rodney Ellis was the lone person to vote against “Jessica’s Law” in the senate because it expanded the death penalty, I thought of the book “Profiles in Courage”. Turns out, in addition to the book, there is an actual annual award.

Given his safe district, I doubt if Ellis’ career is at risk because of this vote, although you could argue that it is a courageous vote if he has any statewide ambitions. Maybe someone should nominate Sen. Ellis for next year’s award. How to Submit a Nomination.

More from the AP story:

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, the only dissenter in the 30-1 vote, questioned whether the state should expand death row at a time when post-conviction DNA testing has exonerated people who went to prison for crimes they did not commit.

Just two weeks ago, the Senate hosted two men who served 27 years in prison for sexual assault but were later cleared by DNA testing.

“All of us have to make tough choices, but at some point we have to decide where do we draw the line on something that’s politically right but morally wrong,” Ellis said. “I’m for the death penalty, but I think it would be nice if we had a system where we got the right one.”

President John F. Kennedy’s 1957 Pulitzer prize-winning book, “Profiles in Courage”, recounts the stories of eight U.S. Senators who risked their careers by taking principled stands for unpopular positions.

According to the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation

The Profile in Courage Award seeks to make Americans aware of the conscientious and courageous acts of their public servants, and to encourage elected officials to choose principles over partisanship – to do what is right, rather than what is expedient.

The award is presented annually to a public official or officials at the federal, state or local level whose actions best demonstrate the qualities of political courage described in Profiles in Courage.

The Profile in Courage Award is administered by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. A distinguished bipartisan committee named by the Foundation reviews all nominations, and selects the recipient or recipients of the award.