Upcoming Executions
Click for a list of upcoming scheduled executions in Texas.
Innocence
The death penalty puts innocent people at risk of execution.
Todd Willingham
Todd Willingham was wrongfully executed under Governor Rick Perry on February 17, 2004.

We pass along the story below with great sadness. Texas Moratorium Network stands with everyone who faces an unjust sentence, including Mumia Abu-Jamal. There are other ways to build bridges to new potential supporters that do not include forsaking someone who was unjustly sentenced to death. In the recent case in Austin of David Powell, Texas Moratorium Network did not shirk our responsibility to speak out and work hard to try to stop the execution of Powell, just because the Austin Police Association was applying political pressure to ensure that the execution was carried out. Shame on those organizations who signed the memo to the WCADP.

“Throwing Mumia Abu-Jamal Under the Bus”
By Dave Lindorff

“I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.”
–Frederick Douglass
On the evening of February 25, participants at the Fourth World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Geneva, Switzerland had assembled from all over the globe for a dramatic Voices of Victims evening. It got more dramatic than they had anticipated though, when suddenly a cell phone rang and Robert R. Bryan, lead defense attorney for Mumia Abu-Jamal, jumped up on the stage to announce that his client had called him from death row in Pennsylvania.
The audience sat in rapt silence as the emcee held the phone up to the microphone. Abu-Jamal, on death row for 28 years after a widely disputed conviction for the murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, greeted the delegates and then, as he has done on many occasions before, described to them the horrors of life in prison for the 20,000 people around the world who are awaiting execution.
A small group of American death penalty abolitionist leaders, led by Renny Cushing, executive director of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights, stalked out of the hall. Two members of MVFHR, however, remained in the hall: Bill Babbitt, whose brother Manny, a Vietnam vet suffering acute post-traumatic stress disorder, was executed in California; and Bill Pelke, whose grandmother was murdered by a girl whom he later befriended and helped to spare from execution. Babbitt even joined Bryan onstage during Abu-Jamal’s brief address.
What neither Babbitt nor Pelke, nor Abu-Jamal and his attorney, Bryan, knew at the time was that way back in December, leaders and individual board members of several of the organizations in the US abolitionist movement had signed–without their full boards’ or their memberships’ knowledge–a “confidential” memorandum, which they then sent to the French organizers of the World Congress, stating bluntly that, “As international representatives of the US abolition movement, we cannot agree to the involvement of Abu-Jamal or his lawyers in the World Congress beyond attendance.”
Purporting to be from “the US members of the Steering Committee” of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (though hardly an inclusive list of that committee’s membership) and titled, “Involvement of Mumia Abu-Jamal endangers the US coalition for abolition of the death penalty,” the memo claimed that the French organizers of the World Congress, Together Against the Death Penalty (ECPM), had arranged to have Abu-Jamal speak “over objection.” The memo further further asserted that the abolitionist movement in the US is trying to “cultivate” the support of the ultra-conservative and staunchly pro-death penalty Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), an organization representing some 35,000 police officers in the US that advocates the execution of Abu-Jamal and all other prisoners convicted of killing of police officers. The FOP, said the memo, has “announced a boycott of organizations and individuals who support Abu-Jamal,” and therefore anything done by the Congress to aid his cause would be “dangerously counter-productive to the abolition movement in the US.”
ThisCantBeHappening! this past week obtained a copy of that secret memorandum.
When we showed it to some other members of the boards of the organizations whose officers or individual board members had signed their names to it, responses ranged from consternation to outrage. Babbitt’s brother Manny was killed as a direct result of a corrupt law enforcement system in California that pressed for execution, even though it was clear from medical testimony that the elderly grandmother he allegedly killed actually died of shock when she discovered him breaking and entering her apartment. Left in the dark about the memo despite his being on the MVFHR board, Babbitt said, “My brother Manny’s last words to me were to always take the high road, and to me that means telling the truth and being open and transparent.” He added, regarding the content of the memo, “I think throwing Mumia under the bus is not the way to go in the abolitionist movement. You don’t make bargains with a wolf whose motive is to devour.”
Robert Meeropol, a son of Ethyl and Julius Rosenberg, who were executed as spies in 1953, is also a member of the MVFHR board. Currently traveling on behalf of the organization in Asia, he said through a staffer in the US that he did not know about the memo, and added that he still stands “fully in support of a new trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal.”
Several calls seeking a comment from Cushing or Lowenstein remain unanswered, though a staffer at the MVFHR Boston office, Susanna Sheffer, said, “This is a complicated thing. You need to understand the depth and texture of this.”
Also surprised at the memo was actor Michael Farrell, president of the California abolitionist group Death Penalty Focus. Farrell, a long-time supporter of the call for a new trial for Abu-Jamal, said he had never seen the memo, though it was signed by a member of the DPF board, attorney Elizabeth Zitrin.
Other signers of the memo were Thomas H. “Speedy” Rice of the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, Kritsin Houlé of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and Juan Matos de Juan of the Puerto Rican Bar Assn.
Bryan, a veteran death penalty defense lawyer who served 10 years on the board of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty–three of them as the organization’s chair–says, “In all my years as an activist opposing the death penalty, I have never heard of any individual or group in that fight singling out anyone as an exception to our campaign to abolish capital punishment. Everyone is treated equally. To single someone out and say they don’t count is chilling. Where do you draw the line? At people accused of killing cops? At people accused of killing old ladies? People accused of killing children? Where does it stop? It’s appalling!”
Heidi Beghosian, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild, an organization that has long been in the forefront of the campaign to end the death penalty in the US, and which was not advised of the plan to circulate the memo on behalf of the US Steering Committee to the World Coalition, despite the NLG’s being a member of the WCADP, roundly condemned the secret effort to silence Abu-Jamal at the March event.
“Mumia Abu-Jamal’s case is emblematic of the inherent flaws in the capital punishment system,” she said. “That he is castigated by leaders in the abolitionist movement shows precisely what is wrong with the system—it is a system enslaved to the whims and personal biases of police, prosecutor, judge, and jury. While cultivating certain voices of law enforcement may assist in efforts to achieve abolition, it should not be at the expense of exposing a case that embodies some of the most reprehensible actions on the part of the police, the district attorney and the judiciary. The powerful FOP, and their heavy-handed efforts to vilify Abu-Jamal and his supporters, should not be the barometer by which abolitionist leaders gauge their strategic priorities. Members of the abolitionist movement should be working together and not further censoring and ostracizing a death row inmate.”
What makes the American abolitionists’ petulant and manipulative behavior as expressed in the secret memo and their cynical threat to withdraw from the Congress particularly outrageous is that Abu-Jamal’s arrest, trial and appeals process has been, as Beghosian notes, a textbook case of police and prosecutor corruption, malfeasance and abuse. From the beginning, even before his arrest, Abu-Jamal’s case was poisoned by a police lust for vengeance. Although he had been shot through the lung and liver by a bullet fired from Officer Faulkner’s service revolver, and was in danger of dying of internal bleeding that was filling his lungs with blood, Abu-Jamal was left lying in a police wagon for almost half an hour before he was finally delivered to a hospital emergency room, where hospital staff and at least one police officer on the scene observed him being kicked and punched by the officers delivering him.
During the jury selection process at the beginning of his trial, the presiding judge, Albert Sabo, who as a county sheriff’s deputy was an FOP member before he was made a judge, was overheard by a second judge  and his court stenographer saying to his own court clerk, as he exited the courtroom through the jurdge’s robing room, “Yeah and I’m gonna help them fry that nigger!”
During the tortuous appeals process, both the state and federal courts have shamelessly bent their rules and violated precedents to deny Abu-Jamal the benefits of precedents that have been routinely accorded other appellants. Third Circuit Appeals Court Judge Thomas Ambro filed a stinging dissent to a decision by his two colleagues, who effectively created new law from the bench in rejecting Abu-Jamal’s well-founded Batson claim of racial bias by the prosecution during jury selection at his trail. Scarcely concealing his outrage, Judge Ambro wrote: “Our Court has previously reached the merits of Batson claims on habeas review in cases where the petitioner did not make a timely objection during jury selection–signaling that our Circuit does not have a federal contemporaneous objection rule–and I see no reason why we should not afford Abu-Jamal the courtesy of our precedents.” He added, “Why we pick this case to depart from that reasoning I do not know.”
Abu-Jamal himself, interviewed by phone last Friday from his cell at the super-max death row facility SCI-Greene in western Pennsylvania, blasted the attempt to silence him at the Congress, and to ostracize him from the American abolitionist movement. “They are really making deals with the devil,” he said, of claims that the US abolitionist movement was trying to gain the support of the FOP. “My instinct, being from Philadelphia, is that money was passed, though I have no evidence to prove it.” He added, “This secret action is a threat to the entire abolitionist movement. They are saying that because the opposition (to abolition) is so strong, we should not fight. If you have that attitude, why have an abolitionist movement at all?”
Abu-Jamal, whose death penalty was lifted by a federal judge in 2001, only to have the US Supreme Court remand that decision back to the Third Circuit, where it could be reimposed, and who continues, in no small part thanks to pressure from the Pennsylvania FOP, to be held in solitary confinement on death row, where he maintains his innocence, calls the signers of the memo “co-conspirators,” and says they are “naive” to believe they can win over the FOP by abandoning him to his fate.
“If the slavery abolitionists had taken this approach back in 1860,” he says, “and said okay let’s free the slaves, except those uppity ones with prices on their heads like Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass, we’d still have slavery today.” Abu-Jamal said it appeared that the abolitionist movement appeared to have lost its way, and said that it needed to be broadened to more closely reflect the population of the nation’s death rows. where nearly everyone is poor, and where 53% of the doomed inmates are non-white.
Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the USAThe Angola 3: Black Panthers and the Last Slave Plantation175 Progress DriveDeath Blossoms: Reflections from a Prisoner of ConscienceThe Framing of Mumia Abu-JamalMumia: A Case for Reasonable DoubtMumia Abu-Jamal: A Case for Reasonable Doubt?Live from Death RowAll Things Censored... : Huntingdon And SCI Greene Sessions [Spoken Word]
Here is the text of the secret Memorandum to WCADP.
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM to ECPM
from the US members of the Steering Committee of the WCADP 
Involvement of Mumia Abu-Jamal endangers the US coalition for abolition of the death penalty
ECPM has unilaterally, and over objection, determined to give the Mumia Abu-Jamal case a prominent role in the upcoming 4th World Congress Against the Death Penalty, including the participation of Mr. Abu-Jamal’s lawyers and his direct participation by telephone. The US members of the Steering Committee of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty do not agree to this, because it will be counter-productive to our effort to achieve abolition in our country.
The Abu-Jamal case, regardless of its merits, acts as a lightning rod that galvanizes opponents of abolition and neutralizes key constituencies in the cause of abolition. Continuing to give Abu-Jamal focused attention unnecessarily attracts our strongest opponents and alienates coalition partners at a time when we need to build alliances, not foster hatred and enmity.
While Abu-Jamal still attracts some positive attention outside of the United States, it is at a real cost to the US abolition effort. In 1999, the world’s largest association of professional law enforcement officers, the Fraternal Order of Police, announced a boycott of organizations and individuals who support Abu-Jamal. Bills have been introduced in both houses of the US federal legislature condemning the naming of streets for Abu-Jamal. The result is that Abu-Jamal, rather  than abolition of the death penalty, becomes the issue and the focus of attention. That is dangerously counter-productive to the abolition movement in the US.
The voices of the Innocent, the voices of Victims and the voices of Law Enforcement are the most persuasive factors in changing public opinion and the views of decision-makers (politicians) and opinion leaders (media). Continuing to shine a spotlight on Abu-Jamal, who has had so much public exposure for so many years, threatens to alienate these three most important partnership groups.
The support of law enforcement officials is essential to achieving abolition in the United States. It is essential to the national abolition strategy of US abolition activists and attorneys, that we cultivate the voices of police, prosecutors and law enforcement experts, to support our call for an end to the death penalty. It was key in New Jersey and in New Mexico, it is fundamental to abolition throughout the US, and it will be a primary focus for 2010 and beyond. We have begun to make real progress with police officers and prosecutors speaking out against the death penalty as a failed policy.
«In a national poll released in 2009, the nation’s police chiefs ranked the death penalty last in their priorities for effective crime reduction. The officers did not believe the death penalty acted as a deterrent to murder, and they rated it as one of most inefficient uses of taxpayer dollars in fighting crime …. “
Death Penalty Information Center, The Death Penalty in 2009: Year End Report, December 18,2009. If the 4th World Congress gives Abu-Jamal and his lawyers the focus and attention proposed by ECPM, the US movement for abolition will be exposed to a serious backlash that will directly damage the delicate alliances we are building with essential groups. As international representatives of the US abolition movement, we cannot agree to the involvement of Abu-Jamal or his lawyers in the World Congress beyond attendance.
For these reasons, providing Abu-Jamal the World Congress stage will require us to consider how to distance our programs in order to protect our vital alliances with our key partners and constituencies. To be effective ad- vocates within the US we must and will continue our strategic approach to abolition with our core allies and our evolving partners. Featuring Mr. Abu-Jamal’s case as ECPM has proposed presents an unacceptably high risk of fracturing a developing but still fragile alliance with vitally important constituencies – constituencies that can either help our movement reach the goal of abolition or severely hinder our progress.
Elizabeth Zitrin (DPF), Renny Cushing and Kate Lowenstein (MVFHR), Speedy Rice (NACDL), Kristin Houle (TCADP), Juan Matos de Juan (PRBA)
21 December 2009

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and founder of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, proposed the complete abolition of capital punishment. Rush’s opposition to capital punishment influenced the passage of a 1794 law that abolished the death penalty in Pennsylvania except for murder in the first degree.

From Find Law:

The Colonial Period
The abolitionist movement is rooted in the writings of European social theorists Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Bentham, and English Quakers John Bellers and John Howard. However, it was a 1767 essay, On Crimes and Punishment, written by Cesare Beccaria, which principally influenced thinking about punishment throughout the world. Beccaria wrote that there was no justification for the state’s taking of a life. The essay gave abolitionists an authoritative voice and renewed energy, one result of which was the abolition of the death penalty in Austria and Tuscany. Scholars in the United States were also affected by Beccaria’s work. The first known attempted reforms of the death penalty in the United States occurred when Thomas Jefferson introduced a bill to revise Virginia’s capital punishment laws, recommending that the death penalty be used only in the case of murder and treason offenses. Jefferson’s bill was defeated by one vote.

Other challenges to early capital punishment laws were based on the idea that the death penalty was not a true deterrent. Dr. Benjamin Rush, founder of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, believed in the brutalization effect and argued that having a death penalty actually increased criminal behavior. Benjamin Franklin and Philadelphia attorney general William Bradford supported Rush. Bradford, who would later become the U. S. attorney general, led Pennsylvania to become the first state to consider degrees of murder based on culpability. In 1794, Pennsylvania repealed the death penalty for all offenses except premeditated murder.

The Dallas Morning News ran an editorial and blog post on Tuesday praising the Texas Democratic Party’s platform position on the death penalty and the need for a moratorium on executions and the creation of a “Capital Punishment Commission” to study the death penalty system, saying “a moratorium and other reforms adopted in the Democrats’ state platform may help prevent a fatal error.”

Usually, the Dallas Morning News endorses the Republican in elections for Texas governor. This year may be different. I would think that if the Dallas Morning News decides to endorse Bill White this Fall, one of the reasons will be that they will expect him and the Democrats in the Legislature to enact the death penalty reforms listed in the TDP platform.

The blog post entitled “Texas Democrats strike right tone on death penalty” written by Assistant Editorial Page Editor Michael Landauer says:

“In its platform adopted last week, the Texas Democratic Party seems to have it right on capital punishment. The party does not go as far as we do. We want to abolish the death penalty in Texas. Democrats want to win elections. I get that. But the plank in the platform on Capital Punishment is a good place to start for lawmakers considering common-sense reforms that people on both sides could agree on”.

The editorial that appeared in the print edition says:

Consider that the courts have gotten it wrong – awfully wrong – in several cases. Men have walked off death row because they were able to show bogus charges, thin evidence, junk forensic work or shaky witnesses. It’s still an open question whether an innocent person has died on the executioner’s gurney.

A list of reforms to help safeguard against that possibility was included in the platform adopted last week by the Texas Democratic Party. Most should make sense even to Texans who support capital punishment but who are troubled by the ghastly thought of taking a life in error.

Thank you to all the Democrats who worked on the 2010 platform as members of the Platform Committee at the State Convention or in an advisory capacity. Special thanks to Tom Blackwell, who was on the chair’s advisory committee on the platform as well as elected to represent SD 16 on the Platform Committee at the convention. He was responsible for adding two new reforms to the capital punishment section this year, the one having to do with the Law of Parties and the line saying “when the imposition of the death penalty is before the Parole Board or the Governor we urge consideration of all reasonably certain scientific or factual evidence that has become known since the trial”.

The Texas Democratic Party first endorsed a moratorium on executions in 2004 after Texas Moratorium Network’s Scott Cobb was elected to the Platform Committee and wrote the language adding a section on death penalty reforms to the platform. At the convention last week, TMN organized a meeting of an anti-death penalty caucus with a special guest speaker who spent 17 years on death row for a crime he did not commit. Juan Melendez, the guest speaker, also was allowed to address the meeting of the TDP Resolutions Committee when they were considering the moratorium issue.

To watch a video of Juan Melendez addressing the Resolutions Committee, click here.

Today, July 1, 2010 Texas executed Michael Perry. He was the 461st person executed in Texas since 1982 and the 222nd person since Rick Perry became governor. He was the 14th person executed in Texas in 2010. 
Convicted killer Michael James Perry was executed Thursday evening for gunning down a nurse at her home north of Houston nine years ago and stealing her car.
Perry, 28, mouthed to relatives and friends watching through a window that he loved them.
“I want to start off to everyone involved in this atrocity, they’re all forgiven by me,” he said in a brief statement from the death chamber gurney.
He lifted his head from the pillow and his voice cracking, cried out: “Mom, I love you.”
“I’m coming home Dad. I’m coming home,” he added. His father died last month.
He never acknowledged relatives of his victim who looked through an adjacent window.
As the drugs took effect, his eyes fluttered and he hiccupped four times. A single tear ran down his right cheek, prompting quiet sobs from his mother and an aunt and friends. The victim’s relatives gasped and motioned to each other.
Nine minutes later, at 6:17 p.m., he was pronounced dead, making him the 14th prisoner executed this year in Texas, the nation’s most active death penalty state.

The Texas Democratic Party held its 2010 State Convention June 25-26 in Corpus Christi and adopted a party platform that endorses a moratorium on executions. The convention was attended by more than 7,000 delegates. The party platform has supported a moratorium in every platform since 2004.

In addition to adopting a moratorium in the platform, the Resolutions Committee of the TDP State Convention also passed a resolution in support of a moratorium. Juan Melendez, an innocent person who was wrongfully convicted and spent 17 years on death row before being exonerated and released, was allowed to address the Resolutions Committee when it was considering the moratorium resolution. The photo at left in this post is of Juan addressing the Resolutions Committee.

Click here to view the entire 2010 Texas Democratic Party Platform.

Below is the language in the platform from the section on capital punishment.

Capital Punishment

When capital punishment is imposed, Texans must be assured that it is fairly administered. Texas Democrats extend our deepest sympathies to all victims of crime and especially to the families of murder victims, and we strongly support their rights. The Texas death penalty system has been severely criticized by religious leaders, appellate courts and major newspapers that have observed that the current system cannot ensure that innocent or undeserving defendants are not sentenced to death. The Dallas Morning News has called for abolition of the death penalty in Texas.

In the modern era, Texas has executed over 400 people, far more than any other state in the nation. The frequency of executions and inadequacies in our criminal justice system increase the likelihood that an innocent person will be executed. The State of Texas may have already executed at least two innocent people, according to major newspaper investigations into the cases of Carlos DeLuna and Cameron Todd Willingham. Another inmate, Ernest Willis, was exonerated and released from Texas Death Row in 2004 after 17 years of wrongful imprisonment.

We condemn Governor Perry’s manipulation of the forensic science commission investigation of the science which led to the execution of a possibly innocent person.

In order to promote public confidence in the fairness of the Texas criminal justice system, Texas Democrats support the establishment of a Texas Capital Punishment Commission to study the Texas death penalty system and a moratorium on executions pending action on the Commission’s findings.

Texas Democrats support the following specific reforms:

• establishing a statewide Office of Public Defenders for Capital Cases to ensure that every person accused of a capital crime has equal access to well-trained trial and appellate attorneys, regardless of income, race or the county of jurisdiction;

• allowing testing of any possibly exculpatory DNA evidence to ensure guilt or innocence before executions are carried out, and allowing testing of DNA evidence after an execution to determine if an innocent person has been executed;

• establishing procedures to determine before a trial takes place whether an accused has mental retardation, in order to be sure that Texas complies with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ban on executions of people with mental retardation;

• banning death sentences and executions for people with mental illness;

• requiring the Board of Pardons and Paroles to meet in person to discuss and vote on every case involving the death sentence;

• restoring the power to the Governor to grant clemency in death penalty cases without a recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Paroles. To restore public confidence in the process, the Board should meet in public and decisions should be made by majority vote;

• when the imposition of the death penalty is before the Parole Board or the Governor we urge consideration of all reasonably certain scientific or factual evidence that has become known since the trial; and

• reforming statutes related to the “Law of Parties,” to make sure individuals who actually commit crimes are the primary focus of prosecution.

Here is a video of Juan Melendez speaking to the Resolutions Committee, followed by the Committee discussing the issue, and ending with several members coming up to Juan to offer him handshakes and hugs. Be sure to watch for the standing ovation given to Juan by the committee after his remarks and before they start discussing the issue. It was a very touching moment.

Juan Melendez said, “I was extremely moved by the response of the Resolutions Committee following my testimony and I would like to thank everyone of the Committee members for voting unanimously for a moratorium resolution. I truly believe that the Texas Democratic party is on the right side of history on this and that it is both a morally and politically sound position to take.”

On Friday at the TDP State Convention, Juan Melendez gave a 30 minute talk about his experience as an innocent person being sentenced to death to a meeting of the “Democrats Against the Death Penalty” caucus. Also speaking were Rep Lon Burnam, Judi Caruso, Jamie Bush who introduced Juan Melendez and Keith Hampton who dropped by to introduce himself to the caucus attendees. Keith is a candidate for judge on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The caucus was founded in 2004 by Scott Cobb of Texas Moratorium Network.

Juan Melendez’s appearance at the TDP State Convention was organized by Texas Moratorium Network and supported by Witness to Innocence, which made it possible for Juan Melendez to fly to Texas for the convention.

Here is a video of Juan talking to a local Corpus Christi news team.

Juan also spent a lot of time at the convention talking to people who came by the booth of Texas Moratorium Network in the exhibition area. In the photo below are Jamie Bush, Scott Cobb, Alison Dieter, Juan Melendez and Judi Caruso – the Texas Moratorium Network/Witness to Innocence team at the convention. Sherri Clausell and Angie Agapetus, two anti-death penalty activists from Houston, also attended the convention.

Link to news coverage of Juan Melendez from KZTV.com in Corpus Christi.

Link to more photos.

Page 94 of 358« First...102030...9293949596...100110120...Last »
%d bloggers like this: