June 18
TEXAS:
Scott Appeals Conviction in Yogurt Shop Case
Austin's infamous yogurt shop murder case was back in court last week,
when an attorney for Michael Scott (the second of 2 men convicted of the
crime) argued before Texas' 3rd Court of Appeals that his client's
conviction should be overturned. At issue (not for the first time) was the
trial court decision allowing prosecutors to introduce into evidence
portions of a "confession" made by nontestifying co-defendant Robert
Springsteen. Scott's appellate attorney Ariel Payan told a three-judge
panel of the 3rd Court that the decision violated Scott's Sixth Amendment
right to confront the witnesses against him - a fundamental right
reaffirmed earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court in an unrelated
case.
In that case, styled Crawford v. Washington, a unanimous court ruled that
"[w]here testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of
reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the
Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation." So Justice Antonin
Scalia wrote in the March 8 opinion, wiping away more than 20 years of
case law that defined various legal exceptions to direct confrontation and
allowed trial judges to determine whether a given piece of evidence was
"reliable" enough to stand on its own. In light of the high court's strong
and plain ruling on the Sixth Amendment's application, Payan is optimistic
about Scott's chances for a new trial. "I feel pretty good with Crawford
out there," he said.
On Dec. 6, 1991, 4 teenage girls - Amy Ayres, Jennifer and Sarah Harbison,
and Eliza Thomas - were found dead inside the I Can't Believe It's Yogurt
shop on Anderson Lane, stripped, bound, gagged, shot, and horribly burned
in a fire that police and prosecutors said was started to cover the crime.
Indictments were not brought until eight years later, after the state
announced it had hard evidence against four men (also teenagers at the
time of the crime). Springsteen was tried, convicted, and sentenced to
death in 2001; Scott was convicted in 2002 and sentenced to life in
prison. A 3rd defendant, Maurice Pierce (who the state contended was the
"mastermind") was indicted by a grand jury, but last year Travis Co.
District Attorney Ronnie Earle dismissed all charges against Pierce,
claiming the state had insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. The
case against the 4th defendant, Forrest Welborn - who prosecutors said
acted as a lookout for the other 3 - was dropped in 1999 after 2 grand
juries failed to indict him.
The state's case against the 4 men was almost entirely circumstantial -
none of the physical evidence found at the scene matches the 4 defendants,
the 4 victims, or any other employees of the yogurt shop.
As a result, prosecutors relied heavily on "confession" statements
Springsteen and Scott each made to Austin police during separate interview
sessions in September 1999. During those interviews, each defendant
incriminated himself and the other as actors in the crime. Although
Springsteen and Scott were tried separately, prosecutors used a similar
strategy during each trial, offering each jury salient portions of the
other defendant's confession, in an effort to corroborate the state's
theory of the crime. However, neither Springsteen nor Scott could be
compelled to testify, and thus face cross-examination, at the other's
trial, since that would have violated their Fifth Amendment rights against
self-incrimination.
In the end - and in each case, over the vociferous objections of the
defense - District Judge Mike Lynch tried to strike a balance, allowing
prosecutors to introduce only portions of the statements in which the
nontestifying defendant incriminated himself (as opposed to the other
defendant). That decision satisfied prosecutors, who continue to argue
that the arrangement legally circumvents the Sixth Amendment's
Confrontation Clause. Still, whether the state stomped on the
constitutional rights of both Springsteen and Scott is at the heart of
each of their appeals.
In May 2003, Springsteen's appellate attorney Mary Kay Sicola argued
before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that even though the state
redacted portions of Scott's confession to omit any reference to
Springsteen, prosecutors still violated the Sixth Amendment by hobbling
Springsteen's ability to test the veracity of Scott's statement. More than
a year later, Springsteen's appeal is still pending before the CCA;
meanwhile, Payan made a similar argument before the 3rd Court last week.
(Because Scott was not sentenced to death, his appeal begins at the
intermediate 3rd Court and not the CCA.) But unlike Sicola, Payan was
armed with Crawford.
According to Travis Co. prosecutors, Crawford does not apply to Scott's
(or Springsteen's) case since the redacted portions do not make mention of
the defendant on trial. According to Bryan Case, head of the DA's
appellate division, the introduction of Springsteen's confession during
Scott's trial did not trigger the Confrontation Clause because it was not
used "against" Scott per se. But the Sixth Amendment does not hinge on who
or what a "witness" mentions, Payan argues. "The ability to cross-examine
a statement and the person who is making the statement" is all that
matters, he says, because it is through confrontation that "you uncover
and examine inconsistencies, or the underlying motivations" for making the
statement. If the state's position is valid, he said, then the doors are
open for prosecutors to conjure a plethora of innovative ways to introduce
evidence "that won't trigger the 'against' language" of the Constitution.
Payan later told the Chronicle it was obvious that Chief Justice Kenneth
Law and Justices Jan Patterson and David Puryear had carefully reviewed
the Crawford decision (and the voluminous Scott case file). "They asked
smart and probative questions." Indeed, the court allowed each side extra
time to argue the case - an hour of the court's time, as opposed to the
standard 40 minutes - which is a clear indication that the court is taking
the case seriously, sources say. Even if the court determines that the
state violated the Constitution in allowing the redacted confession into
evidence, the justices still must determine whether that action actually
harmed Scott - whether that error alone was egregious enough that it
likely affected the outcome of the trial. The court's decision is expected
later this year.
(source: Austin Chronicle)
MARYLAND:
Press Statement
For Immediate Release: Contact: Edward Jackson (202) 544-0200 x302
Gov. Ehrlich Ignores the Facts on Death Penalty in Maryland Amnesty
International Calls on Governor to End Executions and to Reinstate
Moratorium
Sue Gunawardena-Vaughn, Director of Amnesty International USA's Program to
Abolish the Death Penalty, released the following statement regarding the
execution of Steven Oken in Maryland:
"Amnesty International and its worldwide membership extend our deepest
sympathies to the families of the victims of this crime. However, Governor
Ehrlich, in his rush to execute Steven Oken, seems to be ignoring evidence
demonstrating clear racial and geographic bias in Maryland's irretrievably
broken death penalty system.
Governor Ehrlich is well aware of the January 2003 study conducted by the
University of Maryland researchers that demonstrates racial and geographic
bias in the death penalty. Furthermore, ten people have been taken off of
death row in Maryland in the last three and one half years due to
appellate decisions granting prisoners new trials, DNA evidence, and new
sentencing because of legal flaws in the initial proceedings.
Regardless, none of these considerations seem to have impacted Gov.
Ehrlich's decision to carry out Maryland's first state-sanctioned
execution since 1998. By proceeding with this execution, the governor has
failed in his responsibility to equally and fairly apply Maryland's laws
to all of its citizens. Governor Ehrlich has a moral obligation to
reinstate Maryland's moratorium on the broken and arbitrary death penalty
system and to immediately establish the Maryland Commission on Capital
Punishment."
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without
exception as it is the ultimate denial of human rights, and we will
continue to demand unconditionally its worldwide abolition.
(source: Amnesty International USA)
