MARCH 2005 EXECUTION ALERT
This alert will be mailed in two parts this month. * indicates alert is forthcoming. Scheduled Executions: March 1: Stephen Mobley (GA): http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 05 March 8: George Hopper (TX) http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 08 March 8: William Henry Smith (OH): http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 02 * March 10: Alexander Martinez (TX): March 10: Donald Ray Wallace (IN): http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 10 March 11: William Powell (NC): http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 11 March 15: Jimmy Ray Slaughter (OK): http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 13 *March 15: Christopher Davis (TN): March 16: Pablo Melendez (TX): http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 14 March 16: Stanley Hall (MO): http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 15 *March 23: Steven Staley (TX): GEORGIA Stephen Mobley March 1, 2005 Take Action at: http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 05 Stephen Mobley, a 35-year old white male, is scheduled to be executed by the State of Georgia on March 1 for the 1991 murder of John Collins in Hall County. Mobley's first trial resulted in a mistrial; his second trial resulted in a serious error during the punishment phase. In the punishment phase of Mobley's second trial, Georgia Superior Court Judge Andrew Fuller was brought to testify for the prosecution on Mobley's character. Among other things, Fuller commented on Mobley's lack of remorse and the financial cost of his trial to taxpayers. "I've handled many cases with heinous facts of a killing, but I have never, never seen a defendant like Mr. Mobley," Judge Fuller said. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that, while these comments were inappropriate, they did not rise to the level of constitutional error. However, at least one Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court dissented in the affirming of Mobley's death sentence. In his strongly-worded dissent, Justice Hunstein noted, "[His testimony] constituted a recital in testimonial form of the essence of the State's closing argument, replete with the imprimatur of the judicial branch." Justice Hunstein wrote that a jury should not be exposed to the fundamentally unfair testimony of Judge Fuller and that such testimony should reverse the death sentence of Stephen Mobley. Mobley was scheduled to be executed in August 2002, but his execution was delayed by a federal appeals court to allow for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on anther case involving the rules for when defendants are permitted to bring new evidence before a judge. Mobley's case is remarkable for the fact that so many courts have chosen to completely overlook the constitutional error in his case and instead focus on the egregious nature of the crime. All defendants, no matter the crime, should receive a fair trial with lawyers and judges working to ensure a fair result. Please contact the State of Georgia and ask for further review and a reversal of Mobley's death sentence. TEXAS George Hopper March 8, 2005 Take Action at: http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 08 The state of Texas is scheduled to execute George Hopper Jr. March 8 for the 1983 murder of Rozanne Gailiunas. Joy Davis Aylor hired Hopper through a series of middle men to kill Gailiunas who was said to be having an affair with her husband. Aylor fled to France for several years before French officials agreed to extradite her on the condition that prosecutors promise not to seek the death penalty. Aylor, who was able to hire a high profile defense attorney to represent her, received a prison term rather than the death penalty. According to court records, at trial Hopper focused on the fact that he was not permitted to have a lawyer present during all of the periods where he was being questioned. He argued this rendered his confession inadmissible. After the trial, it was revealed that the lead police investigator and key witness against Hopper, Captain Morris McGowan, signed a book deal for $109,000 for helping author Carlton Stowess write a book entitled Open Secrets about the events leading up to the trial. McGowan said he didn't tell prosecutors about the deal in part because "the district attorney's office wouldn't approve of it." Subsequently, the defense was not aware of McGowan's monetary gain for his involvement in the case until after the trial. McGowan was never questioned about his motivations at trial. He also acknowledged some inconsistencies between Hopper's police statement and evidence found at the crime scene. Please take a moment to write the state of Texas requesting that Hopper's sentence be commuted to a prison term. OHIO William Henry Smith March 8, 2005 Take Action at: http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 02 The state of Ohio is set to execute William H. Smith, a 47 year old African American man on March 8 for the 1987 rape and murder of Mary Virginia Bradford in Hamilton County. On the evening of Sept. 26, 1987, Ms. Bradford went to a bar near her apartment in Cincinnati. Two days later, her boyfriend found her dead in her home of apparent stab wounds. Police tracked the murder to Smith, who met Ms. Bradford at the bar on the night of the 26th. Smith admitted that he drove Ms. Bradford home, returning later to retrieve some drugs he accidentally left in her possession. When he inquired of Ms. Bradford where he could find the cocaine he left in her apartment, she stated that her boyfriend took it. Angry at the idea of losing several thousand dollars worth of drugs, Smith lashed out at Ms. Bradford. He was convicted in October of 1987 for her murder and rape and sentenced to death. Smith experienced what court psychiatrist Dr. Schmidtgoessling characterized as a "bizarre" childhood. His mother had a history of mental illness, and she and his step-father abused Smith and his siblings. As a child, Smith lived in foster care and spent several years at a state mental facility where he was diagnosed with an emotionally unstable personality and borderline intellectual functioning levels. Smith was given antipsychotic drugs and electric shock therapy as treatment. His deviant lifestyle continued into his teens; Smith began smoking marijuana at age 11 and started drinking alcohol at age 15. His IQ has been tested at 78, and he has organic brain damage, a fact not known at his original trial. One of the biggest concerns in this case is the lack of a defense psychiatry expert at Smith's trial. In October of 2003, Smith's request for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by a 2-1 vote by the U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. Appeals Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., in his dissenting opinion, voiced his concern that if Smith had the mental health expert to which he was legally entitled, his sentence would not have resulted in death. Previous courts have decided that the defense is entitled to a psychiatric expert in cases of questionable mental health. However, Smith's trial included testimony by Dr. Schmidtgoessling, who functioned as a "friend of the court." This had serious legal consequences for Smith's case. Because Dr. Schmidtgoessling was not acting as an advocate for Smith, her evaluation did not look for mitigating factors to spare his life during the sentencing portion of the trial. Judge Cole noted that defendants like Smith are entitled access to a competent psychiatric expert who will assist in the evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense. By her own accord, Dr. Schmidtgoessling acknowledged that she did not do this. Judge Cole concludes that had Smith been given a defense rather than neutral expert, there would have been sufficient mitigating evidence presented to spare his life. Smith was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial. His trial attorneys and the court system failed him in not securing a defense psychiatric expert to attest to his horrific childhood and mental illness. During his 17 years on death row, Smith has been a model prisoner and continues to suffer from his mental illness and brain damage. The state of Ohio must not execute this man. INDIANA Donald Ray Wallace March 10, 2005 Take Action at: http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 10 The state of Indiana is scheduled to execute Donald Ray Wallace March 10 for the murders of Patrick, Teresa, Lisa, and Gregory Gilligan in 1980 in Vigo County. He killed the family after burglarizing their home unaware that the family was in the house. At the sentencing phase of Wallace's trial, the judge found there were 3 aggravating factors that made Wallace eligible for the death penalty. First, Wallace had committed the murders while he was burglarizing the Gilligan home. Second, Wallace had committed multiple murders. Third, Wallace, then 22, had committed the murders while on parole from a prior felony unrelated to the Gilligan case. But in the years since Wallace was convicted of the murders, that felony conviction was overturned, along with a second felony conviction on Wallace's record. The state of Indiana is required to weigh the aggravating factors against any mitigating ones in order to determine whether the death sentence should be given. On appeal, Wallace's attorneys requested his death sentence be overturned because it was not determined through the weighing of accurate aggravating factors. At least two circuit judges dissented from the denial of Wallace's petition for a rehearing. There is reason to believe that Wallace was not able to assist his counsel at trial in his own defense due, at least in part, to his mental state and difficult childhood. The defense attorney at trial did not inform the jury of the defendant's difficult childhood. Court records indicate Wallace was not cooperative in helping his attorney in gathering mitigating evidence. Wallace told the state judge that his counsel "did in fact approach me and try to develop all these sources that they are prepared to present and uh - which at the time I forbid them to do that, I repeatedly forbidden it. Finally he acceded to my wishes." Wallace was confined to a mental hospital for nearly two years and declared incompetent for trial after the crimes were committed. Then, a state judge found Wallace competent, concluding Wallace was faking incompetence. Therefore, he was permitted to make major decisions about his defense. State records show Wallace suffered extreme emotional disturbance from a very young age and a experienced a loveless and insecure childhood. His teenage parents divorced when he was four and his mother left him in the care of his father who did not seem to love or parent him. His mother eventually left town. At one point in Wallace's youth he recalls playing with his grandfather's gun until his grandmother instructed his grandfather to take it from him. Wallace's grandfather took the gun from him and drove away committing suicide immediately afterward. By age 11, Wallace was living at the Evansville Psychiatric Children's Center. It was the first of a handful of institutions in which he would live for the next ten years. At the age of 14, Wallace was sent to a medium-maximum juvenile security prison where he says he learned to become a criminal and to exhibit violence in order to gain respect from others. Wallace, who has spent more than 23 years on death row, maintains he is reformed and is not the same young man he was when he entered prison. Likewise, his attorney is convinced of his reform. Since entering death row, he has reinvented himself through "thousands of days and nights" in deep self-examination and devoted study of religion and philosophy. He has taught himself Greek, Arabic, and Latin studied Buddhism and other religions and says he has become a man of peace. Even after 23 years of going through the trial and appeals process, Wallace has yet to have a jury weigh his accurate and complete aggravating and mitigating factors in order to determine whether a death sentence is appropriate. Furthermore, the man whom Indiana is now trying to execute is very different from the young man who committed the crimes. Please take a moment to write Governor Mitch Daniels asking that he commute Wallace's sentence. NORTH CAROLINA William Powell March 11, 2005 Take Action at: http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 11 The state of North Carolina is scheduled to execute William Dillard Powell on March 11, 2005 for the 1991 murder of Mary Gladden in Cleveland County. While under the influence of cocaine, Powell entered a convenience store with the intent of robbing the store. He was unarmed when he entered the store and maintains he did not plan to harm anyone. When Gladden attempted to impede the robbery Powell picked up a heavy tool from behind the counter and used it to beat her to death. Powell's life had been taken over by his addictions to cocaine and alcohol, leaving him unable to hold a steady job to support himself. It also caused him to suffer from brain dysfunctions that impaired his memory, problem-solving skills, and motor skills. His condition worsened when he was under the influence of cocaine or alcohol, as he was when the murder of Gladden occurred. Before becoming addicted to cocaine, he was the sole caretaker for his son who was profoundly retarded and autistic. He was very involved in his son's care and development and even served on the advisory council for the Parent Teacher Organization at his son's school. Powell also served in the U.S. Army, was a member of the Shelby Fire Department, and volunteered with the rescue squad. Powell's defense argued that his trial was unfair for several reasons. The defense was not entitled to individual voir dire during jury selection. Voir dire allows either attorney to challenge a perspective juror if he or she says or expresses a bias against the attorney's case. The judge determined this was justified because he wanted to avoid the alleged domino effect of group voir dire, whereby one juror learns which answers will help him/her avoid jury duty. However, the defense maintained they should have been allowed the privilege of voir dire. The jurors were not given peremptory instructions on mitigating circumstances in the penalty phase of the trial, which the defense feels should have occurred. The defense also argues that the confession Powell made after his Miranda waiver was destroyed should not have been admissible. The defense was also prohibited from alerting the jurors of some important statutory mitigating circumstances. For instance, the defense could not tell the jurors that Powell had no significant history of prior criminal activity. The defense was not allowed to tell jurors that he had been a model prisoner while incarcerated. Lastly, the defense contends the prosecution belittled the sentencing process when they informed the jurors to focus on the crime instead of the mitigating evidence. Please take a moment to urge Governor Easley to stop the execution of William Dillard Powell! OKLAHOMA Jimmy Ray Slaughter March 15, 2005 Take Action at: http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 13 The state of Oklahoma is scheduled to execute Jimmie Ray Slaughter, a white man, March 15 for the 1994 murder of Melody Wuertz and his 11-month-old daughter Jessica Wuertz in Oklahoma County. Post-conviction developments now undermine the key evidence which was presented at trial. Slaughter maintains his innocence. He was convicted largely on what now consists of circumstantial evidence, and the testimony of prison informants and unreliable eye witness testimony. Dennis Dill, a retired Edmond police office and initial lead investigator on the case,also concedes Slaughter may be innocent. He reportedly stated if the state were to carry out the execution, they will be killing an innocent man. "If they do this, they might just as well take him out and lynch him" Dill stated. He contends he was taken off the case because he didn't feel the investigation was being conducted properly and that police had wrongly focused on Slaughter to the exclusion of other suspects. An FBI scientist testified the manner the murder was carried out suggested the crime was an act of domestic violence. There was another suspect who had both a sexual history with the victim and a history of domestic violence. His alibi was shown to be false and he disappeared a few days after the crime. This lead was not further investigated. The physical evidence which may have pointed to Slaughter at trial has since been refuted or called into question. During the trial, the prosecution argued that a hair found at the crime scene belonged to Vicki Mosley. However, DNA testing of the hair conducted by Mitotyping Techonologies, an independent lab hired by the defense, has shown it did not belong to her. The state appeals court did not allow this new DNA evidence to be added to Slaughter's latest appeal because the deadline had passed. Similarly, the technology used to establish that the bullets located at the crime scene came from the same batch found in Slaughter's possession is now unreliable. The state used a process known as Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis to determine the origin of the bullet. Experts have called this type of analysis into question citing it as unreliable. Slaughter also presented an alibi at his trial. He was stationed in Fort Riley, Kansas in the U.S. Army Reserve approximately a four hour drive from Edmond Oklahoma. Slaughter's ex-wife, Nicki Bonner and her two daughters testified he was with them all day. A salesperson at a nearby shopping mall recalled seeing Slaughter buy a T-shirt. A receipt verified the purchase. Slaughter's attorneys are arguing that a new science called "brain fingerprinting " proves Slaughter is innocent. This technology, while still in an experimental phase, shows Slaughter has no memory of vital information the person responsible for the murders would know. The death penalty is always an inappropriate response to violence. However, it is particularly disturbing when "evidence" against a defendant is highly disputable and unclear. Please contact the state of Oklahoma requesting a halt the Jimmy Ray Slaughter's execution. TEXAS Pablo Melendez March 16, 2005 Take Action at: http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 14 The state of Texas is scheduled to execute Pablo Melendez, for the Sept 1, 1994 murder of Michael Sanders, a white man in Tarrant County. Melendez was convicted of shooting Sanders during a robbery which also resulted in the injury of survivor Tommy Seagraves. Melendez was 18 years old at the time the crime was committed. Melendez's case is alarming because he has a strong innocence claim. His case is surrounded by evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, conflicting witnesses, and undeniable facts which point to his innocence. Perhaps most compelling, is the fact that Gracie Jett, mother of victim Michael Sanders, is convinced that Melendez did not murder her son. Melendez was a member of a gang called "La Loma," or "The Hill." On the night of the shootings, Melendez was drunk and had been sniffing paint. He said he did not remember the details of the evening or whether or not he shot the victims but that other members of the gang who were present at the time of the crime told him he was at fault. Melendez was the only member of the gang not related by blood or marriage. However, ten days after the murder, Tommy Seagraves gave authorities a description of the man he said shot him and Sanders. He described a young Latino man with a ponytail, mustache, beard, heavy black eyebrows, and a tattoo on his right shoulder. Melendez's probation photo which was taken five days before the shooting showed a hairless face, light brown eyebrows, and short hair which was not in a ponytail. Supporters avidly maintain that due to Melendez's youth, he was not able to grow facial hair. At the time of his probation photo and nine months later, when Melendez was arrested for the murder of Sanders, no tattoo was described on his shoulder. There were other witnesses who gave accounts of a man fitting the same description running from the scene of the crime on the night of the murder. The witnesses gave their accounts to Jett and Mickey Ross, Seagraves' sister who notified the prosecution. Ross claims she went back to the scene of the crime in Feb. 2001 to speak with the prosecution's witness Susie Carrillo. When shown a picture of Melendez, Carrillo said Melendez was not the man she saw running from the scene of the crime. Supporters of Melendez, including Sander's family members, maintain Carrillo said she testified against Melendez at the trial due to pressure she received from the prosecution. She noted she was distraught at the time because her son had recently been killed in prison. Melendez was originally arrested when a member of the gang, John Ayala, was offered a plea bargain in exchange for testimony against Melendez. Ayala is related to the man Gracie Jett believes killed her son. This suspect perfectly matches the description given by Seagraves including a tattoo on his right shoulder. For reasons unknown, Melendez's trial attorneys did not show the jury the probation photo of Melendez showing his hairless face and lack of ponytail until after the verdict had been reached - at the sentencing phase of trial. Little direct discussion of the probation photo appears in the trial record. The trial court attorneys did not fully capitalize on the fact that another gang member closely resembled a composite sketch of the suspect and that a photo of Melendez taken days before the incident reflected an 18 year old who did not resemble the sketch. Melendez's direct appeals attorney focused on yet another witness, Jeffrey Jackson, who had a business near the scene of the crime. Jett talked with Jackson who said he would testify to conversing with several Mexican American men near the victim's truck. Jett informed the prosecution of the witness. The prosecution in turn never gave this information to the defense. The defense did not find out about Jackson until after the trail. At that time, the defense met with the witness and he agreed to testify. However when Jackson was later served with a subpoena he stated that he intended to ignore it. Jackson later changed his story including the timing of when events took place. Furthermore, as admitted by a U.S. District Court in 2003, Melendez did not confess to the murders and there is no physical evidence connecting him to the crime. He has been sentenced to death based largely on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of gang members who were related the man many think actually committed the murder. Like many people on death row, Melendez suffered a difficult childhood. He was involved in various crimes including drinking and sniffing paint early in his young life. As a young teen he was treated for substance abuse. His sister reported that their father unjustly claimed Melendez was not his son. He is said to have abused Melendez, including picking him up and drop kicking him when he was three or four years of age. Twice during Melendez's trial, prosecutors sited an early conviction as evidence of Melendez' s potential future threat to society. The incident involved Melendez's younger half sister and was said to have occurred when Melendez was eleven years old. Melendez and supporters maintain his stepmother falsely told police of this violence against her daughter in an effort to get Melendez out of the home. There is a disturbing amount of evidence pointing to Melendez's innocence. The state of Texas will be committing a devastating and irreversible miscarriage of justice should they execute this young man. Please take a moment to write the Governor and the Board of Pardons and Paroles requesting commutation or at minimum, clemency for Melendez. This execution cannot be carried out in our names. MISSOURI Stanley Hall March 16, 2005 Take Action at: http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4 15 On March 16, 2005 the State of Missouri is scheduled to execute Stanley L. Hall, a 37-year-old black male, for the murder, kidnapping, and robbery of Barbara Jo Wood in St. Louis. This will be the first execution in the State of Missouri in almost a year and a half (October, 2003). Missouri Courts have been hesitant to issue death warrants, resulting in an unofficial moratorium on its death penalty. They have overturned approximately half of the considered death sentences in the last two years according to the Associated Press. Despite this, an execution date has been issued for Stanley Hall who, along with Rance Burton (who was not given the death penalty even though he admittedly shot the victim), was responsible for the death of Barbara Jo Wood. Hall was tried by an all-white jury that excluded any prospective jurors who oppose the death penalty. There are circumstances that have prompted Hall to file motions regarding his ineffective defense counsel. So far all have been denied. Examples of these issues are: * During Hall's trial, prosecution showed numerous gruesome photographs of the body believed to be the victim of this crime. Such photos are admissible unless the probative value is outweighed by the inflammatory nature of the photographs or if they are used solely for arousal of the jury. Since identification of the body of the victim was not an issue at trial, these photographs were arguably used solely for shock value and had no probative value. Unfortunately, this objection was not raised by the defense during trial. * Remarks made by prosecution were deemed to be "personalization" (i.e., instilling fear in the jurors by personalizing the evidence). Prosecutors called on the jurors to protect their mothers, daughters, and sisters and make sure Stanley Hall was brought down. In a later stage of appeal defense lawyers argued that prosecutors "crossed the line" by "calling on the jurors' most primitive fears." Again, this point was not raised by defense counsel at trial or upon direct appeal. * The Defendant entered into a plea bargain with the state for a sentence of life without parole. The Courts aren't forced to accept the terms of a plea bargain negotiated by the State, but "if the state receives a confession through promises of leniency, however, and then the State reneges, that confession cannot be used at trial." Prosecutors managed its way around this rule by having the Defendant give his confession on two occasions and linked only one to the plea bargain. They then only submitted the other confession at trial as evidence. Defense counsel neglected to raise any issue of the confession and polygraph test that were given as a condition of the plea bargain until the mitigating stage of the sentencing phase. Since this evidence was not relevant to the defendant's character or previous history, it was not allowed at this point in the trial and consequentially the jury was never made aware of the issue. * Finally, in the sentencing phase the prosecutor related a story of his childhood dog that had problems with "distemper" and the vet told him he'd have to put the dog down because that was the only solution. As a little boy he was very sad that there was no other solution, but he explained that people had to do what was best for society and the people around them. The prosecutor then compared this dog to the defendant. The Courts frowned on this tactic used by prosecution but overruled the defense's objection. The governor of Missouri receives a non-binding recommendation from the Board of Probation and Parole for clemency/commutations (source: Sarah Wisely, Communications Assistant, National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty --- 202-543-9577 ext. 14)
