March 3
TEXAS----female, foreign national is spared death sentence
Woman sentenced to life in prison for slaying
Asel Abdygapparova, a 30-year-old citizen of Kazakhstan, was sentenced
today to life in prison for the 2001 slaying of Rosa Rosado.
Abdygapparova could have received the death penalty, but jurors in the
175th District Court opted for a life sentence.
The same jury last week convicted Abdygapparova of participating in the
killing of the 37-year-old single mother from San Antonio.
Rosado was kidnapped from a bus stop March 31, 2001, and taken to a West
Side motel where she was repeatedly raped and strangled.
Abdygapparova is the third defendant to be found guilty of capital murder
in Rosado's death.
2 men, Ramon Hernandez and Santos Minjares, also were also convicted and
are now on death row.
(source: San Antonio Express-News)
***************************
Analysis: Texas sentencing under review
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling against the execution of teenage killers
will force Texas to review the cases of 28 death-row inmates and possibly
push the Legislature to make a long-sought-after change in sentencing.
Gov. Rick Perry immediately ordered the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
to review the cases of inmates who were under 18 when they committed
murder. He has no authority to commute sentences without a recommendation
from the board.
The board is most likely to recommend straight life sentences for the
affected inmates, and do it in a timely fashion since the high court left
little discretion. Texas has no life sentence without the possibility of
parole, so that is not an option.
State Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, and others have pressed for a
change in the law to allow life sentences without parole for years, and
that campaign may take on new life in the wake of the high court's ruling.
In a 5-4 decision the high court ruled the execution of those who were
under 18 at the time of their crimes is cruel and unusual punishment. The
majority said that juveniles are less developed and more impetuous than
adults.
Attention focused on Texas, which leads the nation in executions with 338.
Since 1972 the state has executed 13 killers who were under 18 at the time
of their crimes.
Texas has not executed any teenage killers since the Supreme Court
indicated it would to take up the issue, Perry said. The pace of Texas
executions overall has slowed since the court banned the execution of
mentally retarded killers in 2002.
Although support for the death penalty remains strong in Texas, some
legislators are working to reform the state's judicial system to correct
mistakes in the processing of evidence and prevent the conviction of
innocent persons.
One of the lawmakers, Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, applauded the
decision.
"I support the death penalty, but I think we should implement it a little
more fairly, and a little less indiscriminately," he said. "I've always
felt that if someone isn't considered mature enough to vote, they
shouldn't be considered mature enough to be put to death."
Several bills are also pending in the Legislature that would bar execution
of those under 18. Texas is one of only 20 states that permit the practice
outlawed by the nation's highest court. Perry said he would sign a bill if
it was in line with the court's decision.
"Regardless of what the Legislature does, however, Texas will abide by the
court's ruling," the governor said.
The Board of Pardons and Paroles is expected to review the 28 cases as
soon as possible, but in the meantime the inmates will remain on death
row, said Mike Viesca, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice.
In Texas the governor can only issue a one-time, 30-day stay to halt an
execution to allow for time for court appeals or other reasons. He has to
have a recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Paroles to commute a
sentence to life.
Andrea Keilen, deputy director of the Texas Defender Service, said the
board is likely to recommend life in prison since the state has no
provision for life without parole. Some prosecutors have suggested that
could lead to parole for inmates who were once sentenced to death as
teenagers.
In Texas offenders sentenced to life in prison are considered for parole
after 40 years, but that is not mandatory. The board determines who is
released on parole, and most legal observers believe that is unlikely.
"Parole is possible although those decisions are made by Texas Board of
Pardons and Paroles, which is notoriously tough in granting parole in
these types of cases," said Keilen. "So while some of them might be
eligible parole at some date in the future, that parole is not mandatory
and would be subject to the board's discretion."
The issue of parole in Texas will depend on when they were sentenced. In
1989 a lifer was eligible for parole after 15 years in prison, but now
that threshold is 40 years. The board would apply the rule in place at the
time the sentence was imposed.
"It's quite infrequent for persons whose sentences are commuted from death
to life to actually receive parole when they are eligible," said Jordan
Steiker, a professor of law at the University of Texas and a death-penalty
expert.
The most likely scenario is that they would serve out their life
sentences, but there might be a case where an inmate has been "a model
inmate" for many years and might get consideration for parole from the
board, he said.
Keilen, whose agency represents death-row inmates on appeals, said the
board would probably move quickly to review the cases.
"There is no room for discretion on these cases whatsoever," she said.
"The Supreme Court has given Texas and all the other states a very clear
mandate and we would expect that Texas will comply in a timely fashion."
Lucio, the longtime advocate for life-without-parole sentencing, said the
ruling on juvenile sentencing demonstrates the need for Texas juries and
sentences to have an alternative to the straight life sentence.
While it is extremely rare for a killer serving a life sentence to be
paroled, Lucio said, Texas needs a life-without-parole option to ensure
dangerous criminals are not allowed back on the streets.
(source: United Press International)
****************************
Ruling is a 'relief,' but inmates not celebrating----Harris County killers
spared by Supreme Court action ponder new sentences
Locked away on Texas' death row for more than a decade, Raul Villarreal
knew the meaning of good days and bad. The good days came when appeals
were filed to free him from the death sentence he received for the 1993
rape and murder of 2 teenage Houston girls; the bad, when those appeals
met rejection.
The worst day came not long ago when the U.S. Supreme Court turned down
his most recent appeal, thereby clearing the way for him to be put to
death. The best came Tuesday when the same court ruled the execution of
murderers who were minors when they committed their crimes is
unconstitutional.
On Wednesday, Villarreal, 29, still was struggling to digest the meaning
of the ruling, which has spared him and 27 other Texas death row inmates
from the executioner's needle. Eleven of those inmates are from Harris
County.
"In a way," he said after a thoughtful sigh, "it's a big relief. But I
didn't act like I was celebrating. It's bittersweet. There are still a lot
of guys left behind facing execution."
Villarreal, who was 17 when he and a group of other youths fatally
attacked Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pea, 16, said he has spent
recent days coming to grips with the probability that he would be
executed. The high court had stayed his scheduled June 24 execution
pending a decision in the case resolved Tuesday.
"My main worries concerned my family," he said of his mother, Louisa
Villarreal, and his four siblings. "They're the ones who would be left
behind. I tried to take things one day at a time. I've worked at accepting
my responsibilities for the actions that brought me here. It's helped me
accept my fate."
Similar thoughts of life, death and the long prison sentences they now
likely will have to serve have occupied other Harris County killers spared
by the ruling.
Johnnie Bernal, 28, who claims he is innocent of the August 1994 killing
of Lee Dilley at a Houston ice house, has been on death row since July
1995. He thinks Tuesday's ruling is "a step in the right direction."
Villarreal and Bernal were caught up in a spike in juvenile crime in the
late 1980s and early 1990s that resulted in an unprecedented number of
young offenders on death row. And because those crimes were concentrated
in gang-heavy urban centers, the bulk of those offenders were minorities.
Of the 28 "juvenile" offenders on Texas' death row, 21 were black,
Hispanic or Asian; 9 of 13 such offenders executed since 1982 were
minorities.
Perry wants cases reviewed
In the wake of Tuesday's ruling, Gov. Rick Perry has directed the Texas
Board of Pardons and Paroles to review the 28 cases and recommend
appropriate action. It is likely that many will receive life sentences,
requiring that they serve 40 years in prison before becoming eligible for
consideration for parole.
Bernal has appeals pending and is optimistic he ultimately will be cleared
of the crime and freed from prison. But he acknowledged that a long
sentence would be daunting.
"Watching your loved ones passing away and not being able to be there
would be heartbreaking," he said. A long prison sentence would also be a
continuation of a near-decade behind bars that he said has been filled
with remorse.
"Every time I pray, I include the Dilley family," he said. "A life's been
lost, lives have been destroyed and crushed. Every year I've been in here
the depth of my feeling for his family has grown."
Life on death row, he said, has not been easy.
"I've seen friends almost every other day going to their last Mass,"
Bernal said. "I've been around. All you could do is prepare yourself
mentally and spiritually. ... The more I've thought of the thing, the more
at peace with God I've become. I'm not afraid, but I feel sorrow."
"They treat you like you are already dead," added Robert Acuna, 19, who
has been on death row about 6 months for the 2003 killing of his Baytown
neighbors, James Carroll, 75, and his wife, Joyce, 74. "They are as
life-draining as they legally can be. They keep you out of society. There
is no contact visitation, no watching the news on TV, no contact with
other inmates. They don't go by names, you have a number. They make you
feel unimportant."
Acuna said his trial and incarceration often have seemed unreal.
"I've seen all this stuff on TV," he said. "But then I realize there's no
TV screen."
Only when Tyler murderer Donald Aldrich was executed shortly after Acuna's
arrival last fall did the young killer recognize the seriousness of his
situation.
"They took him away and I knew I wasn't going to see him again," Acuna
said.
Acuna, too, insisted he is innocent, and expressed confidence he will be
cleared.
"40 years in prison is a long time," he said. "But if I'm alive, I can't
complain."
Hoping to help others
Acuna and Bernal said they would like to work to end the death penalty.
"I can't see myself in prison just wasting time," Villarreal said of his
expected future. "I would like to use my experience to help others. Maybe
in a youth program or something."
Villarreal said he is deeply remorseful for his crime, and he is aware
that the Supreme Court ruling sparing his life angers his victims'
families.
"If the shoe were on the other foot," he said. "If my children were dead
... I would feel the same way."
(source: Houston Chronicle)
*****************************
High court ruling spares Anzel Jones
Anzel Jones, 27 - convicted of capital murder in the 1995 slaying of a
Paris woman - is one of 28 inmates on Texas death row whose death
sentences have been overturned by a 5-4 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court
on Tuesday.
In a Missouri case, the high court agreed that its cruel and unusual
punishment to execute anyone who was under 18 at the time he committed the
crime for which he was sentenced to die.
Jones was 17 when he killed Sherry Kay Jones, 49, and sexually assaulted
her mother before setting their house on fire. Edith Jones, 76, survived
the attack and her testimony at the trial - moved to Sherman because of
news coverage in Paris - helped convict him on May 20, 1996, of capital
murder.
State District Judge Webb Biard of Paris sentenced him on June 4, 1996, to
die by lethal execution.
Jones was scheduled to be put to death last year, but got a stay of
execution on Feb. 25, 2004, because of his age at the time of the attacks.
Former Lamar County Attorney Kerye Ashmore, who prosecuted the trial, has
never hidden his feelings about what Jones fate should be. He said after
last years stay that most Paris residents would be outraged if the
punishment werent carried out.
"This is what I can tell you about Anzel Keon Jones," said Ashmore, who is
now the first assistant district attorney in Grayson County.
"He went into a backyard, took a nearly 50-year-old woman and beat her
with a gun, cut her throat in front of her mother, then sexually assaulted
her mother in every way imaginable, cut her throat, attempted to burn the
house down and fled," Ashmore said.
"He doesn't deserve to be in society ever again. He needs to be executed.
... I dont think the jury had much problem with their decision, and they
knew his age," Ashmore said.
Paris police Lt. Danny Huff was lead investigator in the case.
"We're very, very disappointed the court went that direction. We think
it's a serious mistake," Huff said.
"The jury, listening to everything that he did, said this person should
never, ever, ever get out of prison. If Anzel Jones lives to be in his
60s, hes probably going to be walking the streets again."
At the time of his arrest, Anzel Jones was a 5-11, 165-pound sophomore
athlete at North Lamar High School. He was a receiver and running back on
the football team, and competed in hurdles, sprint relays and high jump
for the track team.
He had never been in serious trouble before the murder. About a year
earlier, he and a friend appeared before a judge in juvenile court for
stealing cigarettes. "We stuffed them down our pants and got caught, Jones
said. He performed the community service that the judge sentenced him to.
Edith Jones testified that she heard her daughter scream and their little
dog barking hysterically. When she rushed to see what was the matter, she
saw her daughter, bloody, and Anzel Jones holding a gun to her head.
He rummaged through kitchen drawers until he found a butcher knife, with
which he repeatedly cut them, the mother said. The women offered him $125
and the keys to both their cars.
Instead, she testified, he locked her in a closet, and she could hear her
daughter screaming again. She managed to open the closet, but was unable
to escape. She said she saw Jones stab her daughter and cut her throat.
Then he turned to the older woman, raping her. After he finished his
sexual attack, he cut her throat, wiped himself off with a towel and left
it there, apparently expecting the fire he set to burn it up, said Skipper
Steely of Paris, who attended the trial and said both women were his
friends.
Jones set the house on fire and left, taking with him several items that
police later found in his room.
A little over a week later, on May 12, 1995, police arrested him at
school. Police had found his fingerprints on a bottle of nail polish that
had been thrown under a chair in the womens house. Its contents had been
poured around the perimeter of the house as fuel to burn it.
Jones pleaded not guilty. His trial attorney, Garland Cardwell of Sherman,
said his client could be charming at one moment and unruly the next. Jones
acted up in the jail and before the judge, Cardwell said.
In court, Jones made gang-sign gestures to friends in the courtroom and
drew pictures of Judge Biard in Ku Klux Klan costumes, his attorney said.
"Every time I looked around, he was doing something I told him not to."
But last year, in an interview from death row, Jones owned up to the
crime.
"I did it," he said.
Jones said from death row last year he was hoping the U.S. Supreme Court
would deliver a ruling that would spare his life.
"It's a relief. It prolongs my death. Everybodys got to die someday, but
Id like to be able to die of natural causes, possibly 50 years from now,
than have to go down on that gurney and strap down and stick a needle in
my arm," he said.
"If I get a chance to grow, I might be able to right some of the wrongs
Ive done. You never know. I might be able to get a chance to talk to Edith
to tell her Im sorry, and apologize to her," he said last year. Edith
Jones had died by then, but he was unaware of it.
(source: Paris News)
***************************
State man may leave death row
A Charleston man convicted of killing 4 teenagers in an Austin, Texas,
yogurt shop may soon be off of Texas' death row.
Robert Burns Springsteen, 30, of Charleston, was convicted in 2001 of
taking part in the killing of the 4 girls in a 1991 murder spree at an
Austin yogurt shop. 4 men were charged originally with the killings, but
charges were dismissed against 2 and a 3rd received a sentence of life in
prison. Springsteen, who maintains his innocence, was the only one
sentenced to death.
A ruling this week by the U.S. Supreme Court may give Springsteen a
reprieve. On Tuesday, a divided high court ruled 5-4 that it was
unconstitutional to execute juvenile killers, or killers who were under 18
at the time they committed their crimes. Nineteen states, including Texas,
allow the execution of juveniles.
Springsteen was 16 at the time of the yogurt shop killings, which took
place in an Austin shopping mall. Springsteen was living in Texas with his
father at the time of the murders, but had moved home to West Virginia and
was living here when arrested for the killings in 1999.
Mary K. Sicola, a Texas attorney who is handling Springsteens appeal, said
the new Supreme Court ruling should result in Springsteens release from
death row. "The governor [of Texas] will eventually commute those
sentences to life in prison," Sicola said Wednesday. In all, the Supreme
Court decision is expected to overturn the death sentences of 72 killers
in the United States convicted before they were 18.
Springsteens friends and family hope Springsteen will eventually be
released from prison altogether. Prosecutors had little physical evidence
to link Springsteen and the other defendants with the yogurt shop killing,
and Springsteen and another defendant were convicted largely on
confessions each gave implicating the other in the murders.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant couldnt be
convicted based on a statement by a co-defendant if the person making the
statement was not available for cross-examination. Texas native Michael
Scott, who implicated Springsteen in the yogurt shop case and who was
sentenced to life in prison for his part in the killings, never testified
in Springsteens trial.
Attorneys for Scott and Springsteen maintain their confessions were
coerced. Last years Supreme Court ruling is a major part of Springsteens
appeal for a new trial before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Tuesdays Supreme Court ruling was encouraging to Springsteens friends and
family.
"This is another step to getting him back home," said Brett Thompson,
Springsteens stepfather, who lives in West Virginia. Thompson hopes
Springsteen may be free within 2 years.
Springsteens wife was more guarded. "I am encouraged," said Robin Moss of
Charleston.
"But, my goodness, the wheels do turn slowly. Meanwhile, the days, the
weeks, the months and the years keep going by."
(source : The Charlson Gazette)
**************************
Death row inmate's mother calls ruling a blessing from God----Opponents of
death penalty praise Supreme Court's decision to spare juveniles
The mother of the last Harris County juvenile sentenced to Texas' death
row said the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to ban the execution of people
younger than 18 would not have been possible without a blessing from God.
Barbara Acuna, mother of death-row inmate Robert Acuna, joined other death
penalty opponents at a news conference Wednesday to offer support for the
court's decision.
"It was a very brave move by the U.S. Supreme Court to do this," Acuna
said.
The court ruled 5-4 that the execution of inmates convicted of murders
committed when they were 17 or younger violates the Eighth Amendment. The
decision spares the lives of about 70 juvenile murderers on death rows
nationwide.
Robert Acuna, 19, of Baytown, was 17 in November 2003, when he killed
neighbor James Carroll, 75, and his wife, Joyce, 74.
He was convicted and sentenced to death last August.
Also at the news conference at the Shape Community Center in Houston's
Third Ward were members of the Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement.
The group's Gloria Rubac said her daughter's fiance was murdered recently,
but she opposes the government responding by executing the killer as
punishment.
"I was looking forward to having lots of grandchildren, and now this man
is dead. I was angry, and I could have, if I had gotten a hold of the
person, done something with my bare hands," she said. "That's a normal
reaction, but our government should not be allowed to react like that."
Deloyd Parker, executive director of the SHAPE Community Center, said the
death penalty must be abolished.
"The question I always ask people is, 'How many innocent people have been
executed to this day?'" he said. "We will never, never know."
Rubac discounted some assertions that teens should be punished like
adults.
"Some of them are horrific (crimes) ... but any of us who raised teenagers
... knows that kids are not as capable as adults at making decisions;
therefore, they shouldn't be held as accountable," Rubac said.
(source: Houston Chronicle)
********************
Clashes over court ruling
It gives confidence to killers
The Supreme Court's ruling that overturned the death penalty for murderers
under 18 years of age is a gross injustice to the victims, their families
and future victims [see March 2 Chronicle Page One article "THE SUPREME
COURT RULING"]. The so-called "experts" say juvenile brains are
undeveloped, but any child by age 12 certainly knows right from wrong.
And what difference does the killer's age make to the victim? The victim
is just as dead!
This ruling will only give juveniles confidence because they know they
won't get the death penalty and this will make them more likely to commit
murders.
There are already enough juvenile gang members, dope dealers, drive-by
shooters and thugs killing others. It's time to thin the herd and improve
the human race.
B. JOHNSON----Pasadena
**
Tough decision, if Christian
A politically and culturally conservative friend and I were discussing the
Supreme Court's decision on death sentences, and I remarked that
interviews with those who had lost loved ones to the crimes committed by
these youths had led me to believe that the motivation for the death
penalty was more vengeance than justice.
My friend asked whether I thought that was wrong or not. I told him that
for Christians, vengeance is supposed to be wrong. My friend said, "Now
you're making it tough for me." We went on to another topic.
F. RUSSELL HOBART----Houston
**
Court's power now 'absolute'
Somewhere in the Constitution, our so-called "conservative" Supreme Court
has found some interesting things: First, it is "cruel and unusual" for a
state to decide whether or not a violent, murderous juvenile deserves
capital punishment.
Next, it is unconstitutional for the government to hold a suspected
terrorist without his constitutional "due process," even though the
Constitution does not apply to that person.
And 3rd, it is perfectly OK for a woman to choose to terminate the life of
a completely innocent fetus.
When did we shift the power of 50 states to the near "absolute power" of
nine appointed justices?
MICHAEL BLAYNEY----Kingwood
**
Give jurors a new option
The Supreme Court's unfortunate split decision puts the onus on our Texas
legislators. Not only do they have to deal with property taxes, children's
health care and a host of other problems, it is now time to offer jurors
the option of a life sentence "with no possibility of parole."
ROY NELSON----League City
**
Success, one blow at a time
I'm not surprised by the Chronicle Editorial Board's endorsement of the
Supreme Court decision on executing those under 18 years of age.
Opponents of the death penalty know they can't hope to abolish the death
penalty in one blow, so the tactic is one piece of it at a time. So far
they have been successful - with the help of organizations such as the
Chronicle, of course.
DANNY BILLINGSLEY----Houston
**
An open door to gang members
A 17-year-old knows the difference between right and wrong. A kid this age
knows that killing someone is not only a criminal offense, but morally
wrong. This Supreme Court ruling just opens the door for gang members to
get in their killing before they turn 18, so that if caught, they will not
have to pay with their life.
MARIE WEYNAND----South Houston
(source: Letters to the Editor, Houston Chronicle)
***************************
Behind Bars for Life: In light of ruling on executions, reconsider
As a matter of principle or a matter of politics, Texas legislators have
steadfastly chosen not to enact a criminal sentence of life in prison
without the possibility of parole. The time has come for that to change.
Three of four Texans favor retaining the death penalty. But the Supreme
Court has steadily - and correctly - narrowed its applicability. As of
Tuesday, states can no longer put to death those who were younger than 18
when they committed their crimes. In 2002, the court outlawed the
execution of criminals who are mentally retarded.
In consequence, Texas will send to prison murderers it cannot,
constitutionally, put to death. If those people are not to eventually
become eligible for parole, the Legislature must create a sentence that
will keep them forever behind bars.
Prosecutors may argue that making such a sentence available will
discourage juries from assessing the death penalty even in cases where it
is constitutional. Too bad. What's far more important is that we never
have a killer turned loose among us because the law said he could not be
sentenced either to death or to life without parole.
The people of Texas clearly understand this. In a recent Texas Poll, 78 %
said criminal penalties should include life without parole. That's not a
suggestion; that's a demand. It's time the Legislature listened.
(source: Editorial, Dallas Morning News)
********************************
Its time jurors had a real choice
Gov. Rick Perry should call a moratorium on the death penalty.
The death penalty, as applied in Texas, needs a lot of work.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court barred states from executing people for
crimes committed when they were juveniles.
That sounds like a sweeping order that applies to all the states.
Actually, most states dont execute juvenile offenders.
Only three states have executed juvenile offenders in the past 10 years.
Texas stands with Oklahoma and Virginia in this practice.
The court found that the national consensus is that such executions were
cruel. The constitution bans cruel and unusual punishment.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out the obvious:
- Many juveniles lack the maturity to understand the implications of their
crimes.
- If youre looking for the point where society traditionally draws the
line between child and adult, its at 18.
- The practice of executing juveniles is widely considered barbarous. In
Kennedys words: "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight
of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in
large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional
imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime."
Most other civilized countries do not execute juvenile offenders. Until
this week, the United States - meaning Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia -
stood with a handful of other civilized societies in holding that
executing juveniles was something that civilized countries ought to do.
Other countries that execute juvenile offenders include Iran, Pakistan,
China and Saudi Arabia.
If this call for a moratorium on the death penalty sounds familiar, we've
said it before - often.
Weve repeated that call every time the Supreme Court has criticized the
Texas judicial system for its handling of capital cases.
In the past few years, the Supreme Court has criticized Texas for failing
to ensure that citizens accused in capital cases were given a fair trial.
It has complained that some states - including Texas - dont take mental
retardation into account in assessing punishment.
The court has asked pointed questions about whether the state allows
racial bias to play a role in deciding who gets sentenced to death.
If the governor called a temporary halt to executions now, while the
Legislature is in session, it might force lawmakers to look at an option
already taken by 46 other states. The Legislature could change the law to
allow juries to consider a sentence of life without parole.
In case after case, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a critical look at
the death penalty, particularly as its applied in Texas.
You'd think at some point, Texas' leaders would finally come up with the
courage to have a look themselves.
Youd think they might ask themselves whether it's finally time to give
jurors in this state a real choice.
(source: The Galveston County Daily News)
**********************
Thomas' condition at time of killings argued P>
The battle going on in Andre Thomas' capital murder trial boils down to a
disagreement about his mental health at the time he brutally killed his
wife, Laura Boren Thomas, their son, Andre Boren, and her daughter, Leyha
Hughes.
Grayson County District Attorney Joe Brown and his staff say Thomas knew
he was doing something wrong when he kicked in Mrs. Thomas' door and drove
a large knife deep into her chest. Thomas also knew it was wrong, Brown
says, when he stabbed and mutilated the 2 children.
Thomas' attorneys, Bobbie Peterson and R.J. Hagood, however, say their
client was insane when he committed those horrible acts and had no idea
about right or wrong.
Tuesday, that battle came down to a duel of mental health experts as
Hagood and Peterson questioned the doctors who have talked with Thomas
about the crimes and his mental health. The defense also questioned a
couple of local people who tried to have Thomas admitted to a mental
health hospital before the killings occurred. One of those people saw
Thomas just 24 hours before he killed his family.
Jurors slumped in their chairs and stared with glazed eyes as they heard
doctors and attorneys go back and forth over the same ground a number of
times.
The state's expert, Dr. David Axelrod, testified that Thomas knew what he
was doing when he killed his wife and the children. Axelrod said a
drug-induced psychosis caused Thomas to lose touch with reality. He said
the drugs at the heart of that psychosis were alcohol, marijuana and
dextromethorphan, a substance found in the over-the-counter medication
called Coricidin.
Hagood, however, wasn't going to let go that easy. He had a chart and a
dozen questions to point out that Thomas' condition matched the classic
definition of mental illness more than it did a drug-induced psychosis.
He compared the findings that Axelrod made about Thomas to the qualities
displayed by one who is diagnosed with schizophrenia. Axelrod had found
that Thomas suffered from hallucinations and delusional thinking and
Hagood pointed out that schizophrenics also suffer from those things.
Surely, Thomas could have been suffering from that disease, Hagood argued.
Axelrod held firm. "If a person has taken a drug that can cause the
resulting hallucination, then you are advised not to diagnose (a condition
like schizophrenia)," Axelrod said.
But, what about the fact that the delusions and hallucinations didn't go
away even after the drugs wore off and Thomas was put on the maximum dose
of anti-psychotic drugs allowed, Hagood asked.
Axelrod said sometimes the effects of the drugs take time to ease.
Further, he said that Thomas had been abusing alcohol and marijuana for
years in massive amounts. He said that sort of abuse could end with a
drug-induced psychosis without the powerful drug dextromethorphan.
That made Hagood question the amount of dextromethorphan, referred to in
court as DXM, found in Thomas' blood when he was arrested. Medical reports
have revealed that Thomas had only "trace" amounts of the drug in his
system when his blood was drawn at the hospital on the evening after the
killings.
Testimony in the trial has shown that Thomas used the drug three times in
the month leading up the killings. One of those times, reportedly, was the
Thursday before he killed his family on Saturday.
Axelrod said Thomas said he was having hallucinations before he started
using the DXM, but the addition of that drug to the constant mix of
marijuana and alcohol would have greatly exaggerated the effect of the
hallucinations.
When it was First Assistant Grayson County Attorney Kerye Ashmore's turn
to question Axelrod, the prosecutor added another drug to the mix by
reminding the doctor, and the jury, about testimony that Thomas had also
smoked "wet" marijuana. "Wet" is marijuana soaked in formaldehyde. Axelrod
said that addition alone would be enough to send Thomas into a
drug-induced psychosis.
After going over the tests that Axelrod used to assess Thomas' condition,
Ashmore asked if a person who were mentally ill could still know right
from wrong.
Axelrod said he thinks a person could suffer from a mental disorder and
still know if his actions were legally or morally wrong. He then agreed
when Ashmore asked if Thomas' statement that he thought "what am I doing"
after he killed his wife was an indication that Thomas could tell right
from wrong.
While Axelrod seemed to make some good points about the connection between
Thomas' drug use and his horrible actions, Peterson and Hagood offered the
jury another side to the story by calling Dr. Jim Harrison to the stand.
Harrison was court appointed to evaluate Thomas' competency in the days
after he pulled out his own right eye. He testified that he thinks the
psychosis from which Thomas suffered didn't stem from his drug use.
Harrison said Thomas likely suffered from schizoaffective disorder. He
said he had to diagnose that disorder rather than schizophrenia because
one has to have 6 months of schizophrenic symptoms before that diagnosis
can be made.
"Now, I would diagnosis him with schizophrenia," Harrison said. He said
Thomas' pattern of hallucinations, delusional thinking and actions fit
that diagnosis best. He said the actions the prosecution points to as
proof of Thomas' ability to tell right from wrong are really just symptoms
of the disease.
For instance, several people testified that Thomas' outbursts or strange
actions in the jail were more exaggerated after he saw mental health
professionals. Harrison said that made sense because the mental health
workers were the only ones who were confronting Thomas about his
delusional thinking. Concentrating on that, Harrison said, made Thomas
dwell on what he had done to his family and that made him fight against
his assumptions about why he committed those horrible acts.
Harrison said Thomas, like other people suffering from a mental disease,
could fall in and out of the delusional state quickly. He could be holding
a rational conversation one minute and then be irrational the next.
Harrison disagreed with Axelrod's contention that marijuana and alcohol
could have caused Thomas' psychosis. Harrison said in the very rare
instances that those drugs do cause psychosis, they did so only in people
who were already predisposed to psychosis. Harrison said the DXM could
have aggravated Thomas' psychosis.
Prosecutors will get their chance to question Harrison on his conclusions
Wednesday. While the two doctors took up a great deal of the day Tuesday,
they weren't the only witnesses who discussed Thomas' mental health.
A nurse from Texoma Medical Center testified about seeing Thomas the day
before he killed his family.
Shirley Whitley said the Thomas case changed the way TMC treats patients
who present with mental health issues. She said Thomas came into the ER
around 7 a.m., and at first, refused to tell her what was wrong with him.
She said he even walked out once before eventually telling her that he
"just needed help."
She said she eventually found out that Thomas had stabbed himself the
night before. She called for a consult from the hospital's behavioral
health counselor. That person examined Thomas and then started working on
paperwork to get him admitted to a local mental health hospital.
Whitley said she left Thomas in the hands of another nurse once he was
examined in the ER, but she did look in on him from time to time. He
refused food or drink until after the counselor had told him that he was
going to be admitted to a hospital. Whitley said Thomas was left alone
while he waited for paperwork to be completed. The nurse in charge of
Thomas was preoccupied with a patient who was in critical condition.
Whitley said she was surprised to hear that Thomas left the hospital
without getting the help that he had sought. She said the hospital staff
called Denison police and told them Thomas had left before the paperwork
to commit him could be completed, but Denison police didn't find him.
"This case changed everything about the way our ER handles anything (like
this). At that time, we didn't have anyone sit right with them. We do
now."
Former Mental Health and Mental Retardation Counselor Jennifer Loyless
testified that she had prepared paperwork to have Thomas admitted to a
local hospital weeks before he walked into TMC, but he never reported to
that hospital. Loyless said Thomas said he would throw himself in front of
a bus if he didn't get help quickly, so she decided that he needed to be
admitted to a local hospital.
She said ethically, the staff at MHMR has to "use loose restrictive means"
if the person who is seeking help says they will provide their own
transportation to the hospital. Thomas had a friend with him who said he
would drive Thomas to the hospital. When Loyless called the hospital later
that day to confirm that Thomas had been sent by MHMR, she learned that he
had never arrived.
She said she took paperwork to the local justice of the peace to have
Thomas committed and walked the emergency detention order to the Sherman
Police Department. She learned a few days later that Sherman police were
not able to locate Thomas and he never got the help she had tried to
provide.
The defense contends the fact that so many people thought Thomas suffered
from a mental illness in the days and weeks before the crime proves that
he was suffering from one when he killed his wife, and her children.
(source: The Herald Democrat)
**************************
Ruling heard loudly in Texas----Nation's Death Rows held 72 young killers;
29 in Lone Star State
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday to strike down executions of
juvenile killers is now the law of the land. But like so many capital
punishment issues, its impact will be felt most in the nation's death
penalty capital, Texas.
Of the 72 juvenile offenders whose sentences will be commuted to life in
prison, 29 were sentenced to death in Texas. Of 22 juvenile killers who
have been executed in the modern era of the death penalty, 13 were put to
death in Texas.
"I think that Texas has always lagged behind when it comes to the evolving
standards of decency in the context of the 8th Amendment," said Jim Marcus
of the Texas Defender Service, which represents indigent Death Row inmates
in the state.
Even after the Supreme Court decided a year ago to consider whether
executing inmates who committed crimes as juveniles violated the
Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, Texas gave little
pause for the high court's deliberations.
Over the last year, Texas officials set execution dates for 5 juveniles,
raising the possibility, though remote, that those inmates could be put to
death only to have the court later rule such executions unlawful.
In the case of Mauro Barraza, who was 17 and on drugs when he bludgeoned
an elderly woman to death with shrubbery shears in 1989, a judge in Ft.
Worth scheduled his execution though Barraza was essentially without an
attorney at the time.
Then the state's highest court refused to grant a stay of execution even
though the U.S. Supreme Court was still considering juvenile executions.
Killer 4 hours from execution
In June, Barraza--on Texas' death row longer than any other juvenile
offender--was 4 hours away from his execution, sitting in a holding cell
near the death chamber, when the U.S. Supreme Court intervened.
"This guy had no lawyer. He was a juvenile offender," Marcus said. "But it
didn't matter. It shows just a total disregard for the issues."
Marcus said the Defender Service found an attorney for Barraza: Scott
Schutte of the Chicago law firm of Jenner & Block, which agreed to take
the case for free.
"I thought that it was a pretty egregious situation," Schutte said
Tuesday. "If the Supreme Court is going to tell you in a year or so
whether it's constitutional [to execute juvenile offenders], why go
forward with it?"
Harris County, where Houston is located, has sent 80 people to the state's
death chamber--more than every other state but Virginia. Officials say
they are just enforcing the law.
Of the juvenile offenders who will be removed from Texas' Death Row, 11
are from Harris County. Of the 13 who already have been executed, three
were from Harris County--more than any other county.
David Dow, a professor at the University of Houston's law center and
director of the Texas Innocence Network, said Harris County "is in a
league of its own when it comes to the pursuit and the implementation of
the death penalty."
Over the last year prosecutors there moved forward seeking death sentences
against juvenile offenders even as the high court considered the issue.
"What Harris County tried to do was beat the Supreme Court to the punch,"
Dow said. "One result is that Harris County has spent millions and
millions of dollars in cases that could have been better spent elsewhere."
Texas sent its most recent offender to Death Row in mid-August, about 6
months after the Supreme Court agreed to decide the issue of juvenile
offender executions and roughly six months before it reached a decision.
Robert Acuna of Harris County was convicted of killing 2 neighbors --
James Carroll, 75, and Carroll's 74-year-old wife, Joyce.
Murderer of 2 was 17
Acuna was 17 in November 2003, when he shot and killed the Carrolls and
took their car. He was arrested at a motel in Dallas less than a week
after the murders, with their car, some of their belongings and a
.38-caliber handgun.
Prosecutors said the fact Acuna's death sentence could be ruled
unconstitutional did not dissuade them from trying to send him to death
row.
Prosecutor Renee Magee said the district attorney's office simply was
"following the law as it stands on the books at this time in the state of
Texas."
Like the others, Acuna now will be moved off death row.
(source: Chicago Tribune)
*******************************
High court ruling is too late for some
The U.S. Supreme Court's long-awaited decision banning the execution of
juvenile offenders is exhilarating and heartbreaking at the same time.
You see, when the court ruled Tuesday, it was too late for Napoleon
Beazley and Gary Graham and the 11 other Texans who have been put to death
for crimes committed before they turned 18.
Nine condemned inmates in other states also died before the high court got
around to doing the right thing.
Fortunately, the lives of 72 people on death rows in the United States,
including 29 in Texas, will be spared.
Graham's and Beazley's cases attracted worldwide attention, as many of us
worked hard to get their sentences commuted to at least life in prison,
using the same reasoning that the high court used this week: Executing
juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which
prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
We who oppose capital punishment have been encouraged in recent years as
the Supreme Court has forbidden the execution of mentally retarded inmates
and overturned cases in which a judge, not a jury, imposed the death
penalty.
And now the court has declared that the execution of people younger than
18 is unconstitutional.
Of course, we long for the day when all executions will be outlawed. And
we mourn that this decision comes too late for some inmates, including
Graham, who many believed was not guilty of the slaying for which he was
convicted.
Graham, whom I got to know through his letters and in visits to death row,
maintained his innocence until he was killed in 2000 at age 36.
A defiant man, Graham referred to the justices who denied his appeal as
"political serial killers" and the execution of people like him as a
"lynching."
When I last saw him, he was on a hunger strike protesting the death
penalty, not just for himself but for everyone on death row.
I once thought that of all of Texas' condemned inmates, Beazley would be
saved. It would be his case, I had imagined, that would cause the Supreme
Court to outlaw the execution of juveniles, saving his life and a few
others.
But in the spring of 2002, his final pleas were rejected by the governor,
the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Supreme Court.
"To delay his punishment would delay justice," Gov. Rick Perry said that
day.
Delay justice? How about deny it?
Beazley, who had been convicted of killing 63-year-old John Luttig of
Tyler during a carjacking in 1994, acknowledged his crime but insisted
that the man the state would kill was not the boy who had committed the
murder.
In light of Tuesday's decision, Beazley's final statement is worth reading
again.
On the day he was executed, at age 25, he wrote:
The act I committed to put me here was not just heinous, it was senseless.
But the person that committed that act is no longer here -- I am.
I'm not going to struggle physically against any restraints. I'm not going
to shout, use profanity or make idle threats. Understand though that I'm
not only upset, but I'm saddened by what is happening here tonight. I'm
not only saddened, but disappointed that a system that is supposed to
protect and uphold what is just and right can be so much like me when I
made the same shameful mistake.
If someone tried to dispose of everyone here for participating in this
killing, I'd scream a resounding, 'No.' I'd tell them to give them all the
gift that they would not give me ... and that's to give them all a second
chance.
I'm sorry that I am here. I'm sorry that you're all here. I'm sorry that
John Luttig died. And I'm sorry that it was something in me that caused
all of this to happen to begin with.
Tonight we tell the world that there are no second chances in the eyes of
justice. ... Tonight, we tell our children that in some instances, in some
cases, killing is right.
This conflict hurts us all. There are no sides. The people who support
this proceeding think this is justice. The people that think that I should
live think that is justice. As difficult as it may seem, this is a clash
of ideals, with both parties committed to what they feel is right. But
who's wrong if in the end we're all victims?
In my heart, I have to believe that there is a peaceful compromise to our
ideals. I don't mind if there are none for me, as long as there are for
those who are yet to come. There are a lot of men like me on Death Row --
good men -- who fell to the same misguided emotions, but may not have
recovered as I have.
Give those men a chance to do what's right. Give them a chance to undo
their wrongs. A lot of them want to fix the mess they started, but don't
know how. The problem is not in that people aren't willing to help them
find out, but in the system telling them it won't matter anyway. No one
wins tonight. No one gets closure. No one walks away victorious.
Even as he prepared to die, Beazley was thinking about those "yet to come"
and how their lives might be saved.
It is too bad the Supreme Court didn't act in time to save this man.
(source: Column, Bob Ray Sanders, Fort Worth Star-Telegram)
