June 15 TEXAS: Court may be losing faith in Texas death penalty cases----Supreme Court has intervened in 4 cases over 2 years Death row inmate Thomas Miller-El contends that prosecutors purposely excluded blacks from his jury. In a harsh rebuke to Texas, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a new trial for him. A U.S. Supreme Court decision that warns against bias in death penalty cases is the latest indication that the high court may be losing confidence in Texas, the state that executes more people than any other, legal experts say. In Monday's 6-3 decision, the court sided with black murder suspects in Texas and California who said their juries had been unfairly stacked with whites. It was the 4th time in 2 years that the court has intervened in a Texas death penalty case. "I think that probably one term ago a critical mass of justices on the Supreme Court lost confidence that the state courts in Texas or the federal courts reviewing cases in Texas were doing what they were supposed to be doing to correct constitutional errors," said David Dow, director of the Texas Innocence Network and a law professor at the University of Houston. The Supreme Court used the cases to bolster its landmark 1986 decision barring prosecutors from disqualifying potential jurors based on their race. Justice Clarence Thomas, the only black member of the high court, voted against both suspects. In the Texas case, the court ordered a new trial for Thomas Miller-El, who had been convicted for the 1985 murder of a 25-year-old Dallas motel clerk. Long history of exclusion Miller-El contends that Dallas County prosecutors had a long history of excluding blacks from juries and pointed to training manuals that were distributed to prosecutors from the 1960s into the early 1980s. The manuals advised prosecutors to remove blacks or Jews from death penalty juries on the theory that those groups would be more sympathetic to criminal defendants. At trial, Miller-El was convicted by a 12-member jury that included 1 black. Prosecutors struck 10 of the 11 blacks eligible to serve. The Texas attorney general's office, which takes over death row appeals when the cases get to the federal courts, referred comment to the Dallas County district attorney's office. District Attorney Bill Hill, who was not in office when Miller-El was convicted, said his office does not tolerate illegal discrimination during jury selection. Last year, the Supreme Court overturned the sentences of two Texas death row inmates because jurors were not told of their learning disabilities. The high court vacated another death sentence because of what justices determined was prosecutorial misconduct. "To have in the space of 2 terms as many interventions by the Supreme Court in the Texas death penalty, as we've seen, it's unprecedented," said Dow, who has represented a number of Texas death row inmates in their appeals. Justice David H. Souter, writing the 6-3 decision, said there was strong evidence of prejudice during jury selection in Miller-El's case. He noted the pool was "shuffled" at least twice by prosecutors, apparently to increase the chances whites would be selected. "At least 2 of the jury shuffles conducted by the state make no sense except as efforts to delay consideration of black jury panelists," Souter said, adding that it "blinks reality" to deny jurors were struck because they were black. Souter was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Diann Rust-Tierney, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, said the Supreme Court "finally had to step in because the Fifth Circuit repeatedly refused to acknowledge a serious problem of unfairness." But in Thomas' 36-page dissent - longer than Souter's opinion - he argued that Texas prosecutors had offered enough evidence that exclusions were made for reasons other than race. The state did not discriminate "In view of the evidence actually presented to the Texas courts, their conclusion that the state did not discriminate was eminently reasonable," Thomas wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia. Thomas, one of the most conservative members of the court, has opposed black defendants in the past and has voted against affirmative action. In the California case, the court ruled 8-1 that courts there had made it too hard for defendants to claim racial bias in jury selection. Justices said courts should reconsider the case of a black man, Jay Shawn Johnson, who was convicted of 2nd-degree murder in the death of his white girlfriend's baby. The jury was all white. Dow noted the importance of keeping in perspective the high court's actions on Texas death penalty cases. Despite overturning the several state cases, "over that same period we've had 50 executions," he said. "The fact is a death penalty lawyer, even from Texas, is still going to lose much more often than he or she is going to win," Dow said. "But I think in the last 2 years, especially, there has been a sense among death penalty lawyers you might actually get relief when you get to the Supreme Court. "4 or 5 years ago," he said, "you never would have expected that." (source: Associated Press) *********************** Miller-El gets a new trial, Texas gets a black eye The U.S. Supreme Court thankfully intervened in the death penalty case of Thomas Miller-El this week, putting the brakes on the Dallas man's execution. Again. This is another embarrassing episode in Texas justice. The Supreme Court had given a lower court an opportunity to right a blatant injustice. Yet that court - the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which has jurisdiction over Texas - disregarded that oppportunity. So on Monday, the Supreme Court again had to step in to provide the justice that Texas courts can't, or won't, provide in the Miller-El case. Miller-El, an African American, was sentenced to death in the 1985 murder of a 25-year-old Dallas motel clerk. The Supreme Court ruled that Texas prosecutors racially stacked the jury that convicted Miller-El. In 2003, the court ordered the 5th Circuit to reconsider. But the 5th upheld the conviction again. If it looks as if the high court is wagging its finger at Texas, that's understandable, given how many times the court has had to intervene in Texas' affairs regarding the death penalty. Keep in mind that this is a conservative-leaning court made up mostly of Republican appointees who support the death penalty. In the Miller-El case, convincing evidence showed that Dallas prosecutors used racial discrimination in selecting the jury that ultimately convicted him. That's illegal. Specifically, the evidence showed that prosecutors received training manuals advising them to remove blacks or Jews from death penalty juries from the 1960s into the 1980s - the theory being that blacks and Jews would be more sympathetic to defendants. Prosecutors struck nine of 10 blacks who were eligible to serve on Miller-El's jury. Though prosecutors tried to cloak their racially selective practices, the Supreme Court didn't buy it. "The prosecutors' chosen race-neutral reasons for the strikes do not hold up and are so far at odds with the evidence that pretext is the fair conclusion, indicating the very discrimination the explanations were meant to deny," Justice David Souter wrote for the 6 justices who ruled in Miller-El's favor this week. Last year, the high court reversed 3 cases involving Texas death penalty convictions on various grounds. All of them involved black defendants. Then there are the court's 2 major rulings in the past few years that have permanently stopped Texas from executing people who are mentally retarded or who were under the age of 18 when they committed capital murder. Of course, the court's rulings regarding juveniles and mentally retarded people apply to all states. But they seem particularly aimed at Texas, which has routinely carried out such executions. Miller-El will get a new trial, and he might well be convicted based on the evidence against him. But Texas prosecutors must be reminded that they can't cheat in pursuing convictions. In this case, the defendant might be guilty; in the next case, he might not. (source: Editorial, Austin American-Statesman) TENNESSEE: More Testimony That Killer Issac Jones Has Mental Illness After prosecutors challenged the testimony Tuesday of a defense witness, Isaac Jones' defense team presented another expert witness who gave compelling testimony about Jones' mental state. Dr. George Woods, a forensic psychiatrist, told the jury that without a doubt Isaac Jones is a textbook case of someone suffering with schizophrenia. Dr. Woods gave several hours of detailed testimony about the biological and chemical changes in the brain that triggers the psychosis. He said Jones, who was 20 years old at the time family, church members and friends say he went insane and shot Officer Julie Jacks in May of 2002, developed symptoms about the same time most people do. Dr. Woods says most adults develop the condition in their late teens and early 20's. Dr. Woods told the jury exactly how a person over time slips into this mental state. Dr. Woods says Jones appearance, behavior, speech and emotions reflect all the documented signs of schizophrenia. When he was asked why Jones' statements or actions may seem inconsistant, Dr. Woods said that is the normal process in which people slide into mental illness. Jones has been in the Hamilton County Jail for three years since the shooting, and records show he has been taking psychotropic drugs for the illness. Dr. Woods said "it's what's called pharmacalogical remission, where medication controls a great number of symptoms." Earlier Tuesday, Hamilton County District Attorney General Bill Cox cross examined Dr. Pamela Auble, a psychologist who is often called upon to provide "expert testimony" for people charged with violent crimes. She also diagnosed Jones with having schizophrenia. She said her diagnosis is based on her own observations, and what other people told her about Jones. Dr. Auble did say it is possible Jones is faking a mental illness or exaggerating a condition he thinks he might have, but that she does not think that is happening. Cox asked her if she has heard of the late rap music artist Tupac, but she said "I'm 50 years old and am not familiar with him." Cox then asked her if she was familiar with his "gangsta rap" lyrics that are peppered with vulgar and at times violent phrases. She she she has not. Cox asked Dr. Auble this because he argues Jones' erratic behavior and statements are modeled after the lyrics in one of Tupac's albums. Cox even showed the jury how one song on an album is titled "Blasphemy." Earlier testimony showed Jones kept screaming "blasphemy" during an episode at Chattanooga State College. The prosecution maintains Jones is faking a disorder so that a jury might think he is not responsible for his actions and either aquit Jones or find him guilty of a lesser crime. They are seeking the death penalty if the jury finds Jones guilty of 1st degree murder. Cox and Executive Assistant District Attorney General Barry Steelman have launched an aggressive attack on witnesses testifying on behalf of Jones. Several of the mental health professionals who have testified earlier in the trial did leave several avenues open for cross examination. But Tuesday's testimony from Dr. Woods was the most definitive and compelling testimony about Jones and schizophrenia that was based in large part on science and decades of work by forensic psychiatrists. Prosecutors are expected to cross examine Dr. Woods testimony at lenght Wednesday. It is not clear as to when the trial will wrap up and go to the jury for deliberation. The trial is in its 2nd week. (source: WTVC News) ILLINOIS: Mother guilty of murder A jury of 7 women and5 men found Amanda Fredrickson guilty of 1st-degree murder Monday night in the starvation death of her 18-month-old son. The same jury may keep Fredrickson from facing the death penalty. They ruled the murder was not brutal or heinous, therefore not meeting one of the qualifiers for capital punishment. Prosecutor Steven Rosenblum said he will now review case law to see if he wants to continue to pursue the death penalty. Still, the death penalty decision is Judge Thomas Fecarotta Jr.'s to make. He set sentencing for July 26. If Fredrickson does not face the death penalty, she still faces up to 100 years in prison. "We're satisfied with the verdict and happy that James got a little bit of justice," Rosenblum said after the verdict was read. Fredrickson, who did not testify in her own behalf in the 5th day of the trial, showed little reaction when the verdict was read about 10:30 p.m. Her defense attorneys did not comment after the verdict was read. As testimony wrapped up and closing arguments were heard over 8 hours Monday, Amanda Fredrickson bowed her head, sobbed and shivered. She listened as her own public defender, Susan Smith, told a 12-member jury how she was responsible in the starvation death of her 18-month-old son. "Amanda Fredrickson is responsible for the death of her son. No one is saying that she is not responsible," Smith said in her closing statement in the Rolling Meadows courtroom. But what Smith wanted jurors to also understand, in urging the jury to find her client innocent of 1st-degree murder charges, is Fredrickson's deep depression led to her neglecting James Fredrickson "The constraints of her depression, misery and self-absorption led her to close the door to her son," Smith said. "She didn't know, want and intend her son to die." "What she did was terrible. What she did was not 1st-degree murder." But the tears the 27-year-old Fredrickson shed in court weren't real, prosecutor Rosenblum told jurors, urging them to find the South Barrington native guilty in the death of her son. "Depression is not a defense against anything. That is not a defense to the charges. ... She lied to everyone who wanted to help," Rosenblum said. "James Fredrickson was a helpless baby who had a tortuous 18-month existence. She didn't care. Today is James' day for justice. Don't let him down. Don't forget James." The jury began deliberating about 6:15 p.m. James Fredrickson died Dec. 14, 2001, in the Streamwood condominium of starvation while in the care of his parents, Kristian and Amanda Fredrickson. Kristian Fredrickson, 28, is serving a 45-year sentence at the Menard Correctional Center after pleading guilty last summer to murdering James. During the early stages of the trial last week, witnesses for the prosecution - including a Streamwood paramedic, a doctor and a nurse - described how James Fredrickson was basically skin and bones when found the day he died. James Fredrickson was extremely malnourished, with prosecutors contending the boy had gone days, even weeks, without eating, with his own body resorting to consuming his muscles and fat tissue for sustenance. Smith contends Amanda Fredrickson had a long battle with depression and not practicing good hygiene, having stopped brushing her teeth at 12 years old. Fredrickson, whose condominium was found in disarray that late December 2001 day, wrote about her depression in a purple-cover diary she kept. Smith says Fredrickson didn't want her son to die and did at times feed him, although it wasn't nearly enough. "James was getting fed, although not adequately," Smith said. Rosenblum contends James was being fed only enough to keep him alive. He said Amanda Fredrickson did find time to play video games, go shopping, talk to friends and even carry on an affair with a man who would live with the couple for a few months in the condominium. "James was given just enough food to prolong the agony month after month," Rosenblum said. "He suffered a painful, horrible death. He did it alone. He laid in that crib and died alone." (source: Daily Herald)
