Feb. 20 TEXAS: Crowded field vies for open criminal court spot Voters in Jefferson County will have their pick of a wide array of legal talent in the 2006 Democratic primary race Criminal District Court judge. Judge Charles Carver, who has held the bench since 1994, announced his retirement to senior judge status in November. He will vacate the bench at the end of the year. The 6 candidates bring a wealth of experience, education and community service to the race. The basics on the candidates: (alphabetically) - Doug Barlow, 51, a criminal defense lawyer with 25 years in the field, said his extensive experience handling death penalty cases qualifies him for the bench. "Since this court carries the ultimate punishment, the judge ought to have the experience and temperament to handle those type cases," he said. Barlow said his experience with criminal appeals, particularly in death penalty cases, gives him the knowledge he needs "to do what has to be done to protect the record and rights of the parties and to keep everyone from having to come back (to court) again." "I've practiced in that court for 25 years and need no training period," Barlow said. He added that his moral fiber exemplifies what the community wants in its leaders. - Bruce Hoffer, 49, is a board-certified criminal defense lawyer, with 21 years experience in criminal defense and prosecution. Hoffer feels strongly that the community deserves a judge who is fair, impartial and conversant in state criminal law. He describes himself as someone "who can apply his specialized knowledge of state criminal law in a fair and just manner, balancing the experience of prosecution and defense while considering the circumstances of the victims and the accused." Hoffer wants to change the docketing system to move cases through the courts more quickly and efficiently. Hoffer said his life experience, community involvement and specialized knowledge of the law have given him the ability to weigh community interests, victims' rights and the circumstances of the accused. - Marsha Normand, 45, a criminal defense lawyer with 17 years experience, has worked in law enforcement as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer. "I've seen the underbelly, and I don't think anybody else can quite say that," she said, adding that her comprehensive understanding of criminal justice makes her uniquely qualified for the bench. Normand said she would manage her docket in a manner time-tested to be the most efficient. "I'm not sure I'll do anything different than Carver; he has a pretty good system in place. He's managed to reduce his docket by 30 %. Giblin had a good system... After his 25 years on the bench, Giblin perfected his system." Normand said the 1st thing she would do on the bench would be to prioritize the cases to "try the most serious cases and try to move the other not so serious." She said aggravated sexual assault cases need to be dealt with in a timely manner to get dangerous offenders off the streets and better serve the victims, mainly women and children. "The sooner they put that behind them the better," Normand said. Although Normand thinks the mechanics of the criminal justice system in Jefferson County work pretty well, there's one change she would like to see: "Me. I'm the innovation and the change on the bench," she said. "Everybody else would pretty much be status quo." - Ramon Rodriguez, 48, a board-certified felony criminal prosecutor with 23 years legal experience, said the education gained from working exclusively on criminal cases in state district courts for 21 years qualifies him to preside. "That's the knowledge you need to run the court." Rodriguez said one goal he has would be to prioritize getting cases involving children and the elderly to trial as quickly as possible. "I'm currently the only individual in this race who has served as a state prosecutor recently," Rodriguez said. "And I have a reputation for being a fair dealer, for lack of a better term - for being above board." Rodriguez said his job as a prosecutor brought him into contact with defense attorneys, law enforcement, victims and witnesses on a daily basis, and through it all his goal as a prosecutor was to seek justice. "I listen to all those people and give them a chance to a fair verdict - and isn't that what a judge is supposed to do?" - Tom Roebuck, 57, board certified in criminal and civil law with a mixed practice also including real estate law, has 33 years of legal experience. Roebuck said that although the criminal justice system in Jefferson County functions adequately in basic respects, there are still areas where the system could be improved. He pledged when not on the bench to be out in at-risk communities "educating young people that a life of crime is ultimately going to ruin their lives." Roebuck pledges to be fair. "A judge is supposed to be a representative of all the people; not just a select group of people." Roebuck feels that with his broad-based support, he will be able to help heal the rifts that have characterized Jefferson County's political life in recent years. "We've got to restore some kind of unity to the operation of county government," Roebuck said. "It's too disjointed - there's too much adversity right now." - John Stevens, 53, who was a federal prosecutor for 20 years and an assistant district attorney for Jefferson County before that, believes strongly that criminals should be held accountable for their conduct. A state district court judge can make a difference in the lives of people, he said. A fair judge can mete out both justice for victims of crime and a second chance to those who deserve it. Stevens said the high rates of violent crime and unemployment and the low percentage of student who seek higher education in Jefferson County are factors that feed criminal activity. A judge who understands societal dynamics is better able to address root issues of crime. Stevens said he has this understanding, pointing legal works he has authored on juvenile law, hate crimes and death penalty some of which are used as U.S. Department of Justice handbooks. Stevens has prosecuted cases of national importance such as that of John King and Lawrence Brewer for the dragging death of Jasper resident James Byrd. "I have a flawless reputation of integrity, of cordiality, of professionalism and of a determination to resolve differences in a fair manner for all concerned," Stevens said. (source: The Beaumont Enterprise) ************** Criminal Court of Appeals: Presiding Judge Keller faces a challenge from within court ranks It's a crowded ballot for a seat on the Criminal Court of Appeals, the high court that hears appeals from all the state's death row inmates. Incumbent Judge Charles Holcomb faces two opponents in the Republican primary, and sitting judge Tom Price is challenging Sharon Keller for her spot as presiding judge because he claims she's doing a bad job leading the court. State Rep. Terry Keel, R-Austin, and Dallas District Court Judge Robert Francis are both hoping to unseat the 72-year-old Holcomb, whose age will force him to retire in the middle of his 6-year term. Judges must retire at 75, according to state law. The race drew some buzz in January, when Keel discovered errors in the ballot petitions of his opponents and got both kicked off the ticket. Francis and Holcomb appealed the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, which put them back on the ballot. Keel, who heads the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, described himself as a law-and-order conservative with a healthy dash of libertarianism when it comes to civil rights and due process. "I would be sensitive to both sides of that issue on the court," Keel said. "I think I'm going to win." Keel, 48, has spent the last 2 decades as a prosecutor, defense lawyer, sheriff and lawmaker. Francis, 46, said he has more experience on the bench than Keel and is the only candidate certified as a criminal law specialist. Francis has spent the last 9 years as a state district judge and formed an innovative drug court designed to stop crime by helping addicts tame their addiction. "The goal is to be straight-up, fair and impartial," Francis said. Holcomb trumps both his opponents in judicial experience. He has served on the Criminal Court of Appeals since 2000. Before that, he spent 6 years on the 12th Court of Appeals and two years in appellate and trial courts. But Keel and Francis complained that Holcomb would have to retire mid-term, forcing Gov. Rick Perry to appoint a replacement. Holcomb, who described himself as moderate, said judges frequently leave the bench for various reasons. "I enjoy it," Holcomb said of his job. "If I don't win, I'll just go off into the sunset." In the race for presiding judge, Price, 60, said the court has been hammered for upholding death penalty convictions, one in which the defendant's lawyer was sleeping during the trial. "I think we need to take a good hard look at what we do in Texas with the death penalty," he said. Price has more than 30 years' experience as a judge and has served on the Criminal Court of Appeals since 1996. He said Keller has trouble getting along with her fellow judges and has been a bad leader. Keller, 52, denied that, saying she gets along fine with her colleagues. Keller, who was the 1st woman elected to the court in 1994, said she has tried to improve the criminal justice system through her leadership position and is chairwoman of the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense. "I often disagree with my colleagues on the resolution of a case," Keller said. "That is not a personal issue and it doesn't have anything to do with getting along." (source: San Antonio Express-News) *********** ENDORSEMENTS FOR MARCH 7 PRIMARIES: SUPREME COURT, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS----The right choices for Texas' important high court posts We would like to see the state devise a different system for selecting judges other than the current scheme of electing them by partisan elections. But as long Texas judges are elected, voters should pay close attention to the candidates. Our focus today is on the state's 2 highest courts: the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which decides criminal matters and the Texas Supreme Court, which handles civil cases. Court of Criminal Appeals presiding judge Tom Price has earned a promotion from a judge on the court of criminal appeals, to presiding officer of the troubled court. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is a constant source of criticism and ridicule. Ridicule of any public institution is nothing new and criticism might be easy to dismiss, but when the U.S. Supreme Court is doing the criticizing, voters should pay serious attention. Sharon Keller, the current presiding judge, has overseen a steady deterioration of the court's reputation and credibility. Granted, Keller has been trying to repair the court's image - but that has only been recently. We note, for example, her hard work as chair of the state Task Force on Indigent Defense established by the Legislature to improve legal representation for the poor. Unfortunately, Keller, 52, continues to see the court as an agency to uphold convictions, resulting in high-profile and embarrassing reversals by higher courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Price would bring new leadership and vision to a court that badly needs direction at a time when the criminal law climate is changing. The U.S. Supreme Court has banned execution of mentally retarded offenders and juvenile offenders, and the Legislature passed a law that permits juries to sentence capital offenders to life without parole. Price, 62, brings plenty of experience, having served more than 30 years as a judge, including his current term on the criminal appeals court. Like Keller, he favors the death penalty. However rare, there are times when the system errs and an innocent person is convicted, imprisoned or worse. The criminal appeals court needs judges who are courageous enough to right those wrongs, especially in death penalty cases. We've seen no leadership from Keller on that front. Price has demonstrated a willingness to correct errors. We're also impressed with another forward-looking initiative Price proposed: expanding drug courts across the state to deal with the growing number of nonviolent drug-related crimes. That concept has worked well in Travis County, and other places could benefit. In this race, voters have a clear choice between the past and the future. Price is right. Court of Criminal Appeals Place 8 Those who have met Terry Keel in a courtroom or on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives aren't likely to forget the encounter. Keel, 48, is passionate, driven and committed, all the qualities you'd want in an advocate. A former Travis County prosecutor and sheriff, Keel currently defends criminal defendants, and up until the time he decided to leave the Legislature to run for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he was chairman of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee. The question is, does he have or can he muster the "judicial temperament" to sit with eight other judges on the state's highest criminal appeals courts? The question is interesting, but may be an irrelevant because there is plenty of argument, debate and infighting on that court already. The addition of Keel, who has seen both sides of the criminal docket and has a strong law enforcement background, might be just what the court needs. Keel is forceful, articulate, and whatever else you may say about him, he makes you think - a good thing on a deliberative body such as the Court of Criminal Appeals. Besides, who better than a former legislator to participate in appellate court discussions of legislative intent? Keel challenges incumbent Charles Holcomb - who will hit the mandatory retirement age of 75 for judges in 2 years - and Dallas District Court Judge Robert Francis. They had to scramble to stay on the ballot because of petition irregularities Keel pointed out. Both are good and decent men but neither can match Keel's breadth of legal and legislative experience. We don't always agree with Keel, but we respect him. He is our choice for a spot on the Court of Criminal Appeals. Texas Supreme Court There's only one contested Texas Supreme Court race in this year's primaries, with Justice Don Willett, an appointed incumbent, running for the GOP nomination against Steve Smith, who served 2 years on the court but lost in the party primary in 2004 when he ran as Steven Wayne Smith. Willett, 39, is the superior choice despite his lack of judicial experience. His intelligence and ability have put him in influential positions on the staffs of then-Gov. George W. Bush, the Justice Department under President Bush and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Gov. Rick Perry named Willett to the court last year to succeed Justice Priscilla Owen, who was appointed a federal judge. Willett says, that if voters approve, he sees his service on the Supreme Court as a career-long commitment, not a way-station to another government post. Both candidates are quite conservative, but we think Willett will bring a more thoughtful, considered approach to the job than Smith, whose main claim to fame is his role in a successful lawsuit that challenged the affirmative action program at the University of Texas. (ssource: Editorial, Austin American-Statesman) USA: Death Penalty Gets Less Support From Britons, Canadians Than Americans----Major gender, partisan gaps in United States, Canada; not in Britain According to a recent series of Gallup surveys in the United States, Great Britain, and Canada, Americans are much more supportive of the death penalty than are either Britons or Canadians. By about a 2-to-1 margin, 64% to 30%, Americans support the death penalty for a person convicted of murder, while in Canada, a slight majority, 53%, oppose the death penalty, and 44% favor it. In Britain, people lean in favor by 49% to 45%. Unlike the United States, neither Canada nor Great Britain has the death penalty. These results are little changed from 2003. Britain and Canada each show slight declines in support, while support in the United States has essentially stayed the same. In the United States and Canada, men are 10 to 11 % points more likely to favor the death penalty than are women. In Britain, however, the 2 groups indicate about the same level of support. In all 3 countries, there are only slight differences by age. In Britain, the oldest group shows the most support, while in the other 2 countries, people in the 50 to 64 age range are most in favor. In Britain, there are hardly any differences among the 4 groups classified by gender and age. But in Canada and the United States, the differences are substantial. Both countries show at least a 6-point difference between men and women, regardless of age. But in Canada, the larger gender gap is among younger people (under age 50), with 48% of men but only 35% of women in favor -- a 13-point gap. In the United States, the gender gap is more pronounced in the older group: 75% of men vs. 58% of women aged 50 and older are in favor, a 17-point gender gap. Another way of looking at the data shows that in the United States, there is essentially no difference is support between older and younger females (60% vs. 59%), while older males are more in favor than younger males, 75% to 66%, respectively. In Canada, by contrast, younger and older males express about the same level of support (48% vs. 50%, respectively), while older females are more in favor than younger females (44% to 35%). Death Penalty a Significant Partisan Issue in U.S. and Canada, but not Britain In the United States, there is a 21-point gap in support between Republicans and Democrats, 77% to 56%. In Canada and Britain, which have multiparty systems, 2-party comparisons are less relevant. One indication of partisan division is a comparison of attitudes among people who approve of the job the president or prime minister is doing, with those who disapprove. The approval ratings of the leaders in each country were all very close, from 35% to 39%, which provides a useful framework for this issue. In Britain and Canada, the prime ministers at the time of the surveys came from the more liberal parties in their countries, while in the United States the president is from the more conservative party. In all 3 cases, the conservative group expresses more support than the liberal group -- though in Britain the difference is relatively slight. 45 % who approve of Prime Minister Tony Blair favor the death penalty, compared with 51% among Britons who disapprove of his job performance. In Canada and the United States, the death penalty issue appears to be more partisan -- there is a 15-point gap between Canadians who approved and disapproved of then-Prime Minister Paul Martin, and a 21-point gap between Bush approvers and disapprovers in the United States. Survey Methods Results in the United States are based on telephone interviews with 1,012 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 13-16, 2005. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is 3 % points. The survey was conducted by Gallup USA. Results in Canada are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Dec. 12-18, 2005. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is 3 % points. The survey was conducted by Gallup Canada. Results in Great Britain are based on telephone interviews with 1,010 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Dec. 12-20, 2005. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is 3 % points. The survey was conducted by Gallup UK. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. (source: Gallup News Service) **************** When the left is not right in America----Lifeless liberals show a hunger for leadership on their causes Nothing made a more lasting impression during my journey through America than the semi-comatose state in which I found the American left. I know, of course, that the term "left" does not have the same meaning and ramifications here that it does in France. And I cannot count how many times I was told there has never been an authentic "left" in the United States, in the European sense. But at the end of the day, my progressive friends, you may coin ideas in whichever way you like. The fact is: You do have a right. This right, in large part thanks to its neoconservative battalion, has brought about an ideological transformation that is both substantial and striking. And the fact is that nothing remotely like it has taken shape on the other side. To the contrary, through the looking glass of the American "left" lies a desert of sorts, a deafening silence, a cosmic ideological void that, for a reader of Whitman or Thoreau, is thoroughly enigmatic. I found a curious lifelessness in all parts of the American left: -- the 60-year-old Democrats who have desperately clung to the old formulas of the Kennedy era; -- the folks of MoveOn.org who have been so great at enlisting people in the electoral lists, at protesting against the war in Iraq and, finally, at helping to revitalize politics, but whom I heard in Berkeley, like Puritans of a new sort, treating the lapses of a libertine president as the quasi-equivalent of the neo-McCarthyism of his fiercest political rivals; -- the anti-Republican strategists confessing they had never set foot in one of those neo-evangelical mega-churches that are the ultimate (and most Machiavellian) laboratories of the "enemy," staring in disbelief when I say I've spent quite some time exploring them; -- ex-candidate John Kerry, whom I met in Washington a few weeks after his defeat, haggard, ghostly, faintly whispering in my ear: "If you hear anything about those 50,000 votes in Ohio, let me know"; -- the supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton who, when I questioned them on how exactly they planned to wage the battle of ideas, casually replied they had to win the battle of money first, and who, when I persisted in asking what the money was meant for, what projects it would fuel, responded like fundraising automatons gone mad: "to raise more money"; -- and then, perhaps more than anything else, when it comes to the lifeblood of the left -- the writers and artists, the men and women who fashion public opinion, the intellectuals -- I found a curious lifelessness, a peculiar streak of timidity or irritability in all of them, when they are confronted with so many seething issues that in principle ought to keep them as firmly mobilized as the Iraq War or the so-called American Empire (the denunciation of which, sadly, is all that remains when they have nothing left to say). For an outside observer it is strange, for instance, that a number of progressives needed, by their own admission, Hurricane Katrina before they got indignant about, or even learned about, the sheer scale of the outrageous poverty blighting American cities. For a European intellectual used to the battlefield of ideas, it is simply incomprehensible that more voices weren't raised long ago, in the name of no less than the force of the Enlightenment, to denounce the ridiculous fraud of the anti-Darwinian supporters of "intelligent design." And what about the death penalty? How can it be that there isn't yet, within the political parties, especially the Democratic Party -- which everyone knows will never budge on the question without decisive internal pressure -- a trend of opinion calling for the abolition of this civilized barbarity? And Guantanamo? And Abu Ghraib? And the special prisons in Central Europe, those areas where the rule of law no longer applies? I know, of course, that the press has denounced them. I know you have journalists who, in a matter of days, accomplished what our French press still hasn't finished 40 years after our Algerian War. But since when does the press excuse citizens from their political duties? Why haven't we heard from more intellectuals like Gore Vidal and Tony Kushner (with whom I disagree on most other grounds) on this vexed and vital issue? And what should we make of that handful of individuals who, after Sept. 11, started the debate about the circumstances in which torture might suddenly be justified? And I'm not even talking about Bush. I won't even mention Bush's gross lies about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, except for the sake of assembling the conclusive evidence. I know, of course, that you denounce him -- but mechanically, I am almost tempted to say ritualistically. And yet the United States nearly impeached Nixon because he had spied on his enemies and lied. They impeached Clinton for a venial lie about inappropriate conduct. How is it, then, that it took so long to draw a parallel between those lies and a lie about which the least you can say is that its consequences were anything but venial? How is it that so few "public intellectuals" have been found, within the confines of this formidable, impetuous American democracy, who can bring up the idea of impeaching George Bush for lying? Some will retort that the "public intellectual" is a European specialty, that we shouldn't blame Americans for their infidelity to a tradition that is not their own. What do such killjoys make of the Norman Mailer of the 1960s? Of the Arthur Miller of "The Crucible''? Or of that golden age of civil rights awareness, when great writers enunciated what was right and good and true? Others will object that the massive, resounding mobilization of civil society is not an American custom. All you need to do to convince yourself of the untruth of this is remember the 1960s and the movement for civil rights, then for the rights of minorities in general, which were the honor of the country and did not stem, let it be emphasized, from any of the major political parties. Still others will wax ironic about the disease of writing petitions, a French specialty, warded off by American pragmatism. Here the objection is more serious; and I know the fatuity that can exist in the mania for nonstop political engagement in the name of myriad causes -- but aren't you afflicted, my American friends, with the radically opposite sickness? Hasn't the ethics of sobriety won once too often, with you, over the ethics of conviction? And how could one not yearn for a petition that would address our common nausea when faced with the spectacle of a diabetic, blind, nearly deaf old man, was pushed in a wheelchair to the San Quentin execution chamber? I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that a large part of the country is waiting for this. Everywhere, in the innermost reaches of America, you can meet men and women who hope for great voices capable of echoing their impatience in a momentous way. If I were an American writer, I would try to ponder the lessons of the totalitarian century and those of democracy, Tocqueville-style, all at once, in the same breath, and with the same rigor. (source: San Francisco Chronicle - Bernard-Henri Levy is a French writer and the author of "American Vertigo: Traveling America in the Footsteps of Tocqueville" (Random House). This article appeared in the Nation) FLORIDA: Double-murder trial to start Monday Janet Best has been waiting more than 2 1/2 years to learn exactly what happened to her murdered sister. "Every minute of the trial Ill be there," said Best, 48, the sibling closest in age to former Charlotte Correctional Institution officer Darla Kay Lathrem. "I have to know." The trial of Dwight Thomas Eaglin, 1 of 3 inmates accused of killing Lathrem and prisoner Charles Fuston in a botched escape attempt, is set to begin Monday. Eaglin and co-defendants Michael Jones and Stephen Smith are each charged with 2 counts of premeditated murder. Jones and Smith are also scheduled to go to trial within the next 4 months. Lathrem, 38, was supervising a 5-man work squad at Charlotte Correctional on June 11, 2003. The men were working on dormitory renovations and had access to construction tools such as hammers and screwdrivers. Lathrem, armed with pepper spray and a radio, was watching them by herself. She was beaten to death with a sledgehammer, according to records. The men stashed Lathrem's body in a closet and put her radio down a toilet, CCI officers said. Fuston was found unconscious and critically injured in a cell of the dormitory they were renovating. He died from his injuries that night. Inmate John Beaston was injured and later released from the hospital. Authorities caught Eaglin between the prison's 2 fences and found Jones and Smith hiding inside a dormitory. Investigators said the men had made a makeshift ladder. The 3 defendants charged with the slaying were serving life-time prison sentences without parole. Jones, 49, was convicted of rape and burglary. Smith, 45, and Eaglin, 30, had killed before. The state is seeking the death penalty for all 3. Best said she wants the men charged with killing her sister to be sentenced to death. "It took me months to even let it sink in that she was gone," Best said. "It's the worst thing that ever happened." Lathrem was a best friend to all 3 of her sisters, Best said. She was the baby of the family and the only one without children. Because she wasn't tied down with a family, she visited her sisters frequently and helped out with her nieces and nephews. Lathrem was the cool aunt who would take the children on scary rides at Disney World, Best said. She was living with her parents in Fort Myers when she died. She moved in with them to save to save money while training to become a law enforcement officer, Best said. But she ended up prolonging the stay to help care for her mother, who had open heart surgery in April 2002. "She was so good with my mom, telling her 'Don't eat this and don't eat this,' like a mother hen to my mother," Best said. But their mother won't be attending the trial, Best said. She won't even look at the defendants' photographs. "My mom won't have anything to do with it," Best said. "She cannot talk about it; she is still so devastated. We can't even tell her anything about this." Although Lathrem's mother begged her not to work at the prison, it was Lathrems life-long goal to join law enforcement, Best said. In high school, she took part in a program called Police Explorers that allows students to study law enforcement. Most of her adult life, Lathrem worked desk jobs, Best said. But she decided to start a career in law enforcement around March 2002. She had worked at CCI just more than a year when she was killed. "This was her life-long dream to be in law enforcement," Best said. "She was happy. I have that to thank God for." The trial is expected to take about a week. If Eaglin is convicted there will be a penalty phase, which should also take about a week. (source: Herald Tribune) ***************** 'I wasn't going to be defeated' ---- Sunny Jacobs was sentenced to death for murders she didn't commit. As a play based on her prison ordeal opens in London, she tells Nicola Byrne how she survived a 17-year nightmare It was an horrific example of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In 1976, Sonia "Sunny" Jacobs, a 27-year-old hippy and devoted mother of 2, accepted a 100-mile lift from a casual acquaintance to Palm Beach, Florida. Within hours, her life had become what most people only imagine in nightmares. A shootout during the road trip saw Jacobs and her partner, Jesse Tafero, who was travelling with her, wrongly accused of the double murder of two policemen. She was sentenced to death in the electric chair and spent almost 17 years in prison, much of it in solitary confinement. When in 1993, the federal authorities finally realised their mistake and released her, her children were virtual strangers, her beloved parents had died and her soulmate, Jesse, had been executed for the murders he never committed. By now middle-aged, she had little in common with the life experiences of her peers. Unused to free will, she couldn't even order from a menu without suffering a panic attack. During the first five years of her incarceration, spent on death row, not a single person had spoken to her. Prison guards were forbidden to talk or even make gestures in her direction. She was denied a mirror and used to confirm her continued existence to herself by peering into a metal button used to release drinking water. Her cell had no window and measured 6 steps from the door to the toilet bowl on the back wall. All the while, she kept expecting the guards to open her cell door and tell her it was all a big mistake. "I couldn't believe that other people could believe that I would kill someone," she says. "I was a hippy for God's sake. I quite literally couldn't hurt a fly. It was laughable that I was serving time for murder". Jacobs and Tafero, her common-law husband of three years, had accepted a lift from a man called Walter Rhodes, not knowing that he had a criminal record and had broken his parole conditions. Together with their 10-month-old daughter, Christina, and Eric, Jacobs' 9-year-old son from a previous relationship, the couple were travelling to the coast to look for casual work. Pulled over at a rest stop on the interstate route, Jacobs was breast-feeding Christina when a routine police patrol pulled up beside the vehicle. With 2 officers approaching the vehicle, Jacobs still didn't think anything was amiss until Rhodes panicked and shot both men dead. He then kidnapped the occupants of his car and tore off down the freeway. "I was terrified, truly terrified and just trying to protect the kids," recalls Jacobs. "But I also knew at the back of my mind that we would surely come up against a roadblock soon and we would be rescued." Within a few miles they did encounter an armed barricade across the road. But instead of the police rescuing Jacobs and Tafero, they arrested them on suspicion of murder. Worse was to come. Used to dealing with the criminal courts, Rhodes struck a plea bargain. In exchange for 3 life sentences, he testified that Jacobs and Tafero were solely responsible for the killings. "My whole world seemed to dissolve," she says. "Anger and disbelief, that's what I remember feeling most." When the death sentence was handed down, she thought she was hearing things. "They tell you exactly how they're gonna do it. They're gonna send 2,200 volts of electricity through your body until you're dead. And then they ask you if you have anything to say to that and, really, it's kind of dumbfounding. Those who might expect to find Jacobs, now aged 58, still angry and bitter, would be mistaken, however. When she talks about her experience on death row, it's in a calm, accepting tone. But she is quick to point out that she is no pushover. "No way - I'm a tough lady, I didn't lie down for them. I used my inner resources to get me through, that's all. I already had everything I needed to survive. I just needed to tap into those skills. People are also looking for and seeking enlightenment in the outside world. In fact everything you need is already right with you. You just need to find it." She found a way through the endless days of solitary on death row by practising the yoga and meditation she had learned as a teenager and when she was released began to teach it. Her story is is now part of The Exonerated, an award-winning play by Jessica Blank and Erik Jensen which opens in London this week, starring among others, Kristen Davies of Sex and the City fame. An awardwinning hit at last year's Edinburgh Festival Fringe, it relates in sometimes heartbreaking detail the accounts of 6 people who were wrongly incarcerated. Jacobs' ready humour can't conceal some of the pain which is still evident. "It had a terrible effect on my kids and I worried so much for them when I was in there. Eric, my son, was also put into detention for 2 months when I was arrested. How could you do that to a child? He developed a terrible stutter and had an awful, awful time of it. Eventually, my parents got custody of the 2 kids which was some relief." But when her parents were killed in a plane crash in 1982, Christina was put into foster care and Eric, then in his middle teens, went out alone and supported himself with a job as a pizza delivery boy. Since her release, she has rebuilt her relationship with her children and now also has 2 grandchildren. Her parents' death was her lowest moment in prison, along with the moment she heard Tefaro had been executed. Until that point, the couple had continued to nurture their relationship through letters. "We carried on a fairly full life in our letters, actually, including our sex life." In one of the last letters, Jesse wrote: "We're so lucky. I love you so much. You're my woman, as close as my breath. You're the strongest female I've ever known. Hand and glove, you know?" He suffered a brutal death. The electric chair malfunctioned and his executioners had to pull the switch 3 times. It took 3 jolts of electricity which lasted 55 seconds each and 13? minutes for him to die. Flames eventually shot from his head and smoke came out of his ears. Seasoned observers of the process were profoundly disturbed by the spectacle. In 1994, Walter Rhodes was released from prison, having been paroled for good behaviour. He had earlier admitted on several occasions that he had lied about his involvement in the murders. Jacobs' release came about when the supreme court overturned her conviction and she has spent much of her time since campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty. It was on such a speaking tour in County Cork, that she met her husband of 5 years, Peter Pringle. "I was speaking and I was aware of this man in the audience listening to me and he was crying. After my talk he came up to me and told me his story. He, too, was wrongly imprisoned for 15 years." They married soon afterwards and now live the good life in a beautiful part of western Ireland where Jacobs rears chickens, grows vegetables and teaches yoga. "We are very happy together and so lucky to live the life we do. People might think I'm mad but I feel blessed," says Jacobs. "When I came out of prison I made a choice. To be bitter and twisted or to fill my life with joy and celebration. It was the same choice I had made in prison - I wasn't going to be defeated. Forgiveness is a selfish act. If I hadn't forgiven the people who put me in jail, I would not have the marvellous life I have now. No matter how awful your circumstances may be, you always have a choice to make them better". - The Exonerated is at The Riverside Studios, Hammersmith, London W6, previewing from tomorrow. Details: 020-8237 1111. (source: The (UK) Guardian) ARIZONA: Speakers to discuss death penalty at ASU In Tempe, the death penalty in Arizona will be the topic of a conference next month at Arizona State University. Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Thomas Zlacket will be among the panelists and will reflect on his experiences with the issue while on the court. Psychologist Katherine Norgard will discuss her experience with having a son on death row. Registration is $10, which includes lunch if reservations are made by Saturday. The conference is free for students and walk-ins are welcome. The event is 9:30 a.m. March 4 at the Memorial Union building, Tempe Campus. Details: Lynn Leonardo, (602) 285-1999 or lleonardo@ cc-az.org. (source: Arizona Republic)
