[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS

[Rick Halperin]

June 21



TEXAS:

Woman was abused as toddler, jurors are told

Lisa Ann Coleman, who was convicted Monday of capital murder in the
starving death of 9-year-old Davontae Williams, was sexually abused as a
toddler by her foster parents. Then she was introduced to alcohol and
drugs as a teenager by a relative, a defense witness testified Tuesday in
the punishment phase of her trial.

Coleman, 30, could receive the death penalty in connection with the July
2004 death of the Arlington boy unless the jury decides there are
extenuating factors that would make a life sentence more appropriate .

Coleman's defense attorneys spent Tuesday contending that their client's
childhood is the mitigating factor that the jury should weigh when
deciding her fate.

Defense attorneys called child-abuse expert Carole Bowdry to testify about
Coleman's background, which includes abuse allegations against relatives.
Coleman was conceived when her mother, Patricia Coleman, was raped by her
step-grandfather, Bowdry said.

"Incest taboos are almost universal," Bowdry said.

In addition, Lisa Ann Coleman was whipped with extension cords by an
uncle, Bowdy said.

Prosecutors said Davontae's body was covered with scars and welts left by
beatings with extension cords.

Bowdry said that many children pick up parenting skills based on the way
they were raised.

A former medical examiner has testified that Davontae died from
malnutrition, with pneumonia as a contributing factor.

He was found dead in the east Arlington apartment he shared with Coleman
and his mother, Marcella Williams, 25. He weighed 35.8 pounds at the time,
according to Arlington police reports. Coleman and Davontae's mother were
immediately arrested in connection with the boy's death.

Marcella Williams is expected to face a capital murder charge later.

The defense is expected to present more witnesses today.

(source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram)

********************************

Crime lab's DNA section, shut in '02, will reopen


The Houston crime lab is poised to resume DNA testing, Police Chief Harold
Hurtt announced Tuesday, more than three years after the exposure of
shoddy DNA work touched off a forensics scandal that cast doubt on
evidence in thousands of criminal cases.

"Some of you have been waiting (for years) for this information," Hurtt
said at a news briefing with Mayor Bill White, several City Council
members and top police officials present. "I know I have been waiting for
2 years."

A national forensic association on Monday awarded accreditation to the
Police Department crime lab's DNA division, clearing the way for HPD
analysts to perform DNA tests for the first time since that division was
closed in December 2002. Accreditation certifies that labs meet minimum
standards.

The DNA division was the first to come under scrutiny for flawed analyses
and was the only portion of the lab that still remained shuttered after a
years-long effort to retrain personnel, retest evidence in hundreds of
cases and restore public confidence in the Houston Police Department's
ability to accurately process evidence in high-stakes criminal cases.

Convictions challenged

While HPD is prepared to reopen its DNA division, some questions raised by
its practices remain unresolved. An independent investigation of the crime
lab is ongoing and dozens of cases in which analysts' work was flawed
await adjudication. Police officials shut down the DNA division after an
audit revealed the use of unqualified personnel, lax protocols and
facilities that included a roof that leaked rainwater onto evidence.

Since then, private labs have tested all HPD cases that required DNA
analysis and errors have been exposed in the work of other lab divisions,
including those that test drugs, body fluids and firearms. 2 men have been
released from prison, one after serving more than 17 years for a rape that
new forensic tests show he did not commit, and the Legislature has
increased the oversight of all crime labs statewide.

During that time, the Police Department has taken internal steps to revamp
its crime lab, including hiring a new director and DNA division chief and
shuffling personnel so that no one who performed DNA tests when the
division was closed remains there. The number of analysts in that
division, which includes analysts performing other biological tests, has
increased from 9 to 12.

"They have come a long way," said Ralph Keaton, who oversees the
accrediting arm of the American Society of Crime Lab Directors, which
certified the DNA facility. "There are safeguards, procedures and training
in place that certainly was not there three years ago."

Other experts, however, including two who helped expose HPD's problems,
caution against viewing accreditation as a guarantee of the quality of a
lab's work.

"It's a start and a step up from where they used to be," said Elizabeth
Johnson, a California-based, independent DNA analyst. "But almost every
lab whose work I look at is accredited and I still see mistakes - from
minor to serious - coming out of those labs."

William Thompson, a professor at the University of California-Irvine who
reviewed dozens of cases from HPD's crime lab, agreed. He noted that
accreditation assures only that minimum standards are met.

"This is not the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval," he said.

One-year accreditation

Unlike a traditional accreditation, which can last for up to five years,
the certification that HPD received will expire in one year, Keaton said.
It was limited because analysts were performing tests only on mock cases -
not working with material from actual cases - at the time they were
evaluated. A 2003 Texas law prohibits unaccredited labs from processing
evidence.

Michael Bromwich, a former U.S. Justice Department official who has led an
independent investigation of the crime lab for more than a year, called
earning accreditation an "important milestone" for HPD.

"We wish the new DNA analysts well as they begin working real cases," he
said. "The analysts in the rebuilt DNA section can't erase the profound
problems of the past, but they have earned this fresh start through
dedication and hard work. Now the real challenges begin."

(source: Houston Chronicle)

***************************

Yates trial highlights power of an expert witness


During the murder trial of Andrea Yates in 2002, only one of a dozen
mental health experts who testified concluded that the Houston mom was
legally sane when she drowned her 5 children in the family bathtub.

That witness, called by prosecutors, was Park Dietz, a renowned forensic
psychiatrist. As the prosecutors' only mental health expert, Dietz and his
testimony helped convict Yates. The conviction later was overturned. When
Yates is retried beginning Thursday, much of the attention again will be
on Dietz, who is back on the prosecution's witness list. And now, there
are questions about Dietz's conclusions in the Yates case because of his
testimony in another trial involving a Texas mother who killed 2 of her
children.

Among them: whether Dietz, as Yates' attorneys plan to argue, improperly
injected religion into his diagnosis when he concluded that Yates was sane
when she killed her children on June 20, 2001.

Such questions have added intrigue to a case in which prosecutors' initial
decision to seek the death penalty ignited a national debate over how
mental illness and postpartum depression are viewed in criminal courts.
The Yates case now has become a symbol of the influence that expert
witnesses wield in trials across the USA each day  and a test of how
psychiatrists' opinions are used in court.

The standards judges use in deciding whether to admit psychiatric opinions
in court are less precise than those used to vet testimony about
scientific evidence that is more obviously measurable, such as DNA or
fingerprints.

In the Yates case, the issue is not whether Dietz qualifies as an expert
on psychiatry. His 65-page rsum cites his multiple academic degrees and
work as a university professor, practicing psychiatrist and consultant to
the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Secret Service.
Dietz, 57, has testified  usually for the prosecution  at hundreds of
trials, including those of John Hinckley, who shot President Reagan;
"Unabomber" Theodore Kaczynski; and serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer. Dietz
was paid $100,000 for his work on the Yates case, he said.

George Parnham, Yates' lead attorney, said the defense hopes to raise
doubts about Dietz's analysis of Yates. The defense, Parnham said, will
focus particularly on why Dietz found Yates to be sane  and therefore
legally responsible for her actions  and why he came to the opposite
conclusion in 2004 in a similar case involving Deanna Laney, a Texas
mother who killed 2 of her sons.

Kaylynn Williford, a Harris County prosecutor, said Dietz's analysis in
other cases is not relevant to the Yates case. She says she will ask the
judge to limit Dietz's testimony to his analysis of Yates. If convicted,
Yates could face life in prison, but not execution. That issue was settled
at her 1st trial, when the jury rejected execution.

Texas law defines insanity as the inability to know right from wrong. At
Yates' trial 4 years ago, Dietz testified that Yates knew that drowning
her children was wrong. Jurors agreed with Dietz's opinion and rejected
her insanity defense.

2 years after Yates was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, Dietz
testified for the prosecution in the murder trial of Laney, a mother from
Tyler, Texas, 100 miles east of Dallas. Laney had killed her sons Joshua,
8, and Luke, 6, with a rock and had maimed a 3rd, Aaron, 2.

The similarities between the cases were striking. Laney and Yates, now
both 41, were deeply religious, stay-at-home moms when they killed their
children. After interviewing them, Dietz found each woman to be mentally
ill, psychotic and delusional, according to transcripts from both trials.

However, in Laney's case, Dietz testified she was insane because she had
thought attacking her kids was the right thing to do. The jury agreed with
Dietz's analysis and acquitted her by reason of insanity. She now is in a
mental hospital.

A key difference in the Yates and Laney cases: Laney told Dietz she
attacked her sons at God's direction. Dietz testified he took that as a
sign she didn't know right from wrong. "I think it's understood that the
ultimate test that God could ask of someone is to kill your own child,"
Dietz testified at the Laney trial. "The Bible has information on that
very point."

On the other hand, Yates had told Dietz that she had drowned her children
Noah, 7; John, 5; Paul, 3; Luke, 2; and Mary, 6 months  at the direction
of Satan, according to the trial transcript. She also told Dietz she
thought it was wrong.

In an interview with USA TODAY, Dietz recalled why he came to different
conclusions about the mental health of Laney and Yates.

"Mrs. Laney expected that her actions would result in her going to heaven,
he said. "Mrs. Yates expected she would go to hell for her actions. She
told me that. The big thing is that Mrs. Laney did not think what she was
doing was wrong. Mrs. Yates did. Mrs. Laney did not see killing the
children as a sin. Mrs. Yates did. Mrs. Laney thought God approved of the
killing. Mrs. Yates thought God disapproved of the killing. Mrs. Laney did
not expect punishment. Mrs. Yates did."

Transcripts from their trials indicate the 2 women told Dietz more about
what they were thinking when they killed their kids. Yates told Dietz she
was saving them from eternal damnation, Dietz testified. And at Laney's
trial, he testified that Laney "would know it was illegal to kill" her
kids.

In the interview, Dietz further explained his views: "Let's assume both of
them understand that killing is against the law. Mrs. Laney believed
herself to be doing the right thing at God's direction. Mrs. Yates
believed herself to be doing the wrong thing, with Satan's prompting, and
that it was sinful."

Yates' attorneys say Dietz improperly injected religion into his
diagnosis.

"There's no question," Parnham said. "He's used religious symbols
inappropriately."

Michael Perlin, a professor at New York Law School who specializes in
mental disability law, said societal values about good and evil should not
be factors in determining whether a defendant is sane.

"It shouldn't make any difference where the voices come from, whether God
or Satan or a pop star or Napoleon," Perlin said. "If you're responding to
voices, that suggests a lack of a grasp on reality. They're responding to
an extra-worldly command in a delusional state."

Dietz disagrees. "Under Texas law, if a mentally ill person commits a
murder in response to command hallucinations from God, they would surely
be insane," he said. "If they did it at the direction of the chief of
police, they are arguably insane. If they believed it at the direction of
a gang leader, at the direction of Napoleon, at the direction of Satan,
they are not insane. Gang leaders, Napoleon and Satan do not have moral
authority in Texas.

"The issue is: Does the person believe they are doing the right thing or
the wrong thing?"

Enlightenment or confusion

Expert witnesses have been around for centuries.

In what could be called the O.J. Simpson case of its time, barristers
defending an English aristocrat accused of murder in 1699 summoned 10
physicians and a seaman to offer opinions about why a drowned body would
float.

According to a trial transcript supplied by Seton Hall law professor
Michael Risinger, the experts backed the defense's claim that the victim,
a young Quaker woman, had killed herself by leaping into a pond  and had
not been killed by the defendant. He was cleared.

By 1995, when Simpson was tried on murder charges in Los Angeles, the
demand for expert witnesses had created an industry in which some law
firms specialize in rounding up such witnesses.

The Simpson case became a battle of experts. In defending Simpson against
charges that he had killed his former wife and a waiter, Simpson's legal
team assembled a squad of footprint and blood experts to counter every
footprint and blood expert called by prosecutors.

Simpson's acquittal led to several academic studies about whether expert
witnesses enlighten or confuse juries. By the time of Simpson's trial,
federal courts already were beginning to restrict the use of expert
witnesses.

In 1993, the Supreme Court set rules for such witnesses amid concerns that
false "scientific" evidence, layered with opinion, was being allowed into
civil court trials involving product liability, personal injuries and
other issues.

The court told federal judges to examine the scientific methods used to
support evidence presented by expert witnesses, and to admit only evidence
that was scientifically "relevant and reliable." That rule has been
adopted by state courts across the nation.

"Before the (1993) decision, I was seeing the most outlandish testimony.
People with no credentials offered conclusions without explaining
themselves," said Elizabeth Whitaker, a defense lawyer in Dallas who has
written about expert witnesses.

The ruling's impact was so sweeping, scholars say, that some civil courts
have kept qualified experts from testifying. "At times, it's too rigid a
view of what scientists would treat as admissible," said Margaret Berger,
a professor at Brooklyn Law School in New York.

The Supreme Court's rule for expert witnesses has had less impact in
criminal trials. Most experts in such cases  such as DNA and hair follicle
analysts and fingerprint technicians  are called by prosecutors to testify
about obviously measurable evidence. Few defendants are able to mount a
Simpson-like challenge to such testimony.

Where standards get murky

As courts have reined in expert testimony, there have been persistent
questions about how to apply such standards to experts who deal with
mental health and behavioral sciences  witnesses who provide courts with
evidence that can be particularly difficult to verify.

In death-penalty cases, prosecutors often ask mental health experts to
predict whether a convicted killer will be violent in the future. Such
demands reflect state laws, such as those in Texas and Virginia, that ask
jurors to decide whether a defendant is likely to be "a continuing threat
to society."

The American Psychiatric Association has said such predictions are
unreliable. In 2004, the Texas Defender Service concluded in a study of
155 inmates that psychiatrists' predictions about future violence were
wrong 95% of the time.

Christopher Slobogin, a University of Florida law professor, says some
scholars have pushed to limit testimony of mental health experts to
verifiable facts. He says that idea won't fly in courts. "Past mental
state is unknowable. That's the basic conundrum," he said. "One possible
approach is to prohibit experts from addressing past mental state. But
judges and juries want to know what the expert thinks of the facts. They
want the facts tied together with a coherent story."

Parnham, Yates' attorney, said that in challenging Dietz's analysis, the
defense will have to overcome Dietz's commanding presence in court. "He is
charismatic," Parnham said. "He is extremely intelligent. He is able to
deliver his opinion to the jury in a concise and logical way."

WHY YATES IS BEING RETRIED

When the Texas Court of Appeals threw out Andrea Yates' conviction last
year and set the stage for a retrial, it blamed Park Dietz, the
prosecution's mental health expert.

During Yates' trial in 2002, Dietz testified that he believed Yates was
legally sane when she drowned her five children the previous year. The
jury agreed, found Yates guilty and gave her a life sentence.

It was Dietz's testimony on a separate matter that led the appeals court
to overturn Yates' conviction. On the witness stand, Dietz described an
episode of the TV drama Law & Order in which a mother with postpartum
depression drowned her children and was found not guilty by reason of
insanity. The episode, Dietz testified, aired just before Yates drowned
her children.

In fact, there was no such episode of Law & Order.

Dietz did not testify that the show inspired Yates. But during closing
arguments, prosecutors "connected the dots" to suggest the show had done
just that, the appeals court said.

A grand jury investigated Dietz and the prosecutors but found no
wrongdoing. Dietz says his testimony about the TV show was "an honest
mistake."

(source: USA Today)

***************************

Execution too much for inmate's mother


As soon as Lamont Reese received the lethal dose Tuesday night, he spoke.

"This is some nasty," he said, referring to the taste many condemned
prisoners say they notice in the seconds before death.

With that, Reese, 28, drew his last breath, and his mother broke down.
Brenda Reese, Lamont's mother, had been talking calmly through the glass
separating she and her son until he drew his final breath.

"No, Jesus," she screamed and began beating on the window. "God, he felt
that. They killed my baby.

"Please Jesus," she cried and pleaded. "Don't do it. Oh, God, Jesus,
please don't."

Family members surrounded Reese in the witness room at the Huntsville
"Walls" Unit, trying to comfort her in the moments after her son's death.
"Oh God, Jesus," she began to chant. "Oh God, Jesus. My baby's gone."

With that, Reese began to kick the wall separating her side of the witness
room and the victim's witnesses, kicking 2 small holes in the wall.

After her outburst, Reese was asked to leave the room by TDCJ personnel.
Her family physically helped her out of the room. As they walked out of
the death chamber, a family member began to sing softly, "He's got the
whole world, in His hands. He's got the whole, wide world in His hands."

Lamont Reese was executed Tuesday night for the 1999 shooting deaths of
17-year-old Riki Jackson, 26-year-old Alonzo Stewart and 25-year-old
Anthony Roney. Reese shot the victims with an unknown handgun, according
to TDCJ reports. Reports also indicate that 13-year-old Alfonzo Primus was
shot in the hip and 24-year-old Kendrick Grant was shot in the arm.

Before his death, Reese turned to address his family.

"Momma, I just want you to know I love you," he said. "I want all of you
all to know I love you all.

"I am at peace; we know what it is," he continued. "We know the truth.
Stay out of crime; there is no point in it. I am at peace. I am glad it
didn't take that long - no 10 or 20 years."

Brenda Reese asked her son through the window if he enjoyed his final
meal.

"Yeah," he replied to her. "I got my eat on."

Reese then let everyone know he didn't walk peacefully to the death
chamber.

"I just want everybody to know I didn't walk to this," he said. "The
reason is because it's murder. I am not going to play a part in my own
murder. "No one should have to do that," he added. "I love you all."

Turning to address the family members of his victims, Reese denied having
killed anyone.

"I do not know all of your names," he began. "And, I don't know how you
feel about me. And whether you believe it or not, I did not kill them.

"I just want you all to have peace; you know what I'm saying," he
continued. "You have to move past it," he continued. "It is time to move
on."

Reese closed his final statement by saying he loved his family present for
the execution. He then told them to tell his son he loved him.

Reese was pronounced dead at 6:27 p.m., 8 minutes after the lethal dose
began to flow.

He was the 12th inmate executed this year in the nation's busiest capital
punishment state.

Reese, who described himself as "no angel" and acknowledged dealing crack
cocaine for years, contended in an earlier interview he wasn't involved in
the gunfire outside the convenience store the evening of March 1, 1999. "I
was not at the crime," Reese insisted.

Evidence at Reese's trial showed his 18-year-old girlfriend, Kareema
Kimbrough, walked out of the convenience store about four miles southeast
of downtown Fort Worth and drew the attention of several men who were
drinking and playing dice outside the place. Reese became angry with the
men flirting with Kimbrough.

The couple left, met up with 3 others, including a pair of juveniles, and
armed themselves with handguns and assault rifles. With Kimbrough driving
and accompanied also by her 2-year-old son, she dropped off the 4 near the
store.

The gunmen then sprayed the scene with bullets. Kimbrough drove back
around, retrieved her friends and they all sped off.

Police were told by the victim of another shooting of people bragging
about the convenience store gunfire. That led to the arrests of Reese,
Kimbrough and their companions. Detectives found ammunition in Reese's car
that matched bullets found at the shooting scene.

Reese grew up in Louisiana where he said he spent much of his childhood in
state custody after his mother was sent to prison.

Kimbrough, now 26, is serving a life prison term on a capital murder
conviction. The three others, including the two juveniles who were charged
as adults, agreed to plea bargains and are serving sentences ranging from
35 to 50 years.

(source: Hunstville Item)

*******************

Houston Crime Lab Set to Resume DNA Tests


The DNA division of the Houston Police Department's crime lab, closed for
more than 3 years because of concerns over flawed testing, is set to
reopen, city officials said.

The division was shut down in 2002 after an independent audit revealed the
use of unqualified personnel, inadequate facilities and lax protocols.

Reviews of the lab's work led to 2 men's release from prison, including a
man who served 17 years for a rape that new forensic tests show he did not
commit. Dozens of cases in which analysts' work was inaccurate await
adjudication.

Since the closure, private labs have been conducting DNA analysis. The
department has revamped its crime lab, hiring a new director and DNA
division chief. It also increased the number of analysts in the division
from nine to 12.

The department said Tuesday the facility has been accredited by the
American Society of Crime Lab Directors. The accreditation certifies that
the lab meets minimum standards and is required by Texas law for labs to
process evidence.

(source: Associated Press)

**********************

'Railway killer' should be spared, psychiatrist says----Doctor cites
schizophrenia as reason to halt next week's execution


An Arizona psychiatrist Tuesday described railway killer Angel Maturino
Resendiz as a violently psychotic man whose diseased brain sent him on a
cross-country killing spree, led him to fear wild government conspiracies
and now makes him think he will survive execution.

Dr. Lauro Amezcua-Patio told state District Judge William Harmon that
Maturino Resendiz is not competent to be executed for the December 1998
murder of Dr. Claudia Benton because he suffers from paranoid
schizophrenia.

Maturino Resendiz, thought to have killed as many as 14 people, is
scheduled for execution Tuesday in Huntsville.

Final arguments in the hearing are scheduled for this morning in Harmon's
178th state district court.

Maturino Resendiz, wearing a canary yellow jail jumpsuit and a Fidel
Castro beard, stared into space as lawyers sparred over issues that will
decide his fate.

Experts disagree on illness

Amezcua-Patio, who was selected by defense lawyers to examine the killer,
testified there was no indication that Maturino Resendiz exaggerated the
severity of his mental illness to escape death.

The killer has said he is half-man, half-angel and that his murders were
ordained by God to smite homosexuals, abortion supporters, Satanists and
child abusers.

"Schizophrenia is a disease of the brain in which the brain loses function
and brain cells," Amezcua-Patio testified. Victims can suffer
hallucinations, delusions and memory loss and lose the ability to function
in society.

"He believes he is Jewish," the doctor testified. "He believes there is a
conspiracy involving George Bush and Dick Cheney that is trying to prevent
him from doing God's work."

While he recognizes that he has been sentenced to die for killing Benton
and that his execution will occur next week, Maturino Resendiz is
convinced that he will awaken in three days in a new body to fight "bad
Muslims" in Israel, Amezcua-Patio testified.

Earlier Tuesday, Houston psychiatrist Dr. Mark Moeller testified that
Maturino Resendiz may suffer from delusions, but he is not schizophrenic.

Therefore, the doctor told Harmon, he is eligible for execution.

Moeller, selected by prosecutors to examine the killer, said he found
Maturino Resendiz "goal-oriented and logical ... There was no indication
of hallucinations."

Later, outside the courtroom, Moeller called Maturino Resendiz a "shark,"
and suggested that he had exaggerated his mental illness to escape
execution.

Other doctors missed indications of the killer's malingering because they
were too accustomed to trusting their patients, he said.

Disputing written testimony

Also appearing Tuesday was Beaumont psychiatrist Dr. Mark Gripon, who
testified that Maturino Resendiz is competent.

"He could name the place of his execution, the procedure ... and even tell
me the cost," Gripon said, "but he believes he cannot be killed by any
means. He believes he can 'jump' to other lives until time is no more."

Prosecutors and defense attorney Jack Zimmermann skirmished Tuesday over
whether the written report of a prosecution-selected psychologist, Jerome
Brown of Houston, can be admitted for Harmon's consideration.

Brown will be the only witness not to appear in court and, therefore,
cannot be cross-examined.

Zimmerman asked Harmon to reject Brown's written testimony. Prosecutor Lyn
McClellan said Brown had met his obligation to the court by submitting his
report.

(source: Houston Chronicle)

**********************

The survey says: More prison programs needed----Texas group's finding
mirrors a growing national interest.


At a time when state prisons are nearly full and legislative leaders are
scratching their heads for a solution to a fast-approaching crowding
crisis, a survey by a justice reform group suggests that Texans favor more
rehabilitation and treatment programs.

The study by the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition shows that 96 percent of
those surveyed view rehabilitation, not incarceration, as the primary
purpose of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the same
percentage want more treatment programs funded for nonviolent drug
offenders as a way to reduce recidivism.

Among other recommendations: Parole and probation programs should be
beefed up to successfully shepherd more nonviolent lawbreakers back into
society as law-abiding, taxpaying citizens.

68 % of the more than 4,000 Texans who took the online survey during a
recent 2-week period also wanted parole and probation officers' pay raises
and promotions to be tied to successful re-entry rates for the ex-cons
they oversee.

The results mirror recent national studies that suggest public support
might be growing for rehabilitation and so-called re-entry programs, a
shift from a few years ago when punishment and new prisons garnered much
of the attention  and money.

The coalition, which includes groups like the American Civil Liberties
Union of Texas and the League of United Latin American Citizens, often
lobbies for rehabilitation programs for prisoners. But the size of the
survey, along with the growing sentiment among legislative leaders to beef
up rehabilitation programs as a way to avoid building expensive prisons,
is another indication that alternative programs could be a focus for
lawmakers during the 2007 legislative session.

Gov. Rick Perry vetoed efforts to expand probation programs in 2005, amid
opposition from police and prosecutors.

"We believe the survey shows that Texans are ready to spend their
hard-earned money on alternatives to incarceration that will yield real
returns," said Ana Yaez Correa, executive director of the coalition.

The coalition's survey will be submitted to the Texas Sunset Commission,
which soon will begin reviewing prison operations as part of its
every-12-year study of how to improve individual state agencies.

Although they had not seen the survey results, prison officials said
successful rehabilitation programs remain a top priority.

"We are trying to give inmates the tools they need to succeed once they
are released," said Michelle Lyons, spokeswoman for the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice.

In recent years, educational, counseling and rehabilitation programs for
inmates have been cut as lawmakers shied away from raising taxes.

Within the past 3 years, prison officials in Texas and other states have
increasingly warned that shrinking funding for rehabilitation, treatment
and re-entry programs will eventually mean more ex-cons coming back to
prison.

ON THE WEB: View survey results at

www.criminaljusticecoalition.org/solutions_for_incarceration/tdcj-sunset

(source: Austin American-Statesman)

*************************

Psychologist: Man was insane when he shot his ex-girlfriend's mother


Today is the 2nd of a 2-day jury trial for a Lufkin man who is pleading
insanity for having shot and wounded his ex-girlfriend's mother in 2005.

Defense and prosecuting attorneys worked through about a dozen witnesses
Tuesday.

Mathews faces a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He has
pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

On July 31, 2005, Mathews fired gunshots upon seeing his ex-girlfriend and
her mother inside an apartment the 2 had shared, according to court
testimony. One of the bullets hit and wounded his ex-girlfriend's mother,
who suffered no fatal injuries. She and her daughter had gone to the
apartment to pick up clothes for a church picnic.

At the time, Mathews and his girlfriend had been dating on and off for
about 5 years, Mathews' mother said in court Tuesday.

Mathews fled the scene and was arrested by police later that day.

Prior to the shooting, Mathews had been receiving treatment for
schizophrenia at a mental health treatment facility in Rusk. Schizophrenia
is a chronic brain disorder that interferes with a person's ability to
think clearly, distinguish fantasy from reality, manage emotions and
relate to others, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.

In court, defense attorney Al Charanza said Mathews was suffering from
symptoms of schizophrenia on July 31. Charanza said Mathews "blacked out"
during the shooting and later woke up in the woods.

"We know this is a serious crime, but it's a serious defense," Charanza
said of the insanity plea.

In court Tuesday, Joseph Kartye, a licensed psychologist appointed by the
state of Texas to evaluate Mathews, testified Mathews was insane at the
time of the shooting. Kartye concluded Mathews was spiraling down, off his
schizophrenia medications leading up to the shooting.

It was a conclusion prosecuting attorney Art Bauereiss appeared surprised
to hear and challenged, referencing Kartye's first evaluation report in
which he determined Mathews to be sane.

"No, I came to the conclusion he was insane," Kartye said, referring to
his 2nd evaluation.

Bauereiss said he had not received a copy of the second evaluation. He
asked to see one and then continued.

"Psychological opinion is just one piece of the puzzle," Bauereiss stated.
Kartye agreed.

A handful of people listened to the trial as state District Judge David
Wilson had asked all witnesses to wait outside the courtroom until asked
to testify.

The insanity defense is used in less than 1 % of cases, a 1991 study
conducted by NIMH found. Of that percentage, the study found, 26 % were
argued successfully.

In 1 high-profile verdict, a jury found Ronald Reagan's assassin, John
Hinckley Jr., not guilty by reason of insanity.

Day 2 of Mathews' trial was scheduled at 8:30 a.m. today at the county
courthouse.

(source: Lufkin Daily News)

****************

Freed Man Gives Lesson on False Confessions----An ex-inmate tells a
California panel how Texas police coerced him into admitting to murder.


17 years ago, Christopher Ochoa told a Texas jury exactly how he and a
friend repeatedly raped 20-year-old Nancy DePriest and then shot her dead
at the Pizza Hut where she worked.

The details were so gruesome that DePriest's mother, Jeanette Popp, fled
the courtroom and threw up in a bathroom. Ochoa and his co-defendant,
Richard Danziger, who steadfastly maintained his innocence, both received
life sentences.

But Ochoa's story was a lie - a total lie.

He had been threatened with the death penalty by a police detective if he
did not admit that he and Danziger murdered DePriest; he also had to
testify against Danziger. The 2 young men worked at a different pizza
place and came under suspicion after they toasted DePriest's memory with
beers at the scene of the murder.

But the fact that Ochoa confessed falsely did not come to light until
2000, 4 years after the real killer, already serving three life terms for
other crimes, told police in Austin, Texas, that he was responsible for
the young woman's death.

The account by Achim Joseph Marino, by then a born-again Christian, had
for several years been given short shrift. Eventually, with the help of
pro bono attorneys, DNA tests were performed and the 2 men were
exonerated.

Today, Ochoa, 39, and Popp, 56, are testifying in Los Angeles at a hearing
of the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice about the
ramifications of their experience for California. In particular, they want
to express their strong feelings about a subject that many people find
difficult to grasp: that innocent people sometimes really do confess to
crimes they did not commit.

Ochoa and Popp said they would urge the commission to recommend
legislation requiring that police be required to videotape every moment of
their contact with a suspect to avoid false confessions.

False confessions "do happen, a lot more often than people think," Ochoa
said.

Added Popp: "I have heard lots of people say I would never do that - never
confess to something I didn't do. How do you know what you would do if you
were in that interrogation room with the man I call 'El Diablo'? "
referring to the lead police investigator.

"Cases like this reveal in very dramatic terms that this does happen - not
just with people who are mentally ill or of limited intelligence or
otherwise vulnerable, such as children," said Keith A. Findley, a
University of Wisconsin law professor and co-director of the school's
Innocence Project. He played an instrumental role in securing freedom for
Ochoa and Danziger.

"It happens with mentally healthy, intelligent people like Chris Ochoa,"
who last month graduated from the law school where Findley teaches, the
professor said.

Indeed, of the 180 inmates in the United States exonerated by DNA testing
in the last two decades, 44 had falsely confessed, said New York attorney
Barry Scheck, a co-founder of the Innocence Project at New York's Benjamin
N. Cardozo School of Law who also played a key role in the case.

On Oct. 24, 1988, DePriest, the mother of a 15-month-old girl, was found
lying nude at a Pizza Hut in north Austin. Her hands were bound behind
her. She had been raped and shot in the head.

The true story of her murder started to emerge just three weeks before the
2000 presidential election, a time when the Texas criminal justice system
was under media scrutiny because more than 150 people had been executed
during the administration of then-Gov. George W. Bush.

A spokesman for Bush acknowledged at the time that Bush had received a
confession letter from Marino in February 1998, but said he did not turn
it over to law enforcement authorities because Marino said he also was
sending it to the Travis County district attorney's office.

Marino's four-page letter, also sent to the Austin police and a local
newspaper, said he had "robbed, raped and shot" DePriest at the Pizza Hut
in October 1988.

Eventually, Travis County Dist. Atty. Ronnie Earle re-opened the case. The
DNA tests cleared Ochoa and Danziger, who were released from prison in
2001 after serving 12 years. Both men filed federal civil rights lawsuits
alleging that Austin police officials failed to properly train or monitor
3 homicide investigators and that the officers threatened violence,
fabricated Ochoa's confession and destroyed and hid exculpatory evidence.

2 years after the 2 men's release, the Austin City Council decided to
settle with both of them. Ochoa, 22 at the time of his arrest, got $5.3
million. Danziger, who was 19 when he was arrested, got more - $9 million
from the city and $1 million from the county - in part because he
sustained permanent brain damage from a prison beating.

Popp actively supported the men's release. When she heard on television
that the 2 might have been wrongly convicted, she said, "my knees began to
shake. My first reaction was anger - why were they trying to get these
boys off; the evidence I heard in the courtroom was extremely strong."

But she talked with Findley and looked at documents.

"I knew we had done a horrible thing. I say 'we' even though I was not
involved in sending them to prison. I somehow felt responsible," Popp said
in a lengthy interview. She sent Ochoa and Danziger letters saying "how
sorry I was," and soon gave an interview to a local newspaper saying they
should be freed.

She went to court the day Ochoa was released and sat with his mother as
the judge who had sentenced him said there had been a "clear miscarriage
of justice."

Months later, she went to see Marino, the real killer, who was awaiting
trial at a jail in Austin. From Marino, she learned, contrary to trial
testimony, that her daughter had not begged for mercy. Marino said
DePriest's only words were, "Please don't hurt me." She also learned that
her daughter had been raped once, not numerous times, as Ochoa had
confessed after being fed a story by police investigators.

Popp said she remained disturbed that no action was taken against lead
police investigator Hector Polanco, who retired shortly after it became
clear that Ochoa and Danziger were innocent. Polanco said DePriest "was
repeatedly sodomized, raped eight times, begged for her life. He made
these things up. I had nightmares for 12 years," Popp said.

Marino was convicted later and received another life sentence. After the
jailhouse meeting, Popp successfully urged prosecutors not to seek the
death penalty. Since then, she frequently has spoken out against capital
punishment.

Ochoa, who was chosen by his law school classmates to be one of the
speakers at their graduation, said most people had no grasp of why a
person would make a false confession.

Ochoa, who was questioned for more than 20 hours over 2 days, said in an
interview Tuesday that he told officers repeatedly that he did not know
anything about DePriest's murder but that eventually his will was broken.
He said he was afraid that he would be executed, as police detectives had
threatened, if he did not confess.

During his interrogation, Ochoa said, Polanco "told me I would be 'fresh
meat' for the other inmates, which I took to mean rape." He said Polanco
also showed him pictures of death row, and DePriest's autopsy photos. At
one point, Ochoa said, the detective rapped him on the arm and said
"that's where the needle will go," referring to lethal injection in the
Texas death chamber.

"They kept saying, 'You are going to get the death penalty. This is a
high-profile case. The community wants someone to die,' " Ochoa recalled.
He knew he had done nothing, but he started to worry.

"I was taught to trust the cops," Ochoa said. He said that when he asked
to call a lawyer, one of the officers told him he could not do that until
he had been charged. After Ochoa was charged and told his defense lawyer
how he had been intimidated, the attorney didn't believe him.

"I always have been amazed at someone saying what a 'reasonable person'
would do in that situation," Ochoa said. "That kind of rational thinking
cost me 13 years of my life."

(source: Los Angeles Times)