[Deathpenalty] death penalty news------TEXAS

[Rick Halperin]

July 6


TEXAS:

Federal court refuses to hear Death Row inmate's appeal


A Las Milpas native convicted of stabbing a man nearly 100 times during a
1999 robbery moved one step closer this week to expected execution.

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court rejected Arturo Eleazar Diaz's
challenge to his death sentence for that crime, despite the 31-year-old's
claims that his family members were never called to the stand during the
penalty phase of his trial.

Diaz has previously confessed to stabbing Michael Ryan Nichols, of
McAllen, 94 times in the head neck and chest. But the convicted killer's
relatives said Thursday they still believe he is innocent.

"The system has been unfair," Diaz's grandmother, Maria Elena Camacho,
said in Spanish. "My grandson is not guilty."

Diaz's relatives argued that his childhood filled with poverty, neglect,
violence and self-mutilation may have swayed a jury toward a more lenient
punishment. But they were never asked to testify on his behalf, according
to sworn affidavits included in his appeal.

But Tuesday, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
agreed with a federal district judge who had already ruled Diaz's
attorneys were following their client's instructions when they did not
call family members to testify.

During a 2002 interview with The Monitor, Diaz admitted that he had
stabbed Nichols and his roommate John Shepard while high on marijuana,
cocaine and alcohol. But he maintained throughout the meeting - conducted
at a state prison in Livingston - that he had no idea what he was doing.

"I did it, but my mind says it wasn't me," he said.

Diaz also confessed to killing another man - David Anthony Nichols, of
Combes - by stomping on his head and bludgeoning his face beyond
recognition with a hammer during a March 25, 1999, fistfight.

The 2 killings were found to be unrelated, despite the last names both
victims shared.

Charges in connection with David Nichols' death were dropped because no
one came forward to identify the victim.

It was Camacho, who had raised Diaz from the age of 5, who eventually
turned her grandson in. After seeing his photo in news reports, she led
authorities to his sister's home on April 11, 1999.

Police charged Diaz with capital murder and aggravated robbery for Michael
Nichols' death and attempted capital murder for the attack on Shepard, who
survived the stabbing.

"I turned him in," Camacho said in 2002. "I told him, 'If you're guilty,
you have to pay.'"

At the time, her grandson told her that he killed Michael Nichols in
self-defense during a fight over the use of the man's pickup truck. But
evidence presented during his trial showed that Michael Nichols' hands and
feet were bound shortly before his death.

The stabbing left deep wounds in his liver, kidney, lungs and heart and
cuts to his head and neck, prosecutors argued. The tip of the knife broke
off in his rib.

Diaz never testified on his own behalf during the portion of his trial
that determined whether he was guilty or not guilty of the charges. His
attorneys called no witnesses, arguing instead that the case did not merit
a capital murder charge.

After an Hidalgo County jury found him guilty, his lawyers only called one
witness - a psychologist who testified that Diaz had suffered head
injuries during several fights and that those injuries could have impaired
his judgment and perception of reality.

But the testimony was undercut by a written report, prepared by the
practitioner, that portrayed Diaz as uncooperative and accused him of
trying to fake mental illness.

On Feb. 16, 2000, Diaz was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences and
the death penalty.

Although he now claims his family's testimony could have helped his case,
he expressed discomfort during the 2002 interview with having his
relatives in the courtroom during his trial.

"When they sentenced me, it felt weird," he said. "My family was there. I
knew it hurt them to hear that."

Despite this week's setback, Diaz's appeal could still be considered by
the U.S. Supreme Court, and no execution date has been set, Camacho said.

"They did a very bad thing for denying his appeal," she said. "He didn't
do it."

(source: The Monitor)

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

Independent reviews needed to fix justice system failures


When the justice system errs, society benefits from timely correction.

Texas has made its share of mistakes, but advanced DNA testing has allowed
the state to correct many of those errors, and that is welcome progress.

In death penalty cases, however, errors cannot be corrected after a person
is put to death. We can and should learn from them to prevent any future
miscarriages of justice. That requires a fair and thorough search for the
truth when legitimate questions are raised.

That is what should have happened in the case of convicted teen killer
Ruben Cantu, who was executed in 1993. But instead of getting answers
after a lengthy investigation, we're left with the same doubts about the
case: Did Cantu rob and murder a San Antonio construction worker, Pedro
Gomez, in 1984? Did Texas execute the wrong person for that crime?

We should have learned the truth from a disinterested review - and would
have - if the state had an independent entity to conduct reviews when
questions arise in criminal cases. Instead, we have a system that leaves
the search for truth up to Texas' district attorneys, who more often than
not are deeply invested in the outcome.

Last week, Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed concluded that Cantu
committed the crime. But Reed's history and role in the case cast doubts
on those findings. Reed is a former judge in the case who denied an appeal
by Cantu and set his execution date. That involvement is a heavy burden to
bear, particularly if Cantu was innocent. We've made repeated calls for
Reed to turn over the investigation to an outside examiner. The public
deserved an independent, objective review.

In 2005, nearly 15 years after Cantu was executed, the sole eyewitness in
the case, Juan Moreno, recanted his testimony. Moreno apologized for
fingering Cantu as the shooter. Moreno said he wanted to clear his
conscience after many years.

Additionally, David Garza, who, along with Cantu was convicted of the
killing, claimed that Cantu was innocent.

In pursuing the investigation, Reed ignored the advice of 22 law
professors with expertise in legal ethics. They advised Reed to step
aside, citing the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct that
prohibit lawyers from participating in cases in which they also acted as
judges. Several editorial pages, including this one, pointed out that her
history in the case would undermine any search for truth.

Ultimately, the state's highest criminal court, the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, took a pass on the issue. That legal void demonstrates
the need for an independent body with jurisdiction to review certain
criminal cases.

This year, the Legislature squandered an opportunity to establish a
commission that would have done that when lawmakers killed a proposal by
state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston.

Reed said in her report, entitled, "In the Matter of Juan Moreno," that
the "claims of Cantu's innocence, made more than 12 years after his
execution, do not withstand the scrutiny of close review and analysis, and
lack any credible supporting witnesses or verifiable facts."

The public is left to wonder why Reed is unable or unwilling to see that
her conflicts of interest cast doubt on her findings.

(source: Editorial, Austin American-Statesman)

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

Texas Wants Another Man Dead----The Law Be Damned


So, it's the week of the Fourth of July-the date the United States
celebrates its struggle for independence from England and its throne.
Scooter Libby, who was convicted (in the place of more serious crimes and
perpetrators) of lying to Congress about matters of state has just had his
30 month sentence commuted.

The reason for the July 4th date is because it was the date in 1776 that
the Declaration of Independence was signed. Of course, this independence
was really only for the southern white male planters and their northern
counterparts, but the seed it planted has inspired men and women around
the world to make the words of that declaration's preamble universal. Yet,
we are still quite far from that goal, even here in the United States.
Indeed, especially here in the United States. Poverty prevents millions
from achieving their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness." Hundreds of thousands of those denied these rights end up in
prison not only lose the latter, but quite literally lose their liberty.
Of those hundreds of thousands, hundreds have lost their lives because of
the state's' insistence on their right to execute certain prisoners, most
of them black and brown-skinned.

One of these men is Kenneth Foster, a young African-American resident of
Texas who is facing execution at the end of August 2007. His case revolves
around a very controversial law known as the "law of parties." In essence,
this law imposes the death penalty on any body involved in a crime where a
murder occurred, even if the accused was not involved in the murder or
even aware that the killer intended to commit murder. If this law were
applied to Scooter Libby's case, theres a good chance that Dick Cheney and
Karl Rove would have also been convicted, even if they didnt know that
Libby was going to lie to Congress.

Kenneth is also a founding member of the Death Row Inner-Communalist
Vanguard Engagement, or DRIVE. Members of DRIVE have organized in the
worst of circumstances to protest the awful living conditions on Texas'
death row and against the death penalty in general. DRIVE is a
first-of-its-kind social movement with a growing base of support in the
U.S. and internationally. They have also created a politicized environment
on death row in which condemned inmates are refusing to walk to their
executions, forcing guards to drag them instead. More information about
DRIVE is available online at http://www.drivemovement.org

I ran into Marlene Martin of the Campaign to Abolish the Death Penalty in
Chicago a couple of weeks ago and she told me about the case and gave me
the name of Bryan McCann, who is an organizer of the campaign to prevent
Foster's execution. Bryan has been a member of the Campaign to End the
Death Penalty since 2005. His writing on the Texas death penalty has
appeared in the Socialist Worker and New Abolitionist. He lives in Austin,
Texas where he is a PhD student in Communication Studies. I contacted
Bryan and we carried on the following exchange.

Hi, Bryan. I just finished reading the materials on Kenneth Foster's case
sent to me by the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, along with some other
news articles that I found on line. To help out the readers, can you
answer a couple background questions. Who is Kenneth Foster? Can you
summarize the state's case against Foster?

Kenneth Foster is a native of San Antonio, Texas. He has been on death row
since 1997, sentenced to death for the 1996 murder of Michael LaHood, Jr.
Kenneth did not shoot LaHood. This is not an innocence claim made solely
by his supporters. The state of Texas will be the 1st to admit that
Kenneth is factually innocent of murder. How is he still on death row?
Texas's Law of Parties, the only legislation of its kind in a death
penalty state, holds individuals criminally responsible for the offense of
another if the prosecution can prove they actively promoted or assisted
the commission of the offense or should have anticipated that it would
have taken place.

On August 14, 1996, Kenneth Foster was driving a car carrying Mauriceo
Brown, Dewayne Dillard, and Julius Steen. That night, Brown and Steen
committed two armed robberies, at which point Kenneth asked Dillard to
persuade them to stop. On the way home, Foster ended up behind a car
carrying Michael LaHood, Jr. and his girlfriend, Mary Patrick. Concerned
that Foster was deliberately following them, Patrick waved the car down in
front of the LaHood residence. Brown exited the car, presumably to talk to
Patrick and get her phone number. Dillard testified that no one
anticipated violence, and that Brown took the gun without permission or
knowledge of the other men. When Brown approached the woman, her boyfriend
Michael LaHood appeared in the driveway. Brown and LaHood exchanged words,
a shot was fired, and Michael LaHood lay dead. All of this transpired
while the other 3 men remained in the car, 80 feet away from the scene of
the crime, with the windows rolled up and radio turned on. After hearing
the gunshots, Kenneth began to drive away, but Brown managed to get back
in the car.

All of the above is well-corroborated by all four of the men on that
evening. Brown admitted to shooting LaHood but insisted it was in self
defense. However, the state tried Kenneth and Mauriceo together for
capital murder, basing Kenneth's charges on the Law of Parties. They
claimed that because 2 robberies had already taken place that night, he
should have anticipated that Brown might have tried to rob LaHood and
Patrick. Because he should have anticipated a robbery could have taken
place, he also should have known a murder could possibly take place. This
shaky logic, along with testimony from Steen (who later retracted part of
his testimony), was enough to sentence both Brown (who was executed in
2006) and Kenneth to death.

What kind of legal representation did he have at trial?

Like the vast majority of death row inmates, Kenneth had a court-appointed
attorney. This is largely due to the fact that the victim, Michael LaHood,
Jr.'s father was a prominent San Antonio lawyer. This fact made it
difficult for Kenneths family to find an attorney willing to take the
case. Kenneth's lawyers failed him on many counts, not least of all
failing to interview Julius Steen during the original trial. In the
sentencing phase, they failed to mention that both Kenneths parents were
drug addicts and his mother died of AIDS. This gave the jury little basis
for sympathy. Also, Brown's attorney referred to his client as an "animal"
and a "thug." Because the two men were tried together, this likely
prejudiced Kenneth in the eyes of the jury.

Has the case been appealed? What were the results and reasons given?

With the exception of his subsequent writ of habeas corpus, Kenneth's
appeals have been exhausted. In 2005, federal District Judge Royal
Furgeson overturned Kenneths death sentence on the grounds that it
violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Furgeson ruled that the jury in the
original trial was not asked to determine if Kenneth harbored any intent
to kill Michael LaHood. As a result, Kenneth's case constituted a
misapplication of the Law of Parties. However, Texas appealed the decision
to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and won. Since then, Kenneth has
categorically lost all of his appeals.

What is the "law of parties?" Has it ever been on the books in other
states? I noted in the summary on the law that the Supreme Court that the
" imposition of the death penalty on a person who aids and abets a felony
in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does not
himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill violates the 8th and 14th
Amendments of the US Constitution." Can you provide the readers with a
comprehensive history of this law and its interpretation in the courts?

The Law of Parties was adopted in 1974. It states that a person is equally
responsible for the criminal conduct of another if "acting with intent to
promote or assist the commission of the offense he solicits, encourages,
directs, aids or attempts to aid the other persons to commit the offense"
or "If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony,
another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators
are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to
commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful
purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the
carrying out of the conspiracy." The U.S. Supreme Court has indeed ruled
on laws of this nature, drawing the conclusion that you cite above in the
1982 Enmund v. Florida decision. However the court has not heard any cases
from Texas related to this issue. The only other case related to policies
such as the Law of Parties is the 1987 Tison v. Arizona decision in which
the Justices upheld the death sentences of two brothers who aided their
father in a deadly prison escape. The decision stated that "knowingly
engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death
represents a highly culpable mental state." They added that "We will not
attempt to precisely delineate the particular types of conduct and states
of mind warranting imposition of the death penalty.  Rather, we simply
hold that major participation in the felony  combined with reckless
indifference to human life is sufficient to satisfy the Enmund culpability
requirement." Thus, the legal precedent on policies like the Law of
Parties remains highly ambiguous.

Obviously, you feel that this law has been wrongly applied to Kenneth
Foster. How and why?

There is very little basis for believing that Kenneth had any malicious
intent toward Michael LaHood, Jr. Yes, he was driving the car that night
and robberies took place. However, there is every reason to believe that
Kenneth had no idea LaHoods life was in danger. There was also no
conspiracy to rob him. He did not even know the gun had left the car. His
jury, moreover, was only instructed to determine if he was associated with
Brown and should have anticipated his actions. As Judge Furgeson pointed
out in 2005, these instructions are not consistent with the intent of the
Law of Parties. Kenneth is effectively facing an execution date for a
failure of hindsight. As Kenneth's criminal lawyer, Keith Hampton, wrote
in his federal appeal, "By employing the conspiracy liability statute, the
state is able to make persons death-eligible on nothing greater than a
negligence standard  that the defendant 'should have anticipated that his
conspirator would, in the course of any planned felony, intentionally kill
another person." He added, "negligence is the least culpable mental state
known to criminal law."

What about the justness of the law itself?

The Law of Parties is a pretty transparent attempt to optimize
convictions. By placing such a low threshold of proof, under which someone
can be sent to death for failing to anticipate the actions of another,
prosecutors have a multitude of strategies they can enlist to negotiate
plea bargains and send multiple people to prison or the death chamber.
Sentences ultimately boil down to who chooses to cooperate with the state,
rather than who actually committed the crime. For example, Irineo Montoya
was executed in 1997 for restraining a man while Juan Fernando
Villavicencio stabbed him. Villavicencio, on the other hand, was acquitted
of the murder after key witnesses in both trials (relatives of
Villavicencio) changed their testimonies. The Law of Parties shows the lie
to the notion of the death penalty as something reserved for the "worst of
the worst." Instead, it shows what a cynical political strategy the
sanction actually is. Also, by asking jurors to determine if a defendant
should have anticipated that a crime was going to take place, when that
very jury obviously already knows that it has, the prosecution is asking
individuals to make life and death decisions based on what seems logical
in retrospect. It is a law that is ripe for abuse.

I noticed when reading the materials accompanying the case that Foster
attempted to drive away after LaHood was shot. What does this mean to the
case and how important is it to proving Fosters intent (or lack of
intent)?

This important piece of information never came out at the original trial.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to have new evidence stand during
appeals, as the defense must be able to demonstrate that something
prevented them from acquiring the evidence in the first place. One of the
jurors in Kenneth's original trial said that if he had known Kenneth tried
to drive away, he would have voted for a different verdict.

When the trial judge told the jury that they could "find the defendant
Kenneth Foster guilty of the offense of capital murder, though he may have
had no intent to commit the offense," was the judge correct?

According to the Law of Parties, a defendant is responsible for another
persons felony if it is committed in furtherance of a crime they were both
responsible for. However, the jury should have been asked to determine if
Kenneth was an active agent in a criminal conspiracy that he either knew
would result in LaHood's death or should have anticipated would have ended
in murder. Under the judge's instructions, the prosecution did not even
have to meet this low threshold of proof.

Most everyone knows that Texas leads the United States in executions.
Given Texas' reputation, how does the defense hope to prevent Kenneth's
execution?

Texas will perform its 400th execution since 1982 in 2007. It is obviously
a state out of control in its use of the death penalty. Because of this,
there are many reasons to believe that Kenneth's odds are rather low.
Furthermore, conventional wisdom dictates that little hope is left when an
execution date is set. However, the death penalty is on the defensive in
the United States in a way it has not been for years. Beginning with the
2003 death row commutations in Illinois, the nation as a whole has begun
asking hard questions about capital punishment, especially regarding
innocence and lethal injection. While Texas still manages to be the
exception to the rule in its flagrant use of capital punishment, there are
signs that the tide is turning here, as well. Recently, the Supreme Court
decided against the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in three death penalty
cases. Also, the CCA has been deciding in favor of death row defendants at
an unusual rate. Over the past several years, the cases of Ruben Cantu,
Carlos DeLuna, and Cameron Todd Willingham have emerged as instances in
which innocent men were almost certainly put to death in Texas. The
statewide anti-death penalty movement continues to grow in size and
confidence. While it is hard to make definitive predictions about what
will or will not happen on August 30 (Kenneth's scheduled execution date),
I believe we have plenty of reasons to be hopeful. Texas is beginning to
feel pressure where its use of the death penalty is concerned, and a case
such as Kenneth's is certainly one that can fan the flames of public
discontent and create enough political pressure to halt his execution.

You are a member of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty. Can you tell us
about their work?

Formed in 1998, the Campaign to End the Death Penalty is a national
grassroots anti-death penalty organization based in Chicago. We oppose the
death penalty for 5 reasons: it is racist, it targets the poor, it
condemns the innocent to die, it does not prevent crime, and it
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We organized in order to call
attention to the broad systemic implications of the death penalty,
insisting that it is inseparable from the unjust society in which it
operates. Committed to putting those who experience the death penalty
first-hand on the frontlines of this battle, we work closely with current
and exonerated death row inmates, as well as their families. The Campaign
was active in the movement that persuaded former Illinois Governor George
Ryan to clear the state's death row in 2003. Our chapters have also played
leading roles in the movements to save Gary Graham, Stan "Tookie"
Williams, Vernon Evans, and Kevin Cooper. The Austin chapter is also
working to win a new trial for Rodney Reed, an innocent man on who has
been on Texass death row since 1998. Our national website is
NoDeathPenalty.org.

What can people do to help prevent this execution?

Our experience teaches us that we cannot halt executions by appealing to
the better intentions of men like Texas Governor Rick Perry. Rather, those
who wield the power to execute individuals respond to political pressure.
That is why we must build a vibrant and visible movement around the
Kenneth Foster case. Those living in Texas should join the Save Kenneth
Foster Campaign and help us as we plan a July 21 press conference, rally,
and benefit concert in Austin. Those who are out of state can visit the
Save Kenneth Foster Campaign blog at http://savekenneth.blogspot.com/ and
download petitions, clemency letters, and case fact sheets. People can
also learn more about Kenneth and his case at FreeKenneith.com.
Fortunately, a number of activists form across the country are beginning
to take notice of Kenneths case. What we need is a broad base of awareness
and action to put the spotlight squarely on Texas, a state that for too
long has continued to execute individuals with impunity.

(source: Dissident Voice----Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way The Wind
Blew:A History of the Weather Underground)

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

Defendant in yogurt shop case makes court appearance


One of the defendants in Austin's yogurt shop murders appeared in court
Friday morning.

Robert Springsteen IV's conviction was overturned last year, which cleared
the way for him to get a new trial.

Friday's hearing was to redesignate Joe James Sawyer as Springsteen's
attorney.

Springsteen had written a letter saying he was unhappy with his
representation, however he told the court he wanted to keep Sawyer as his
attorney.

Springsteen received the death penalty for the 1991 robbery murders inside
the "I Can't Believe It's Yogurt" store in North Austin, where 4 teenage
girls were shot and killed.

Springsteen's death sentence was commuted to life when the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled he couldn't be executed because he was under the age of 18
when the murders took place.

Throughout the appeals process, Springsteen has remained in custody on the
original charge.

His pretrial hearing is set for August 6.

(source: News 8 Austin)

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

Attorney for yogurt shop suspect will request dismissals of 3
charges----Prosecutors should not try Robert Burns Springsteen IV in
deaths of 3 teens, lawyer says.


The attorney for yogurt shop murder defendant Robert Burns Springsteen IV
said this morning that he plans to ask prosecutors to dismiss 3 of the 4
capital murder charges against Springsteen.

The state tried Springsteen in connection with the death of 13-year-old
Amy Ayers, but he has never been tried for the slayings of 3 other teenage
girls at a North Austin yogurt shop in 1991.

Joe James Sawyer, Springsteen's lawyer, said the charges against his
client in connection with their deaths should be dropped because the state
has not pursued those charges since 1999, when Springsteen was initially
charged.

"There is case law that when the state knows exactly where you are and
refuses to prosecute, they can be barred from prosecution," Sawyer said.

Officials at the Travis County District Attorney's office were not
immediately available for comment.

Sawyer said he also plans to ask in the next court hearing on Aug. 6 to
approve bail for Springsteen.

Springsteen was 17 when Ayers; Jennifer Harbison and Eliza Thomas, both
17; and Sarah Harbison, 15, were fatally shot in the I Can't Believe It's
Yogurt store Dec. 6, 1991.

Springsteen was convicted of capital murder in connection with Ayers'
death and received a death sentence, but his sentence was commuted to life
in prison in 2005 after the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed executions of
criminals who were juveniles at the time of their crimes.

In May 2006, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals threw out Springsteen's
conviction, ruling that a 2nd suspect's confession was improperly used
against Springsteen. The appeals court sent the case back to a Travis
County court to be retried.

Prosecutors appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused
to hear the appeal.

(source: Austin American-Statesman)

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

Years after a 1973 slaying, both a pardon and forgiveness


Michelle Patteson wanted to know more about the father she lost at age 3.
What was he like? Why did he die?

In her quest for answers, she turned to the Internet. She Googled her dad.
Nothing came up on Mike Patteson - at least not the one who was fatally
shot in 1973.

Michelle figured that would be that until she received a call.

Check out the newspaper, she was told. There's a story in there about your
father.

I had written a column about the man who had taken Mike's life. Henry R.
Rodriguez, I reported, was the ex-husband of a new city councilwoman, had
served time for "murder without malice" and claimed he'd received a full
gubernatorial pardon.

I had been unable to confirm or refute the pardon claim, and as I
continued my search, Michelle called.

"I'm Mike's daughter," she said on my answering machine. "I'd like to
talk."

Michelle sounded polite and cordial, but I still thought, uh-oh. She wants
to let Henry have it. Pardoned? Please!

Turns out, former Gov. Bill Clements did grant Rodriguez a full pardon on
Oct. 5, 1981. A copy is on file with the state archives, says senior
research assistant Donaly Brice It's still unclear why Clements granted
the pardon; he could not be reached.

The copy on file is unsigned, Brice explained, as are many copies of other
gubernatorial pardons. "I can't tell you how often that happens," he said.

I returned Michelle's call and gave her the news. The claim was true.
Rodriguez, 62, had been pardoned.

That didn't bother her, but she did have something to say, and she wanted
me to report it.

"I forgave Henry many years ago," said Michelle, a 37-year-old single
mother. "If God forgives us, I believe we have to forgive others."

That was a first. No one had ever called to say, "I forgive the guy who
killed my daddy."

The shooting occurred on Oct. 2, 1973. Henry and Mike had been arguing
downtown. Mike called Henry a name. Henry pulled a gun.

Mike's girlfriend at the time, Sandy Oberg, recalls a prophetic detail.
"Just the Friday before, I had really reamed Mike out about his mouth,"
Oberg wrote in an e-mail, "and not to say that kind of stuff or he would
end up getting shot. Little did I know."

Over the years, Michelle has searched old newspaper clips for details like
this about her father.

After we hung up, I phoned Henry. He was pleased to hear I'd found proof
of his pardon. He was stunned - initially speechless - when told that
Mike's daughter had called to express forgiveness.

"Bless her heart," he said, his words cracking like icicles in a sudden
thaw. "She's a great lady."

Call it coincidence. Or call it destiny. Whatever the case, Michelle and
Henry connected by phone Thursday and discovered some parallels.

He does marketing for a health care agency; she's a former health care
administrator. He counsels young boys as a volunteer; she watches children
in a day care center she owns. He never met his dad; she never knew her
father.

"I think this whole thing was meant to be," Michelle said. "Right from the
beginning, he told me he was sorry. He sounds like a changed man."

Despite the pardon, Henry says the shooting has haunted him for years.
Despite the good life he lives, memories sometimes strike without warning.
"I don't know if she realizes how she's made me feel," Henry said.

A pardon is one thing. Forgiveness is another. After 33 years, he finally
feels free.

(source: San Antonio Express-News)