Scheduled
Execution Date and Time: 8/24/01, 2:00am EST
Like
many substance abusers, Clifton Whites had lost control. Yet, unlike
many other addicts who are alone when their behavior unravels and the
habit consumes more and more of their thoughts and actions, Clifton
White had someone who intervened for him. His sister noticed that his
lifestyle and actions had become progressively unmanageable as his use
of cocaine increased. She notified the authorities, hoping that police
and probation officials would remove Clifton from his current
environment and perhaps save him from future harm. Her pleas, however,
fell on deaf and inattentive ears, and her volatile brother was soon to
become a convicted murderer, and a death row inmate.
Clifton
White has never denied his actions. It is certain that he is the
murderer of Kimberly Ewing, one of Mr. White’s very own friends. He
has consistently expressed his remorse, and accepted responsibility,
going so far as to say that he should be locked up forever.
Yet
the circumstances surrounding Mr. White’s actions certainly do not
qualify a sentence of death as taking “full accountability” for the
murder of Kimberly Ewing. Full accountability would certainly
incorporate the totality of Mr. White’s condition at the time of his
actions. That totality involved drugs, a prison rape, and childhood of
pain and trauma.
He
had indeed become extremely addicted to cocaine and admits to being
heavily influenced by drugs at the time of the murder. He was deeply
affected by his own rape, which occurred when inside a detention
facility in North Carolina. However his drug use and fragmented state of
mind was the result of influences that occurred much closer to home.
Clifton White’s childhood was marred by physical and emotional abuse
in the household. The awful ordeal of family life became even more
impossible when his father repeatedly threatened to committ suicide in
front of Clifton.
Clifton
White’s execution date has been confirmed for August 24th.
His chances at clemency are now tied up in the hands of the North
Carolina Courts and the Governor, Michael Easley, whose very ability to
grant clemency is now at issue. For North Carolina to execute Mr. White,
without a clear and emphatic understanding of his clemency options, is
unlawful and unjust, and, furthermore, to fail to consider his past and
his deep remorse, cruel and unfair.
Please
do not let North Carolina expedite the killing of Clifton Allen White.
As prison officials have mentioned time and time again, Clifton White is
a benign prisoner, not prone to violence or disobedience. Contact
Governor Easley to voice your opposition to this travesty of the justice
system.
Ronald
Frye
Scheduled
Execution Date and Time: 8/31/01, 2:00am EST
On
August 31st, 2001, the State of North Carolina will seal
Ronald Frye’s fate, and, much like everyone else that has ever been
charged with the responsibility of Mr. Frye’s life, the state will not
only choose to neglect every element of fairness and decency towards
him, but will also intentionally deny him his rights by executing him.
The
story of Ronald Frye is one of unbelievable abuse and neglect. He
entered the world on October 9, 1958, the son of Benson and Caroline
Frye, but soon after his birth Ronnie’s father left home, and the
young child was left to a woman who suffered from alcoholism and had no
desire at all to care for him or his brother. Quite shockingly,
Ronnie’s mother shirked her responsibilities by handing the two baby
boys to a couple she encountered randomly at a gas station, and the
couple, Steve and Cleo Ford, took custody of four-year-old Ronnie and
his brother through no legal process.
Ronnie’s
life, sadly, did not improve upon such a seemingly timely act of
generosity. Steve Ford, who was also an alcoholic, routinely whipped
Ronnie and his brother using a bull whip, and the particularly cruel and
vicious beatings left Ronnie severely scarred and lashed all over the
surface of his body. It was not until teachers at Ronnie’s school
finally took notice of the copious wounds that marked the young boy’s
body and bravely interceded that law enforcement arrested Steve Ford and
charged him with child abuse. The photographs of Ronnie’s slashed and
beaten flesh were so compelling that they were used to train police
officers in recognizing and treating child abuse cases.
Ronnie’s
luck seemed perversely haunted by the specter of alcoholism and neglect.
After removing Ronnie from the custody of the Fords, the courts placed
Ronnie and his brother with their biological father, who had abandoned
them at birth. Ronnie’s father drank very heavily, and he too would
beat and bruise them. However, as a psychologist would later confirm,
nothing made matters as bad as the beatings of Carlene, Benson Frye’s
latest wife. Benson Frye not only beat Carlene so severely that she one
day fled permanently, but he would also wake Ronnie and his brother from
bed to force them to watch the beatings. Being forced to be witness the
abuse caused deep and undeniably serious feelings of helplessness, and
the resulting mental and emotional damage was immeasurably extensive.
Moreover,
Carlene’s eventual departure left the boys without any true caregiver.
Their father was consistently drunk and away from home, and soon the
boys were discovered, living in maggot-invested filth and begging local
merchants for food.
Ronnie’s
childhood never offered him any comfort or direction. He never received
proper treatment and began to “self-medicate” using illegal drugs.
He entered adulthood without any substantive foundation, and soon became
an addict of drugs and alcohol himself, living in a trailer home without
heat or water, alone and misdirected.
Court
psychologists would later discover that Ronnie’s upbringing had left
him with three psychiatric disorders—in addition to child abuse
syndrome, and a “diminished capacity to know right from wrong and to
conform his behavior to social requirements.” However, this discovery
was too late for Ronnie or for Randolph Childress, whom Ronnie is
accused of murdering in January of 1993. Ronnie had been repeatedly
asked by Mr. Childress to leave the trailer home that he was renting
from Mr. Childress in the weeks prior to the murder, but Ronnie,
strapped for cash and subject to a costly crack cocaine habit, pleaded
otherwise and was able to delay his eviction until the unfortunate
murder that took place in January.
Ronnie
Frye was tried and convicted of murder, and sentenced to death by a jury
in North Carolina. None of the historical evidence, namely Ronnie’s
tumultuous and harrowing childhood, was presented in his defense during
the sentencing stage. In fact, Ronnie’s fate was sealed again by an
individual who, charged with fending for the helpless man, instead
neglected his duties and handed Ronnie over to an unjust fate. Tom
Portwood, Ronnie’s attorney, admitted to drinking approximately 375mL
of 80-proof rum every day during Ronnie’s trial. He had a known
history of alcohol abuse, and was quite evidently under the influence of
alcohol during trial proceedings. A further examination of Portwood’s
handling of the case revealed gross negligence in research, a complete
omission of family history, and infractions that jeopardized Ronnie
Frye’s case outside of the courtroom, such as a Mr. Portwood’s DWI
violation. Much more importantly though, are the two signed affidavits,
submitted by jurors who participated in his trial and sentencing,
stating that they would not have chosen the death penalty had they been
informed of Mr. Frye’s past. North Carolina law requires a unanimous
decision in order for a death sentence to be reached: frankly, just one
of those jurors would have been the difference between the life and
death of Ronald Frye.
Yet
there is an even larger picture of injustice in which Ronnie Frye’s
case is embedded. Currently, there is no effective measure for granting
clemency (pardons) in the state of North Carolina. This situation
follows a decision to stay the execution of Robert Bacon, another death
row inmate, indefinitely, pending a further investigation into the
capacity of Governor Michael Easley to grant pardons. Easley is the
former North Carolina attorney general, and not only oversaw many of the
cases whose sentences will transpire during his term in office, but also
pushed very hard for the death penalty in those cases deemed eligible
for capital punishment.
Most
oddly and irrationally, the state has not granted indefinite stays for
all upcoming executions, and Ronnie Frye’s case is one of two that has
been confirmed for next month. The decision to uphold his execution date
follows another judge’s decision to suspend it, and it does not seem
that any immediate resolution will be reached. The life of Ronnie Frye
is again in the hands of those whose intentions seem to lie perversely
beyond the limits of justice and fairness. There appears no rational
cause for the district and state courts to expedite his date and the
date of another inmate, Clifton White. As Marilyn Ozer, Ronnie’s
current counsel, expressed in reference to the courts, judges, and
governor: “They seem obsessed.”
Ms.
Ozer further believes that although every case in North Carolina
deserves and is owed a stay under the current circumstances, Ronnie’s
case “seems particularly atrocious” and provides an example of
complete failure of the system.
It
is hard to imagine that Ronnie Frye has ever been able to make a
reasonable decision in his life. His destiny has been dictated by
outside forces too vicious and inept to care and, now, too careless and
unjust to put an end to violence and abuse. Do not allow the North
Carolina Courts to ignore Ronnie’s past. Do not allow the Governor to
let his personal obsession supercede the cause of justice. Do not let
the state kill Ronnie Frye, in the name of violence, ignorance, and
carelessness.
Please
Contact
Governor
Mike Easley Office of the Governor
20301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-0301
Phone: 919-733-5811
Fax: 919-715-3175
web: www.governor.state.nc.us
North
Carolinians Against the Death Penalty Chris Fitzsimmon
PO Box 10808
Raleigh, NC 27605
Phone:919-821-9270
Fax: 919-821-0636
People
of Faith Against the Death Penalty Stephen Dear
157 1/2 E. Franklin St.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Phone: 919-933-7567
Fax: 919-933-6868
email: [email protected]
web: www.netpath.net/~ucch/pfadp
Center
for Death Penalty Litigation Kenneth Rose
123 W. Main St. Suite 500
Durham, NC 27701
Phone: 919-956-9545
Fax: 919-956-9547
email: [email protected]
Oklahoma
Jack
Walker
Scheduled
Execution Date and Time: 8/28/01, 10:00pm EST
Jack
Walker, convicted in 1989 for the murders of Shelly Ellison and Donnie
Epperson, awaits his execution by the state of Oklahoma, which is
presently scheduled for August 25. Mr. Walker’s lawyers contend that
their client has been emotionally disturbed for many years and should
not have been deemed competent to stand trial. They argue that Mr.
Walker’s original counsel never requested a proper competency hearing.
Under the effects of strong psychiatric medication, Mr. Walker could not
effectively function or fully participate in his own defense during
trial.
In
late 1988, Walker visited ex-girlfriend Shelly Ellison, then living in
her grandmother’s trailer home, to see their baby son. A fight broke
out when Walker was told he could not see his son. When police arrived
on the scene, Ms. Ellison was dead, Donnie Epperson, Shelly’s uncle,
was conscious but failing, and Mr. Walker was unconscious after slashing
his wrists and stabbing himself in the throat. Walker was dealing
with severe depression at the time of his crimes. He had threatened to
commit suicide the day before the murders, though he didn’t mention
harm to anyone else. He had attempted suicide two times previously
and had been voluntarily hospitalized two months prior to the incident
during which time he was diagnosed with depression and polysubstance
abuse.
Mr.
Walker stated in an affidavit that his medications made him confused and
that this prevented him from assisting his attorney during trial.
He also asserted that his dosage of antipsychotic medications was
increased before trial, and he had difficulties staying awake. Several
observers stated that Walker’s face was expressionless during trial
and that he had to be supported while he walked. A minister testified
that Mr. Walker’s speech was slow and slurred, and that Mr. Walker had
trouble formulating ideas and articulating his thoughts. A
neuropharmacologist evaluated Walker and diagnosed him with several
psychiatric conditions, including Borderline Personality Disorder and a
condition called Paradoxical Benzodiazapine Rage. Evaluating the effects
that the antipsychotic drugs may have had on Mr. Walker, the
neuropharmacologist noted that the defendant may have had a
neurobiological disposition related to his “experiencing psychoticism
and dissociative explosive dyscontrol under intense emotional stress.”
Quite simply, Walker’s antipsychotic medications may have caused an
impulsive, enraged reaction. A psychologist also stated that
Walker’s use of medications “appeared to raise issues of
competency.”
Mr.
Walker argued that his trial attorney never reviewed his jail medical
records or presented evidence of certain psychiatric diagnoses from his
recent past. When Walker challenged the ineffectiveness of his
first lawyer, the state moved to quickly dismiss his claims. Under
Oklahoma law, habeas relief can only be obtained if the petitioner can
establish both that the attorney was deficient in his representation and
that the jury’s decision would have been different had counsel been
more competent. The Court’s decision curtly states that “there
is no reasonable probability the outcome at trial would have been
different but for counsel’s allegedly deficient performance”, a
notion that fails to acknowledge any effect such evidence may have had.
The district court denied Mr. Walker an evidentiary hearing on his
competency claims on the basis that he was not entitled to habeas relief
even if his evidence was true, in accordance with the aforementioned
law.
Psychiatric
experts have argued that Walker has suffered a long history of diagnosed
mental illness. His actions before and after the crime were
consistent with several of his long-term diagnoses, including Borderline
Personality Disorder. The same experts asserted that Mr.
Walker’s violence level would decrease and that he would not be a
continuing threat if incarcerated.
Oklahoma
has executed forty-three people since 1990, but thirteen of those killed
have been in the last seven months. As the state with the most
executions in 2001, Oklahoma embodies a dangerous trend of increased
brutality in state sanctioned punishment. Please support Jack
Walker and protest Oklahoma’s killing spree by writing to the
following people and organizations.
Please
Contact
Governor
Frank Keating Room 212
State Capitol Building
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Phone: 405-521-2342
Fax: 405-521-3353
email: [email protected]
web: www.state.ok.us/~governor
Pardon
and Parole Board 4040 N. Lincoln Blvd.
Suite 219
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Phone: 405-427-8601
Fax: 405-427-6648
web: www.ppb.state.ok.us/
Write
Opinion-Editorial Pieces to
The
Daily Oklahoman PO Box 25125
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
Phone: 405-475-3311
Fax: 405-475-3183
email: [email protected]
web: www.oklahoman.com
Oklahoma
Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty PO Box 713
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
Phone: 405-427-1111
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
3400 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave
Oklahoma City, OK 73111
Phone: 405-425-2500
web: www.doc.state.ok
Texas
Troy
Kunkle
Scheduled
Execution Date and Time: 8/1/01, 7:00pm EST
Texas
inmate Troy Kunkle is scheduled to be executed on August 1 for his role
in the 1984 murder of Steven Horton. Just eighteen at the time of
the crime, Kunkle was one of four teenagers convicted for the robbery
and murder of Mr. Horton in Corpus Christi, TX. Two codefendants
received maximum sentences of thirty years, another was sentenced to
life in prison, leaving Kunkle the only participant sentenced to death.
In
Kunkle’s criminal trial, the prosecution’s leading witness was the
fifth passenger in the vehicle, Tom Sauls. All five teenagers were
under the influence of LSD and alcohol during the crime. After
shooting Mr. Horton with a gun brought by codefendant Russell Stanley,
the five individuals used the $13 stolen from Mr. Horton’s wallet to
buy more LSD, which they all shared before traveling back to San Antonio
the next day. After providing information about the crime and the
other four individuals, the local police decided that Sauls was merely a
witness to the crime but not an accomplice, and no charges were ever
filed against him. In Kunkle’s 1986 appeal, an Appeals Court judge
offered a strong dissent challenging the legitimacy of Sauls’ role as
an exonerated non-participant in the murder. Kunkle’s lawyers argued
that the jury was never properly instructed as to Sauls’ possible role
in the crime, to which the dissenting judge held “that this omission
harmed the appellant.”
Kunkle’s
first trial was further convoluted by the ineffectiveness of his legal
counsel. During the punishment phase, counsel failed to present relevant
evidence of the defendant’s history of abuse and behavioral problems
as well as the troubled mental histories of both his parents. Nor was
there any request for special jury instruction on the effects of
mitigating evidence. When addressed on appeal, the court insisted
that counsel’s decision was “deliberate and tactical.”
Whether or not it was counsel’s strategy to purposely withhold
mitigating evidence, the result which transpired clearly makes such a
strategy questionable, at least in the circumstances of this case.
Psychiatric evaluations performed on Kunkle, which were in counsel’s
possession during trial, were never put forward for the jury to
consider. The jury was also blocked from hearing special evidence
regarding the influence of alcohol, marijuana, and LSD on the defendant
during the crime. In his blistering dissent, Appeals Court Judge
Clinton aptly stated that “a majority of this Court has blithely
said…that in considering whether to impose a death sentence the jury
must be allowed to consider whatever evidence of mitigating
circumstances the defense can bring before it.” Yet he further laments
that “they (the Court) have also repeatedly denied the utility, much
less necessity, of informing the jury that they may so consider the
evidence.” Kunkle’s counsel was not deemed ineffective for
failing to proffer potentially helpful mitigating evidence, yet new
counsel was denied the opportunity to present special evidence on
appeal.
Troy
Kunkle had just turned eighteen when he shot Steven Horton. His
punishment should be appropriately severe, but not disproportionate to
the punishment of his codefendants or without the proper consideration
of relevant evidence. Texas seeks to execute three men this month, two
of whom committed their crimes as teenagers. Please speak out
against the execution of Troy Kunkle, potentially the 251st
person killed in Texas since the reinstatement of the death penalty in
1982.
Mack
Hill
Scheduled
Execution Date and Time: 8/8/01, 7:00pm EST
Mack
Oran Hill is scheduled to be executed on August 8, 2001. He
received a stay on his last date of execution, June 6, 2001, just two
hours before he was scheduled to die. Because the only evidence brought
against him during the trial was the testimony of two witnesses with a
personal motive to testify, Hill’s argument centers on the existence
of a deal for leniency with those witnesses. Additional arguments
include a plea seeking the assistance of a forensic expert and withheld
evidence by the state in the form of a prison report.
Hill
argues that the district attorney erred on three accounts. First, that
the district attorney failed to reveal implied understandings for
leniency between himself and David and Allen Crawford, two witnesses in
the trial. Second, that the district attorney failed to correct
misleading evidence. Lastly, the district attorney failed to disclose
impeachment evidence. Hill states that the state court relied on an
audiotape conversation between the district attorney and the attorney
for Allen Crawford; that the courts ignored uncontradicted evidence that
the tape had been altered, and that Crawford was led to believe that
relief would be granted for his testimony. The district court did find
that three of the individuals had a subjective belief that there was an
implied deal. Additionally, Hill filed a request for a forensic expert
to examine the audiotape of the district attorney in which the
conversation between him and the Crawford attorney contained a number of
breaks and hissings, leading one to believe that the tape had been
altered. Furthermore, Crawford’s attorney confessed that the
conversation as he remembered it was much longer than the conversation
contained on in the audio conversation. Hill also requested appointment
of an investigator to examine transcripts of previous habeas
proceedings, which Hill claims to contain evidence that the district
attorney kept a "secret file" of exculpatory information
showing a continuing pattern of misconduct.
Lastly,
Hill cites the state for failing to provide him with evidence. During
the sentencing at Hill’s trial, the court heard the testimony of Dr.
James Grigson regarding the probability that Hill would most certainly
be a future danger to society. Hill contends that the state withheld the
existence of the "Kinne Report", which cites a number of
inmates who received life sentences that went on to be model prisoners.
What Hill argues is that the report is contradictory to Dr Grigson’s
testimony citing that inmates he may have labeled as "certain
future threats" actually went on to become model inmates. Hill then
argues that had he possed this document, he would have used it to
impeach the testimony of Dr. Grigson.
Mack
Hill’s last stay of execution was granted just two hours before his
scheduled time of death. With four Texas inmates scheduled to die
this month, please speak out against all state-sanctioned brutality.
Napoleon
Beazley
Scheduled
Execution Date and Time: 8/15/01, 7:00pm EST
Napoleon
Beazley, age 24, is scheduled to be executed on August 15th
for the 1994 death of John Luttig, a prominent local businessman. Only
seventeen at the time of his offense, Beazley is one of thirty-one Texas
inmates presently on death row for crimes committed as juveniles.
In
order to be eligible for the death penalty in Texas, the jury must deem
the defendant a “continuing threat to society”, a criminal beyond
rehabilitation. In Beazley’s trial, the jury’s finding of
“future dangerousness” was based solely on the testimony of
Beazley’s co-defendants in the crime, Cedric and Donald Coleman, who
provided the “only trial evidence describing the offense and
Beazley’s state of mind in relation to the offense”. Their
statements were in stark contrast to the personal accounts given by over
fifteen people testifying on Beazley’s behalf. Napoleon’s
teacher described him as a student who was “popular, well-respected,
liked, friendly”. A talented athlete, Napoleon was both the senior
class president and an academic tutor. He had no prior arrest record and
no history of discipline problems at school. Cindy Garner, the DA from
Beazley’s hometown, also testified to Beazley’s law-abiding,
peaceful reputation. As observed and documented through his first
seventeen years, Napoleon’s behavior had never shown any propensity to
violence.
Since
testifying in court, Cedric and Donald Coleman have signed sworn
affidavits that they suppressed a deal reached with the Smith County
DA’s office, an agreement in which the State implicitly agreed not to
pursue the death penalty in their cases in return for their testimonies
against Beazley. The prosecution portrayed Beazley, an African
American, as a “lurking animal” to the all-white jury. In a
post-conviction investigation, a juror referred to Beazley as the
“nigger” who “got what he deserved”. Another juror was a
long-time employee of the victim’s business partner, a significant
fact the individual failed to disclose. Until recently,
Beazley’s attorneys have never adequately addressed these issues. The
state-appointed habeas attorney failed to raise any claim regarding the
blatantly racist juror. Beazley’s attorney in his first appeal
was jailed for contempt of court for failing to produce a brief.
Executing
juvenile offenders is a practice all but extinct in the rest of the
world. In the six years since Napoleon’s trial, the US has performed
eight of the world’s fourteen executions against children, with four
of them in Texas. The US is the world’s only organized government
which has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child, a treaty which prohibits the execution of juvenile offenders.
The world community has not let these indiscretions go unnoticed—The
US was voted off the UN Human Rights Commission this past May.
The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which
the US is a party, explicitly bans the death penalty for offenders under
age eighteen. Despite fully ratifying the treaty, the US has not
demanded that its states follow the laws of the nation. After
ratifying the ICCPR, Congress set a minimum age of eighteen as the
eligible standard for the federal death penalty. Because a few states,
including Texas, refuse to respect these international laws of decency
and compassion, the US is the only Western industrialized nation that
still executes juveniles. The mere fact that the US chooses to
specifically delineate Reservation Six to protect an individual
state’s right to execute juveniles is thoroughly troubling. The
Supreme Court decided in 1989 by a 5-4 decision in Stanford v.
Kentucky that imposing the death penalty on juveniles was not cruel and
unusual punishment thus not an infraction of the 8th
Amendment. Beazley’s lawyers have requested a stay so that our
nation’s court may revisit the decision that seems antiquated and
barbaric in the eyes of much of the world.
Local
support for juvenile execution is no stronger. A recent Houston
Chronicle poll indicated that only a third of respondents supported the
death penalty for juveniles. In Napoleon Beazley’s trial, the
state of Texas craftily painted a picture of a habitually violent young
man, a far cry from the teenager considered a leader among his peers.
And the way our laws stand now, the US courts are not required to
intervene, allowing Texas to repeatedly defy international laws and
human rights agreements.
Texas
Governor Rick Perry can only commute Beazley’s sentence if the
state’s Board of Pardon and Paroles recommends it. The Board has
demonstrated that they will only make such a recommendation if the
“majority of trial officials of the court of conviction” request it.
Since 1973, no Texas inmate has had their sentence commuted without the
support of the trial officials. One of the best ways to support Napoleon
Beazley and to protest the execution of juveniles is to constructively
address your concerns to the following individuals.
Jeffrey
Doughtie
Scheduled
Execution Date and Time: 8/16/01, 7:00pm EST
In
March of 1999, Jeffrey Doughtie resigned himself to death. After being
initially denied his writ of habeas corpus, Doughtie had volunteered for
execution, becoming one of very few death row inmates willing submit
their lives to the state’s hands.
Jeffrey
Doughtie confessed to the murders of two elderly victims in Corpus
Christi, Texas—Sylvia and Jerry Dean—and was also convicted of the
murder of Maria Lozano, who Doughtie believes was killed by an
accomplice during a robbery attempt on Ms. Lozano’s house. He was
sentenced to death in 1993. All three victims were slain during a
crime spree that Doughtie and his lawyer contend was influenced heavily
by drug use.
Jeffrey
Doughtie was born on October 3rd, 1961 in Tarboro, North
Carolina. His childhood was scattered between the homes of his
grandparents and those of his parents and step-parents, and it left
Jeffrey ultimately reliant upon himself: very much independent and very
much alone.
He
left home at the age of fifteen, and remained transient until he
enlisted in the army. He eventually married and found work in a band,
but, because of his prolonged absences from home, the marriage faltered
and Doughtie was divorced from his wife and two children. Unable to bear
the overwhelming loss, Jeffrey Doughtie turned to drug use, which soon
escalated into an incredible $400 per day habit.
Not
unlike many drug abusers who are unable to support their practice
through legal means, Jeffrey began to steal in order to fund his
enormous drug costs. He needed to sell the stolen goods somehow, and,
quite opportunely, he discovered a couple that owned an antique shop and
was willing to purchase Mr. Doughtie’s wares, regardless of their
source of origin. That couple was Jerry and Sylvia Dean.
Weeks
after the murder and after a robbery attempt on Ms. Lozano’s house in
which the victim was suffocated (an act Doughtie distinctly
remembers not doing) Doughtie confessed to police investigators about
his crimes. He was tortured by the guilt and shame of having taken human
life, and, as a friend attests, truly wanted to die. He did not invest a
great deal in his defense, and in the summer of 1994, received the death
penalty.
Doughtie’s
lawyer asserts that by nature Jeffrey Doughtie is a “peaceful and kind
and gentle” person and “a monster” only when under the powerful
control of drugs. In fact, during his trial, Doughtie tried to clarify
that while drugs had remained a substantial component of his own
personal downfall for quite some time, he did indeed feel remorse for
his actions. However, after the denial of his habeas petition, Doughtie
seemed to think it best to use his execution to set an example for
younger people, offering his life as a warning against drug abuse by
requesting a March 25, 1999date. His execution seemed certain, but
one-week prior to his scheduled execution, Doughtie requested and
received a delay.
Despite
accusations of grandstanding, Jeffrey Doughtie has tried to relate the
realities of life on death row to the public, using letters and
correspondence to friends to depict the harshness and mercilessness of
prison life.
Ms.
Rahel-Maria Salo, a close friend of Mr. Doughtie who has kept frequent
correspondence with him for over 7 years and who contributed the
majority of the background information for this article, has seen a
change in a man whom she believes she understands frankly and honestly:
“…..I want to stress that I am no person who would ever glorify Jeff
or any other person either on death row or [on the] outside. He has his
weaknesses like any of us; he is human after all. But this is exactly
what has made him relax emotionally: that he has learned that there are
people who love him the way he is.”
Although
Ms. Salo can see that Jeffrey Doughtie is ready for his fate, she also
knows all too well that he is troubled by recent developments regarding
the visitation of his children. The prison warden denied him the
opportunity to have a four-hour visit with his children, and, on the
date of this publication, the decision had not been overturned.
Jeffrey
Doughtie remains on death row in Texas, with a scheduled execution date
of August 16th.
Please
Contact
Governor
Rick Perry Office of the Governor
PO Box 12428
Austin, TX 78711-2428
Phone: 512-463-1782
Fax: 512-463-8120
email:www.governor.state.tx.us/e-mail.html
Texas
Board of Pardons and Paroles Executive Clemency Section
PO Box 13401
Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711
Phone: 512-406-5852
Fax: 512-467-0945
Scheduled
Execution Date and Time: 8/28/01, 3:01am EST
James
Elledge is awaiting execution by the state of Washington, with his death
presently scheduled for August 28. Elledge pled guilty to the April 1998
murder of Eloise Fitzner, receiving a death sentence later that summer.
The
Washington State Supreme Court recently affirmed Elledge’s death
sentence despite Elledge’s willing confession and guilty plea at
trial. The Court has also acknowledged the potential influence of the
mitigating evidence which was never presented at trial. Elledge
requested that his attorney not present mitigating evidence on his
behalf during the appeal phase following his trial. Counsel chose to
respect the wishes of his client, yet it seems unfortunate and somewhat
misleading that the jury was never made aware of several significant
aspects of Mr. Elledge’s past.
While
serving an earlier prison sentence, Mr. Elledge saved the life of a
prison guard during a violent inmate riot. Elledge’s early years
were filled with abuse and neglect. He started abusing alcohol as a
young child and was sent to a juvenile facility at age ten for breaking
and entering. His father was often hospitalized for mental illness,
leaving his mother alone with five young children. She also turned to
alcohol in the painful time that followed. Elledge was traumatized
at a young age by the death of his sister. The family continued to
suffer as Elledge’s father killed himself when James was thirteen,
subsequently followed by the suicides of two half-brothers. James
Elledge left home at fifteen to lead a life of repeated incarcerations
and hospitalizations for mental illness. Elledge pled insanity at
a 1975 trial, and though his claim was rejected, the court stated that
his mental illness should be considered a mitigating factor.
In
recent years, Elledge married a day-care worker at his church and became
known throughout his community as a gentle and caring individual.
He continues to be a devout Christian who believes in a God who “has
forgiven me for what I’ve done”. He is clearly repentant for his
crimes and more than willing to accept whatever punishment is handed
down.
For
a state that has executed four people in twenty years, it is the general
belief, even among death penalty supporters, that the punishment should
be reserved for only the most terrible criminals. If Elledge dies,
he will have received his death sentence from a jury that was never
informed of his mitigating circumstances. One juror in James
Elledge’s trial stated that if he had known any of what was later
reported in the media, “I could have seen it changing my mind.”
Legal advocates wonder if Elledge’s decision to block the jury from
hearing such favorable evidence allowed the imposition of a
“state-sanctioned suicide”.
A
dissenting judge in Elledge’s appeal disputed the court’s finding
that the death penalty was commonly imposed in cases similar to Mr.
Elledge’s. Judge Sanders challenged this finding based on the
fact that the death penalty was commonly proposed, but most often not
imposed, in the cases considered comparable by the state court. Sanders
feels it is unfair to use “cases in which death was never imposed at
all to support imposition of death in later cases.”
By
preventing the presentation of any mitigating evidence at trial and
waiving all his final appeals, Mr. Elledge consents to a punishment that
may affect the way state prosecutors decide to apply the death penalty
in the future. Elledge’s submission only fosters the state’s
inconsistent imposition of capital punishment. It is vital to
speak out against the execution of James Elledge, even if only to ensure
that future punishments are handed down fairly, and not merely at the
state’s convenience.
Washington
Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty 705 Second Avenue, #300
Seattle, WA 98104
Judith Kay
Phone: 206-622-8952
Fax: 206-624-2190
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.scn.org/wcadp
Washington
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 810 3rd Avenue, Suite #421
Seattle, WA 38104
Teresa Mathis
Phone: 206-623-1302
Fax: 206-623-4257
Email: [email protected]
CREDITS:
Writers:
Meghan Kelly, Thomas Mariadason
Production: Meghan Kelly
Editor: Tonya McClary
Questions? Contact: Meghan Kelly at [email protected]
or call 202.387.3890 ext. 18
