Category: Ready for launch

Trauma-Informed Schools: A Key Strategy for Public Safety

By now, many have heard about the recent incident at Spring Valley High School, where a South Carolina deputy slammed a young African American girl to the ground, dragged her on the floor, and handcuffed her for disobeying school rules. Several videos have gone viral and spurred national dialogue about the “school-to-prison pipeline,” a framework that connects harsh school disciplinary practices (such as zero tolerance policies) and increased presence of school police with the eventual incarceration of young people. Research suggests that the criminalization of youth behavior disproportionately impacts African American children and children with physical/emotional disabilities.

While many may debate various aspects of this case – the egregious and disproportionate use of violent force of a deputy, the arguments for or against firing said deputy, or even the disruptive behavior of the young woman – there are still many looming questions about how we as a society respond to acts of disruption, aggression, or violence among students in school.

Can we envision a world in which we understand aggressive behavior not as something to be punished but as a clue about a young person’s traumatic experiences? When schools are trauma-informed, the paradigm for understanding students’ behavior is not “What’s wrong with you? (And you better change your behavior, or else you will be punished.)” but instead “What happened to you? (And can we help you get the care you need?)” There is evidence to suggest that trauma-informed schools can make a significant difference in school disciplinary practices. For example, in one El Dorado school in San Francisco, suspensions dropped 89% when trauma-informed practices were implemented.

As evidence builds across the country that trauma treatment in schools helps improve learning outcomes and reduces the number of young people in the school-to-prison pipeline, a team of lawyers has taken action and filed a landmark class action lawsuit against the Compton Unified School District for the school district’s failure to address and treat student trauma. The suit seeks to require the school district to provide trauma training for teachers, consistent mental health services, and early intervention using evidence-based practices instead of disciplinary action. Although the school district made a motion to drop the case, the judge has recently ruled for the case to proceed. A website built in support of the lawsuit includes compelling videos from students.

As EJUSA begins its work supporting trauma-informed practices in Camden and Newark, NJ, key stakeholders have emphasized the importance of schools becoming trauma-informed. In Camden, as a member of the Healing 10 Coalition, I am working with other coalition members on a day long event exploring trauma-informed practices for Camden service providers, including teachers, nurses, and youth workers. In the City of Newark, I am in early discussions with local organizations to facilitate a series of community-wide discussions with principals and parents on trauma-informed practices in Newark schools. There are tremendous opportunities for schools to begin to identify and support its traumatized students and move to models of care that will ultimately make communities safer.

Filed under: Ready for launch

Death penalty documentary garners Oscar buzz

Last Day of Freedom screenshot

Last Day of Freedom is a new, short documentary that follows the story of Bill Babbitt and his younger brother, Manny. It has already sparked conversations around the country, and now the it’s gaining momentum as a contender for an Academy Award.

The film centers on the moral challenges Bill faces when he learns Manny has committed a crime. Bill narrates, sharing Manny’s life journey from childhood to his hardships after returning from the Vietnam War. He navigates complex questions surrounding mental health access, veterans’ care, and criminal justice. We love the way the film uses animation to tell the powerful story.

“The animation adds a tiny layer of distance, and it really allows for the viewer to take in the story and really listen to the human voice,” said co-director/producer Nomi Talisman.

EJUSA Campaign Strategist Mona Cadena started working with Talisman and co directors/producer Dee Hibber-Jones in 2012, meeting at their local coffee shop in San Francisco to brainstorm about the project. Mona helped identify themes in death penalty debate that would help shape the story.

Manny Babbitt suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and a brain injury when he returned from the Vietnam War. He never received adequate health treatment. Then he did the unthinkable. Bill made the heart-wrenching decision to turn his brother in when he suspected Manny had committed a crime. That decision ultimately led to Manny’s conviction in 1982 and his execution by the state of California in 1999.

In just a short amount of time, the film paints a richly detailed portrait of two brothers and the way the death penalty is connected to other aspects of the criminal justice system and effects many lives beyond those executed.

Towards the end of the film, Bill Babbitt says, “We are all taking part of the same experiment. We all have blood on our hands.” From the storytelling and animation comes an understanding that we all are impacted by cases such as Manny’s.

“This is just part of a larger conversation that needs to happen,” said Talisman.

Winner of the Jury Award for Best Short and Center for Documentary Studies Filmmaker Award at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival in April, Last Day of Freedom continues to receive widespread acclaim for the personal arc that makes the film so moving.

Watch the Last Day of Freedom trailer:

Visit the film’s website for updates and the latest schedule of screenings – www.lastdayoffreedom.net

Voices
Kala Art Institute – Berkeley, CA
Through December 5, 2015

DOK Leipzig, Germany
10/30/15: Passage Kinos Wintergarten, 10:00 pm
11/1/15: Cinematheque Leipzig, 3:30 pm

St. Louis International Film Festival
Doc Shorts: Animation
Monday, November 9th at 5:00 pm

Rocky Mountain Women’s Film Festival
Cornerstone Arts Center, Richard F. Celeste Theater
Boulder Springs, CO
Sunday, November 15, 2015 11:10am

Documentary 2015: Origins and Inventions
The Center for Documentary Studies (CDS) Duke University Durham, NC
Last Day of Freedom screening and a panel, Friday, 11/20 4:30

Filed under: Ready for launch

Supreme Court looks at exclusion of blacks from jury in Georgia death penalty case

The Supreme Court Building

In its next look at the death penalty, the Supreme Court is faced with the case of Timothy Tyrone Foster, to be argued on November 2. Foster is a black man who was convicted and sentenced to death by an all-white jury for the murder of a white woman. The jury was composed entirely of white Georgia residents after the prosecution excused all four qualified black prospective jurors using its peremptory challenges (challenges for which no reason need be given). The question before the Court is whether those challenges were legal or not, based on precedent set by the 1986 case Batson v. Kentucky,1 which prohibits peremptory challenges based on the race of potential jurors.

In Batson and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court established procedures for determining whether a prosecutor is using peremptory challenges to discriminate against jurors based on their race in a particular case.2 If defense attorneys suspect this is happening, the prosecutor has to give race-neutral reasons for dismissing the jurors. If no reason is given, the challenge will not be accepted, and the juror will be seated for the trial. If the prosecutor gives a reason unrelated to race, the judge must decide whether the reason is just a pretext to cover intentional racial discrimination or whether the reason is real.3

In Foster’s case, the Georgia prosecutor used nine peremptory challenges, four of which excused black jurors. When the defense raised an objection based on Batson, the prosecutor gave several reasons why the four jurors were excused, unrelated to their race. These reasons included, for example, that one juror had a son about the same age as the defendant, that another was a social worker, and that a third avoided eye contact. The judge accepted these reasons and found no violation based on Batson. Foster was convicted and sentenced to death by the all-white jury.

Foster’s attorneys renewed their objections to the dismissal of the black jurors. To get evidence supporting their need for a new trial, they asked for the prosecution’s notes from the jury selection process. The judge refused to grant them access to the notes, and the prosecutor agreed to testify about his reasons for striking the black jurors only on the condition that the defense would not be able to see his notes. Ultimately, Foster’s request for a new trial was denied, and the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the original judge’s decision to allow the jurors’ dismissals.

Many years later, Foster’s post-conviction lawyer was able to obtain the prosecutors’ notes from jury selection through an open records request. The documents revealed the following:

  • Lists of prospective jurors with names of those who are black highlighted in green and identified as B#1, B#2, etc.
  • Questionnaires filled out by the black prospective jurors on which prosecutors had circled their written answer to the race question – “BLACK.”
  • Notes comparing the black jurors with one another and a draft affidavit by an investigator saying, “If it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors, Garrett might be okay.”
  • A list of six jurors the prosecutors labeled as “definite NOs,” included five4 black jurors and a woman whom they tried to dismiss, unsuccessfully, because of her views on the death penalty.

Even with this new evidence, the Georgia courts reaffirmed their conclusion that the prosecution did not excuse the black jurors because of their race.

When Foster sought review in the Supreme Court, the state reiterated its position that it had given adequate race-neutral reasons for excusing the jurors. They tried to explain the prosecutor’s notes by saying that all prospective jurors were thoroughly investigated, that the prosecutors did not rely on the highlighting or other indications of race, that the affidavit by the investigator reflected only that person’s opinion, and that the judge believed the prosecutors’ testimony that they did not discriminate on the basis of race.

After the Supreme Court agreed to hear Foster’s case, the Georgia prosecutors put forth a new explanation for their notes in the files – files that they had fought to keep secret for more than 20 years. They now claimed that the focus on race in the documents was just part of an effort to comply with requirements to have race-neutral reasons for dismissing black jurors. In other words, particular attention had to be paid to the black jurors to ensure that any dismissal would be upheld against a Batson challenge. The Court will have to consider whether to accept this last-minute rationale.

This case presents another opportunity for the Court to confront the long history of race and the death penalty, particularly in Georgia. When then-Justice Stewart helped strike down the death penalty nationally in 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, he did not find that race discrimination had been proven by the petitioners. But, he did note that “[m]y concurring Brothers have demonstrated that, if any basis can be discerned for the selection of these few to be sentenced to die, it is the constitutionally impermissible basis of race.”5 And the shameful history of executing black men for the rape of white women doubtless played a role in the Court’s declaring the death penalty unconstitutional for that crime.6 In more recent years, prosecutors in Georgia sought the death penalty for 70% of black defendants with white victims, but for only 15% of black defendants with black victims.7 The Supreme Court decided that those stark statistics of race discrimination weren’t enough to overturn the Georgia death sentence of Warren McCleskey, but Mr. Foster has direct evidence of the focus on race in jury selection. That fact may make all the difference.

This piece is one in a continuing series by our newest board member, Ursula Bentele. Ursula is a renowned Supreme Court scholar, who will look at some of the Court’s cases with a particular eye towards those with implications for the death penalty. Once the Court has heard oral arguments and delivers its opinions, she will reflect on those outcomes and comment on how the Court’s resolution of the issues might affect the future of the death penalty in this country.

Filed under: Ready for launch

Evangelicals change 40-year pro-death penalty position

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) has a new position on the death penalty. The resolution, passed by the Board of Directors, outlines serious concerns with the death penalty and acknowledges growing opposition and differing views on the issue among Evangelicals.

The resolution represents a significant shift for the organization, which had a position in staunch support of the death penalty for the last four decades. The resolution gives guidance to the NAE’s more than 45,000 congregations from nearly 40 different denominations, serving millions of Americans:

“Because of the fallibility of human systems, documented wrongful convictions, and our desire that God’s grace, Christian hope, and life in Christ be advanced, a growing number of evangelicals now call for government entities to shift their resources away from pursuing the death penalty…”

Read the new resolution here.

EJUSA Director of Evangelical Outreach Heather Beaudoin has been meeting with Evangelical leaders across the country for the past several years. Last year she gave a presentation on the death penalty to the NAE Board of Directors. “I am overjoyed that the NAE has taken so much leadership in fostering this dialog,” she said.

“Clearly we are seeing growing concerns among the NAE leadership about problems with the death penalty,” Heather continued. “These concerns mirror what I have been hearing when I talk to Christians across the country. More of them are questioning their support for the death penalty as they learn about its mistakes and bias.”

Filed under: Ready for launch

Supreme Court’s next death penalty case looks at roles of judge, jury

The Supreme Court Building

Continuing its look at death penalty, the Supreme Court will hear argument on Tuesday in Hurst v. Florida8 to decide whether Florida’s practices in capital trials are constitutional. At issue in Hurst is whether a judge properly imposed a death sentence without the necessary fact-finding by a jury. Florida is one of the few states that gives capital sentencing power to judges.

The Supreme Court specifically approved Florida’s death penalty law in 1976, along with those in Georgia and Texas.9 They were the first states to reinstate the death penalty after the 1972 Supreme Court decision in Furman v. Georgia10 declaring death penalty laws in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court gave the Florida law its blessing despite concerns that the ultimate sentencing authority was the judge. Several years later, the Court specifically rejected a challenge to a death sentence imposed by a Florida judge even though a jury had recommended a life sentence.11

In order to understand what is happening in the Hurst case, we must look back at two other Supreme Court cases, Apprendi v. New Jersey12 and Ring v. Arizona13.

In 1994, Charles Apprendi fired several gunshots into the home of an African American neighbor. He pled guilty to possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, a charge carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. At sentencing, prosecutors argued Apprendi should receive a harsher sentence because his intent in the shooting was to intimidate his neighbors because of their race, a violation of the state’s hate crime law. The judge agreed with the prosecution and sentenced him to 12 years.

When Apprendi v. New Jersey reached the Supreme Court, it determined that the State had violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to due process because it failed to let a jury determine the facts necessary to justify the enhanced sentence. Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, said, “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”14

In 2002, the case of Timothy Stuart Ring reached the Supreme Court. Ring’s attorneys argued that, based on the Court’s decision in Apprendi, it must strike down a provision in Arizona’s death penalty law. The provision had allowed the judge in Ring’s case to decide whether there were aggravating factors in the case – aggravating factors that were necessary to authorize imposition of a death sentence.

Justice Scalia, in a concurrence in the Ring v. Arizona15 decision, wrote: “I believe that the fundamental meaning of the jury-trial guarantee of the Sixth Amendment is that all facts essential to imposition of the level of punishment that the defendant receives – whether the statute calls them elements of the offense, sentencing factors, or Mary Jane – must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” In other words, the Court sided with Ring, saying factual findings that are needed to make a defendant eligible for the death penalty – which, in Arizona, included the presence of an aggravating factor – must be made by a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, before a death sentence can be imposed.

Now, finally, we come to the case of Timothy Lee Hurst. Hurst was convicted of murder16, and a sentencing jury17 recommended the death penalty by a vote of 7 to 5. Although the jury was told they could not recommend the death penalty without finding an aggravating factor, they did not indicate which of the two aggravating factors presented by the prosecution, if any, they found to be established. Nonetheless, Hurst was sentenced to the death penalty by the judge, who found two aggravating circumstances to be present.

Hurst asserts that no aggravating factor was found by a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of the Apprendi/Ring requirement. The State’s response argues first that the aggravating factor of a killing during a robbery was admitted by Hurst’s attorneys’ characterization of the death as a result of a “robbery gone bad”; second, that the jury’s recommendation of the death penalty included a finding of an aggravating factor, given that their instructions indicated they could not recommend the death penalty unless they found at least one aggravating factor. According to the State, it doesn’t matter whether the seven jurors agreed on which aggravating factor was present.

Hurst maintains that a lawyer’s off-hand statement about a robbery is in no way equivalent to a jury finding of that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the mere recommendation of a death sentence (by the slightest majority) fails to demonstrate that the jury found the necessary facts to make the defendant eligible for that sentence beyond a reasonable doubt, as required byRing v. Arizona. Amicus briefs filed on behalf of former Florida circuit and supreme court justices provide strong support for Hurst’s position that the Florida law is unconstitutional.

Interestingly, the Court has asked both Hurst and Florida to address the question: “Whether Florida’s death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment in light of this Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona.” Given that Apprendi and Ring are both grounded exclusively in the Sixth Amendment and its guarantee of a jury trial, the Court’s reference to the Eighth Amendment is puzzling. Amicus briefs by the ACLU in support of Hurst and by Alabama and Montana in support of Florida address the issue of whether judges should be permitted to impose death sentences at all, under the Eighth Amendment. They also look at whether a jury’s recommendation of the death penalty must be unanimous. It remains to be seen whether the Court decides to tackle these additional questions.

This piece is one in a continuing series by our newest board member, Ursula Bentele. Ursula is a renowned Supreme Court scholar, who will look at some of the Court’s cases with a particular eye towards those with implications for the death penalty. Once the Court has heard oral arguments and delivers its opinions, she will reflect on those outcomes and comment on how the Court’s resolution of the issues might affect the future of the death penalty in this country.

Filed under: Ready for launch

Pope Francis calls for global abolition of death penalty, other justice reforms

2014 Pastoral Visit of Pope Francis to Korea

Before a joint session of Congress – a first for any Pope – Pope Francis called for an end to the death penalty around the globe. He praised efforts for repeal in the U.S., including the work of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Importantly, he linked the issue with a broader theme of criminal justice reform, saying, “I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation.”

This is not the first time a Catholic Pope – or even Pope Francis – has made statements against the death penalty. Pope John Paul II called for an end to the death penalty in a visit to the U.S. in 1999. Since then, the annual number of executions in the U.S. has dropped by more than 60%, the number of new death sentences also dropped by more than 70%, and some of the most Catholic states in the nation have ended the death penalty altogether.18 Pope Francis also spoke out against the death penalty last March in a letter to the International Commission Against the Death Penalty, calling the practice “unacceptable” regardless of the crime.

In response to the Pope’s statements about the death penalty, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said he is “more open” to the idea of ending the death penalty. Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism several years ago, raised particular concerns about innocence, saying, “you do want to be careful not to execute somebody who you find later on, as we’ve found, to be innocent.” This marks a notable shift in Gingrich’s position on repeal, having shepherded the passage laws that expanded the Federal death penalty when he was House Speaker.

President Obama also seemed affected by the Pope’s words. A spokesman for the White House confirmed that, “the president’s views are influenced by statements that are made by the pope.” The President has stated in the past that he supports the death penalty, but he has raised concerns with how it is applied, particularly around race. After last summer’s botched execution in Oklahoma, he ordered the Justice Department to perform a review of the death penalty.

The Pope’s theme of hope and rehabilitation continued on a visit to a prison outside of Philadelphia. He did not hold back in his criticism of the U.S. prison system: “It is painful when we see prison systems which are not concerned to care for wounds, to soothe pain, to offer new possibilities.”

Last week, on the heels of the Pope’s visit, a bi-partisan group of Senators introduced a significant criminal justice reform package called the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015. The bill includes changes to mandatory minimums, limits solitary confinement for youth offenders, and more.

Photo credit: “2014 Pastoral Visit of Pope Francis to Korea” by Korea.net / Korean Culture and Information Service (Jeon Han). CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Filed under: Ready for launch

Review EJUSA on GreatNonprofits.org

GreatNonprofits logoWill you tell the world why you love EJUSA?

You can help us share our mission, gain visibility, and make an even bigger impact by reviewing us on GreatNonprofits – a site like Yelp! or TripAdvisor. EJUSA has been honored as a “Top-Rated” nonprofit for two years in a row.

Can you help us make it for a third year by posting a review of your experience with us? All reviews will be visible to potential donors, followers, and activists. It’s easy and only takes 3 minutes!

Visit our GreatNonprofits profile to get started.

Filed under: Ready for launch

Honoring victims, calling for a system that heals

Tamika Darden-Thomas holding a photo of her father, Gregory Thomas

On September 25, in honor of National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims, I spent time reaching out to several family members of murder victims. Some survivors shared the traditions they have developed over the years to mark the day, including visiting burial grounds or viewing commemorative videos and photographs. Others told me that the day was just as difficult as any other day of loss and grief.

For Tamika Darden-Thomas, an African American resident of Newark, New Jersey, sharing her story with others has been a source of great healing, and she was eager to also share it with me.

Tamika was just five years old when her father’s body was found on the beach at the Jersey Shore. The murder was never solved. (The police never even officially declared it a homicide, leaving the family not only without answers, but also without access to any victims’ services). Following the death of her father, she describes her family “falling apart.” Her grandmother began to use alcohol in greater quantities to numb the pain of the loss of her son. Male members of Tamika’s family began to sexually abuse her and several other female family members. Her grief and loss mingled with the fear, lack of protection, and isolation caused by her sexual abuse.

Tamika experienced what researchers refer to as “polyvictimization” – multiple types of victimization experienced by one person. According to the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence, one of the largest nationally represented surveys on youth victimization, 38.7% of children report more than one type of direct victimization, including violence, crime, and abuse. Children who experience polyvictimization are at risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), emotional and behavioral problems, challenges with relationships, and prolonged psychological distress throughout their lifetime.

By seventh grade, Tamika was behaving violently in school. However, instead of receiving treatment, she was disciplined and eventually expelled from school. Her family members feared that she would be in jail by her 18th birthday. Though Tamika was never prosecuted, there is growing evidence to suggest that early victimization can contribute to youth and adult criminality. In the new report, The Sexual Abuse to Prison Pipeline: The Girls’ Story, published by Human Rights Project for Girls, Georgetown Law Center for Poverty and Inequality, and Ms. Foundation for Women, the authors frame aggressive behavior among girls as an outcome of untreated trauma:

The most common crimes for which girls are arrested — including running away, substance abuse, and truancy — are also the most common symptoms of abuse.

[…] When law enforcement views girls as perpetrators, and when their cases are not dismissed or diverted but sent deeper into the justice system, the cost is twofold: girls’ abusers are shielded from accountability, and the trauma that is the underlying cause of the behavior is not addressed. The choice to punish instead of support sets in motion a cycle of abuse and imprisonment that has harmful consequences for victims of trauma.

Tamika believes that the silence in her family and the lack of access to trauma treatment contributed to her rage: “No one talked about my father. His name wasn’t mentioned. It was too painful. If we had a chance to talk about the issues, it would have helped us so much. I was a terror on two legs.” After two suicide attempts in high school, Tamika was finally able to receive therapeutic support. She attributes her emotional growth to her faith, psychological treatment, and her success on a track team.

As an adult, Tamika has become a powerful local advocate for young people and those who are incarcerated. She appreciates the broader movement that has brought issues of trauma and abuse to mainstream discussions of health, but she believes there is so much more that needs to be done. “There are so many young people who need to hear from other survivors who have actually experienced the kind of victimization they are going through. There needs to be so much more outreach and education about trauma,” she claims, adding that this is especially true for communities of color.

Tamika is part of a growing EJUSA crime survivor network that is calling for a justice system that keeps communities safe, helps crime victims rebuild their lives after they’ve been harmed, and holds people accountable in ways that are constructive and forward-looking. Tamika’s healing journey includes sharing her story from a position of power and growth. “I am grateful to be a part of the movement.”

For more information about the EJUSA crime survivor network, please contact Fatimah Loren Muhammad at fatimahm@ejusa.org.

Filed under: Ready for launch

3 high profile executions in 3 days – *live thread, updated*

Glossip, Glissendaner, Pieto

Update 10/1/15, 9:42pm: Alfredo Pieto was executed in Virginia tonight at 9:17pm. His lawyers had just filed an application for a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court when news of his execution was announced.

Update 10/1/15, 7:36pm: After a change of venue, a Federal Court in Virginia heard arguments about the lethal injections drugs to be used in tonight’s execution in Virginia. In his ruling following the hearing, the judge lifted an injunction, clearing the way for the execution to go forward.

Update 10/1/15, 7:29pm: The Attorney General in Oklahoma has asked for an indefinite suspension in executions, including that of Richard Glossip as well as two others that were scheduled for next week. In a request to the highest court in Oklahoma, the A.G. indicated it “needs time to evaluate the events that transpired” leading up to Glossip’s scheduled – and ultimately stayed – execution on Tuesday.

Update 10/1/15, 9:33am: Though a hearing originally scheduled for this afternoon has been canceled, an injunction still stands, staying today’s scheduled execution of Alfred Prieto in Virginia. Lawyers for Prieto are seeking a more information about the drugs the State plans to use for the execution, which were acquired from Texas prison officials.

Update 9/30/15, 5:09pm: EXECUTION STAYED. Governor Mary Fallin has issued a stay of execution in the case of Richard Glossip, just over an hour after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to halt the execution. The Governor’s statement indicates there are problems with the lethal injection drugs.

Update 9/30/15, 4:14pm: The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to grant a stay in the case of Richard Glossip, whose execution was scheduled to begin a few moments ago. Indications from reports on the ground in Oklahoma are that execution procedures will resume shortly.

Update 9/30/15, 2:54pm ET: A U.S. district judge granted a temporary stay of execution to Alfredo Prieto to examine Virginia’s use of a lethal injection drug supplied by Texas. A hearing on the issue is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon, after which the stay could be lifted or extended.

Update 9/30/15, 9:13am ET: After lengthy delays related to emergency appeals, Kelly Glissendaner was executed shortly after midnight this morning.

Update 9/29/15, 4:14pm ET: Attorneys for Richard Glossip have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking them to stay Wednesday’s execution for reasons of actual innocence. Read the full petition here.

Update 9/29/15, 4:03pm ET: The New York Times has published an article about Kelly Gissendaner’s case, which covers the appeals still pending and the courts that could act before tonight’s scheduled 7pm ET execution.

———-

Tuesday: Kelly Gissendaner is scheduled to be executed this evening in Georgia. Her co-defendant actually committed the crime but will be eligible for parole in seven years – so why is Gissendaner getting executed? Furthermore, Gissendaner earned a degree in Theological Studies while awaiting execution and has been ministering to her fellow inmates. A former state supreme court justice and the former deputy director of corrections have both said she should not be executed.

Wednesday: Richard Glossip is scheduled to be executed in Oklahoma. Two weeks ago, his execution was delayed because of new evidence casting doubt on his guilt and suggesting that his co-defendant acted alone. Despite that evidence, the courts denied him a new hearing.

Thursday: Alfredo Prieto is scheduled to be executed in Virginia. There is extensive evidence Mr. Prieto is a person with intellectual disability whose execution would be prohibited by the Constitution. Virginia plans to execute him with drugs it obtained from Texas that do not appear to have been made through an F.D.A.-approved process.

Three executions in three days. All of them raise serious questions about the death penalty: innocence, redemption, fairness, culpability, and more.

The overall trend in the United States is away from the death penalty, and last week’s comments for global repeal by Pope Francis gave great hope. But this week we are reminded that our fight is not over.

What can you do? Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin still has the power to halt tomorrow’s execution of Richard Glossip. Call her at (405) 521-2342 or (405) 522-8857, or you can tweet her at @GovMaryFallin.

Advocates will also gather tomorrow night at 6:45pm in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. to rally for reversal in Glossip’s case and an end to the death penalty. Visit MoveOn’s event site for more details.

In Georgia and Virginia, the Board of Paroles and Pardons (GA) and Governor Terry McAuliffe (VA) have already denied clemency. You can still contact Georgia Governor Nathan Deal andVirginia Governor Terry McAuliffe to express your outrage over the scheduled executions today and Thursday.

We will post updates about these cases to this Newsline post, so check back here for the most up-to-date information. We will also tweet breaking news, so be sure you follow us on Twitter.

Photo credits: Richard Glossip, used with permission from Sister Helen Prejean’s Ministry Against the Death Penalty; Kelly Gissendaner, Ann Borden, Emory Photo Video; Alfredo Prieto, Virginia Department of Corrections via AP.

Filed under: Ready for launch

Scott Panetti’s mental illness at issue again in new hearing

Scott Panetti

In a hearing last week in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, lawyers for Texas death row inmate Scott Panetti argued that his severe mental illness renders him without the mentally competency to be executed. They asked the court to send the case back to a lower federal court to decide whether Panetti could have federally appointed defense and further resources to argue his case against execution.

Panetti’s case has drawn national attention to the questions of mental illness and the death penalty. Originally convicted of murder in 1995, Panetti has been in a two decade-long battle with the Texas Court system and U.S. Supreme Court regarding his mental health and whether he should be given a death penalty sentence. Prior to his conviction, Panetti had a long history of mental illness, including paranoid schizophrenia, delusions, hallucinations and manic depression. Despite this documented history of mental illness, the Texas court ruled him competent, not only to stand trial but also to represent himself.

Following numerous appeal filings, Panetti’s case has been between state and federal courts as his lawyers argue to save his life. In 2007, Panetti’s case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld that inmates needed to have a “rational understanding” of their punishment to be considered competent for execution. Each state, however, makes its own determination of what constitutes a “rational understanding.” In this case, Texas contended that Panetti was fully aware of why he was being punished.

Panetti’s execution was set for December 3, 2014 until the U.S. Fifth Court Circuit of Appeals issued another stay in response to an appellate claim that he was denied adequate legal counsel to stand trial. For the past several months, Panetti’s lawyers have argued that Panetti needs a mental health evaluation because he has not been evaluated since 2007 but does not have the funds to pay for it.

One of Panetti’s lawyers, Greg Wiercioch, rests on the fact that Panetti’s case needs to bypass the state level and return to a federal district court. In the hearing last week, Wiercioch asked the court to appoint counsel and funds for expert assistance to determine whether Panetti is competent enough to be executed.

Kathryn Kase, one of Panetti’s attorneys with the Texas Defender Service, stated last Tuesday:

“If Texas executes Scott Panetti, it will demonstrate how little it cares to protect those who are most seriously ill. He has been for 40 years. Texas has again and again sought to kill him, suggesting it does not care to recognize the mental illness that brought him to commit homicide, to death row, and now makes him incompetent. He lacks an understanding of why the state wants to kill him.”

As part of the hearing, the judges in the case “appeared frustrated with both sides for failing to answer the question of his competency.” The judges also questioned the state’s refusal to provide funds to an indigent inmate on death row who might be mentally ill. As of now, Panetti’s lawyers hope to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court in the coming weeks.

Eleni Angelides is a Political Science MA candidate at George Washington University. She is currently serving as a Communications and Marketing Intern with Equal Justice USA. Look for her Newsline stories in the weeks and months to come!

Photo Credit: Texas Defender Service

Filed under: Ready for launch