[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS

[Rick Halperin]

Dec. 11



TEXAS----impending execution list

Executions under Rick Perry, 2001-present-----279

Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982-present----518

Perry #--------scheduled execution date-----name---------Tx. #

280------------Jan. 15------------------Richard Vasquez-------519

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

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

Executions under Greg Abbott, 2015-present

Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present

Abbott#--------scheduled execution date-----name------------Tx. #

1------------Jan. 21-------------------Arnold Prieto--------520

2------------Jan. 28-------------------Garcia White---------521

3------------Jan. 29-------------------Robert Ladd----------522

4------------Feb. 4--------------------Donald Newbury-------523

5------------Feb. 10-------------------Les Bower, Jr.-------524

6------------Mar. 5--------------------Rodney Reed----------525

7------------Mar. 11-------------------Manuel Vasquez-------526

8------------Mar. 18-------------------Randall Mays---------527

9------------Apr. 9--------------------Kent Sprouse---------528

10------------Apr. 15-------------------Manual Garza---------529

11------------May 12--------------------Derrick Charles------530

(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)

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

Why Is Texas So Gung Ho to Execute This Delusional, Mentally Ill Man?----State 
prosecutors - and judges - seem dead set on giving Scott Panetti the needle.


Almost no one wants to see Scott Panetti put to death. Conservatives such as 
Ron Paul and Ken Cuccinelli and evangelical leaders have spoken up on his 
behalf. The European Union has protested his pending execution, which is 
temporarily on hold thanks to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Even some of 
Panetti's victims don't believe he should be killed by the state.

The Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot execute a mentally ill person 
who lacks a rational understanding of the nature of his punishment. Panetti 
fits that standard: He insists that Texas wants to kill him to prevent him from 
preaching the Gospel. And yet the state has gone to great lengths to ensure 
that Panetti gets the needle. Right up until December 3, when the 5th Circuit 
temporarily halted Panetti's execution with hours to spare, the state has 
deployed legal gamesmanship that seems more appropriate for patent litigation 
than a death penalty case.

"He looked like a clown. I had a feeling that Scott had no perception how he 
was coming across."

Panetti's schizophrenia has been apparent since 1978, when he was 20 years old. 
By 1986, the Social Security Administration had declared him disabled by his 
brain disorder and therefore eligible for federal benefits. 6 years later, 
after a series of hospitalizations and bizarre incidents - in one case he 
buried demon-possessed furniture in his yard - Panetti shot and killed his 
in-laws, Joe and Amanda Alvarado.

His criminal case was a theater of the absurd from the outset, thanks to a 
series of puzzling legal decisions by Texas and federal judges. It began when 
Kerr County District Judge Stephen Ables, still on the bench today, permitted 
Panetti to represent himself at trial over the objections of the state. He 
showed up wearing what a friend of the family later described as a 1920s-era 
cowboy outfit: "It looked idiotic. He wore a large hat and a huge bandana. He 
wore weird boots with stirrups, the pants were tucked in at the calf," she 
testified in an affidavit. "He looked like a clown. I had a feeling that Scott 
had no perception how he was coming across." Thus clad, standing before the 
jury, Panetti called himself "Sarge" and rambled incoherently for hours with 
little interruption from the judge - who did, however, argue with the defendant 
over the relevance of belt buckles and whether he could discuss the TV show 
Quincy. As part of his defense, Panetti issued a stream-of-consciousness 
description of his crime, from Sarge's perspective:

Fall. Sonja, Joe, Amanda, kitchen. Joe bayonet, not attacking. Sarge not 
afraid, not threatened. Sarge not angry, not mad. Sarge, boom, boom. Sarge, 
boom, boom, boom, boom. Sarge, boom, boom.

Sarge is gone. No more Sarge. Sonja and Birdie. Birdie and Sonja. Joe, Amanda 
lying kitchen, here, there, blood. No, leave. Scott, remember exactly what 
Sarge did. Shot the lock. Walked in the kitchen. Sonja, where's Birdie? Sonja 
here. Joe, bayonet, door, Amanda. Boom, boom, blood, blood.

Demons. Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, Lord, oh, you.

The jury, not surprisingly, found him guilty of capital murder. They 
subsequently sentenced him to die.

Thus began the long, slow appeals process - Panetti at one point tried to fire 
his lawyers and abandon his appeals, but a judge finally declared that he was 
mentally incompetent to make such a choice. He was nearing execution in 2004, 
when his lawyers asked for a hearing to determine his mental competency, 
leading to more appeals and, ultimately, a hearing by the US Supreme Court.

For a moment it looked like Panetti's legal saga might be over. In 2007, the 
Supreme Court ruled that he was clearly mentally ill, and that the lower courts 
had used too stringent a standard to assess his competency. Justice Kennedy 
wrote: "He suffers from a severe, documented mental illness that is the source 
of gross delusions preventing him from comprehending the meaning and purpose of 
the punishment to which he has been sentenced." The case went back to US 
District Court Judge Sam Sparks, who, four years earlier, had found Panetti 
sane enough to execute. Sparks held a new hearing to assess Panetti's 
competency under the new standard, but came to the same conclusion, despite 
considerable testimony about Panetti's mental-health history and current 
delusions. The 5th Circuit upheld Sparks' ruling, as did the Supreme Court.

The state didn't bother to tell Panetti's lawyers about his execution date. 
They learned about it 2 weeks later in the Houston Chronicle.

Judges had another chance to end the charade in 2008, after the Supreme Court 
made it harder for mentally ill people to represent themselves at trial. 
Filings in that case actually cite Panetti as a cautionary tale. The opinion 
helped ensure there wouldn't be any more cowboy clowns representing themselves 
in capital cases, but when Panetti's lawyers tried to benefit from the ruling, 
Texas and federal judges threw out his case on a technicality.

One of them was none other than Sparks, who spent more than 100 pages 
explaining why the court "does not believe that Panetti's mental illness 
rendered him incompetent to represent himself." Although Panetti chose his 
jurors by flipping a coin, Sparks argued that he "made meaningful decisions" 
during jury selection. The fact that he took notes and dismissed one woman 
because she was seven months pregnant demonstrates his understanding of the 
legal system, Sparks wrote.

Bolstered by these decisions, the state continued its all-out quest to kill 
Panetti in the face of deep public opposition. Many of the prosecutors' recent 
actions are detailed in legal filings with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. 
Perhaps the most audacious came this past October, after the Supreme Court 
refused to hear Panetti's latest appeal. The state court set an execution date, 
and while the prosecutors and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice were 
aware that the death warrant had been signed, no one bothered to tell Panetti's 
lawyers. They learned about it two weeks later in the Houston Chronicle.

This delay left the lawyers scrambling, with just one week to file what's known 
as a Ford claim, a request for a hearing to determine whether an inmate is too 
insane to execute. Ford claims, based on the Eighth Amendment's cruel and 
unusual punishment clause, which prohibits the execution of mentally ill 
people, may not be filed until the death warrant is signed.

The Texas attorney general's office insisted in legal filings that state law 
doesn't require it to notify the defense of an impending execution. Which is 
true. But the Texas Lawyer's Creed arguably requires notification. This 
voluntary professional code of ethics instructs lawyers, among other things, 
not to take action that "unfairly limits another party's opportunity to 
respond."

It's unclear whether state officials told Panetti himself that he was set to 
die. Ellen Stewart-Klein, the Texas assistant attorney general handling the 
case, did not respond to a request for comment. Regardless, notes Kathryn Kase, 
one of Panetti's lawyers, "I think in a case where you have a man with 36 years 
of mental illness, notice to that man is not sufficient."

The courts have denied Panetti funding to hire the experts he needs to prove 
he's not sane enough to be executed.

Panetti's recent filings show that Texas courts have refused multiple requests 
to appoint him a lawyer for his most recent appeals. (The Constitution only 
guarantees capital defendants a lawyer up through their 1st appeal.) In 
practice, this means Panetti's current lawyers won't be paid for handling the 
appeals filed since his death warrant was issued. The courts also have denied 
Panetti funding to hire the experts he needs to prove he's not sane enough to 
be executed. Just to get a Ford hearing, his lawyers must present up-to-date 
evidence of his incompetence, which requires a psychiatric assessment. And most 
forensic psychiatrists don't work for free.

Yet the state has brought in its own experts to press the case against him. In 
early December, prosecutors filed an affidavit from Dr. Joseph V. Penn, 
director of mental-health services in the correctional managed care division of 
the University of Texas Medical Branch. Penn swore that Panetti's condition 
hadn't changed since his competency hearing in 2007. The prisoner, he said, 
hadn't asked for any medication for his symptoms - which was no surprise, he 
added, since Panetti's prison medical records show no diagnosis of mental 
illness. And while Panetti might be "hyper-religious," his condition isn't 
severe enough to warrant treatment with drugs. The affidavit supports the 
state's long-standing assertion that Panetti is simply an alcoholic or drug 
addict faking his 36-year history of mental illness.

Panetti's medical history contradicts that assessment. For most of the 17 years 
he's been incarcerated, he has refused anti-psychotic drugs. Shortly before he 
went to trial, he had a revelation that he was a "born-again April fool" who 
"depended on the Lord to do for me what medicine wasn't doing." In 2012, 
according to records turned over to his lawyers, Panetti began growing more 
paranoid, suspicious that the prison was tampering with his food and conspiring 
with gangs to persecute him. After nearly 12 years without a write-up, he 
started acting aggressively toward staff, even throwing urine on a guard.

Over the past two years, records show, Panetti asked for mental-health care on 
three occasions. On the most recent, in November 2013, he requested an 
appointment with a psychiatrist, telling a mental-health staffer that he 
thought he might need to go back on his meds because preaching the Bible wasn't 
keeping the voices in his head at bay anymore. It's unclear whether he got 
treatment, because the state hasn't turned over any medical records since 
Panetti made that request.

Either the state is hiding Panetti's records, his lawyers say, or it refused to 
treat him for mental illness because to do so might help his case.

The state claims no such records exist because Panetti hasn't needed 
mental-health care. His lawyers counter that the state is either hiding the 
records or officials refused to treat him because to do so might help his case.

At least twice in the past month, without informing his lawyers, the state has 
tried to evaluate Panetti for mental illness, according to Penn's affidavit. 
(Panetti refused both attempts.) Panetti's lawyers view this as a violation of 
due process. The state, they argue, only sought to evaluate him after the 
execution date was set, "leading to the inescapable conclusion that the efforts 
were made for the purpose of creating evidence to contest Mr. Panetti's 
competency in the Ford proceedings, not for the purpose of treating him."

Texas has resorted to other brass-knuckle tactics, also detailed in the 5th 
Circuit filings. On Election Day, corrections officials recorded a visit 
between Panetti and his parents, who are nearly 80, and quoted from it in court 
filings to argue that he is "lucid and intelligent" because he was able to talk 
about politics.

They conveniently left out the portion, 2 minutes in, where Panetti starts 
rambling about the time in Wisconsin when he was grooming steer with former CIA 
agent Valerie Plame. "I don't know if I was just hearing voices about Valerie 
Plame, Mom," he says. "But it was her. But I sure got a pretty good indication 
that indeed it was."

Panetti would be dead now but for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals - its stay 
of execution a rare moment of sanity in a legal process that has made the Texas 
courts, if such a thing were possible, even more of an international pariah 
than before. Now it looks like Panetti may get a full hearing on his competency 
in federal court. There's no guarantee he'll prevail. He was pretty sick the 
last time the federal courts evaluated his mental state, and they ruled against 
him anyway.

Even a finding of incompetency would be a temporary salvation. Given 
appropriate medical treatment, Panetti could potentially become competent 
enough to be again eligible for execution, forcing him (and his lawyers) to 
choose between insanity and death. But for the moment, the 5th Circuit's 
decision has bought him time, and a competency hearing represents his best shot 
to convince a judge that he never belonged so close to death in the first 
place. As Kase puts it, "The 5th Circuit saved Texas from itself."

(source: Mother Jones)

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

The case of Scott Panetti -- and the true meaning of 'cruel and unusual'


So what does "cruel and unusual" mean?.

I once asked that of a law professor. The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and 
unusual" punishment, but I figured there had to be some technical definition I, 
as a layperson, was missing. I mean, from where I sit, it's pretty "cruel and 
unusual" to execute someone, but to judge from the 1,392 executions of the last 
38 years, that isn't the case.

Scott Panetti almost became number 1,393 last week, but within hours of his 
scheduled lethal injection, he was reprieved by a federal judge. The court said 
it needs more time to consider the issues his case raises.

In a rational place, it would not be news that Mr. Panetti was not killed. In a 
rational place, they would understand that state-sanctioned execution is a 
relic of frontier barbarism that leaves us all wet with the blood of the 
damned. In a rational place, they would say there's something especially 
repugnant about applying that grisly sanction to the mentally ill, like Mr. 
Panetti.

But Mr. Panetti doesn't live in a rational place. He lives in America. Worse, 
he lives in Texas.

The personal belief that somebody deserves cruelty doesn't make it not cruel.

They love their executions in Rick Perry's kingdom. Since 1976, according to 
the Death Penalty Information Center, an advocacy group, that state has killed 
almost 520 people. That's nearly five times more than the next bloodiest state, 
Oklahoma, with 111.

There is no question Mr. Panetti deserves punishment. In 1992, he shot his 
estranged wife's parents to death as she and the couple's daughter looked on. 
He held them both hostage before releasing them unharmed.

But there is also no question that Mr. Panetti, 56, suffers from severe mental 
illness. At his trial, in which he was somehow, bizarrely, allowed to represent 
himself, he wore a purple cowboy suit with a 10-gallon hat and summoned a 
personality he called "Sarge" to explain what happened on the fateful day. His 
witness list included 200 people. Among them: John F. Kennedy, the pope, Anne 
Bancroft and Jesus Christ.

The state contends that Mr. Panetti, who was off his meds at the time of the 
killing, is faking it. During a 2004 hearing, the county sheriff called him 
"the best actor there is." In its most recent filings, Texas accuses him of 
"grossly exaggerating" his symptoms.

If it's an act, it's been going on a long time. His attorneys say Mr. Panetti 
was diagnosed with schizophrenia 14 years before the shootings and was 
hospitalized 13 times between 1978 and 1991. Now a court decides on his life or 
death.

It's a pregnant decision in a country where, apparently, it isn't "cruel and 
unusual" to preside, as Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton did, over the execution of a 
man so profoundly impaired that he saved the pie from his last meal to eat 
later. Or to let a man gasp and snort for almost two hours as a lethal 
injection very slowly killed him, as happened in Arizona. Or to set a man on 
fire, as has happened at least twice in Florida's electric chair. Or to execute 
people for crimes committed when they were children. Or to send innocent people 
to death row. Or to choose whom to execute based on color of killer, color of 
victim, gender, geography and class.

So what, exactly, might be too cruel and unusual for us to allow? The professor 
could not answer. Which, of course, is an answer.

As flawed and broken as our system of death is, we continue to embrace the 
puritanical morality of eye for eye and blood for blood. Most of the western 
world has left this savagery behind, but we insist on it, leaving us isolated 
from our national peers, those nations whose values are most like ours, but 
looming large among the outlaw likes of Somalia and Iran.

Now we are debating whether to kill a man so addled he tried to subpoena Jesus. 
And that leads to a conclusion as painful as it is unavoidable:

What's "cruel and unusual," is us.

(source: Column; Leonard Pitts is a columnist for The Miami Herald----The 
Baltimore Sun)

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

Sounding Off: Northwest Dallas County readers tell us whether state should 
execute a man with mental illness


RAISE YOUR VOICE: Share your own opinion online at dallasnews.com/sendletters. 
Sign up for Sounding Off or submit a guest column (and include your full name 
and contact information) by visiting dallasnews.com/voices.

On Dec. 3, a federal appeals court halted the execution of Scott Panetti, a man 
diagnosed with schizophrenia who was convicted of killing his wife's parents. 
Is it right for the state to execute Scott Panetti, who was sentenced to death 
in 1995, despite his mental illness?

Charlie Blank, Irving: I don???t know how Mr. Panetti was turned loose on 
society considering his inability to control himself because of his 
schizophrenia. I assume it was not known if he was a danger to society. Now 
that it is established that he is a bona fide danger to society, and to prevent 
his being turned loose again, I think the death penalty is appropriate - not as 
a penalty, but as a safeguard for our society.

Mary Scarborough, Irving: If Texas had the option of life without the 
possibility of parole, I might consider that as an alternative to the death 
penalty. I've always thought the death penalty should be carried out as the 
condemned leaves the courtroom by a lethal injection given without warning.

It's the years on death row that make this cruel and unusual punishment. That 
being said, I've never believed insanity or retardation should be an excuse. If 
those conditions lead to a person committing a horrible crime, that person 
cannot live safely in society and should be subject to the same laws as a 
supposedly sane person.

Gary McCoy, Carrollton: This is a tough case, even for a death penalty advocate 
such as myself.

This man was diagnosed with schizophrenia many years prior to the murders. As I 
understand it, he was off his medications when he committed the crimes. My 
question is, what did the original jury see during the trial to convince them 
that, beyond a reasonable doubt, he was not only guilty of 1st-degree murder, 
but deserved the death penalty? I suspect there was something very important 
that swayed that jury.

Being a cynic, I would suspect he is now playing up his mental problems to 
avoid the death penalty. If it is proven through taped recordings with his 
parents that he is in fact acting, then he should not be granted a reprieve. 
However, if it can be proven he is delusional now and most likely was at the 
time of the murders, then the death penalty should be changed to life in 
prison.

People that are truly not in control of themselves and do not understand what 
they are doing and/or the consequences of their actions should not be subject 
to the death penalty. The bar to prove this should be very severe.

Richard Broberg, Dallas: He should be kept in a mental institution until cured, 
and then he should carry out the rest of his sentence as any normal person 
would have to.

James J Horn, Carrollton: No, I do not think it is correct to put to death a 
person who is mentally challenged. Texas already leads the nation in the number 
of innocent people put behind bars. With that in mind, can we be 100 percent 
sure a person warrants such a punishment? Todd Willingham comes to my memory. 
Even found guilty, experts said the evidence gathering was faulty and 
inaccurate. You cannot sentence a man to death just because he was a bad man.

Matt Wenthold, Farmers Branch: As a Christian, I oppose the death penalty; as a 
realist, I know our legal system does not work for people who have no money. We 
are the only Western, Judeo-Christian based nation that still has a death 
penalty.

Norman Pickett, Celina and Carrollton: Yes, although I am against death 
penalties due to the higher cost. As a liberal, I prefer lower taxes and lower 
government expense. To me, less government is better.

David Borland, Carrollton: I tend to oppose executions. I would support it only 
if he would be judged a danger to his guards, his fellow prisioners, himself or 
the general public if he ecaped after sentenced to a life in prision without 
parole. The only ones in recent history I remember are the group that escaped 
from Huntsville and killed an Irving policeman. Not being qualified to make 
such a judgment for Scott Panetti, I would prefer a life sentence.

Lanni Fish, Irving: I debated whether to even try to respond to this question. 
To do so requires one to walk dangerously close to being judge, jury and 
executioner. His case has already been adjudicated by those qualified to fill 
the roles of judge and jury, and I would not presume to retrace their steps. He 
received a death sentence, after being found guilty by a jury of his peers. 
>From what I read in the newspaper article accompanying this question, he mostly 
acted as his own counsel, and while doing so, displayed very bizarre behavior, 
dressed in an outrageous manner, and to all appearances, gave every impression 
of being insane. Still, the jury convicted him. I can only conclude they 
weren't fooled by his behavior.

There is nothing new about a criminal trying to convince the world they're 
insane, or retarded, or for whatever reason, unable to make rational decisions, 
and therefore are not responsible for their behavior. He may very well be 
unable to understand what he has done, the sentence he faces, and how the 2 are 
connected. As I understand it, that's the heart of the question. I'm not 
qualified to make that judgment, and I'm not at all sure that anyone else is, 
either - even the most eminent psychiatrists.

I think it comes down to this: I have to believe he's not completely sane if he 
could walk in and murder 2 people in cold blood. The line between insanity and 
just plain meanness can be very thin. Now, whether he is so far gone that he 
can't understand why he has received a death sentence, I can't say, and again, 
I'm not sure anyone else can either. I'm glad I don't have to make that call. I 
pray for those who have that responsibility.

Maxine Luster, Carrollton: It is my opinion that if Mr. Panetti had been 
diagnosed and treated numerous times for a mental illness, he should never have 
been placed on death row.

Carolyn Rutkowski, Carrollton: The state of Texas is obliged to carry out the 
sentence the jury passed down in Mr. Panetti's capital murder trial. Having 
arrived at that decision, I feel it is right for the state of Texas to execute 
Scott Panetti, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1995, despite his 
mental illness, if he was mentally ill at the time he committed the crime.

Incarceration, itself, generally causes inmates to suffer a change in their 
mental state. However, in Panetti's case, it appears he somehow found the 
ability to relate on a normal basis with his parents during their monitored 
prison visits. This was captured on videotape provided by the corrections 
department.

Is he gaming the system? It's hard to tell. Perhaps once he has undergone the 
court's ordered mental re-evaluation, the answer to this question might be 
better answered.

Martha Joe Thrasher, Carrollton: I have mixed emotions about executing someone 
said to be mentally ill. If there is doubt of the person's guilt, the person 
probably should be kept incarcerated for life.

Paul Kramer, Carrollton: This is truly a heartbreaking situation, whether Mr. 
Panetti is acting or not. As this article indicated though, the Supreme Court 
has previously ruled that proven emotional and mental dysfunction prohibits 
execution, and it seems this will be the case here. Sadly, many (not all) 
mental illnesses are really misdiagnosed spiritual problems. The Bible, for 
instance, talks about demon possession, and the examples of that type of 
behavior from the New Testament are fairly frightening. One has to wonder how 
many are locked away in mental institutions who really just need spiritual 
help.

Wes Pyfer, Irving: I would not presume to know whether execution or life in 
prison would be justice for Scott Panetti. It is best to leave that decision in 
the hands of the professionals that are familiar with the facts of the case. 
However, I will not march, protest or destroy property after the decision is 
rendered.

Leslie Jackson, Carrollton: I do not believe in taking anyone's life, let alone 
one who does not have the mental capacity to make mature life decisions. Isn't 
the idea that those who have, whether it be money, power, privilege, 
intelligence, etc., take care of those who don't? As the Dalai Lama once said, 
"Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, 
at least don't hurt them."

Darrel VanDyke, Coppell: It would be easy to have this discussion draw sides 
into debating death penalties in general, but this specific case is not about 
that. It's about a bigger question on what our society is, or wants to be known 
as. An international rights organization has condemned our country for wanting 
to execute a man with serious mental health issues. While it would be easy to 
thumb our nose at that group and blithely go about our execution business, what 
purpose would it serve to execute a seriously mentally ill man in this case? Is 
this how we want to be known?

(source: Dallas Morning News)

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

State rests its case in punishment, defense attempts to save Williams from 
death penalty


The state rested its case mid-day Wednesday in the punishment phase of a former 
Kaufman County justice of the peace Eric Williams who jurors found was guilty 
in the capital murder of Cynthia McLelland, the wife of Kaufman County District 
Attorney Mike McLelland who was also killed.

During the punishment phase, the state also introduced evidence of a 3rd 
killing, the shooting death of Mark Hasse who was a prosecutor in the district 
attorney's office. Prosecutors allege the 3 killings were revenge for the 
prosecution of Williams which resulted in theft charges, the loss of his law 
license, and the loss of his post as justice of the peace.

The state is seeking the death penalty - arguing Williams is, was, and has been 
a continued threat to society. To help paint that picture, the state introduced 
a woman formally involved in a relationship with Williams and a Kaufman area 
attorney - who were both threatened by Williams.

Janice Gray, who met Williams at a court coordinator conference in Huntsville 
in the early 1990s, was in a brief relationship with Williams. After she called 
off the relationship, the 2 saw each other at another conference where Gray 
says Williams threatened her with a gun if she refused to talk with him.

"I have a gun and, if you walk away, I'll use it. I have nothing to lose," 
Williams told Gray, according to her testimony.

Years later, while serving as a mediator in a Kaufman County real estate case, 
Williams allegedly threatened to kill John Burt, a Kaufman area attorney, his 
wife, kids, and burn his house down.

The state rested its case mid-day without the suspected testimony of Williams' 
estranged wife, Kim, who is also co-indicted in the 3 murders.

The defense began their arguments with a handful of motions - a motion for 
continuance, mistrial, and another change of venue. Visiting Dallas County 
Judge Mike Snipes denied those motions.

Defense attorney Maxwell Peck addressed the jury and asked they show mercy for 
Williams and not sentence him to the death penalty. "If Eric's motive was 
revenge, revenge has been delivered," said Peck. "Eric is no longer a risk."

Kaufman area attorney Jenny Parks testified she believed Williams was 
wrongfully convicted of theft in 2012 and he fell victim to small town 
politics.

Also called to the witness stand by the defense were 2 jail-house bible study 
pastors and jail officials. The defense argued Williams could be a teacher and 
mentor in prison.

The defense will continue with testimony Thursday morning.

(source: inforney.com)

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

Defense team in Kaufman DA murder trial asks jurors to "turn your cheek," spare 
Eric Williams' life


Testimony from those in charge of the jails in Kaufman and Rockwall where 
Williams has been held since his arrest shows that Williams has had no serious 
disciplinary issues since his arrest in April 2013. The defense is trying to 
show that Williams would not be a risk if he received a sentence of life 
without parole instead of death.

Court and jail security said they had concerns that Williams was testing them 
and too observant of procedures. But there had not been a security incident. 
There was concern that Williams once intentionally spiked his blood sugar by 
eating junk food to go to the hospital. He has been taken to a hospital a 
handful of times without a problem.

In Rockwall, where he is now held, he is watched 24 hours a day.

One report was generated at the Rockwall County Jail when Williams filled out a 
jail work application Nov. 26 giving his name as Jesus Christ. He was applying 
for the position of "Lord & Savior" and said that his previous employer was 
"God the Father."

Eric Williams' jail job application.

Under skills and training, Williams lists "carpenter, can turn water into wine, 
can multiply fish & bread, heal the sick & raise the dead."

Bob Guzik, the Rockwall County Jail administrator, said he believed the form 
was the result of inmates having 24 hours a day to think of things to do.

"I just thought he was trying to be bizarre and mess with us," Guzik told 
jurors.

There was no testimony that Williams believed he was Jesus Christ.

The defense made its case before a jury that will decide whether Eric Williams 
gets a death sentence or life in prison without parole.

Defense attorney Maxwell Peck stood before jurors and acknowledged that "the 
satisfaction of getting even feels good." But he urged them to think of Jesus' 
teachings to turn the other cheek, especially since we are so close to 
Christmas.

"Love your enemies," Peck said. "Turn your cheek. Pray for those who misuse 
you."

He noted that even with the lesser sentence, Williams will be severely 
punished. He told jurors that he and defense attorneys Matthew Seymour, Doug 
Parks and John Wright would provide witnesses to "help you grapple with your 
emotions and consider what constitutes justice."

Peck said the defense would offer no excuses for the murder of Cynthia 
McLelland "because there is none." But about the prosecution of Williams by 
Mike McLelland and Hasse for stealing 3 county computer monitors, Peck asked: 
"Is it right to destroy a man's life over 3 computers?"

If revenge was the motive for the slayings, as prosecutors suggest, Peck said, 
"Eric is no longer a risk."

It would take just 1 juror to keep Williams from going to death row, Peck said. 
The death verdict must he unanimous. Hung juries result in a life sentence.

(source: Dallas Morning News)