[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, FLA., S.C., ALA., LA., OHIO

[Rick Halperin]

March 20



TEXAS:

Texas prosecutor accused of misconduct for role in famous execution case ---- 
State bar alleges that John Jackson 'knew of the existence of evidence that 
tended to negate the guilt' of Cameron Willingham, who was executed in 2004



The state bar of Texas has filed a formal misconduct accusation against the 
prosecutor who secured a conviction in one of the country's most dubious and 
disputed death penalty cases.

Earlier this month the bar lodged a petition in Navarro County, near Dallas, 
alleging that John Jackson withheld evidence that pointed to the innocence of 
Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 for the murder of his 3 young 
daughters, who died in a house fire in 1991.

"Before, during, and after the 1992 trial, [Jackson] knew of the existence of 
evidence that tended to negate the guilt of Willingham, and failed to disclose 
that evidence to defence counsel," it reads.

Jackson was an assistant district attorney at the time, later becoming a judge. 
The petition, obtained by the criminal-justice journalism group the Marshall 
Project, alleges that he made multiple attempts to secure favourable treatment 
for an imprisoned informant named Johnny Webb, who testified that Willingham 
started the fire. They included taking steps to reduce Webb's charge from 
aggravated robbery to robbery, giving him a better chance of parole.

The complaint also claims that Jackson dishonestly told a court that he had no 
evidence that could help Willingham's defence. It follows a grievance filed 
last year by the New York-based miscarriage of justice investigatory group the 
Innocence Project, which has investigated the case.

Jackson has strongly maintained his innocence and insisted that Willingham, who 
was 23 at the time of the deaths, was guilty of arson.

However, Webb recanted his testimony in 2000 and gave interviews to the 
Marshall Project in 2014 in which he said he lied on the witness stand so that 
Jackson would help reduce his sentence and arrange thousands of dollars in help 
via a wealthy local rancher.

Also key to Willingham's conviction was forensic evidence from arson 
investigators that was subsequently discredited by experts as being based on a 
misinterpretation.

Despite mounting concern that Willingham was innocent, the former Texas 
governor Rick Perry refused to stay his execution. In 2009, after an 
investigation by the Texas forensic science commission found that the arson 
evidence was faulty, Perry replaced the board's chairman and 2 other members 
and called Willingham "a monster".

The execution was briefly a contentious topic during Perry's bid for the 
Republican nomination for the 2012 US presidential election. During a debate, 
Perry was asked whether the possibility of having executed an innocent person 
made it hard for him to sleep at night. "No, sir, I've never struggled with 
that at all," replied Perry, now a possible Republican presidential candidate 
again.

In 2013 another former Texas prosecutor, Ken Anderson, was sentenced to 10 days 
in jail and 500 hours of community service as part of a plea deal related to 
evidence withheld in the erroneous conviction of Michael Morton, who spent 
nearly 25 years behind bars for murdering his wife until DNA evidence 
exonerated him in 2011.

Among Willingham's last words in the Texas death chamber before the lethal 
injection took effect were: "The only statement I want to make is that I am an 
innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted 
for 12 years for something I did not do."

If found guilty, Jackson could be disbarred. He retired in 2012.

(source: The Guardian)








FLORIDA:

Prosecutors to seek death penalty for man charged with throwing daughter off 
Tampa Bay bridge



Prosecutors in the John Jonchuck case say they will seek the death penalty if 
he ever faces trial in his daughter's death.

Jonchuck is accused of throwing his 5-year-old daughter Phoebe off the 
southbound approach to the Sunshine Skyway Bridge on January 8. He is facing 
1st-degree murder charges.

Last month, Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Chris Helinger ruled he was mentally 
incompetent to stand trial and sent him to a mental facility.

Still, mental health experts believe his competency could eventually be 
restored with the right treatment. And that would allow the case to pick up 
where it left off.

Another Jonchuck competency hearing is scheduled for September.

(source: Bradenton Herald)








SOUTH CAROLINA:

Execution-drug seller bill also introduced in SC House



Another bill that would shield the identities of pharmaceutical companies that 
supply execution drugs to South Carolina is being considered by the state 
Legislature.

The House measure introduced Tuesday is a companion to a version already 
advancing in the Senate. The legislation would add drug companies to the 
state's execution team and thus require that their identities be kept secret, 
in the hope that providers will resume selling execution drugs to the state.

Like its Senate counterpart, the House proposal would also exempt the companies 
from state health and purchasing rules. No debate on the new bill has been 
scheduled.

A Senate subcommittee voted unanimously Tuesday to approve its version, which 
is set to be considered by the full Senate Corrections and Penology Committee 
on Thursday.

South Carolina has run out of one of its three lethal injection drugs, the 
anesthetic pentobarbital, and has not been able to find anyone willing to sell 
more. Corrections Director Bryan Stirling has said that, if their names were 
shielded from the public, pharmaceutical companies might be willing to start 
selling the drugs again.

The legislation was patterned after bills in other states that have run into 
problems obtaining execution drugs. Texas, the country's most active death 
penalty state, is working to find a supplier to replenish its dwindling 
inventory amid a pending court order that would no longer allow the state to 
protect the supplier's identity.

Ohio is out of the 2 drugs it needs. In February, a federal judge dismissed a 
lawsuit filed by 4 death row inmates there who challenged a similar shield law. 
Similar fights are ongoing in other death penalty states including Oklahoma and 
Missouri. But courts - including the U.S. Supreme Court - have yet to halt an 
execution based on a state's refusal to reveal its drug supplier.

(source: greenvilleonline.com)








ALABAMA:

Alabama executions on hold



A federal judge has ordered a stay on legal proceedings for all pending 
executions in Alabama until the U.S. Supreme Court rules later this year 
whether the state's lethal injection method constitutes cruel and unusual 
punishment.

U.S. Middle District Chief District Judge Keith Watkins wrote in a Thursday 
order covering 9 pending capital cases that the high court's expected decision 
in Glossip v. Gross, challenging an Oklahoma execution method also used by 
Alabama, would have a significant impact on the cases before the court.

The news was first reported by The Anniston Star.

Like Alabama's 3-drug protocol, Oklahoma's execution method was based on a 
Florida process that uses the drug midazolam as a sedative to render the 
condemned inmate unconscious before drugs that paralyze the muscles and stop 
the heart are administered. Executions have been carried out in Florida without 
reported incidents; however, midazolam was present in at least 3 botched 
executions in Ohio, Oklahoma and Arizona last year.

Attorneys for death row inmates have argued that midazolam will not render 
inmates unconscious in time to prevent them from feeling the pain from the 
other 2 drugs. That, they say, would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment's 
ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"Glossip will address, among other things, Florida's lethal injection protocol, 
which is substantially similar to Alabama's, and will likely bear directly on 
the pleading and proof standards in Eighth Amendment lethal injection claims, 
as well as the scope and type of discovery that is relevant and appropriate in 
those cases," Watkins wrote.

The state has asked the Alabama Supreme Court to set execution dates in all 
nine cases. Watkins noted in his order that that state attorneys have said they 
will not oppose a motion to stay the execution of Anthony Boyd, sentenced to 
die after helping burn a man to death in 1993 over a drug debt, until the U.S. 
Supreme Court's ruling in Glossip.

A spokeswoman for the Alabama Attorney General's office said Thursday the 
office had no comment.

The order effectively stays the executions until the U.S. Supreme Court's 
expected ruling in Glossip. The high court is expected to hear arguments in the 
case this spring, with a ruling coming sometime before the end of June. 
Following the decision, Watkins said attorneys for both sides will file briefs 
explaining how the decision will impact their cases.

In February, Watkins stayed the execution of Thomas Arthur, convicted in 1982 
as part of a murder-for-hire scheme. Arthur's attorneys have argued the 
execution method would violate the Eighth Amendment by keeping him awake while 
painful drugs were administered. The attorneys have also said Arthur's 14th 
Amendment due process rights would be violated, due to conflicting testimony 
from Alabama corrections officials as to whether a consciousness test is 
consistently administered to inmates before the lethal drugs are administered.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a particular method of 
lethal injection in Baze v. Rees, a 2008 case. However, the sedative used in 
that method -- sodium thiapentol -- is no longer manufactured, and the Glossip 
plaintiffs argue that midazolam cannot render the "deep, coma-like 
unconsciousness" required by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Due to legal challenges and shortages of drugs used, Alabama has not conducted 
an execution since July 25, 2013. The Alabama House of Represenatives last week 
voted to bring back the electric chair if lethal injection is ruled 
unconstitutional, or otherwise unworkable.

(source: Montgomery Advertiser)








LOUISIANA:

Lead prosecutor apologizes, admits mistakes in Glenn Ford case----Stroud: Death 
penalty is 'abomination that continues to scar the fibers of this society'



Editor's Note: Attorney A.M. "Marty" Stroud III, of Shreveport, was the lead 
prosecutor in the December 1984 1st-degree murder trial of Glenn Ford, who was 
sentenced to death for the Nov. 5, 1983 death of Shreveport jeweler Isadore 
Rozeman. Ford was released from prison March 11, 2014, after the state admitted 
new evidence proving Ford was not the killer. Stroud is responding to an 
editorial in the March 6 edition of The Times that urged the state to now give 
Ford justice by not fighting compensation allowed for those wrongfully 
convicted.

RE: "State should give Ford real justice," March 8

This is the 1st, and probably will be the last, time that I have publicly 
voiced an opinion on any of your editorials. Quite frankly, I believe many of 
your editorials avoid the hard questions on a current issue in order not to be 
too controversial. I congratulate you here, though, because you have taken a 
clear stand on what needs to be done in the name of justice.

Glenn Ford should be completely compensated to every extent possible because of 
the flaws of a system that effectively destroyed his life. The audacity of the 
state's effort to deny Mr. Ford any compensation for the horrors he suffered in 
the name of Louisiana justice is appalling.

I know of what I speak.

"Glenn Ford deserves every penny owed to him under the compensation statute. 
This case is another example of the arbitrariness of the death penalty. I now 
realize, all too painfully, that as a young 33-year-old prosecutor, I was not 
capable of making a decision that could have led to the killing of another 
human being."

A.M. Stroud

I was at the trial of Glenn Ford from beginning to end. I witnessed the 
imposition of the death sentence upon him. I believed that justice was done. I 
had done my job. I was one of the prosecutors and I was proud of what I had 
done.

The death sentence had illustrated that our community would brook no tolerance 
for cold-blooded killers. The Old Testament admonishment, an eye for an eye and 
a tooth for a tooth, was alive and well in Caddo Parish. I even received a 
congratulatory note from one of the state's witnesses, concluding with the 
question, "how does it feel to be wearing a black glove?"

Members of the victim's family profusely thanked the prosecutors and 
investigators for our efforts. They had received some closure, or so everyone 
thought. However, due to the hard work and dedication of lawyers working with 
the Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana, along with the efforts of the 
Caddo Parish district attorney's and sheriff's offices, the truth was 
uncovered.

Glenn Ford was an innocent man. He was released from the hell hole he had 
endured for the last 3 decades.

There was no technicality here. Crafty lawyering did not secure the release of 
a criminal. Mr. Ford spent 30 years of his life in a small, dingy cell. His 
surroundings were dire. Lighting was poor, heating and cooling were almost 
non-existent, food bordered on the uneatable. Nobody wanted to be accused of 
"coddling" a death row inmate.

But Mr. Ford never gave up. He continued the fight for his innocence. And it 
finally paid off.

Pursuant to the review and investigation of cold homicide cases, investigators 
uncovered evidence that exonerated Mr. Ford. Indeed, this evidence was so 
strong that had it been disclosed during of the investigation there would not 
have been sufficient evidence to even arrest Mr. Ford!

And yet, despite this grave injustice, the state does not accept any 
responsibility for the damage suffered by one of its citizens. The bureaucratic 
response appears to be that nobody did anything intentionally wrong, thus the 
state has no responsibility. This is nonsensical. Explain that position to Mr. 
Ford and his family. Facts are stubborn things, they do not go away.

At the time this case was tried there was evidence that would have cleared 
Glenn Ford. The easy and convenient argument is that the prosecutors did not 
know of such evidence, thus they were absolved of any responsibility for the 
wrongful conviction.

I can take no comfort in such an argument. As a prosecutor and officer of the 
court, I had the duty to prosecute fairly. While I could properly strike hard 
blows, ethically I could not strike foul ones.

Part of my duty was to disclose promptly any exculpatory evidence relating to 
trial and penalty issues of which I was made aware. My fault was that I was too 
passive. I did not consider the rumors about the involvement of parties other 
than Mr. Ford to be credible, especially since the three others who were 
indicted for the crime were ultimately released for lack of sufficient evidence 
to proceed to the trial.

The state admitted in 2013 that it had credible evidence

Had I been more inquisitive, perhaps the evidence would have come to light 
years ago. But I wasn't, and my inaction contributed to the miscarriage of 
justice in this matter. Based on what we had, I was confident that the right 
man was being prosecuted and I was not going to commit resources to investigate 
what I considered to be bogus claims that we had the wrong man.

My mindset was wrong and blinded me to my purpose of seeking justice, rather 
than obtaining a conviction of a person who I believed to be guilty. I did not 
hide evidence, I simply did not seriously consider that sufficient information 
may have been out there that could have led to a different conclusion. And that 
omission is on me.

Furthermore, my silence at trial undoubtedly contributed to the wrong-headed 
result.

I did not question the unfairness of Mr. Ford having appointed counsel who had 
never tried a criminal jury case much less a capital one. It never concerned me 
that the defense had insufficient funds to hire experts or that defense counsel 
shut down their firms for substantial periods of time to prepare for trial. 
These attorneys tried their very best, but they were in the wrong arena. They 
were excellent attorneys with experience in civil matters. But this did not 
prepare them for trying to save the life of Mr. Ford.

The jury was all white, Mr. Ford was African-American. Potential 
African-American jurors were struck with little thought about potential 
discrimination because at that time a claim of racial discrimination in the 
selection of jurors could not be successful unless it could be shown that the 
office had engaged in a pattern of such conduct in other cases.

And I knew this was a very burdensome requirement that had never been met in 
the jurisprudence of which I was aware. I also participated in placing before 
the jury dubious testimony from a forensic pathologist that the shooter had to 
be left handed, even though there was no eye witness to the murder. And yes, 
Glenn Ford was left handed.

All too late, I learned that the testimony was pure junk science at its evil 
worst.

In 1984, I was 33 years old. I was arrogant, judgmental, narcissistic and very 
full of myself. I was not as interested in justice as I was in winning. To 
borrow a phrase from Al Pacino in the movie "And Justice for All," "Winning 
became everything."

After the death verdict in the Ford trial, I went out with others and 
celebrated with a few rounds of drinks. That's sick. I had been entrusted with 
the duty to seek the death of a fellow human being, a very solemn task that 
certainly did not warrant any "celebration."

In my rebuttal argument during the penalty phase of the trial, I mocked Mr. 
Ford, stating that this man wanted to stay alive so he could be given the 
opportunity to prove his innocence. I continued by saying this should be an 
affront to each of you jurors, for he showed no remorse, only contempt for your 
verdict.

How totally wrong was I.

I speak only for me and no one else.

I apologize to Glenn Ford for all the misery I have caused him and his family.

I apologize to the family of Mr. Rozeman for giving them the false hope of some 
closure.

I apologize to the members of the jury for not having all of the story that 
should have been disclosed to them.

I apologize to the court in not having been more diligent in my duty to ensure 
that proper disclosures of any exculpatory evidence had been provided to the 
defense.

"Looking back at that period of time in my life, I was not a very nice person, 
and I had no business trying a death case for the state. My unintended victim, 
Glenn Ford."

A.M. Stroud

Glenn Ford deserves every penny owed to him under the compensation statute. 
This case is another example of the arbitrariness of the death penalty. I now 
realize, all too painfully, that as a young 33-year-old prosecutor, I was not 
capable of making a decision that could have led to the killing of another 
human being.

No one should be given the ability to impose a sentence of death in any 
criminal proceeding. We are simply incapable of devising a system that can 
fairly and impartially impose a sentence of death because we are all fallible 
human beings.

The clear reality is that the death penalty is an anathema to any society that 
purports to call itself civilized. It is an abomination that continues to scar 
the fibers of this society and it will continue to do so until this barbaric 
penalty is outlawed. Until then, we will live in a land that condones state 
assisted revenge and that is not justice in any form or fashion.

I end with the hope that providence will have more mercy for me than I showed 
Glenn Ford. But, I am also sobered by the realization that I certainly am not 
deserving of it.

(source: Shreveport Times)








OHIO:

Court of Claims: Exonerated Murder Suspect Granted $1 Million for Wrongful 
Imprisonment



Ricky Jackson v. State of Ohio Case. No. 2015-00127

A Cleveland man falsely imprisoned for 39 years will initially receive just 
more than $1 million from the state for his time behind bars, the Ohio Court of 
Claims ruled Thursday.

The court granted partial judgment to Ricky Jackson, 59, for the 14,178 days he 
spent in prison for a murder he did not commit. The Court of Claims filed a 
request with the State Controlling Board to transfer $1,008,055.80 to pay 
Jackson.

Jackson had his death sentence overturned and was released from an Ohio state 
prison in November 2014 after the key witness in the case against him recanted 
his story. Jackson was convicted of the 1975 murder of Harold Franks and 
maintained his innocence throughout his incarceration. Eddie Vernon, who was 12 
at the time of the murder, revealed to a Cleveland newspaper in 2012 that he 
had lied about Jackson and 2 other men's involvement in the murder because he 
wanted to help the police. His remarks led to Jackson receiving a new trial.

On February 12, a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court ruled that Jackson 
established he was wrongfully imprisoned, and Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 
Attorney Timothy McGinty did not appeal the ruling.

Jackson then presented the appropriate certification to the Court of Claims on 
Feb. 20. Court of Claims Judge Patrick M. McGrath ruled that pursuant to R.C. 
2743.49 the state auditor's office calculated the current annual rate of 
compensation for a wrongfully imprisoned person is $51,902. During a status 
conference Wednesday, Judge McGrath said the state and Jackson's attorney 
Michele L. Berry, verified the number of days wrongfully incarcerated at 
14,178.

Judge McGrath then issued a preliminary judgment that calls for the payment of 
50 % of the calculated damages, which amounted to just more than $1 million, 
and directed the money be sent to Berry to establish an annuity account to pay 
Jackson for "damages for physical injury caused by wrongful imprisonment."

According to the National Registry of Exonerations, at the time of his release 
Jackson was considered the longest-serving person in the nation's history to be 
exonerated for his crime.

The Court of Claims is given original jurisdiction to hear and determine all 
civil actions filed against the state of Ohio and its agencies.

(source: Court News Ohio)

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

Ohio court awards wrongly imprisoned man over $1 million



A man who was sentenced to death for a killing he didn't commit and spent 
nearly 4 decades behind bars will receive more than $1 million from the state 
for wrongful imprisonment, a court ruled Thursday.

Ricky Jackson, 58, was 1 of 3 men sent to death row in 1975 after being 
convicted of aggravated murder in the slaying of a businessman outside a corner 
store in Cleveland. Cuyahoga County prosecutors at the time relied on the 
testimony of a 13-year-old boy to convict Jackson and 2 brothers who were 
Jackson's best friends.

The boy, Eddie Vernon, said he saw the slaying, but he was in a school bus with 
other children about a block away when the businessman was shot. The now-grown 
Vernon signed an affidavit that the Ohio Innocence Project filed last March, 
saying police coerced him into testifying against Jackson, Wiley Bridgeman and 
Ronnie Bridgeman, now known as Kwame Ajamu.

Based on the recantation and corroborating testimony that Vernon lied in 1975, 
a judge dismissed the charges against the three men in November.

Jackson's payment comes after a judge ruled last month that all three men were 
entitled to compensation. The Court of Claims ordered the state to pay Jackson 
$1,008,055 for the nearly 39 years he spent in state prison. When Jackson was 
released in November he was believed to have served the longest sentence for 
someone wrongfully convicted.

Neither Jackson nor his attorney could be reached for comment on Thursday.

Wiley Bridgeman also was released from prison in November. He originally was 
paroled in 2002 but was sent back to prison several months later after an 
argument with a parole officer. Ajamu was paroled in 2003.

Bridgeman and Ajamu haven't received their compensation yet.

The men's slow march toward exoneration got its initial boost in 2011, after an 
investigation by Scene magazine.

(source: MSNBC)