[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., N.C., FLA., ARK.

[Rick Halperin]

Feb. 12



TEXAS:

Prosecutors Are Almost Never Disciplined For Misconduct----Sometimes the 
prosecutor needs to be prosecuted.


In 1994, Anthony Graves was convicted on charges of setting a fire that killed 
6 people in south Texas. He spent the next 18 years in prison -- 12 of them on 
death row. On 2 separate occasions, he came close to execution -- all for a 
crime he didn't commit.

But Graves was spared the death penalty long enough to get an appeal. A closer 
look at his case eventually revealed that Graves was an innocent man who was 
railroaded by Charles Sebesta, a Texas prosecutor who withheld evidence and 
presented false testimony to secure a conviction against Graves. More than a 
decade later, a federal appeals court would overturn the conviction. Graves was 
freed, and later filed a complaint against Sebesta, seeking his disbarment. The 
Texas bar's Board of Disciplinary Appeals sided with Graves, calling Sebesta's 
conduct "egregious" and revoked his right to practice law.

As of this week, Sebesta is now officially, and finally, disbarred.

While Sebesta's actions may appear obviously condemnable to the casual 
observer, experts say it's actually surprising that he was punished for them.

"It's almost unheard of," U.S. Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski told The Huffington 
Post. Kozinski is a leading voice on prosecutorial misconduct, who famously 
wrote in a 2013 opinion that the problem had "epidemic" levels in the U.S.

Prosecutors are rarely punished for misconduct, and the cases that have led to 
disbarment or even criminal charges are few and far between. When prosecutors 
do face severe consequences for breaking the law, it's when their behavior is 
deemed to be deliberate and seemingly indefensible. At the same time, their 
punishment may not be proportional to the damage they have inflicted upon 
innocent people, which illustrates the considerable latitude the legal process 
affords to prosecutors.

For example, take disgraced former prosecutor Mike Nifong, who was involved in 
the 2006 Duke lacrosse case, in which three members of the team were falsely 
accused of rape. Nifong, among numerous serious legal misdeeds, was accused of 
misleading presentations of evidence including withholding DNA evidence, yet 
spent a grand total of 24 hours in jail following his disbarment.

In the 2013 case of Ken Anderson, the former Texas prosecutor and judge 
ultimately pled no contest to felony charges of criminal contempt of court for 
intentionally withholding evidence in a case against Michael Morton, an 
innocent man, who wrongfully spent 25 years in prison for the murder of his 
wife. For his violations of the Constitution, Anderson was forced to give up 
his license to practice law, was ordered to perform 500 hours of community 
service and to spend 10 days in jail -- the first prosecutor ever to go to jail 
for wrongfully convicting an innocent man.

These 3 cases, by far, represent some of the most severe sanctions ever lobbed 
against criminal prosecutors accused of serious misconduct.

Prosecutors are the most powerful government agents in the American criminal 
justice system. With more than 2,300 offices across the nation, they have 
complete and unrivaled access to evidence that can determine a person's guilt 
or innocence.

Multiple Supreme Court rulings over the years have sought to chip away at the 
unilateral power of prosecutors, requiring them to provide any and all evidence 
to the defense that might be favorable to the defendant. But this puts defense 
attorneys on the back foot as they're forced to blindly trust that prosecutors 
will turn over all their evidence.

Prosecutors can also cut deals with witnesses, co-conspirators and defendants 
to compel someone to testify. They can pile on charges to produce sentences "so 
excessively severe they take your breath away" to strong-arm someone into 
taking a plea deal to reduce that sentence.

If prosecutors can't find someone to talk, they can always turn to a jailhouse 
snitch who may be able to coax out a damning bit of evidence from a jailed 
defendant. That testimony, obtained legally or otherwise, can often be used to 
lock down a conviction.

And in the end, prosecutors are largely shielded from any liability that might 
result from their actions thanks to a Supreme Court ruling granting them 
"absolute immunity."

Of course, the vast majority of prosecutors behave ethically. But even 1 bad 
actor in a prosecutor's office can have a significant impact on countless 
defendants and cases. And based on the data that is available, it's clear that 
there are more than just a few bad apples.

"There are disturbing indications that a non-trivial number of prosecutors -- 
and sometimes entire prosecutorial offices -- engage in misconduct that 
seriously undermines the fairness of criminal trials," Kozinski wrote last year 
in a landmark paper critiquing the criminal justice system. "The misconduct 
ranges from misleading the jury, to outright lying in court and tacitly 
acquiescing or actively participating in the presentation of false evidence by 
police."

The trouble is identifying the misconduct. Because so much of what prosecutors 
do is behind the scenes -- gathering evidence and working with police and 
investigators as they build their case -- malfeasance is often not discovered 
until years, sometimes decades, after a person has been convicted. In many 
cases, it's never discovered at all.

But the data that is available on prosecutorial misconduct clearly points to a 
problem that is steady and widespread. Misconduct by police and prosecutors 
occurs with such frequency that it has become one of the primary causes of 
wrongful convictions, according to the Innocence Project.

A 2013 report from the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, illustrated just how 
rare it is for prosecutors to face punishment of any kind. Using data from nine 
major studies that analyzed the prosecutorial misconduct at both state and 
national levels, CPI identified 3,625 cases between 1963 and 2013. Of those, 
only 63 prosecutors -- less than 2 % -- were ever officially sanctioned for 
their wrongdoing. And in those rare instances when prosecutors were 
disciplined, they frequently received a "slap-of-the-wrist," the CPI report 
reads.

There has also been a significant spike in exonerations in recent years. While 
this phenomenon used to be rare, wrongful convictions have soared, with more 
overturned in 2015 than any year in history. And while not every wrongful 
conviction involves a misbehaving prosecutor, a significant portion do.

But identifying the misconduct is only part of the equation. Meaningful 
discipline must then follow as a further deterrent. That can't -- and doesn't 
-- happen when there's no one willing to prosecute the prosecutors.

State authorities are ill-equipped to tackle prosecutorial impropriety for a 
variety of reasons, says Daniel Medwed, a law professor at Northeastern 
University who has written about this phenomenon in depth.

Those reasons can range from the general style of case to that of skepticism 
over complaints filed by criminal defendants who may simply be seen as 
"disgruntled" by authorities and not be taken as seriously as they perhaps 
should be.

But there may be something more intangible and pervasive at play. Medwed told 
HuffPost he believes there's an engrained culture across criminal justice 
offices that has created a system in which lawyers are reluctant to take on 
prosecutors, even when they are behaving badly.

"[Prosecutors] are politically powerful people who do a tough job under arduous 
circumstances," he said. "I think lawyers often give them the benefit of the 
doubt. This is a huge problem. We must hold them accountable."

To that end, Sebesta's disbarment is at least a step in the right direction. 
But it remains an outlier to the broader trend. To further curb bad behavior, 
stricter rules must be implemented to crack down on the prosecutors who engage 
in misconduct. And those rules must be fortified with the promise of stiff and 
certain punishment for anyone who would undermine the principle of justice in 
pursuit of an unjust conviction.

(source: Matt Ferner, Huffington Post)






PENNSYLVANIA:

Death penalty attorneys want Oakland-based company to reveal source code for 
DNA analysis


Defense attorneys in 2 death penalty cases want an Oakland-based company to 
reveal the source code for a program that connected their clients to murders, 
which could further delay the trials.

The Allegheny County District Attorney's Office had used Cybergenetics and its 
"True Allele" system to connect crime-scene DNA evidence to Michael Robinson, 
accused of killing Tyrone Coleman and Lawrence Short in Duquesne in 2013, and 
Allen Wade, accused of killing sisters Sarah and Susan Wolfe in their East 
Liberty home in 2014. The district attorney's office hired Cybergenetics to 
analyze DNA evidence and make connections to the suspects that the Allegheny 
County Medical Examiner's Office could not.

2 Common Pleas judges, Jill E. Rangos and Edward J. Borkowski, have denied the 
defense attorneys access to the "source code," the basic computer instructions, 
for True Allele.

The attorneys have laid the groundwork for appeals to Pennsylvania Superior 
Court, though neither has officially filed.

Robinson attorney Ken Haber asked Rangos to sign off on an appeal of her denial 
of the source code, but Rangos declined in an order issued last week. Haber 
said he will appeal even without the judge's approval, though that could affect 
whether the Superior Court will call for an immediate pause to Robinson's 
trial, scheduled for June.

Wade's attorneys from the public defender's office filed a motion last week to 
either vacate Borkowski's order denying their subpoena of the source code or 
amend the order in a way that would authorize an appeal. No appeal had been 
filed as of Thursday; the case is scheduled to start with jury selection 
Tuesday.

(source: triblive.com)

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

Death sentence vacated for Crispell in murder of St. Marys woman


Convicted murderer Daniel Crispell has been given another shot at life, as 
Potter County Senior Judge John Leete has overturned his sentence of death for 
the 1989 murder of a St. Marys woman at the DuBois Mall.

In a January ruling on last year's Post Conviction Relief Act hearing in 
Clearfield County, Leete blasts Crispell's trial counsel for failing to 
investigate his client's past, his mental health and even his medical records.

Crispell was sentenced to death in June of 1990 after being found guilty of the 
kidnapping, robbery and brutal stabbing of Ella Mae Brown in October 1989. He 
and co-defendant Christopher Weatherill were apprehended in Arizona after 
Crispell allegedly tried to snatch someone's purse.

Weatherill, who was 17 at the time of the murder, testified against Crispell in 
exchange for a sentence of life imprisonment.

A 7-day-long hearing on Crispell's PCRA was held in 2014.

In Leete's finding of facts in the case, he recounted that Crispell was 
represented at trial and appeal by F. Cortez Bell, how Clearfield County's 
court administrator; who was assisted by Paul Cherry, who is now a Clearfield 
County judge. The prosecutor in the case was Fredric Ammerman, who is now 
Clearfield County's president judge.

Leete rejected most of Crispell's arguments in the PCRA, ruling that Crispell 
is "entitled to a new sentencing hearing because of a variety of prejudicial 
matters relating to counsel's inadequate performance throughout the sentencing 
phase" of his trial.

In Leete's discussion, he indicated that Crispell's trial was the 1st capital 
punishment case Bell ever handled as an attorney. And while Crispell told his 
attorneys to leave his family out of his defense, Leete ruled that the 
attorneys still had a duty to investigate his past.

"There was a completely inadequate and incomplete investigation into many 
aspects of the defendant's past," Leete wrote. "Here, there was much evidence 
readily available that was not utilized."

The judge said an Arizona public defender who had been involved with Crispell's 
case there had tried to contact Bell, but got no response. And an Arizona 
psychologist who had done a mental health test on Crispell was never contacted 
either.

"Further, (Crispell) was not evaluated by any mental health expert at the 
behest of counsel, nor did counsel attempt to secure any funds for the same," 
Leete wrote. "Counsel was totally unaware that (Crispell) had allegedly been 
the victim of sexual abuse, which would have been revealed in medical records 
had they been utilized."

If Bell would have responded to the Arizona attorney, he would have learned 
that several significant mental health issues were apparent in Crispell, the 
judge wrote, including his "impulse control, depression and other mental health 
issues including family concerns."

Leete noted that Crispell sent letters to his counsel, which an expert later 
called "a cry for help."

"Available but not obtained by counsel were medical record in which (Crispell) 
reported being the victim of rape in the state of Florida as well as a suicide 
attempt at age 16," Leete wrote.

All of that information could have been used as mitigation factors at the time 
of sentencing, and may have resulted in a sentence of life in prison rather 
than the death penalty, the judge said.

"The defendant has demonstrated clear prejudice," Leete wrote. "The court would 
reach the opposite conclusions had counsel done a thorough investigation, 
discussed it in detail with Crispell, and then been told by Crispell not to use 
the investigation information."

After his 14-page discussion, Leete wrote a brief order, saying "the sentence 
of death imposed on defendant is vacated, and the matter is remanded for a new 
penalty phase hearing."

(source: Bradford Era)






NORTH CAROLINA:

5 jurors seated in Anthony trial


5 jurors have been seated in the Hustle Mart-3 triple homicide trial that began 
Monday in Pitt County.

3 women and 2 men have been accepted by both prosecutors and defense attorneys 
in the death penalty case against Antwan Andre Anthony, 33. He is accused of 
shooting and killing Mokbel Mohamed Almujanahi, 16; Nabil Nasser Saeed 
Al'mogannahi, 26; and Gaber Alawi, 24, on April 1, 2012, as they were closing 
the Hustle Mart-3 convenience store on N.C. 121 north of Farmville.

During jury selection Thursday, after Pitt County District Attorney Kimberly 
Robb excused a black woman who said she was not sure whether she could give 
someone the death penalty. Anthony's attorney, Terry Alford, objected.

(source: The Daily Reflector)






FLORIDA:

Bondi backs prosecutors in death penalty debate


Siding with prosecutors, Attorney General Pam Bondi is endorsing a proposal to 
address last month's U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down Florida's 
death-penalty sentencing process as unconstitutional.

Bondi told The News Service of Florida on Thursday she "absolutely" supports a 
measure, backed by state attorneys, that would require a unanimous jury verdict 
on at least 1 aggravating factor before a defendant can be eligible for the 
death penalty and would require at least 9 jurors to vote in favor of death for 
the sentence to be imposed.

Bondi said she is working closely with the House and Senate, along with state 
attorneys, her solicitor general and the chief of her capital appellate unit, 
to "come to a consensus of what we all believe will be in the best interest of 
Floridians" to fix the state's flawed law.

"We all want a death penalty scheme that will be upheld by the U.S. Supreme 
Court," Bondi, who served as an assistant state attorney in Hillsborough County 
before her 2010 election, said Thursday. "We all have a common interest. We're 
working together."

The court's Jan. 12 ruling, in a case known as Hurst v. Florida, found that the 
state's system of giving judges - and not juries - the power to impose death 
sentences was an unconstitutional violation of defendants' Sixth Amendment 
right to trial by jury.

The 8-1 decision dealt with the sentencing phase of death-penalty cases after 
defendants are found guilty and focused on what are known as "aggravating" 
circumstances that must be determined before defendants can be sentenced to 
death. A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in a case known as Ring v. Arizona, 
requires that determination of such aggravating circumstances be made by 
juries, not judges.

Under Florida law, juries make recommendations regarding the death penalty, 
based on a review of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, but judges 
ultimately decide whether defendants should be put to death or sentenced to 
life in prison.

Of the 31 states with the death penalty, Florida is 1 of only 3 that do not 
require unanimous jury recommendations for the death penalty to be imposed. The 
other 2 - Alabama and Delaware - require at least 9-3 jury decisions, while 
Florida law currently requires a simple majority vote.

House and Senate proposals would require unanimous jury decisions on at least 
one aggravating factor, a change supported by the prosecutors.

But the chambers have not agreed on whether a unanimous jury recommendation 
should be required before the death penalty can be imposed, included in a 
Senate proposal but vehemently opposed by prosecutors as well as Bondi.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has not required (unanimity)" in previous cases, Bondi 
said, and the court did not address the issue in the Hurst case.

When asked why she and the prosecutors supported a 9-3 supermajority vote to 
recommend the death penalty, Bondi said, "Compromise."

Defense lawyers and other experts argue that Florida's "outlier" status on jury 
recommendations in death-penalty cases makes the state law vulnerable to future 
court challenges.

The U.S. Supreme Court considers "evolving standards of decency" in evaluating 
state death penalty laws, 10th Judicial Circuit Public Defender Rex Dimmig told 
the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

"They look at what other states do," Dimmig said, urging the panel to "take us 
out of the situation of being an outlier state."

Prosecutors fear that requiring unanimous jury recommendations would result in 
fewer death sentences, as illustrated by an analysis by legislative staff.

Of the 20 death sentences ordered in 2012, only 2 came after unanimous jury 
recommendations, according to a House staff analysis. Unanimous jury 
recommendations were made in just 20 % of the 296 instances in which defendants 
were sentenced to death between 2000 and 2012, the analysis showed. In 75 % of 
the cases over the 13-year period, at least 9 jurors recommended death.

But it is unknown whether the votes would have been different if a unanimous 
jury recommendation was required for defendants to be sentenced to death.

"We've talked about whether or not, sometimes when you get on some of the most 
heinous cases a 9-3 vote, did those three (jurors) vote according to the law 
and the instructions they were given, or, once they knew that there was a 
majority, did they sit back," 4th Judicial Circuit State Attorney Angela Corey 
told the News Service on Wednesday, referring to discussions between Florida's 
state attorneys. "We discussed that in great detail. I don't know that we'll 
ever be able to go back and know."

Senate leaders indicated the chamber would be willing to cede on the unanimity 
issue as lawmakers try to match up their proposals (HB 7101, SB 7068) before 
the legislative session ends on March 11. Both chambers have agreed that jury 
decisions on at least one aggravating circumstance should be unanimous.

Bondi and legislators share a sense of urgency to resolve the issue because no 
new death sentences can be imposed until the law is fixed.

"We need a sentencing scheme in Florida," she said.

The Florida Supreme Court last week indefinitely postponed the execution of 
Cary Michael Lambrix, who had been scheduled to die Thursday, while the 
justices consider the implications of the Hurst decision. The Florida court, 
however, has not yet ruled on whether to delay the execution of Mark James 
Asay, scheduled for March 17. Oral arguments in Asay's case may be heard on 
March 2.

Lawyers for Asay and other death row inmates contend that the Hurst decision 
should be retroactive and apply to all of the 390 inmates sentenced to die for 
their crimes.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling did not say whether it should apply 
retroactively, and Bondi's lawyers instead have identified 43 cases that would 
qualify for reconsideration as a result of the Hurst decision.

Myriad factors - timing, aggravators involved in determining whether defendants 
were eligible for the death penalty and the jury instructions - have to be 
considered when evaluating whether Hurst applies, Bondi said.

"It has to be on a case-by-case basis," she said.

Death penalty cases are among the most complicated in the legal system, and the 
injection of dozens of cases into an already drawn-out process could delay 
resolution even further.

"We're prepared to tackle it," Bondi, whose office represents the state in 
death penalty appeals, said. "This is the ultimate sentence, the death penalty. 
We want to be certain it is carried out in a constitutional way. That's 1 thing 
we all agree on."

(source: Palm Beach Post)






ARKANSAS:

Missed Debate Question: Where Do You Stand on the Killing of Rickey Ray Rector?


The PBS debate moderators missed a golden opportunity to ask Hillary and Bernie 
a crucial question: What did they think about the execution of Rickey Ray 
Rector in 1992?

This is not ancient history. Rather, it is a vital case study in political 
morality. This life and death decision reveals crucial views on crime, 
punishment, ethics and political opportunism.

Since Bernie opposes the death penalty, we know how he would respond. To be 
fair, it's a much tougher question for Hillary, both because she supports the 
death penalty and because it happened on Bill Clinton's watch. She was there 
when the issue was discussed and decided.

Did she approve? Does she still approve?

The sad case of Rickey Ray Rector

In 1981 Rickey Ray Rector, a black man, shot Arthur Criswell in a Conway, 
Arkansas dance hall over a $3 cover charge dispute. A few days later at his 
mother's home, Rector said he would turn himself in, but only to Officer Bob 
Martin whom he knew.

Officer Martin was called by Rector's family to take him to jail. When Martin 
turned his back for a moment to talk with the family, Rector shot him dead.

Rector then went outside and shot himself in the temple. But he didn't die. 
Instead he was basically lobotomized, becoming mentally incompetent. (How 
incompetent? Even though he could talk, he had no coherent understanding of the 
world around him including the concept of death. His IQ was measured at 63. 
When he was served his last meal before execution, he asked if the guards could 
hold his dessert until later.)

The Rickey Ray Rector case developed into constitutional test of cruel and 
unusual punishment. Does it violate the constitutional to execute a mentally 
incompetent person? The Supreme Court chose not to hear his appeal and the 
execution schedule continued.

As governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton had the power to execute Rector or 
commute his sentence to life-imprisonment. At the time, January 25, 1992, he 
also was running for president. So just before the Iowa caucuses and the New 
Hampshire primary, he flew back to his home state to make sure the execution 
took place. It was gory. It took 50 minutes to find a vein.

Why did Bill Clinton execute Rector?

Jeff Rosenweig, a Clinton friend and one of Rector's lawyer said at the time:

"My personal opinion is that in his heart of hearts he's against the death 
penalty. In my opinion, this is a very easy way to show you're tough on crime."

Mike Gauldin, a spokesperson for Clinton at that time said "the Governor had 
indeed changed some of his policies toward prison inmates since he returned to 
office in 1983. In his 1st term, he commuted the sentences of 70 inmates 
convicted of a wide variety of crimes. Since 1983, he has commuted 7."

Crime issues would become very important to Clinton's run for the presidency. 
It was generally thought that Governor Dukakis damaged his own presidential 
campaign when during a TV interview he said he would not even execute a 
murderer who had raped and killed his own wife.

In 1992, the New York Times reported, "It is clear that many political experts 
feel a record of favoring the death penalty is a major plus for a Democratic 
Presidential candidate."

Other analysts suggest more opportunist reasons.

"In 1979, he had commuted the sentence of a mentally ill, convicted murderer, 
James Surridge, 73. Less than a year after his release, Surridge committed 
another murder. The case later came to be known as Bill Clinton's own Willie 
Horton," reports Politico. He may have lost his 1980 bid for the Arkansas 
governorship because of it.

Some also claim, that killing of Rickey Ray was timed to shift media attention 
from the emerging Jenifer Flowers scandal that threaten to sink his 
presidential run in New Hampshire.

Tough on Crime Legacy

During his 2 terms as president, Bill Clinton continued his hard-line position 
on crime. As a result, the prison population more than doubled. The number of 
youth housed in adult prison also doubled. By the time he left office the US 
had the largest prison population in the entire world.

In an article entitled "Hillary Does not Deserve Black People's Votes," 
Michelle Alexander offers a stinging assessment:

"Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison 
inmates of any president in American history. ... He supported the 100-to-1 
sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, which produced staggering 
racial injustice in sentencing and boosted funding for drug-law enforcement.

Clinton championed the idea of a federal "3 strikes" law in his 1994 State of 
the Union address and, months later, signed a $30 billion crime bill that 
created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some 
3-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants 
and the expansion of police forces.

... Human Rights Watch reported that in 7 states, African Americans constituted 
80 to 90 % of all drug offenders sent to prison, even though they were no more 
likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug 
offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the 
level in 1983."

What does any of this have to do with Hillary?

Bill's actions as President are not current campaign issues, except as Hillary 
uses them to validate her own experience. What did she learn from the Rickey 
Ray execution and the tough-on-crime Clinton administration?

We know that Hillary changed her position on capital punishment. When she first 
came to Arkansas, she worked to undermine the legality of executions. She 
stopped doing so when Bill became the state's Attorney General.

We know from the February 4th debate that she still believes in state 
executions: "I do, for very limited, particularly heinous crimes I believe [the 
death penalty] is an appropriate punishment"

But we do not know where Hillary stands on the case of Rickey Ray Rector.

Key Questions for Hillary to answer:

At the time, did Hillary disagree with Bill's decision to execute Rickey Rae?

Did she challenge Bill's presidential incarceration policies? Or did she 
consider them justified, even though those policies differentially harmed 
people of color?

Most importantly, is Hillary now willing to say publically that the execution 
of Rickey Rae Rector was morally wrong?

How she addresses this troubling episode would speak volumes about whether she 
deserves our support.

(source: Les Leopold, the director of the Labor Institute in New York is 
currently working on a national economic educational campaign with unions and 
community organization----Huffington Post)

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

The Secrets Behind The Legend Of Judge Isaac C. Parker


Many myths and rumors surround the life of the Issac C. Parker, also known as 
the Hanging Judge.

5NEWS uncovered some of the little-known facts behind the legend of Judge 
Parker in his old office located in the commissary building on the grounds of 
the Fort Smith National Historic Site.

In countless movies and books, Judge Isaac C. Parker is portrayed as a villain; 
a cruel man who would hand out the death penalty to anyone who entered his 
court.

After touring his office, we found out everything we thought we knew about the 
Hanging Judge might not be true.

"He did sentence more people to be executed than any other federal judge, but 
that's only when you look on the surface," Pat Schmidt, a park ranger at the 
National Historic Site, told us.

Schmidt said there are probably more myths about the judge than there are 
facts.

"That's Hollywood, dime store novels," Schmidt said. "There was a lot of, 
during this period, there was a lot of sensationalism."

So what's actually true?

In his 21 years as a judge he heard more than 13,000 cases.

"A little over 600 of those dealt with capital crime, and 160 were convicted, 
and 79 were actually executed, so that actually comes down to less than 1% of 
his cases that ended up with someone on the gallows," Schmidt said. "Doesn't 
really sound fair to call him the hanging judge for that."

The Hanging Judge nickname didn't even become popular until decades after his 
death, and Schmidt said Parker did not hand out death sentences to just anyone.

"He didn't have a choice," Schmidt said. "During this time period, if you were 
convicted of murder, rape, treason or obstruction with an execution, then the 
automatic sentence was execution."

One of the most common misconceptions about Parker is that he watched his 
executions, but from the windows in his office, you have a view of the river 
not the gallows.

"The thing about Judge Parker is he was opposed to the death penalty," Schmidt 
said. "He was even quoted as saying, 'I'm in favor of abolishing the death 
penalty.'"

In fact, the judge didn't even come into his office on days of executions.

So why did people make him the villain? Schmidt said some people were trying to 
scare others from moving to the area.

"Land speculators and folks associated with the railroads wanted Indian 
territory to remain a territory because the rules and laws were different as a 
territory, and they could, to a certain degree, get away with more things," 
Schmidt said.

Schmidt said there are no records that indicate Parker was ever a mean man.

She said the Hanging Judge is really just a character meant for westerns.

"They were trying to make him out to be crueler than what we really was, and in 
many interviews that I've read where they've talked about him and talked about 
what kind of man he was, they said he was jovial, always had a kind word, would 
stop and talk to people, and would even stop and talk to people that you 
wouldn???t expect him to," Schmidt said.

Judge Parker did not hand down death sentences by saying, 'Hang by the neck 
'til your dead dead dead.' He didn't get his entertainment from watching men 
hang. The real story is that the hanging judge didn't want to hang anyone at 
all.

(source: KFSM news)