[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., GA., LA., CALIF.

[Rick Halperin]

February 17



TEXAS:

Wilkins-Dember, champion of racial justice, dies at 89



Jean Wilkins-Dember, a fierce champion for racial justice and passionate Third 
Ward community organizer, died last week at the age of 89.

Wilkins-Dember served a founding member of the National Black United Front, a 
grassroots organization advocating for people of African descent, and 
passionately pushed back against racial inequality, police brutality and the 
death penalty. Commonly known as “Mother Dember,” the New York native often 
donned her signature hat festooned with buttons signifying her chosen causes, 
which centered on African-American advancement following centuries of 
discrimination.

Wilkins-Dember began her advocacy in the 1950s following the killing of a 
teenage boy in New York City’s Long Island, pursing justice through 
“confrontational therapy” that forced the public to acknowledge the rights and 
plight of black Americans. Wilkins-Dember held several positions tailed toward 
multiculturalism, mental health and racial equity in the New York City, 
including a brief stint as an adjunct professor at Nassau Community College. 
She also raised 5 daughters and 1 son with her husband, Clarence, who died in 
2011.

After moving to Houston in the 1990s, Wilkins-Dember became deeply involved in 
S.H.A.P.E. Community Center, a Third Ward nonprofit dedicated to improving 
lives of individuals of African descent, and founded the grassroots group 
Afrikans United For Sanity Now. Wilkins-Dember has been a frequent presence 
during many of Houston’s most tense chapters of racial divide, standing 
alongside many of the city’s most prominent black activists.

“People have said this to me: Get over it. How can you get over it when so many 
people don’t acknowledge that anything is going on?” Wilkins-Dember said during 
a 2016 interview published by the Texas Christian University Mary Couts Burnett 
Library. “The inequity is there, and is there every day. And you don’t want to 
analyze it so it can be expunged? You want it to be ignored?”

During the 2016 interview, Wilkins-Dember recalled how her persistent 
reinforcement of workplace and policing discrimination during her upbringing in 
the Brooklyn area prompted her advocacy. Decades later, Wilkins-Dember said, 
she continues to raise her voice in the face of institutional inequality — even 
when others are afraid to join her.

“It’s too much (for some) to cope with, and so they just don’t look at me at 
all,” Wilkins-Dember said. “And that’s OK, because I’m not invisible. They will 
remember somebody was doing something.”

(source: Houston Chronicle)








PENNSYLVANIA:

Carlisle American Legion Murder Trial: Arguments begin to determine death 
penalty or life in prison for Robert Anderson



Jurors in the murder trial of Robert “Rocky” Anderson heard sentencing 
arguments Saturday that will determine whether Anderson receives the death 
penalty.

The jury found Anderson, 41, guilty of 1st-degree murder on Friday after a 
week-long trial regarding the fatal shooting of Daniel “D.J.” Harris on June 
11, 2016, at the Haines Stackfield American Legion in Carlisle.

Under Pennsylvania law, jurors then determine the sentencing penalty in such a 
case, with a first-degree murder verdict presenting a choice between life in 
prison without parole or the death penalty.

The prosecution is allowed to argue certain aggravating circumstances that 
would call for a harsher sentence, while the defense may argue mitigating 
circumstances in support of a lighter one.

Given the jury’s binary choice, Michael Palermo, one of Anderson’s defense 
attorneys, said in his opening argument that the jury had already decided on an 
effective death penalty by finding Anderson guilty — he will either be put to 
death, or die in prison.

“It’s a question of how soon,” Palermo said, framing the jury’s decision.

Prosecutors from the Cumberland County District Attorney’s office had submitted 
2 aggravating factors, the jury was told, which must be proven beyond a 
reasonable doubt.

The first of these was that the murder was done “in commission of felony,” that 
felony being the possession of a firearm by Anderson. Given that the jury 
believes Anderson committed murder, he must then also have committed the 
firearm felony, as it is undisputed that Harris was shot 7 times.

Similarly, the 2nd aggravating factor was that the crime committed “put another 
person in grave danger.”

Prosecutors called only one witness during the Saturday sentencing hearing, 
that being Harris’ mother, who testified to the adverse effect her son’s death 
had on his two children and his father, as well as herself.

She also disputed the characterization of Harris, who during the trial was 
depicted as having a long-running street feud with Anderson prior to his death.

“I don’t know the D.J. you guys are talking about,” Harris’ mother said.

Mitigating circumstances, Judge Edward Guido noted to the jury, are argued with 
a different standard, that being a “preponderance of evidence” regarding 
factors that would make a lighter sentence the more just option.

Palermo called a number of witnesses during the hearing who attested to 
Anderson’s affable and supportive nature at work and in his family life.

“He’d give the shirt off his back to help anybody in this courtroom,” one of 
Anderson’s cousins testified.

“He was the guy that did everything for us,” said another cousin, recounting 
how Anderson had supported her after she became pregnant.

Anderson’s girlfriend, who testified that Anderson has been with her since 
October of 2012, described him as a “great man” who sought out a role as a 
stepfather to the children she had before meeting him.

Palermo also presented extensive expert testimony from Louise Luck, a 
mitigation specialist who researches and assesses convicts’ backgrounds for 
attorneys and parole and probation boards.

Luck detailed what she described as an extremely adverse childhood; 
circumstances outside of Anderson’s control that may have nevertheless led him 
down a path of criminal behavior.

Anderson exhibited “one of” the highest ratings Luck has ever seen, she said, 
on assessments used by state and federal agencies to predict violent or 
criminal behavior later in life based on upbringing.

Anderson’s father left the family when Anderson was 3 years old, but stayed in 
and out of the lives of Anderson and his two sisters — typically to negative 
effect, with Anderson witnessing and taking part in violent altercations from 
young age between his father and mother, Luck testified.

After his mother left to join the military, Anderson and his siblings lived at 
their grandmothers’ house, which was packed with up to 15 unsupervised children 
from their extended family, according from testimony from Luck and other 
witnesses.

Anderson’s grandmother, aunts, and uncles administered frequent beatings to 
Anderson, and an uncle sexually abused his sister; crack cocaine use was also 
commonplace, Luck testified.

“There is a constant escalation and normalization of violence that the children 
experience on a regular basis,” Luck said. “The beatings were regular, and not 
for issues we would normally discipline a child for.”

Anderson was diagnosed with depression and hyperactivity disorders by school 
counselors in Carlisle, Luck found, but could not be administered medication 
because of his chaotic household. He was prone to violent reactions to other 
children, and to fantasizing about a father figure that he did not have.

“He had nowhere to go, nothing to dissuade all the problems,” Luck said, noting 
that “people in the home were so traumatized themselves” that they were unable 
to provide any guidance to Anderson.

Saturday’s hearing was stopped prior to the prosecution and defense giving 
their closing arguments.

Once that happens, Guido noted, the jury must be sequestered until a sentencing 
decision is reached, and Guido said he wanted to avoid having the jury confined 
to a hotel over the weekend if the deliberation period is lengthy.

The court will reconvene Monday morning for closing arguments, after which the 
jury will begin deliberation on the sentence.

However, the practical outcome will likely be the same regardless of the option 
the jury chooses.

Pennsylvania has only executed 3 of its death row inmates since the 
reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 – 2 in 1995, and the last in 1999. 
All 3 had waived appeals that could have prevented execution.

(source: cumberlink.com)








GEORGIA:

3 Bishops Stand Against an Execution in Georgia-----It’s clear that racism 
played a part in Keith Tharpe’s death sentence.



There is no toxin more pernicious than hatred based on racial stereotypes. 
Despite progress in overcoming the sin of racism in recent years, racism still 
exists in American society—causing pain and hurt, and even leading to death. As 
a case in point, Keith Tharpe sits on death row in Jackson, Georgia, convicted 
of a gruesome murder 28 years ago. While we cannot speak to the legal issues of 
this case, it is apparent that racism may have played a part in Tharpe’s death 
sentence. After the trial, one of the jurors displayed shocking racial 
prejudice in an affidavit, liberally using racial slurs as he “wondered if 
black people even have souls.”

Lower courts have been unwilling to reconsider the verdict, but the case is now 
before the United States Supreme Court, which could grant a writ of certiorari 
to consider the merits of Tharpe’s contention of racial bias. The failure to 
thoroughly consider the effect of racism in jury deliberations could lead to 
Tharpe’s execution. We therefore join with many others in asking the Supreme 
Court to consider this case and the effects of an admittedly racist juror.

Progress against racism in society cannot obscure the fundamental problems with 
our system of justice if racism infests the application of criminal laws. The 
Catholic bishops of the United States recently issued a pastoral letter against 
racism titled “Open Wide Our Hearts—The Enduring Call to Love,” which 
acknowledged the history of racism in the United States and reaffirmed our 
commitment to its eradication. We believe that part of our work as religious 
leaders is to challenge racism by reminding the public that we are all brothers 
and sisters, equally made in the image of God. As we noted in our letter, 
racism is a failure to acknowledge the human dignity of all people.

Whenever personal prejudices surface in a trial, society relies on appellate 
courts and especially the Supreme Court to rectify these biases. We thus exhort 
the Supreme Court to take up Tharpe’s case and correct the clear, documented 
racism in the case by granting him a new sentencing hearing.

As bishops, we take very seriously Jesus’s call to visit those in prison. We 
have visited prisoners, including those on death row. In most parishes with 
prisons or jails, a priest or deacon visits every week to offer religious 
services. We have been blessed to witness true rehabilitation and meet 
prisoners who earnestly seek redemption through God’s grace.

It’s not just the stain of racism that leads us to oppose Tharpe’s execution. 
The Catholic Church teaches that in the light of the Gospel, “the death penalty 
is inadmissible,” a teaching that has been reinforced most recently by Pope 
Francis. Indeed, the death penalty violates human dignity even if the convicted 
individual has committed a terrible crime.

Jesus called his followers to console those who mourn. While seeking 
consideration and mercy for Tharpe, we also pray for the family of Jacquelyn 
Freeman, who died at Tharpe’s hand.

In our pastoral letter, we explain that racism comes in many forms—and one of 
them is the sin of omission. This occurs when individuals, communities, and 
even churches remain silent and fail to act against racial injustice when it is 
encountered. To do justice requires an honest acknowledgment of our failures 
and the restoring of right relationships among us. That’s why we are speaking 
out about Tharpe’s case. The U.S. Supreme Court must intervene in his case to 
ensure that fairness is protected and justice is defended—before it’s too late. 
To do nothing would be tragic not only for Tharpe, but for our collective 
dignity.

(source: theatlantic.com)

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

A Juror Who Questioned if Black Men have Souls Sentenced One to Death. SCOTUS 
Must Step In



The U.S. Supreme Court will soon consider a Georgia death penalty case that 
deeply concerns me as a conservative Republican. As a conservative, I strongly 
believe that the laws that govern us must be followed and applied in a fair and 
consistent manner to all citizens. As such, it is obvious to me that jurors who 
hold racially biased beliefs can never be allowed to judge a case in which 
their views might influence their verdict.

And yet, Georgia seeks to execute a black man, Keith Tharpe, whose 1991 Jones 
County jury included a member with extremely prejudiced views against 
African-Americans. We know about his racism because that juror, Barney Gattie, 
later shared his views in a sworn affidavit.

Mr. Gattie said under oath: “In my experience, I have observed that there are 
two types of black people: 1. Black folks and 2. N*****s…. I felt Tharpe, who 
wasn’t in the ‘good’ black folks category in my book, should get the electric 
chair for what he did. Some of the jurors voted for death because they felt 
that Tharpe should be an example to other blacks who kill blacks, but that 
wasn’t my reason…After studying the Bible, I have wondered if black people even 
have souls.”

Mr. Gattie’s words come from a statement he gave to attorneys several years 
after the trial. To ensure its accuracy and reliability, Mr. Gattie’s statement 
was read back to him before he signed it in front of a witness. He even 
inserted a handwritten edit to the typed statement in order to make sure the 
final version was correct. Based on his own statement, there is no doubt that 
this juror harbored deep racial animus when he judged Mr. Tharpe’s case and 
decided on death. And yet, despite all this evidence of racial bias, Mr. 
Tharpe’s death sentence still stands. That’s wrong.

When I was a young lawyer just out of law school, it was my honor to clerk for 
one of the judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As the 
only clerk in the judge’s chambers that year who supported the use of the death 
penalty to punish the most serious crimes, I was the one assigned to handle 
death penalty cases.

What I learned as a clerk convinced me that there is far too much error in the 
death penalty system. If the government can’t do something right, it should not 
do it at all, especially when it comes to matters of life and death. The clear 
problems with Mr. Tharpe’s case powerfully remind me that the system is not 
foolproof. When we know there is error, it is incumbent on the courts to 
intervene and make it right. In Mr. Tharpe’s case, fortunately, there is still 
an opportunity to get it right.

In 2017, attorneys for Mr. Tharpe asked my old court, the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Eleventh Circuit, to allow an appeal of the death sentence in light of 
the juror’s clear racial bias. The Eleventh Circuit said no, even in the shadow 
of a looming execution date. Then the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, staying 
the execution and instructing the Eleventh Circuit to take another look at the 
case—signaling that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision not to allow an appeal was 
suspect.

It is important to make one thing clear – no court has actually considered the 
impact of the juror’s racial bias on Mr. Tharpe’s death sentence. Mr. Tharpe is 
only asking for the right to have this claim heard and decided by a court. 
Where there is documented proof of racial bias on a jury, as there is here, 
basic fairness demands that a court consider the impact of the juror’s bias on 
the final verdict.

In Georgia, a jury cannot hand down a death sentence unless there is a 
unanimous vote to impose it. Because each juror is critical in the decision to 
impose death, it is especially important that each juror hears the case free of 
prejudice. The integrity of the entire process is predicated on the assumption 
that all jurors evaluate the case through an unbiased lens.

Racial bias can be difficult to prove. Mr. Tharpe’s case is a rare instance in 
which the racial bias is both obvious and well documented – which is likely why 
the U.S. Supreme Court stopped Georgia from executing Mr. Tharpe back in the 
fall of 2017. Shockingly, even after the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervention, the 
Eleventh Circuit again denied Mr. Tharpe the right to appeal.

Now, Mr. Tharpe’s attorneys have taken his case back to the U.S. Supreme Court. 
They are asking the Court to hear the case itself or order the Eleventh Circuit 
to grant the right to appeal. If the Court wants to maintain confidence in our 
country’s judicial system, it must take steps to correct the obvious injustice 
in this case.

It is easy to talk about the many complex problems in the criminal justice 
system, but much harder to find workable solutions. This is one error that is 
very easy to remedy. Do not allow the State of Georgia to execute a black man 
whose death sentence was influenced by a juror’s racial animus. Or, at the very 
least, do not allow the case to proceed to execution before Mr. Tharpe has had 
his day in court. It’s not too much to ask.

(source: Opinion; David Burge is an attorney based in Atlanta. He previously 
served as Chairman of the Georgia 5th Congressional District Republican 
Party----newsweek.com)








LOUISIANA:

3rd murder trial tentatively set in Waskom teen's death



A 3rd murder trial has been tentatively set in the 2017 fatal shootings of 
Shayla Carson and Dalton Berry.

Panola County officials are planning to have Cordarius D’Shun Thompson’s trial 
on charges of murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on Oct. 14. 
The date was set Friday morning during a status hearing.

Carson, 18, of Waskom and Berry, 21, of Panola were killed and a third person 
was shot at a mobile home on a private road near DeBerry in July 2017. Police 
have arrested four Bossier City men in the case: Thompson, Mose Dandrew Smith, 
Marlon Kelly and Cartrell Oshae Dewayne Williamson.

2 of the suspects in the case, Smith and Kelly, face capital murder charges in 
the case and could get a death sentence if prosecutors decide to pursue it and 
they are convicted. Thompson and Williamson’s murder charges mean they do not 
face the death penalty if convicted.

District Attorney Danny Buck Davidson told District Judge LeAnn Rafferty his 
office is still waiting on DNA evidence and a final report to come back to his 
office. They expect that in March.

Davidson and Thompson’s attorney Kevin Settle told Rafferty they expect 
Thompson’s trial to take up to 10 days, with a few days for jury selection. 
That’s far less a time period than the 2 capital murder trials set in the case. 
Officials estimated jury selection would take a month and trials would take 2 
to 3 weeks because they could involve the death penalty.

Officials said during Friday’s hearing that the outcome of Kelly’s September 
trial may have an effect on all the others.

“I would say the state would like to try Mr. Kelly first and after that, I 
think everything else will fall into place pretty quick,” Davidson said.

(source: KTBS news)








CALIFORNIA:

Fugitive Suspect in Torture, Killing of Estranged Wife Returned to L.A. From El 
Salvador



A fugitive who has eluded authorities for nearly 9 years arrived in Los Angeles 
from El Salvador Thursday to face trial for the alleged torture and murder of 
his estranged wife in Pacoima, officials said.

Napoleon Eduardo Castro, 43, was brought back to Los Angeles County via LAX 
about 7 a.m., FBI Special Agent Scott Garriola said.

He faces charges of torture and murder for the May 1, 2010, stabbing death of 
his estranged wife, 33-year-old Olga Martinez, at her home in Pacoima, 
according to the FBI and Los Angeles County Department of Medical 
Examiner-Coroner records.

“The victim’s body was found lying in a pool of blood at the entrance to her 
garage,” the FBI said in a wanted flier issued prior to his capture. “She had 
been stabbed multiple times.”

In addition to a state warrant for murder and torture, federal officials 
charged Castro with unlawful flight to avoid prosecution and issued a federal 
arrest warrant about three weeks after the killing. He was believed to have 
travelled to Massachusetts before ultimately fleeing to El Salvador.

Castro used numerous names, including Luis Sanchez, Juan Flores, “Napo,” and 
“Trouble.”

He worked in the construction industry before becoming a fugitive, officials 
said.

He has multiple tattoos, including the name of his alleged victim, “Olga,” on 
his chest, according to the FBI.

Help from a tipster helped lead to Castro’s capture, Garriola said. A $20,000 
reward offered for information in the case has been paid.

While the extradition process can be a long one, the U.S. has good working 
relationships with many Central American countries, including El Salvador, 
according to Garriola. The governments of some other nations, such as Honduras 
and Belize, are far less cooperative with respect to extradition requests, he 
said.

Information regarding Castro’s initial court appearance was not available 
Friday. He potentially faces the death penalty if convicted as charged.

(source: KTLA news)