Kyla
01-22-2005, 12:09 PM
Troy and Christa are in my thoughts and prayers right now.
Kyla
Jan. 21
TEXAS----impending execution
amnesty international----UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Death by default
21 January 2005 AI Index: AMR 51/015/2005
On 2 July 1976, in Gregg v Georgia, the US Supreme Court lifted the
moratorium on executions in the United States it had imposed four years
earlier in Furman v Georgia. In the Furman ruling, the Court had found the
death penalty to be unconstitutional in the arbitrary and capricious way
in which it was being applied. Individual states moved to rewrite their
capital statutes. In Gregg, the Supreme Court looked at some of those
statutes and wrote:
"The concerns expressed in Furman that the death penalty not be imposed
arbitrarily or capriciously can be met by a carefully drafted statute that
ensures that the sentencing authority is given adequate information and
guidance, concerns best met by a system that provides for a bifurcated
proceeding at which the sentencing authority is apprised of the
information relevant to the imposition of sentence and provided with
standards to guide its use of that information."
Nearly 3 decades later, on 25 January 2005, Troy Kunkle is due to become
the 947th person put to death in the USA since the Gregg ruling. He was
sentenced to death under a statute that failed to ensure that the jury was
given adequate information and guidance.
Troy Kunkle's case is one of death by default. Some of his trial jurors
say that they did not want to vote for death but had felt forced by the
law to do so. At the other end of the process, a US Supreme Court Justice
has explained that he and his colleagues cannot stop the execution because
of a procedural obstacle blocking their way. This is "regrettable", he
added, "because it seems plain that Kunkle's sentence was imposed in
violation of the Constitution".
Troy Kunkle was convicted in Texas in 1985 of the murder of Stephen Horton
a year earlier. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecution argued for
execution and the defence presented evidence for a life sentence. At that
time, Texas capital juries were only asked two questions when deciding
sentencing: whether the defendant had caused the death, and whether there
was a probability that the defendant would commit future criminal acts of
violence. An affirmative response to both questions resulted in a death
sentence, regardless of whether the jury believed the defendant should get
a life sentence.
This procedure was found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in Penry
v Lynaugh in 1989 on the grounds that juries were unable to give effect to
mitigating evidence. The Texas statute was changed in 1991. Under today's
law, Texas capital jurors are additionally asked whether they consider
there is enough mitigating evidence to warrant a life sentence. At the
time of the crime, Troy Kunkle was just over 18 years old, with no
criminal record, and emerging from a childhood of deprivation and abuse.
One of the jurors from his trial recalls: "At least two of us were
inclined to give life, but that wasn't one of the questions". Another has
said: "I was upset that I was put in that position-We just had to follow
the law and answer the questions. I wish we would've had a choice to vote
for life in prison."
In its 1989 Penry decision, the US Supreme Court did not provide any
guidance as to how the courts should deal with the cases of those people,
like Troy Kunkle, who had been sentenced to death under the old,
unconstitutional Texas statute. The state and federal appeal courts
responsible for Texas capital cases therefore developed their own
"screening" system for applying the Penry ruling. For the next 15 years,
condemned prisoners in Texas sentenced before the law was changed appealed
for new sentencing hearings. Several were executed. Troy Kunkle's appeal
was rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) in 1993.
Then in 2004, the US Supreme Court took such a case. In Tennard v Dretke,
it found that the post-Penry "screening" system applied to Texas cases had
"no foundation" in Supreme Court jurisprudence. In other words, the courts
had been misapplying the Penry ruling. The Tennard decision stated that
the only relevant screening question should have been whether the evidence
presented in mitigation was of a type that might serve as a basis for a
sentence less than death. Clearly, Troy Kunkle's youth and other
mitigating factors presented at his trial were just such evidence. The
unfairness of his case is compounded by post-conviction evidence that he
suffers from schizophrenia, which the jury did not know.
The Tennard opinion was handed down on 24 June 2004. At that time Troy
Kunkle was facing execution on 7 July, and had already filed an appeal to
the US Supreme Court based on the arguments that were then pending in the
Tennard case. At the same time, his lawyers filed a petition in the TCCA.
This was dismissed based upon a unique Texas procedural obstacle known as
the "two forum rule", which barred simultaneous appeals in two courts. The
US Supreme Court stayed the 7 July execution, but later dismissed the case
without comment.
Following the Tennard decision, Troy Kunkle's lawyers went back to the
TCCA, asking it to remedy its 1993 mistaken application of the Penry
ruling and this time to grant Kunkle a new sentencing. However, the TCCA
dismissed the petition on the grounds that it violated the rule preventing
individuals from bringing the same claim to the same court more than once.
The federal courts are similarly procedurally barred. Such rules are
supposed to be for reasons of efficiency, to prevent inmates from
repeatedly filing a claim that they have already lost. It is clearly a
nightmarish outcome when a condemned man runs into the cold fact that
there is no exception granted where he earlier lost the claim because the
court had misapplied the law. Troy Kunkle was given another execution
date, 18 November 2004. Hours before it was due to be carried out, the US
Supreme Court issued a stay. However, on 13 December, the Court announced
that it would not consider the merits of Troy Kunkle's appeal. This time
there was an explanation, given by Justice Stevens in recognition that
"granting a stay of execution is not without costs". Justice Stevens
explained that the Court did not have jurisdiction to reach the merits of
Troy Kunkle's claim, because the decision of the TCCA not to stop the
execution had been "independently based on a determination of state law"
rather than on the merits of Kunkle's federal constitutional claim.
Justice Stevens said that this procedural obstacle of state versus federal
law prevented the Court from itself reaching the underlying claim, adding
his comment that the death sentence had been unconstitutionally imposed.
In other words, a review of the merits of Troy Kunkle's federal law claim
would lead to a new sentencing being granted, as has occurred in several
other Texas cases since the Tennard ruling. Instead he has been given a
new execution date.
Thus Troy Kunkle is ensnared in a tangle of procedural technicalities with
his execution fast approaching. As would have concerned the Supreme Court
in Furman v Georgia in 1972, an arbitrary and capricious death sentence
has survived the appeals process intact. Amnesty International activists
worldwide are urging the Texas clemency authorities to stop this killing
in the name of fairness and decency.
INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT, 1 EASTON STREET, LONDON WC1X 0DW, UNITED
KINGDOM
******************
Texas relies on technicality to push ahead with execution of mentally ill
prisoner
Amnesty International has issued an urgent appeal to the authorities in
Texas to try to prevent the execution of a schizophrenic prisoner set to
be lethally injected despite a US Supreme Court judge describing the
execution as "unconstitutional".
The 38-year-old prisoner, Troy Kunkle, who is on death row in Texas having
been convicted of a murder committed in 1984, is set to be executed on 25
January. The state authorities are relying on a legal technicality to push
ahead with the execution.
Kunkle's death sentence was imposed without the original jury being asked
to consider any mitigating evidence - a process later deemed
unconstitutional in a legal change.
The jury also never heard any expert mental health evidence. Since his
conviction evaluations have indicated that Kunkle suffers from serious
mental illness, including schizophrenia.
Kunkle, who had no criminal record before the killing, had an abusive
upbringing. When he was 12 his father's mental health deteriorated and he
was subject to extremely violent attacks from his father.
Attacks included his father slamming his head into walls and putting
Kunkle into life-threatening chokeholds. His mother also suffered from
serious mental illness and Kunkle's childhood was scarred by violence and
neglect.
A psychologist has concluded that an expert evaluation at the time of the
trial would have been likely to have shown Kunkle's emerging mental
disorder.
Several of the jurors in his case have since indicated that they would
have voted for life imprisonment if they had been allowed to give weight
to mitigating evidence.
In December the US Supreme Court expressed "regret" that despite Kunkle's
sentence being "imposed in violation of the Constitution", it was unable
to act because Texas had relied on a technical rule that prevents federal
courts intervening on procedural matters.
Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen:
"It is clearly wrong that Texas should rely on a legal technicality to
push ahead with the execution of man whose history of childhood abuse and
mental illness was never properly considered at his trial.
"The Texas paroles board should recommend that the state governor commute
Troy's sentence and failing that the governor should use his power to
commute the sentence.
"We wish to see the total abolition of the death penalty and this
disgraceful case is just one of the reasons why."
In November the Supreme Court stayed Kunkle's execution less than an hour
before it was due to be carried out. Earlier in 2004 a legal decision had
allowed several Texas death row prisoners to apply for new sentencing
hearings to address the question of mitigating evidence not being
considered by juries at their original trial convictions.
Kunkle is being denied a new sentencing hearing on the basis that Texas
court rules prevent inmates from repeat-filing a claim already lost, even
though this had only been lost because of a longstanding misapplication of
the law.
Kate Allen added:
"Texas is relying on a bizarrely rigid application of the letter of the
law to press ahead with Kunkle's execution. It should now show that it
understands the spirit of the law and allow Kunkle his constitutional
rights. His execution would be a travesty, bringing nothing but shame on
Texas."
Executions in Texas constitute more than 1/3 of the total number of
executions carried out in the USA - 337 out of 946 - since 1977. Many of
these have been carried out in contravention of international standards.
(source: Amnesty International)
Kyla
Jan. 21
TEXAS----impending execution
amnesty international----UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Death by default
21 January 2005 AI Index: AMR 51/015/2005
On 2 July 1976, in Gregg v Georgia, the US Supreme Court lifted the
moratorium on executions in the United States it had imposed four years
earlier in Furman v Georgia. In the Furman ruling, the Court had found the
death penalty to be unconstitutional in the arbitrary and capricious way
in which it was being applied. Individual states moved to rewrite their
capital statutes. In Gregg, the Supreme Court looked at some of those
statutes and wrote:
"The concerns expressed in Furman that the death penalty not be imposed
arbitrarily or capriciously can be met by a carefully drafted statute that
ensures that the sentencing authority is given adequate information and
guidance, concerns best met by a system that provides for a bifurcated
proceeding at which the sentencing authority is apprised of the
information relevant to the imposition of sentence and provided with
standards to guide its use of that information."
Nearly 3 decades later, on 25 January 2005, Troy Kunkle is due to become
the 947th person put to death in the USA since the Gregg ruling. He was
sentenced to death under a statute that failed to ensure that the jury was
given adequate information and guidance.
Troy Kunkle's case is one of death by default. Some of his trial jurors
say that they did not want to vote for death but had felt forced by the
law to do so. At the other end of the process, a US Supreme Court Justice
has explained that he and his colleagues cannot stop the execution because
of a procedural obstacle blocking their way. This is "regrettable", he
added, "because it seems plain that Kunkle's sentence was imposed in
violation of the Constitution".
Troy Kunkle was convicted in Texas in 1985 of the murder of Stephen Horton
a year earlier. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecution argued for
execution and the defence presented evidence for a life sentence. At that
time, Texas capital juries were only asked two questions when deciding
sentencing: whether the defendant had caused the death, and whether there
was a probability that the defendant would commit future criminal acts of
violence. An affirmative response to both questions resulted in a death
sentence, regardless of whether the jury believed the defendant should get
a life sentence.
This procedure was found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in Penry
v Lynaugh in 1989 on the grounds that juries were unable to give effect to
mitigating evidence. The Texas statute was changed in 1991. Under today's
law, Texas capital jurors are additionally asked whether they consider
there is enough mitigating evidence to warrant a life sentence. At the
time of the crime, Troy Kunkle was just over 18 years old, with no
criminal record, and emerging from a childhood of deprivation and abuse.
One of the jurors from his trial recalls: "At least two of us were
inclined to give life, but that wasn't one of the questions". Another has
said: "I was upset that I was put in that position-We just had to follow
the law and answer the questions. I wish we would've had a choice to vote
for life in prison."
In its 1989 Penry decision, the US Supreme Court did not provide any
guidance as to how the courts should deal with the cases of those people,
like Troy Kunkle, who had been sentenced to death under the old,
unconstitutional Texas statute. The state and federal appeal courts
responsible for Texas capital cases therefore developed their own
"screening" system for applying the Penry ruling. For the next 15 years,
condemned prisoners in Texas sentenced before the law was changed appealed
for new sentencing hearings. Several were executed. Troy Kunkle's appeal
was rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) in 1993.
Then in 2004, the US Supreme Court took such a case. In Tennard v Dretke,
it found that the post-Penry "screening" system applied to Texas cases had
"no foundation" in Supreme Court jurisprudence. In other words, the courts
had been misapplying the Penry ruling. The Tennard decision stated that
the only relevant screening question should have been whether the evidence
presented in mitigation was of a type that might serve as a basis for a
sentence less than death. Clearly, Troy Kunkle's youth and other
mitigating factors presented at his trial were just such evidence. The
unfairness of his case is compounded by post-conviction evidence that he
suffers from schizophrenia, which the jury did not know.
The Tennard opinion was handed down on 24 June 2004. At that time Troy
Kunkle was facing execution on 7 July, and had already filed an appeal to
the US Supreme Court based on the arguments that were then pending in the
Tennard case. At the same time, his lawyers filed a petition in the TCCA.
This was dismissed based upon a unique Texas procedural obstacle known as
the "two forum rule", which barred simultaneous appeals in two courts. The
US Supreme Court stayed the 7 July execution, but later dismissed the case
without comment.
Following the Tennard decision, Troy Kunkle's lawyers went back to the
TCCA, asking it to remedy its 1993 mistaken application of the Penry
ruling and this time to grant Kunkle a new sentencing. However, the TCCA
dismissed the petition on the grounds that it violated the rule preventing
individuals from bringing the same claim to the same court more than once.
The federal courts are similarly procedurally barred. Such rules are
supposed to be for reasons of efficiency, to prevent inmates from
repeatedly filing a claim that they have already lost. It is clearly a
nightmarish outcome when a condemned man runs into the cold fact that
there is no exception granted where he earlier lost the claim because the
court had misapplied the law. Troy Kunkle was given another execution
date, 18 November 2004. Hours before it was due to be carried out, the US
Supreme Court issued a stay. However, on 13 December, the Court announced
that it would not consider the merits of Troy Kunkle's appeal. This time
there was an explanation, given by Justice Stevens in recognition that
"granting a stay of execution is not without costs". Justice Stevens
explained that the Court did not have jurisdiction to reach the merits of
Troy Kunkle's claim, because the decision of the TCCA not to stop the
execution had been "independently based on a determination of state law"
rather than on the merits of Kunkle's federal constitutional claim.
Justice Stevens said that this procedural obstacle of state versus federal
law prevented the Court from itself reaching the underlying claim, adding
his comment that the death sentence had been unconstitutionally imposed.
In other words, a review of the merits of Troy Kunkle's federal law claim
would lead to a new sentencing being granted, as has occurred in several
other Texas cases since the Tennard ruling. Instead he has been given a
new execution date.
Thus Troy Kunkle is ensnared in a tangle of procedural technicalities with
his execution fast approaching. As would have concerned the Supreme Court
in Furman v Georgia in 1972, an arbitrary and capricious death sentence
has survived the appeals process intact. Amnesty International activists
worldwide are urging the Texas clemency authorities to stop this killing
in the name of fairness and decency.
INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT, 1 EASTON STREET, LONDON WC1X 0DW, UNITED
KINGDOM
******************
Texas relies on technicality to push ahead with execution of mentally ill
prisoner
Amnesty International has issued an urgent appeal to the authorities in
Texas to try to prevent the execution of a schizophrenic prisoner set to
be lethally injected despite a US Supreme Court judge describing the
execution as "unconstitutional".
The 38-year-old prisoner, Troy Kunkle, who is on death row in Texas having
been convicted of a murder committed in 1984, is set to be executed on 25
January. The state authorities are relying on a legal technicality to push
ahead with the execution.
Kunkle's death sentence was imposed without the original jury being asked
to consider any mitigating evidence - a process later deemed
unconstitutional in a legal change.
The jury also never heard any expert mental health evidence. Since his
conviction evaluations have indicated that Kunkle suffers from serious
mental illness, including schizophrenia.
Kunkle, who had no criminal record before the killing, had an abusive
upbringing. When he was 12 his father's mental health deteriorated and he
was subject to extremely violent attacks from his father.
Attacks included his father slamming his head into walls and putting
Kunkle into life-threatening chokeholds. His mother also suffered from
serious mental illness and Kunkle's childhood was scarred by violence and
neglect.
A psychologist has concluded that an expert evaluation at the time of the
trial would have been likely to have shown Kunkle's emerging mental
disorder.
Several of the jurors in his case have since indicated that they would
have voted for life imprisonment if they had been allowed to give weight
to mitigating evidence.
In December the US Supreme Court expressed "regret" that despite Kunkle's
sentence being "imposed in violation of the Constitution", it was unable
to act because Texas had relied on a technical rule that prevents federal
courts intervening on procedural matters.
Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen:
"It is clearly wrong that Texas should rely on a legal technicality to
push ahead with the execution of man whose history of childhood abuse and
mental illness was never properly considered at his trial.
"The Texas paroles board should recommend that the state governor commute
Troy's sentence and failing that the governor should use his power to
commute the sentence.
"We wish to see the total abolition of the death penalty and this
disgraceful case is just one of the reasons why."
In November the Supreme Court stayed Kunkle's execution less than an hour
before it was due to be carried out. Earlier in 2004 a legal decision had
allowed several Texas death row prisoners to apply for new sentencing
hearings to address the question of mitigating evidence not being
considered by juries at their original trial convictions.
Kunkle is being denied a new sentencing hearing on the basis that Texas
court rules prevent inmates from repeat-filing a claim already lost, even
though this had only been lost because of a longstanding misapplication of
the law.
Kate Allen added:
"Texas is relying on a bizarrely rigid application of the letter of the
law to press ahead with Kunkle's execution. It should now show that it
understands the spirit of the law and allow Kunkle his constitutional
rights. His execution would be a travesty, bringing nothing but shame on
Texas."
Executions in Texas constitute more than 1/3 of the total number of
executions carried out in the USA - 337 out of 946 - since 1977. Many of
these have been carried out in contravention of international standards.
(source: Amnesty International)