Category: Uncategorized

IndyMedia Austin

On April 27, one day before his 29th birthday Derrick Frazier is scheduled to be executed by the state of Texas. The crime for which he is convicted is an awful one involving the killing of a mother and child during burglary.

But how sure are we that Frazier did the crime, and what makes the April 27 killing any less awful when it is scheduled months in advance by the state?

According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP): “Throughout the course of the investigation, Frazier’s accomplice in the burglary changed his story from an admission that he [the accomplice] killed both victims, to a claim that Frazier killed them. In fact, the details of the crime were so uncertain that the indictment charging Frazier with capital murder was a composite of five different theories as to how he was guilty. Frazier argues that he was denied due process because the judge submitted these theories to the jury in a disjunctive manner, i.e. to reach a guilty verdict, the jurors needed only to vote guilty on any one theory. It may be that six jurors believed Frazier guilty on theory one, but not theory two, and six believed him guilty on theory two, but not theory one. The jurors agreed he was guilty, but didn’t necessarily agree why!”

According to the Derrick Frazier Support Committee, “There was physical evidence to link Mr. Frazier to possession of stolen property from a neighbor residence, but not to the murder of the mother and child”

Mr. Frazier had an all white jury and his conviction was based largely on a taped confession that he made on a promise that he would not be put up for the death penalty. However; once the Texas Ranger, had the confession, the deal was called off and changed to the death penalty.

At the time of the so-called confession, Mr. Frazier made a statement to the Ranger “IF I COULD AFFORD ONE [an attorney] I WOULD….” But the Ranger abruptly cut him off.

The jury got to view a videotaped confession during the trial, however they did not get to view the video in which Mr. Frazier asked for an attorney.

“With capital murder cases,” asks the Derrick Frazier Support committee, “is not that breaking the law? Is that even called ‘JUSTICE’ in America ?”

“Mr. Frazier was twenty at the time of his arrest. The ONLY evidence that puts Mr. Frazier at the crime scene is the videotaped confession which he was coerced into making. The jurors asked to watch the video tape a second time, and then after two hours of deliberating, they came back with a GENERAL VERDICT” — not even clearly agreeing on which of the five scenarios for the killing they were convicting him for.

“Frazier also raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim,” says the NCADP. “This is based on the fact that, although the prosecutor presented plenty of aggravating evidence, Frazier’s attorney did not investigate or present in court any mitigating circumstances. Frazier presented affidavits from his grandmother and aunt that argued that Frazier was basically a good person whose life had fallen into disarray upon the death of his mother. These affidavits suggest that there was genuine mitigating evidence available, had Frazier’s attorney bothered to search for it. What’s more, Frazier has been an exemplary prisoner since his conviction, providing further evidence to support the existence of mitigating information.”

Says the Derrick Frazier Support committee: “the attorney who represented Frazier has had public reprimands, several probations, and has been suspended from practicing law several times. While defending Mr. Frazier; he was being investigated by the Texas Bar Association. Shortly after Mr. Frazier’s conviction, he was found guilty of misconduct in another case.”

Killing is an awful thing. In the case of Derrick Frazier, the combined actions of the criminal justice system demonstrate once again, that Texas has no business killing people. Before April 27, it is time to stop this sickness once and for all.

Has Texas evern Executed an Innocent Person?

Ruben Cantu: an investigation by Houston Chronicle reporter Lise Olsen concludes that Cantu was innocent of the crime that he was executed for in 1993.

Reports Olsen: “Cantu’s long-silent co-defendant, David Garza, just 15 when the two boys allegedly committed a murder-robbery together, has signed a sworn affidavit saying he allowed his friend to be falsely accused, though Cantu wasn’t with him the night of the killing.”

Cameron Todd Willingham: Chicago Tribune reporters Steve Mills and Maurice Possley conclude that Willingham was right when he declared from the Huntsville death chamber that he did not kill his family by arson.

The reporters found that, “many of the pillars of arson investigation that were commonly believed for many years have been disproved by rigorous scientific scrutiny.” Another death row inmate, Ernest Willis, has since been exonerated for arson charges under similar circumstances.

But is Innocence the Real Issue? Remarks by David Dow in the Spring 2006 Newsletter of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (TCADP).

If the death penalty is immoral, as I believe it is, either in theory or in practice, it has nothing to do
with the issue of innocence. Only a fraction of the residents of death row are innocent, but the victim of
a murder is always innocent.

Clay Peterson, who was killed by my client Johnny Joe Martinez, was innocent and should not have died when he did. The same is true of Ed Thompson, who was killed by my client Carl Johnson, and DPS Trooper Bill
Davidson, who was killed by my client Ronald Howard.

Earlier in my talk and now, I am telling you who they are. These innocent victims of murder are not my enemy, and they are not our antagonist. We alienate their loved ones when we do not know their names. It is a mistake to oppose capital punishment by talking mostly about innocence, and it is a mistake
to ignore the horror that a murder is.

The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) lists 18 categories of issues; here are some highlights to consider:

Arbitrariness: “the death penalty is still being unpredictably applied to a small number of defendants. There remains a lack of uniformity in the capital punishment system. Some of the most heinous murders do not result in death sentences, while less heinous crimes are punished by death.”

Clemencies: Since 1976, clemency has been granted to 229 death row inmates for humanitarian reasons, including doubts about the defendant’s guilt or conclusions of the governor regarding the death penalty process. Also since 1976, governors of New Mexico and Illinois have granted statewide clemency to all inmates.

Cost: For example in Indiana, the cost of the death penalty is 38% greater than the total cost of life without parole sentences.

Deterrence: A survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide
rates above.

Innocence: Since 1973, 123 Death Row Inmates have been exonerated after serving an average of 9 years in prison.

Life without Parole: Texas offers it, as do 37 of 38 death-penalty states.

Race: For example a study in Philadelphia showed that “Murders by blacks are treated as more severe and ‘deserving’ of the death penalty because of the defendant’s race.”

Representation: “Almost all defendants in capital cases cannot afford their own attorneys. In many cases, the appointed attorneys are overworked, underpaid, or lacking the trial experience required for death penalty cases. There have even been instances in which lawyers appointed to a death case were so inexperienced that they were completely unprepared for the sentencing phase of the trial.”

From Houston Indymedia

by Katie Heim Wednesday January 11, 2006 at 07:30 PM

Two of Diane Wilson’s daughters came to visit her in Victoria County jail on Sunday. They were made to wait over forty minutes to see their mother, while other inmates were able to visit with their respective loved ones. The youngest of Wilson’s daughters, who has always walked the straight and narrow and feared coming to the jail in the first place, was pulled aside and told she was under arrest. When Diane’s daughter (who prefers to remain nameless) asked why she was told the arrest was due to a traffic ticket from 1999. WIlson’s daughter says she’s only had one traffic ticket in her entire life, and she paid it. Despite these protestations, Diane’s daughter was searched and accused of trying to pass her mother information. She was put in a holding cell, where she wept uncontrollably. During this ordeal she encountered another prisoner, who asked her if she was there to see "that actvist Diane". The male prisoner said that the jailers didn’t like Diane, because Diane didn’t like Bush. WIlson has been attempting to organize the prisoners of the Victoria County Jail since her incarceration, and has asked for prisoner treatment standards several times. Diane’s daughter was held for several hours, until her sister posted the $320 to procure her release. She was then allowed five minutes with her mother, for whom she tried to wear a brave face. Diane’s daughter called Travis County, who issued the disputed ticket, and confirmed that the ticket had in fact been paid. She is now awaiting paper confirmation of this so that she can file a complaint with the sheriff’s office.

Dynamic Growth in the Rio Grande Valley
By José Joaquín López
Dallas Fed

Texas Manufacturing employmentIts proximity to Mexico and fast-growing, binational job market are major factors in the Rio Grande Valley’s economy. They’re a large part of the reason employment has increased at a faster, steadier pace in the Valley than in the United States, Mexico or Texas as a whole. Despite rapid job creation, the Valley remains relatively poor. The McAllen–Edinburg–Mission metropolitan statistical area ranks last among the nation’s 361 MSAs, with a per capita income of $15,184 a year, less than half the national average of $31,472. The Brownsville–Harlingen MSA comes in next to last at $16,308.

The combination of rapid job growth and low income is unusual. In a study covering 1967 to 1997, Dallas Fed economist Keith Phillips found weak employment gains in other states’ low-income counties—annual averages of 2 percent in Kentucky, 0.4 percent in West Virginia and 0.3 percent in Mississippi. Valley employment, by contrast, rose 3.4 percent a year over the three decades.

Southwest Economy

Issue 2, March/April 2006
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2006/swe0602c.html

Note: the following email from Irma Muniz passes along a claim by her
husband Ramsey that new evidence has been discovered about the
circumstances surrounding his 1994 arrest for marijuana trafficking.–gm
—————

Dear Friends:
What would any person with a past conviction do upon being
SUDDENLY PURSUED FOR NO REASON after having gotten
out of a car he had just been asked to move? What would he
choose to do with the car key? Ramsey had only seconds
to think as he quickly rushed to a pay phone to try
and reach an attorney. In the rush he thought,
"If I give them the key, it is giving consent to search
a car that doesn’t even belong to me. If I keep the key,
it will implicate me in something." He never made it.
If this was done to Ramsey in 1994, why shouldn’t one
believe that the same happened in his first conviction?

The enclosed is an excerpt of a letter from Ramsey Muniz in
response to a letter received regarding his case against
the United States government. Please forward this letter
to students in Chicano studies programs, Mexicano law students,
law student associations, civil rights organizations,
and listservs. All interested parties may contact the
National Ramsey Defense Alliance for additional information.

–Irma Muniz
*****************

August 14, 2004

Dear Armando:
Shakespeare said, "as the waves make towards the
pebbled shore, so do our minutes hasten to their end."
(Sonnet LX). The loss of our friend, Raul, shows us a
very important fact about life, a fact we must remember.
"Life goes on forever toward its end, never slowing down
or going back. Our lives do indeed ‘hasten to their
end.’" (The Movement of Time – Shawn Waddell).

During my almost eleven years in one of American’s
arduous prisons, I have shared the cultural endeavor
that we, Los Mexicanos, have organized throughout the
entire southwest within the state and federal prison
systems of America. Raul, outside, was a clear example
of what Los Mexicanos can do in this country. Here, and
from here, my beliefs and principles against the
oppression and discrimination toward nuestra gente have
been strongly expressed – more strongly than ever. For
this reason, I will never give up on claiming that my
trial was not conducted fairly. Of course, you are
correct by stating that circumstantial evidence tying
me with that vehicle was the basis for my conviction.
And certainly, all the courts are expected to give
deference to jury findings, regardless of my explanation
to the contrary. But your very welcome opinion is based
on a relitigation "doctrine," which is not the basis for
reopening my case. Let me explain.

Evidence only discovered a few months ago shows a
link, prior to my "alleged participation," between the
government and a confidential informant (the owner of
the load found in the vehicle in question), who was
recompensed for setting me up in this case. Of course,
neither Dick (my trial counsel) nor I knew of this
evidence. In Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), the
Supreme Court reviewed the standard for granting
collateral relief where the materiality of suppressed
evidence was considered. In sum, the court held that
a "reasonable probability" of a different result is
shown when the government’s evidentiary suppression
undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.
115 S. Ct. at 1566. As you know, Kyles’ holding has
been the subject of explanation and exploration in
subsequent courts of appeal decisions.

For example, in United States v. Smith, 77 F.3d
511 (D.C. Cir. 1996), the court reversed drug related
convictions nothing that, post Kyles, materiality
[of suppressed] information is not gauged by a
sufficiency-of-the-evidence test, 77 F.3d at 512,
citing Kyles. In other words, the
evidence in my case showing that my conviction "hinged"
on a key hidden in my sock, which tied me to the loaded
vehicle, would be irrelevant under Kyles. In Smith,
the reversing panel described the holding in Kyles,
noting "a reviewing court must focus on the fairness
of the trial the defendant actually received rather
than on whether a different result would have occurred
had the undisclosed evidence been revealed." Accordingly,
the question here is whether in the absence of this
evidence, did I receive a fair trial, within the meaning
of Kyles.

As to whether Blakely applies to my case or not, any
response to that would be premature. First the Court must
effectively overrule McMillan, 447 U.S. 79, something it
has twice declined to do, and hold that Blakeley applies
to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Second, any
favorable ruling in this matter must be retroactively
applied before I put my horses to run. Although it is
possible to argue that under Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S.
656 (2001), in which the Court held that a new rule of
criminal procedure may be retroactive through a series
of that Court’s cases (the combination of Schriro v. Summerlin,
U.S. June 24, (No. 03-526, 2004 WL 1402732 at *5-7), and
Winship,) the Schriro’s Court’s conclusion that Ring v. Arizona
should not be applied retroactively is a problem. The only
difference between Ring and Blakely is the name of the state
(Arizona-Washington), and apparently, more important
(considering Teague’s prong against retroactivity), the
involvement of a lower standard of proof which undermines
the accuracy of the proceeding’s outcome.

Because the Arizona law (in Ring) already required
aggravating factors to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,
it appears that arguably, in Schriro, the majority’s analysis
against retroactivity was limited to the Ring rule. But I don’t
need to torture my brain with this question, after all, "if a
precedent of the Court has direct application in a case, yet
appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of
decisions," it is the Supreme Court who has "the prerogative
of overruling its own decisions." Rodriguez, 490 U.S. at 484
(1989); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997) (same).
Thus, I must wait. If I see a good chance, surely, without
doubt, I will be part of that fight. For now, however, the
Kyles argument is my main target.

Thank you for taking the time to inquire about my case.
You will be constantly in our prayers for strength of
your Mexicayotl (consciousness).

Sincerely,

Ramiro R. Muniz
**********************

http://www.freeramsey.com