Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323153353
label
FBI Academy Graduation Quantico, VA 5/28/91 [OA 8323] [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323153353
contentType
document
title
FBI Academy Graduation Quantico, VA 5/28/91 [OA 8323] [2]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13757-011
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323153353
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a28e54950d8e6813
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13757
Folder ID Number:
13757-011
Folder Title:
FBI Academy Graduation Quantico, VA 5/28/91 [OA 8323] [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
21
4
3
(404) 622-6241 Penny jail in atlanta
locator service 10am-4:30pm
202-307-3126
Andrew McBride- -
Asso. Dep- AG 514-3070
Collins in black
Robert Alton Harris is white
Leslie Matthews
8 state
3 federal
A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS:
IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
6847308 #
LeslieMatthews
PREPARED BY:
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT,
MAY, 1991
514-4601
I.
History of Habeas Corpus
A confusing type of mystique surrounds the 15th Century
latin phrase "habeas corpus". It literally means, "you should
have the body". However, as understood at common law and by the
framers of the U.S. Constitution, the right to habeas corpus was
essentially a right to judicial protection against unlawful
executive detention.
A person who had been taken into custody by executive
authorities could apply to a court to issue a writ of habeas
corpus which would direct the custodian to produce the prisoner
and state the cause of his detention. If the government made an
adequate response stating that the petitioner was being held on a
criminal charge, the court could set bail for the petitioner in
cases where bail was legally authorized, and otherwise would
allow him to remain in detention pending trial. If the
government could state no legal ground for the detention, the
court would order his release. Thus, habeas corpus in its
traditional character was essentially a pre-trial remedy which
guarded against executive oppression.
In 1867, Congress created an enlarged statutory habeas
corpus remedy -- not confined to federal prisoners -- to provide
a federal remedy for former slaves who were being held in
involuntary servitude in violation of the recently enacted
Thirteenth Amendment. The remedy under the Habeas Corpus Act of
1867 was initially applied in a manner consistent with the
traditional nature of habeas corpus; it could generally not be
used to challenge a prison sentence handed down by a competent
tribunal.
Following Moore V. Dempsey in 1923, a somewhat broader
approach emerged in the decisions under which relief on federal
habeas corpus could be available if no meaningful process existed
in the state courts for considering a prisoner's federal claims.
Finally, as a result of court decisions in the 1950's and 1960's
lower federal courts were effectively transformed into court of
appeals over state criminal judgments. This was accomplished by
eliminating the conventional limitations on the scope and
availability of habeas corpus review and drastically expanding
the federal rights of state defendants.
II. The Current Jurisdiction
Habeas corpus applications by state prisoners were a
relatively rare occurrence prior to the creation of a quasi-
appellate federal habeas corpus jurisdiction by judicial
decisions of the 1950's and 1960's. However, they now constitute
a major category of federal litigation. In 1941, state prisoners
filed 127 habeas corpus petitions in the federal district courts.
In 1961, the corresponding figure was 1,020. In 1990, it was
10,742.
- 2 -
A 1979 Department of Justice study indicated that habeas
corpus litigation entails substantial burdens for judges and
state authorities, but rarely results in the granting of relief
to the petitioner. The study also indicated that federal habeas
corpus typically serves to provide additional review for
prisoners whose cases have already received an abundance of
judicial process in comparison with the average criminal case,
and that there are extraordinary delays in habeas corpus filings
in comparison with normal appellate activity. About 40% of
petitions in the study were filed more than five years after
conviction and nearly a third were filed more than ten years
after conviction.
The problem of delay is particularly acute in capital cases,
which are characterized by interminable litigation and re-
litigation that impede the execution of death sentences. Thirty-
six states authorize capital punishment and about 2,400 prisoners
are currently under sentence of death, but fewer than a hundred
executions occurred in the twenty year period between 1968 and
1988. The federal habeas corpus jurisdiction provides an avenue
for obstruction and delay in these cases which the state
legislatures are powerless to address.
III. Considerations of Policy
Various contemporary features of the federal habeas corpus
jurisdiction reflect a failure of the standards and procedures
associated with federal habeas corpus to keep pace with its
expanding scope. This expansion has come about almost entirely
through judicial innovation, without legislative action. No
legislature would pass a law stating that a defendant may wait as
long as he wishes before appealing his conviction. No
legislature would pass a law stating that a defendant has a right
to further mandatory review of a nearly unlimited range of
alleged procedural errors that have already been thoroughly
considered and rejected by other courts of appeals. Yet these
characteristics thoroughly pollute current federal habeas corpus
procedures.
Proposals for correcting these aberrations are frequently
met with the false and misleading contention that doing so would
interfere with the Great Writ of the common law, whose suspension
is prohibited by the Constitution. Contentions of this sort
reflect a simple verbal confusion. The common law writ referred
to in the Constitution and the contemporary statutory writ by
which the lower federal courts review state judgments are not the
same.
The constitutional "writ of habeas corpus" is a remedy
that federal prisoners can use before trial to test the existence
of grounds for detention by executive authorities. The current
statutory "writ of habeas corpus" is a remedy that state
prisoners can use after trial and exhaustion of state appellate
- 4 -
standards of competence to represent indigent capital defendants
in state collateral proceedings -- in addition to the
constitutionally required appointment of competent counsel to
represent such defendants at trial and on appeal -- would be
accorded stronger rules of finality on federal habeas review in
capital cases. This includes a rule barring second and
successive habeas petitions except in extraordinary cases.
Why Alternative Proposals are Unacceptable:
Any proposal to reform the federal habeas corpus process
must be judged as meritorious based upon the following
fundamental issues:
(1) Retroactivity: The Supreme Court's landmark decision in
Teaque V. Lane (1989) must not be disturbed by legislative
action. Teague stands for the common sense notion that courts
must comply with existing law, but cannot be expected to exercise
prophetic powers and anticipate new rules that may be generated
in decisions rendered years later. Overturning Teague would
jeopardize the integrity of convictions and sentences in all
types of criminal cases by enlarging the opportunities for
attacking criminal judgments on the basis of judicial decisions
that came long after the case was tried and the judgment became
final. For instance, title X of S.618, Senator Biden's bill,
includes a mandatory provision -- applicable to all states and
the Federal Government in both capital and non-capital cases --
that would overturn Teague.
(2) Procedural Default: The procedures limiting the review of
claims in federal courts to those which were fully and fairly
litigated in state courts must be maintained. Defendants should
not be allowed to undermine the integrity of state court
decisions, absent exceptional circumstances, by bringing up new
issues in federal court that were not raised in the state courts.
(3) Stronger Rules Governing Finality: Defendants should normally
be limited to a single federal habeas corpus petition, which
would have to be filed within a specific time period. Unless the
defendant presents a claim related to his guilt or innocence for
a capital offense, additional habeas petitions should be
prohibited after thorough consideration of his first petition.
Some legislative proposals attempt to broaden the defendant's
ability to file successive petitions beyond current law.
V.
Who Supports Habeas Corpus Reform
Here's what leaders across the nation are saying about the
need for reform of the federal habeas corpus process:
- 5 -
President George Bush
On March 11, 1991, President Bush called for:
Habeas Corpus Reform to stop the frivolous and
repetitive appeals that clog our criminal justice
system and in many cases nullify state death penalties.
The President further stated that habeas corpus reform is
needed to ensure that punishment is "not only just, but also
swift and certain." Finally, the President emphasized, passage
of his habeas corpus reform proposals will uphold a simple rule
of justice: "Those who kill must be prepared to pay with their
own life.
U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh
Attorney General Thornburgh stated in the opening address to
the Attorney General's Crime Summit in March of this year:
We need reform of habeas corpus proceedings that have
fostered seven-to-eight year stays of the ultimate
sanction, and all but nullified the death penalty in 36
states.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Justice O'Connor had this to say, in part, about habeas
corpus reform on March 4, 1991, during a speech to state and
local law enforcement representatives at the Attorney General's
Crime Summit:
Surely it is not too much to ask that state prisoners
ask for federal review [of state court adjudications]
in a reasonable time and in a single petition.
Consideration should also be given to altering the
legal standard of review in all federal habeas corpus
cases I suggest that federal courts should ensure
that the state proceedings in which the prisoner was
convicted, and in which his federal claims were
addressed, were fundamentally far; they should not
necessarily reexamine and decide anew every legal issue
already addressed by the state courts. Under our
federal system, the federal government owes this
respect to the states."
The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG)
NAAG opposes any attempt to overturn Teague V. Lane
- 6 -
(retroactivity), or Wainwright V. Sykes and Murray V. Carrier
(procedural default)
The Association supports modifications in federal
habeas corpus proceedings that would
establish a time
limit within which a state prisoner must institute a
federal habeas corpus action that challenges a state
court conviction; and require a habeas corpus court to
accept a state court's finding of fact where there is
an evidentiary basis for that finding if the petitioner
was accorded a full and fair hearing on the factual
issue.
Statement by Richard Ieyoub, President, National District
Attorneys Association (NDAA) and a local prosecutor in Louisiana
In discussing last year's Democratic response to habeas
reform, which attacked all of the fundamental issues listed in
part IV of this review, Mr. Ieyoub stated:
[T]he proposed habeas corpus reform provisions are a
far cry from the recommendations of the Powell
Commission. Instead of providing badly needed reform of
federal collateral review of state convictions, the
proposed legislation will greatly increase
opportunities for delay, abuse and repetitive
litigation. It will reverse case law governing
retroactive and procedural default in both capital and
non-capital cases, and also allow state prisoners to
attack and potentially overturn their convictions based
upon new interpretations of the law decided long after
their original conviction.
These provisions represent perhaps the most damaging
so-called crime control legislation in the last decade.
At a time when the country is plagued by drug crime and
gang warfare, and at a time when the American people
are crying out for stronger criminal sanctions -- it's
no time for Congress to cave in and pass legislation
that looks like it was drafted by the 'death row PAC'
at Leavenworth or Attica.
California Attorney General Dan Lungren
In his statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee on
May 7, 1991, Attorney General Lungren stated:
It is useful to note the shift in the focus of the
habeas corpus reform debate over the past several
years
Significantly, the question is no longer over
- 7 -
the legitimacy or necessity of the death penalty for
certain heinous murders
The question is no longer
whether the habeas corpus process is in need of
reform
The public policy debate is now focused upon
the Congress. In particular, the question is: What
specific habeas corpus reforms should Congress enact?
As a minimum, general habeas corpus reform should
include:
(1) A time limitation for the filing of state
prisoner petitions in federal court;
(2) A requirement that federal courts defer to
full and fair adjudications by the state courts;
and
(3) Authority for federal courts to dismiss
frivolous claims even if available state remedies
have not been exhausted.
These and other general reforms are part of the Bush
Administration proposal, S. 635
I wholeheartedly
endorse these general reforms
Statement by Mike Moore, the Attorney General of Mississippi, and
the Co-chairman of the National Association of Attorney General's
Committee on Criminal Law, at the Crime Summit in March, 1991:
There must be a reasonable statute of limitations that
will cut off the right of inmates to bring habeas
petitions years and years after their convictions are
final. Oftentimes they wait and they do this
until
the witnesses necessary to their convictions are dead
before bringing the petitions. To cure this problem, a
one year statute of limitations has been proposed in
many bills before Congress that ought to be passed
[W]e need legislation that would set time limits for
federal courts to rule on habeas petitions filed before
them. Sometimes no action is taken on these cases for
years as the case languished on the federal court
docket. We must never forget that these delays not only
increase the likelihood that a guilty person will be
freed, but the delay continues to punish the family of
the victim every day. This system of ours has got to
start paying attention to the rights of innocent
victims and their families
Areas that we don't need to tamper with include Teague
V. Lane. After a convict's direct appeal is over, he
- 8 -
shouldn't gain the benefit of later announced case
decisions which expand constitutional rights. A
criminal should not benefit from his longevity in the
system or his ability to delay
[E] nforcement of procedural bars by federal habeas
courts must be maintained. Defendants should not be
allowed to sandbag the state courts and bring up new
issues over and over that were not brought up in the
courts below. Not only would this lengthen the process,
I believe it's basically unfair.
North Carolina Special Deputy Attorney General Joan Herre Byers
In her May 7, 1991, statement before the Senate Judiciary
Committee on the need for habeas corpus reform, Special Deputy
Attorney General Byers stated:
[C]apital litigation, especially in the final stages
resembles a marathon dance in which each side tries to
outlast the other [rather] than a deliberate legal
proceeding. The clear tactic appears to be that of
throwing so much paper at the courts in the state and
federal system that a stay must be granted for the
courts to review them
[T]he Administration's proposal is notable for what it
does not do. It does not change the rules of
retroactivity outlined by the Supreme Court in Teague
V. Lane and its progeny. It does not alter the law of
procedural default, carefully developed by the Supreme
Court since its 1977 decision in Wainwright V. Sykes.
Surprisingly, a number of the reform proposals now
before the Senate would overrule these important
decisions. Such proposals would decrease, not increase,
the likelihood of finality in capital cases. In the
last Congress, similar proposals so concerned the
Attorneys General that N.A.A.G. passed resolutions
opposing any dilution of these two doctrines.
Former Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
In a statement before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on
Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Administration of Justice,
on May 24, 1990, Justice Powell stated that a habeas reform
proposal similar to last year's Democratic legislative proposal
could lead to "increased delay, piecemeal litigation, and more
last minute appeals." Such an approach "would in practical effect
be a vote to eliminate capital punishment in the United States.
The hard fact is that the laws of 37 States are not being
enforced by the courts."
- 9 -
Texas Attorney General Dan Morales
In a letter to Representative Charlie Wilson (D-TX), dated
March 28, 1991, Attorney General Morales stated:
[T]he Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of
1991
provides for much-needed structural reform of
the habeas corpus statutes, which have effectively
deterred criminal justice authorities from exercising
the death penalty sanction in many instances
[and]
strengthens our ability to curb the abuse of our court
system that arises from frivolous appeals and appeals
based on procedural technicalities.
Mr. Jack Collins, Eastern Regional Director of Citizens for Law
and Order
Mr. Collins is the father of a daughter who lost her life
to a senseless act of violence. Speaking at the Attorney
General's Crime Summit in May, Mr. Collins stated, in reference
to the nation's battle against violent crime:
I am convinced that for this battle there is no single
more effective instrument more vital than habeas corpus
reform
Nothing affords the criminal justice system
clout, more integrity, more credibility, than putting
an end to the interminable delays of convicted vicious
killers on this nation's death rows.
These endless appeals, these appeals without end, make
a mockery of the criminal justice system. They insult
our juries
They insult the citizens of 36 states
who have said we need death penalty statutes
It
insults the victims who we have buried. It insults the
victim's families who are still here. That must stop.
It violates the elemental fairness and justice that we
thought were inherent in the system.
Mr. Attorney General, I want you to know that our
organization, Citizens for Law and Order, and companion
organizations throughout the country
support
you
in
your initiative. We are going to be out there
persuading our fellow citizens to see the significance
to themselves of habeas corpus reform. So it is not a
Latin phrase. It is a burning, living element that
makes their lives worthwhile if it is handled properly.
LARRY NORMAN ANDERSON -- TEXAS
This morning, convicted killer Larry Norman Anderson sits on
death row in Texas, 9 years after he brutally murdered Zelda Lynn
Webster. Roughly 4 years ago, a federal district court stayed
Anderson's execution so that it could give adequate consideration
to his habeas corpus petition. That court has not yet reviewed
the petition. The Bush Administration's proposal to reform habeas
corpus petitions in the federal courts would prevent murderers like
Larry Anderson from getting lost in the docket shuffle which
characterizes our federal district courts, and would permit states
like Texas to implement their lawfully imposed sentences.
Larry Anderson is a two-time convicted felon. On December
10,
1981, he was released from an Arkansas penitentiary, where he
had
been serving time for robbery and possession of stolen
property. Unfortunately for Zelda Webster, Anderson travelled to
Texas, went to work for his uncle, and moved into a spare room at
his uncle's office. That room was located several blocks from the
bar where Webster worked, and Anderson became a regular. On March
29, 1982, Anderson was seen in the bar around midnight. Around
2:20 a.m., he was apprehended in a sparsely populated area near
Addicks Dam for driving without his lights on. When the state
trooper stopped Anderson, Anderson's shirt was drenched with blood.
Anderson claimed to have been in a fight. The bed of Anderson's
pickup truck was also bloody, containing soaked paper towels and
a garbage can covered in blood. Anderson explained that he had
been hunting rabbits; the rabbits were too small so he threw those
away. Inside the truck's cab, the trooper found a ski mask and two
bags of money belonging to the bar. The trooper arrested Anderson.
Anderson subsequently confessed to the killing, but claimed
that he committed it in self defense. According to Anderson,
Webster owed him money for a drug transaction. On March 29,
Anderson attempted to collect the money through a series of three
conversations with Webster, which supposedly occurred between
midnight and 2:20 a.m. in three widely separated locations. During
the last of these conversation, at Anderson's apartment, Anderson
claims that Webster became violent after Anderson grabbed her, so
he stabbed her in self-defense. He stuffed her body in the trash
can and dumped it by the dam. Anderson claims that he knew nothing
about the money bags in his truck. The jury convicted Anderson for
capital murder committed during the course of a robbery, and
sentenced him to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
affirmed the sentence.
Yet Larry Norman Anderson still sits on death row. In 1987,
a Federal District Court stayed Anderson's execution pending full
adjudication of his first federal habeas corpus petition. That
petition remains unadjudicated. By setting a strict 180-day limit
in the Federal District Courts and Federal Courts of Appeals for
the review of habeas corpus petitions filed by death row inmates,
Title II, subtitle B of S. 635, the "Comprehensive Violent Crime
Control Act of 1991" precludes federal courts from inexplicably
delaying the execution of state death sentences, and from operating
as de facto havens from justice for death row inmates like Larry
Norman Anderson.
WILLIAM ANDREWS - UTAH
On April 22, 1974, William Andrews and two co-conspirators,
Dale Pierce and Keith Roberts, robbed a stereo equipment store in
Ogden, Utah. In the process of the robbery, five people were
tied up in the store, made to lie on the floor and forced to
drink liquid Drano. Pierce had just seen the movie, Magnum
Force, where a character dies after being forced to drink Drano
and wanted to see how that worked. Andrews poured the Drano into
plastic cups and both Andrews and Pierce used their guns to
coerce the victims into drinking the toxic fluid. The Drano
didn't kill the victims, so eventually Pierce shot each of the
five victims in the head; three died.
At a jury trial, both Andrews and Pierce were found guilty
on three counts of first degree murder and two counts of
aggravated robbery. The same jury voted unanimously to impose
the death penalty on both men for each of the three murder
convictions. In November, 1974, the trial judge sentenced them
to death before a firing squad. Pierce has since been executed.
Andrews spent six years challenging his state conviction and
sentence on direct appeal and in collateral state proceedings.
In November of 1980, Andrews filed his first petition for federal
habeas corpus relief. The District Court denied the petition and
dismissed the action. Andrews then appealed to the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the petition
for rehearing was denied.
Since June of 1984, when Andrews' first federal habeas
corpus petition was fully exhausted, Andrews has filed five
additional federal habeas corpus petitions in the federal
district court. The first two of these petitions (federal habeas
II and III) were denied, so that the federal courts have now
denied three of his petitions for habeas corpus relief. The
fourth, fifth and sixth federal habeas petitions are still
pending. Also since that time, Andrews has filed for and been
denied relief on two state habeas petitions, a petition to the
Utah Board of Pardons, and his fourth petition to the U.S.
Supreme Court for certiorari.
Since the completion of Andrews' trial in 1974, Andrews has
filed eleven state actions and fifteen federal actions, for a
grand total of twenty six actions. Three state habeas petitions,
six federal habeas petitions, four petitions to the U.S. Supreme
Court, and sixty five judges have been involved to date.
This abuse of our criminal justice system must stop.
President Bush has submitted legislation to Congress that would
guarantee full and fair appeal and collateral review of any death
sentence. No longer would defendants be able to systematically
manipulate the habeas corpus process at the expense of the state
in order to delay the imposition of their sentences.
WALTER BELL, JR. -- TEXAS
I call the attention of my colleagues from Texas to the case
of Walter Bell, Jr. On July 19, 1974, Bell maliciously murdered
Ferd and Irene Chisum. Within forty-eight hours, he confessed to
the heinous act, showing no remorse, compassion, mercy, or
understanding for the value of human life. Instead, he recounted
the gruesome facts, emotionless, like a stone wall.
In 1974, Walter Bell worked for seven weeks at an appliance
store owned by Ferd and Isabel Chisum. The Chisums fired Bell.
Roughly two weeks after being fired, on July 19, Bell knocked on
the Chisum's door and Mr. Chisum invited him in. Bell brought with
him an "equipment kit" containing a sharpened knife, handcuffs, and
an electrical cord with the ends cut off. He pretended that he
wanted to discuss with Mr. Chisum the possibility of getting into
mechanic's school.
After their "conversation," Bell pulled the knife, handcuffed
Mr. Chisum, bound up his feet with the extension cord, and threw
him in a closet. Bell then found Mrs. Chisum, and was attempting
to gag her when Mr. Chisum escaped from the closet. Bell knocked
him to the ground, stabbed him twice in the chest, and retied him.
Afterwards, Bell untied Mrs. Chisum's legs, asked her to remove her
undergarments, and raped her. He forced her to write out $600 in
checks to a fictitious person, then he hit her in the jaw and
attempted to choke her to death with a towel. He dragged her into
the bathroom where he killed her and threw her body into the
bathtub. Bell then returned to Mr. Chisum, choked him, dragged him
to the bathtub and stabbed him again in the abdomen. The next day
Walter Bell thoroughly enjoyed himself, spending the spoils of his
crime on clothing and beer, and playing pool. The police caught
Bell after witnesses identified him the individual who attempted
to cash the checks written by Mrs. Chisum.
Bell was convicted for the murder of Mr. Chisum and sentenced
to death in March of 1982. The Texas Court of Criminal appeals
affirmed this conviction and sentence. Nevertheless, Walter Bell
still has not suffered the legally imposed penalty for the heinous
crimes he committed. Bell has filed two petitions for writ of
habeas corpus in Federal court, and four petitions in Texas state
courts. on both of his Federal petitions, Bell deliberately waited
to file until one week before his execution date, hoping that the
federal courts would stay the execution on the grounds that they
had insufficient time to consider the petitions.
Instead, while denying Bell's second federal petition in
October of 1988, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found
that Bell had abused the writ of habeas corpus because the issues
which he presented could have and should have been presented on
the first petition, and because he waited until the last minute to
file his petition, contrary to a written agreement with the state.
In her opinions, Judge Edith H. Jones, emphasized the detrimental
impacts on the defendant and on society of such delaying tactics,
"a condemned man's life and society's interest in enforcing the
death penalty justly are matters too important to leave to
procedural games."
That's why the Bush Administration has proposed the
"Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of 1991", S. 635. This
bill would limit men like Walter Bell, Jr. to one pass through the
Federal court system, where he could raise all of his claims in his
first habeas corpus petition. It would also require Bell to file
his petition within 180 days after the appointment of counsel for
state collateral review. The result would be that Bell would have
approximately 90 days to file a state collateral petition and, if
relief was denied, approximately 90 days thereafter to file a
federal habeas corpus petition. Finally, it would prevent federal
courts, except under unusual circumstances, from granting more than
one stay of execution.
Walter Bell Jr. committed his crimes seventeen years ago. The
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has twice rejected his bids for
collateral relief, the most recent decision having been rendered
three years ago. Yet Walter Bell still sits on death row. He has
filed yet another habeas petition before the Texas state courts.
The taxpayers in the State of Texas will now have to pay the
prosecutors yet again to argue his claims before the same judges.
Passage of S. 635 would prevent defendants like Walter Bell, Jr.
from having yet a third meritless day in Federal court.
WALTER JUNIOR BLAIR - MISSOURI
Walter Junior Blair was convicted of capital murder for the
August 1979 murder of Kathy Jo Allen and sentenced to death.
Blair's conviction and sentence were upheld by the Missouri
Supreme Court in 1982 and his petition for certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court was denied. Blair's first petition for federal
habeas corpus relief was denied in 1986. The 8th Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed that denial in 1990. Blair's petition to the
U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on the first federal
habeas corpus petition is pending. In the meantime, Blair has
filed a second federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
During the summer of '79, Blair was being held in the
Jackson County jail on charges arising unrelated to Kathy Jo
Allen. Also incarcerated in the Jackson County jail at that time
was Larry Jackson, who had recently been arrested and charged
with the rape of Ms. Allen. Jackson was intent on preventing
Allen from testifying against him at his upcoming trial.
When threatening phone calls to her appeared unsuccessful in
preventing her testimony, Jackson asked Blair, known for his
tough reputation, if he would consider killing Allen for $2,000.
Blair and Jackson discussed the deal repeatedly.
After Blair was released from jail, he spoke with Jackson by
telephone about the deal, and Jackson raised his price to $6,000.
Blair accepted. Jackson's family gave Blair Ms. Allen's address,
telephone number, and provided him with a car with which to keep
her under surveillance.
Two days before she was scheduled to testify against Jackson
regarding the rape, Blair broke into Allen's apartment in the
middle of the night, and held up her and her boyfriend at
gunpoint. Blair robbed them, told them he wasn't going to hurt
them, and instructed Allen, over her boyfriend's objection, to
get dressed and act as his driver.
Within minutes of leaving the victim's apartment, Blair shot
her at close range in the head, chest and wrist. He also struck
her in the head with a brick. Her body was found nude from the
waist up.
Blair then ran the short distance to his house, told a
friend what he had done, displayed the loot he had taken from the
victim and her boyfriend, and revealed the gun he had used to
commit the crime. Blair called Jackson in jail and told him what
he had done -- Jackson told Blair he loved him like a brother and
promised him he'd get the $6,000. Blair even showed Jackson's
family the victim's driver's license to prove that he'd killed
her.
Blair was arrested within a matter of days, when he
- 2 -
attempted to pawn some of the items he had stolen from the victim
and her boyfriend. Blair subsequently confessed, after receiving
his Miranda warnings, three times to the crime, once orally, once
in writing, and a third time on video tape.
A jury convicted Blair of capital murder on October 16,
1980. The same jury sentenced Blair to death.
That was over ten years ago. Blair has exhausted the
state's remedies for post-conviction relief, and the federal
courts have twice rejected his petitions for relief. His
petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court is still
pending. However, even if the Supreme Court denies his petition
his execution date won't be set because he has filed a second
federal habeas corpus petition. Like other death row defendants
who have delayed the imposition of their sentences for 10 or more
years, Blair has learned how to manipulate the criminal justice
system to his advantage by filing repetitive appeals unrelated to
a question of guilt or innocence.
The President's Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of
1991 would prevent abuses such as these. Title II of the bill
establishes rules that states may opt to follow in exchange for
guaranteeing free representation to indigent capital defendants
in collateral review proceedings. These rules would limit
capital defendants to one federal habeas corpus petition and
require the defendant to file the petition within 180 days of the
appointment of counsel for state collateral remedies.
In addition, the Federal District Courts and the Federal
Courts of Appeals would be required to review habeas corpus
petitions in capital cases within the strict time limit of 180
days. These proposals would preclude federal courts from
inexplicably delaying the execution of death sentences, and from
operating as de facto sanctuaries from justice for death row
inmates who have been legitimately tried, convicted, and
sentenced to death in state courts.
ANTONIO NATHANIEL BONHAM - TEXAS
The American people have begun to questions this body's
commitment to legal reforms that would give law enforcement
officers more potent weapons in the war against violent crime in
our streets. The case of Antonio Nathaniel Bonham only reinforces
this skepticism.
On July 9, 1981 at 6:30 a.m., Bonham left his father's home
in Houston, and went downtown to "sightsee." Bonham claims that
he had been drinking heavily. About 7 a.m., he spotted the victim,
a 62 year-old instructor at a local business college, driving her
white car into a parking lot behind the school. Bonham decided,
in his own words, that "the pressures of socity [sic] of dealing
with everyday life in terms of making decisions was so much of a
problem, and that he could only relieve the stress by stealing the
instructor's car. Bonham ambushed the instructor on the sidewalk
outside of the school, hitting her on the head with a brick and
fracturing her skull. Bonham took the victim's car keys, and
tossed her body into the bushes next to sidewalk to conceal her
from view, leaving her personal belongings scattered on the
sidewalk next to a pool of blood.
While retrieving the victim's car, Bonham thought that
"leaving [the victim] there in the condition she was in should not
be witnessed by the public, so he drove the victim's car onto the
sidewalk and threw the victim, who was still alive but bleeding
very badly, into the trunk. He transported the victim to an
undisclosed location where he raped her. After driving to another,
more sparsely populated location, Bonham seated the victim on the
side of the road. He ran her over with the car, which became
lodged on top of her body. After unsuccessfully attempting to back
the car off of the victim, Bonham abandoned the auto, which
eventually sunk into the ground and crushed the victim. The
autopsy determined that the victim died from a fractured skull, a
crushed chest, and a broken neck, all sustained when she was run
over by the car.
Bonham was arrested one week after the incident. He
confessed, providing police with a full account of his grisly
crime. He was tried, convicted of capital murder, and sentenced
to death The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his
conviction and sentence in 1984.
Yet Antonio Nathaniel Bonham still sits on death row. In
1986, a Federal District Court judge stayed Bonham's execution
pending full adjudication of Bonham's first federal habeas corpus
petition. That petition remains unadjudicated. The judge who
granted the stay of execution died two years ago. The court docket
sheet reflects that the case has not been reassigned.
By setting a strict 180-day limit in the Federal District
Courts and Federal Courts of Appeals for the review of habeas
corpus petitions filed by death row inmates, Title II, subtitle B
of S. 635, the President's "Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act
of 1991" precludes federal courts from inexplicably delaying the
execution of death sentences, and from operating as de facto
sanctuaries from justice for death row inmates, like Antonio
Nathaniel Bonham, who confessed to their gruesome crimes, and who
are tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by the state courts,
only to receive as punishment a life sentence on death row.
CHRISTOPHER A. BURGER - GEORGIA
The case of Christopher A. Burger illustrates the chronic
delays, reconsiderations and second-guessing that threatens to
cripple this country's criminal justice system. It has been over
thirteen years since a Georgia jury found Christopher Burger guilty
of murder and sentenced him to death. During that time, not unlike
a large number of other capital inmates, Burger has been able to
avoid his sentence by exploiting the legal doctrine called the writ
of habeas corpus.
On the evening of September 4, 1977, Burger and Thomas
Stevens, a fellow soldier stationed at Fort Stewart (U.S. Army),
called a taxicab for a ride to the Savannah Airport to meet a
friend. The cab was driven by Roger Honeycutt, another soldier,
who worked part-time for the cab company. On the way to the
airport, Burger and his accomplice brandished a butcher knife and
a sharpening tool, both stolen from the base kitchen, and robbed
Honeycutt of $16 dollars.
The two men forced Honeycutt into the backseat of the car.
Stevens undressed and blindfolded him, rifled through his clothing,
throwing each piece out the car window, and tied his hands behind
his back with the cord from the cab's two-way radio. As Burger
drove, Stevens forced Honeycutt to perform oral sodomy and submit
to anal sodomy. Burger and Stevens then forced their victim, nude,
blindfolded, and abused, into the trunk of the cab.
When Burger and Stevens arrived at the airport, they met their
friend and explained to him what they had done. The friend agreed
not to identify the authorities, if they promised not to further
harm Honeycutt.
Burger, however, eventually drove the cab to a pond in Wayne
County where he and Stevens had gone swimming in the past. He
opened the trunk and asked Honeycutt if he was all right. The
victim answered yes. Burger then closed the trunk, started the
car, put it in gear and let it roll into the pond. Honeycutt
drowned, bound and naked, in the trunk.
After making a complete confession, Burger was found guilty
and sentenced to death on January 25, 1978. Since exhausting his
state remedies, Burger has initiated twelve federal hearings. To
date, his case has made it to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
eight times, and to the United States Supreme Court four times.
Most recently, after exhausting his second state habeas corpus
petition, Burger filed his second federal petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. This was denied by a federal court in the Southern
District of Georgia in December, 1990. The court concluded that
Burger's writ was procedurally barred under state law, constituted
an abuse of the writ, and/or was clearly meritless. Burger's
appeal of that decision is now pending in the Eleventh Circuit
- 2 -
Court of Appeals. There is no telling when Burger will finally
face his sentence.
The Administration's proposal limits defendants to one
federal habeas corpus petition, except in limited circumstances.
Inmates would not be able to raise issues which were already fairly
litigated or which they failed to bring in an earlier federal
petition unless they meet specific criteria excusing their failure
to state a claim in an earlier proceeding. Review would be limited
to claims that had actually been presented and litigated in the
state courts -- a requirement comparable to the normal requirement
of exhaustion of state remedies for habeas corpus review -- and to
claims that had not been raised at the state level where specified
grounds of justification for the failure to raise them can be
established.
By introducing the element of finality to federal post-
conviction proceedings, the Bush Administration's federal habeas
corpus reform proposal would end the manipulation of the federal
courts tragically typified by the Burger case.
MAURICE OSCAR BYRD - MISSOURI
At approximately 7:40 a.m. on the morning of October 23, 1980,
the employees of Pope's Cafeteria in the West St. Louis County
Shopping Mall arrived to discover that the four employees who had
worked at the cafeteria the night before had been shot repeatedly.
Three of the employees found lying in the cafeteria office had been
shot to death. A fourth was miraculously and tragically still
alive, although mortally wounded, having been shot in each eye.
She died ten days later. Between four and eight thousand dollars
had been stolen from the cafeteria.
Maurice Byrd worked as an exterminator for the cafeteria and
had been there the day of the shootings. He left the job that day
and never returned, not even to pick up his last paycheck.
Four days later Byrd arrived at the home of his common law
wife in Savannah, Georgia. He was carrying a briefcase loaded with
money. Byrd told his wife that he had killed some people in order
to be with her. He also boasted to others of the crime, including
his wife's former brother-in-law and, later, his cellmate. Based
on those confessions and the overwhelming circumstantial evidence
connecting him with the crimes, a Missouri jury convicted Byrd of
four counts of capital murder. He was sentenced to death in 1982.
Almost eleven years after the crimes were committed. Maurice
Byrd is alive and well. He has passed his time by filing a steady
stream of petitions to overturn or otherwise delay his sentence.
In addition to appealing his state sentence all the way to the
Missouri Supreme Court three times, Byrd has filed two federal
habeas corpus petitions. To date, the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals has reviewed his conviction three times. So far, Maurice
Byrd has had twelve courts - seven federal courts and five state
courts - hear his case.
The Bush Administration's habeas corpus reform proposal would
prevent convicted criminals like Maurice Byrd from making such a
mockery of their sentences. To introduce a measure of finality to
collateral appeals, the Administration's proposal, as explained in
Title II, subtitle B of S. 635, would grant to states the option
of adopting a plan which would limit capital defendants to one
federal habeas" corpus petition except in limited situations where
the interests of justice require a second review.
This limitation is of the utmost importance in curbing the
nearly endless litigation and relitigation that now occurs in
successive habeas corpus petitions concerning alleged defects in
capital sentences imposed on defendants whose status as murderers
is not in doubt. Even with the limitation, the proposal remains
highly generous in affording abundant opportunities for raising
claims and multiple layers of review. Beyond trial and direct, the
defendant would typically by accorded a second run through the
state trial court and appellate hierarchy in state collateral
- 2 -
proceedings -- with the assistance of counsel --followed by review
by the federal courts at the trial and appellate levels in federal
habeas corpus proceedings, with a final opportunity to seek Supreme
Court review at the end of the process. If still more review
proceedings are to be made available following this process, they
should be confined to that compelling case of a defendant who
raises grounds that cast serious doubt on his factual guilt.
In addition, that one federal petition would have to be filed
within 180 days of the appointment of counsel for collateral
remedies, and would have to be given priority consideration by the
federal courts, both at the federal district level and court of
appeals level.
CHARLES RODMAN CAMPBELL - WASHINGTON
In 1974, Charles R. Campbell violently assaulted Renae
Wicklund, a young mother, in her home in Clearview, Washington.
During the assault, Campbell forced Renae to submit to acts of
sodomy by holding a knife to the throat of her one-year-old
daughter, Shannah. After the attack, Renae sought help from a
neighbor, Barbara Hendrickson.
In 1976, Campbell was convicted of first degree assault and
sodomy and sent to prison. Both women testified against him at
the trial.
Six years after that trial, and eight years after the
original attack, Campbell was transferred from prison to a work
release facility not far from the Wicklund home. The next month,
on April 14, 1982, Campbell returned to the home of Renae
Wicklund. Renae was home sick that day from work. The same
neighbor from whom Renae had sought assistance eight years
earlier was at the Wicklund house that afternoon, helping care
for Renae and her daughter, Shannah, then eight years old.
When the neighbor, Barbara Hendrickson, did not return to
her house after more than two hours, her husband went over to the
Wicklund home. The gruesome sight he saw there was far worse
than most of us could ever imagine, and certainly worse than any
person should ever have to see.
The two women, and the young girl, had each been assaulted,
beaten and killed. Renae had been beaten on the head, back and
upper chest area. Her jaw and nose were broken, and she had been
strangled. She bled to death from a seven inch cut across her
neck which had severed both carotid arteries. After her death,
a blunt object was used to tear a one inch cut into the upper end
of the vaginal wall, where sperm was also found, although proof
of rape was not established at trial.
The young girl had been the second victim. She had also
been strangled and had died from a seven and a half inch incision
across her upper neck. The neighbor, too, had a seven inch upper
neck cut and had bled to death. And the earrings of both Renae
and Barbara had been ripped out of their right ear lobes.
A few days after the homicides, Campbell was arrested and
charged with three counts of aggravated first degree murder. The
state's case against him was overwhelmingly strong: he had
stolen a six inch butcher knife from his girlfriend the day
before, he and his car were spotted near the Wicklund house on
the day of the crimes, earrings and items from the Wicklund home
were recovered from an area Campbell went to the evening after
the crime, one of Shannah's earrings was recovered from
Campbell's car, and Campbell's fingerprints were discovered on a
glass in the Wicklund home.
- 2 -
In November of 1982, the jury convicted Campbell of three
counts of aggravated first degree murder and he was sentenced to
death. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the conviction
and sentence on review in 1984. The U.S. Supreme court denied
certiorari in 1985. Two weeks prior to his scheduled execution
date, Campbell filed a motion to stay the execution with the
Washington Supreme Court. It was denied. Campbell then filed
two petitions in the federal court: one for a writ of habeas
corpus and one for a stay of execution. The federal district
court denied both. Campbell appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, which denied both petitions. The U.S. Supreme Court
again denied cert.; Campbell's petition for rehearing to the U.S.
Supreme Court was then denied. Campbell has since filed a second
federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Since his conviction and sentence nine years ago, none of
Campbell's appeals have ever been upheld by a court, state or
federal. Yet Campbell continues to manipulate the court system
to his advantage by filing appeals which, to date, have served no
purpose other than to allow him to evade his sentence and to
bring additional misery to the surviving family members of the
victims.
The victims' families live every day knowing that the man
who brutally assaulted and murdered their loved ones, and who was
sentenced to death by a court of law, continues to live.
Criminals, not justice, are best served by this type of system.
The President's Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of 1991,
building upon the recent Supreme Court opinion in McCleskey,
would limit capital defendants to one federal habeas corpus
petition in all but the most unusual cases and remedy the current
problems of delay and repetitive litigation in capital cases.
DONALD DUFOUR -- MISSISSIPPI
The growing number of violent crimes in American cities has
caused citizens of our great land to cry out, on behalf of the
police, for greater assistance in the war against crime. In
particular, the trend towards an increased use of violence during
the commission of other crimes has underscored the pressing need
for an effective deterrent against even the most dangerous
criminals. Men like Donald Dufour, who viciously murdered innocent
citizens in order to rob them of a few cents, might forego the
killing if they thought that society might require their lives as
recompense. Congressional inaction to the travesty of justice
perpetuated daily by federal court delay in adjudicating habeas
corpus petitions, and our unwillingness to reform death penalty
procedures by adopting the habeas corpus reform provisions of S.
635, has removed this powerful deterrent from our arsenal. Today,
9 years after he killed his victims and received the death sentence
in Mississippi, Donald Dufour sits on death row, mainly because a
federal district court has failed to perceive Mississippi's urgent
need for this deterrent.
At around midnight on Oct. 13, 1982, Donald Dufour and his
accomplice Robert Taylor drove into Jackson, Mississippi, after a
day on the road from Florida. They stopped in front of a "gay
bar," which Dufour entered. Taylor followed several minutes later.
When Taylor entered, Dufour informed him that the two of them were
going to rob two bar patrons, Earl Wayne Peebles and a man named
King. Within the hour, the four men left the bar and proceeded to
Peebles' apartment where they began to undress.
Upon locating the kitchen, Taylor found knives and
screwdrivers to use as weapons in the robbery. He then threw a
china cup against the wall to create a diversion. When Peebles and
King entered the kitchen, Taylor gave Dufour a knife. While Taylor
stabbed King with a screwdriver, Dufour killed Peebles with three
knife wounds to the chest. However, before Dufour killed Peebles,
he asked Peebles the whereabouts of Peebles' money. Peebles told
Dufour that he kept his money was kept in the trunk of his car.
After the murders, while Taylor showered to remove King's blood,
Dufour removed all of the money from Peeble's pants and from the
car. When the two were finally apprehended, Taylor related these
events to the police.
A Mississippi jury convicted Donald Dufour of the murder of
Earl Wayne Peebles, committed during the course of a robbery, and
he received the death sentence. The Mississippi Supreme Court
affirmed the conviction and sentence in 1984. In 1987, the federal
district court granted a stay of execution so that it could fully
adjudicate Dufour's first habeas corpus petition. Four years
later, the district court has yet to act on that petition.
By setting a strict 180-day limit in the Federal District
Courts and Federal Courts of Appeals for the review of habeas
corpus petitions filed by death row inmates, Title II, subtitle B
of S. 635, the "Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of 1991"
precludes federal courts from inexplicably delaying the execution
of death sentences, thereby effectively "harboring" death row
inmates as fugitives from justice. It is time for Congress to heed
America's cry for deterrence of violent crime by enacting S. 635.
EMILE PIERRE DUHAMEL - TEXAS
Frustrated by the lengthy, often inexplicable delays that
characterize federal review of habeas corpus petitions filed by
death row inmates, several Federal Courts of Appeals judges have
recently observed that "justice delayed is justice denied." As my
colleagues from Texas should know, Emile Pierre Duhamel's capital
murder case provides yet another example of "justice denied" by the
federal habeas corpus system.
On July 1, 1984, a 9 year-old girl approached Emile Pierre
Duhamel as he shopped for beer at a local convenience store. The
girl asked Duhamel if she could have the puppy that Duhamel had
brought with him to the store. Duhamel responded negatively since
the puppy belonged to his girlfriend. The little girl repeated her
request for the puppy numerous times as she followed Duhamel around
town, and then wandered several blocks with him towards his trailer
house. Duhamel described what happened next:
The little girl[]
kept following me
and I grabbed her by the shoulder and hit
her with my closed fist and kept on hitting
her and I noticed she had passed out[.] I
remember also choking her and after I chocked
[sic] she did not seem to have anymore [sic]
life in her. She was dead by this time. I
then removed her panties and afterwards I
don't remember. I drank some more beer there
where the body laid.
After drinking the beer and smoking some
cigarettes I wondered [sic] off into the field
and then made my way back to the trailer
through an orchard.
Medical experts found traces of semen and corn leaves inside the
victim's body. Pubic hair matching the defendant's was also found.
The autopsy concluded that the girl had been strangled and sexually
assaulted with a blunt object.
In May, 1985, Duhamel was convicted by a Texas state jury of
intentionally and knowingly causing death in the course of
committing aggravated sexual assault, and was sentenced to death.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Duhamel's capital
sentence on direct appeal in 1986. In 1989, the federal District
Court granted a stay of execution so that it could more adequately
review Duhamel's first federal habeas corpus petition. Two years
later, and for no apparent reason, the District Court still has not
completed its review. Until the District Court lifts its stay of
execution, the state of Texas, and the court which has authority
to punish this heinous crime, may not carry out its legally imposed
capital sentence. Duhamel remains alive on death row seven years
after he brutally murdered a little girl whose only mistake was
- 2 -
falling in love with his puppy.
By setting a strict 180-day limit in the Federal District
Courts and Federal Courts of Appeals for the review of habeas
corpus petitions filed by death row inmates, Title II, subtitle B
of S. 635, the "Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of 1991"
precludes federal courts from inexplicably delaying the execution
of death sentences, and from operating as de facto sanctuaries from
justice for death row inmates who have been legitimately tried,
convicted, and sentenced to death in state courts. Just as
Americans clamored for immediate foreign justice when they learned
of the innumerable atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein in the
war with Iraq, Americans entreat Congress to promote justice at
home by removing federal barriers to the swift enforcement of
state-imposed death penalties against those who commit domestic
atrocities. It is time for Congress to heed this cry by enacting
S. 635.
SON H. FLEMING - GEORGIA
On February 11, 1976 Son Fleming borrowed a red and white Ford
car from a friend. That evening, a grocery store in Cook County,
Georgia was robbed by two black males using a nickel-plated .22
revolver. The men were identified as Fleming's nephew and Henry
Willis. Shortly after the robbery, Ray City police chief James
Giddens saw the red and white Ford and gave chase. Minutes later,
Chief Giddens' police car was found abandoned near Ray City. Soon
thereafter, the red and white Ford was stopped and its occupants -
Fleming, his nephew, and Willis -were arrested. Chief Giddens'
.357 magnum pistol, a nickel-plated .22 revolver and the money
stolen from the grocery store were found in the car. Chief
Gidden's body was later found in a pond in Lanier County. He had
been shot several times. Powder burns and the pattern of ratshot
from the .22 pistol indicated that some of the shots had been fired
from closer than 18 inches from Giddens' face.
After his arrest, Fleming denied any involvement in the
robbery or murder. Later, he told a fellow inmate that he had
driven the car during the robbery and that he had been the first
to shoot Giddens as he ran off, trying to escape from the three
men. However, Fleming denied shooting Giddens to death as he stood
wounded and helpless in the water.
In 1977 Fleming was convicted of murder and sentenced to death
by a Georgia jury. It has been fourteen years since he has been
sentenced, but Fleming has still not been executed.
In addition to eight attacks of his sentence and/or conviction
at both the state and federal levels, Fleming has filed two federal
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. The first was denied in
1983 by the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, and
affirmed in 1984 by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. A year
later, the Eleventh Circuit denied Fleming's petition for a
rehearing. Fleming's petition for a writ of certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court was denied in 1986.
Later that year, Fleming filed his second federal habeas
corpus petition. It was promptly denied by the district court.
Again, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial in 1988.
Now Fleming is trying to take advantage of a new Georgia
statute forbidding the execution of mentally retarded inmates, by
appealing the denial of his second state habeas corpus petition on
the grounds that he is mentally retarded. He has not raised such
a claim at any time earlier during his fourteen year journey
through the courts.
Passage of the President's Comprehensive Crime Control Act of
1991 would prevent the routine multiple filings of habeas corpus
petitions in the federal courts and sets definite time limits of
180 days for determining habeas petitions and related appeals.
ROBERT ALTON HARRIS - CALIFORNIA
The case of multiple murderer Robert Alton Harris reveals some
shocking and unfortunate truths about the Nation's criminal justice
system. Few other capital cases in the nation better illustrate
the desperate need for federal habeas corpus reform.
In 1978, while on parole from a jail sentence for voluntary
manslaughter, Robert Alton Harris decided to steal a get-away car
to use in a bank robbery. He and his brother approached two
teenage boys, aged 15 and 16, who were sitting in a car eating
hamburgers, and forced them at gunpoint to drive to a rural area.
When they arrived, Harris told both boys he wouldn't hurt them if
they walked away from the car, and agreed not to identify him. As
they walked away, Harris shot one boy repeatedly in the back.
After a chase, Harris found the other boy crouching and screaming
in the underbrush, begging for his life. He shot this boy four
times, returned to the first boy, and shot him several more times.
Harris then returned to the car, ate the dead boys' hamburgers,
chided his brother for not having the stomach to do the dirty work,
and proceeded to rob a bank later that day. Harris and his brother
were arrested soon after and both men confessed, repeatedly, to the
crimes.
Robert Alton Harris had a jury trial, at which he was afforded
all the requisite constitutional protections: he had a lawyer; he
had a psychiatric examination; he had an opportunity to bring
mitigating evidence to the attention of the jury in an effort to
persuade them not to impose the death penalty. He testified at the
trial -- as was his right- and pleaded not guilty.
On March 6, 1979, a jury convicted Harris of two counts of
first degree murder, kidnapping, robbery, receiving stolen
property, and possession of a concealable firearm by an ex-felon.
At the sentencing stage, Harris again confessed to the crimes. He
was sentenced to death. In 1981, the California Supreme Court
affirmed the convictions and the sentence of death on direct
appeal.
In the ten years since that time, Harris has filed eight state
habeas corpus petitions and three federal habeas corpus petitions.
Harris' lawyers have made numerous arguments, including that the
California death penalty statute was unconstitutional; that the
penalty was applied so as to discriminate against males; that he
had been denied effective assistance of counsel; that he had been
denied proper psychiatric evaluations. To this date, none of these
claims have been found to be meritorious.
The facts on which Harris bases his latest federal habeas
petition -- his third -- have been known Harris' lawyers for years,
yet this "new claim" was not presented to the federal courts until
eight days before his scheduled execution, thus insuring the latest
delay. Because of these repetitious delays, Robert Alton Harris
- 2 -
has successfully evaded the punishment that a California jury
decreed for him 12 years ago.
This abuse of our criminal. justice system must stop. The Bush
Administration has submitted legislation to Congress that would
guarantee full and fair appeal and collateral review of any death
sentence. No longer would defendants be able to systematically
manipulate the habeas corpus process at the expense of the state
in order to delay the imposition of their sentences.
This legislation would strike a much needed balance between
the defendant's right to appeal and the state's need for finality.
No one can credibly claim that justice is served by a system where
punishment is never final, where issues unrelated to guilt or
innocence are litigated again and again, and abuse of the
litigation process through last minute filings is actually
rewarded. Due process of law requires that at some point the
process come to rest with finality. The Bush Administration
proposal promises a just beginning, and ending, to this process.
ANTONIO JAMES -- LOUISIANA
Sitting on death row in Louisiana, Antonio James has
established himself as the ultimate fugitive from justice, having
avoided, so far, ten dates with the executioner going as far back
as 1983. Most recently, on March 12, 1991, the Federal Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied James' third federal habeas
corpus petition. However, as of April 12 of this year, James
remains on death row.
On New Year's Day, 1979, James murdered seventy-two year old
Henry Silver, as Mr. Silver stepped out of his car in front of his
home. James had placed a gun to Silver's head and demanded
Silver's money. When Silver yelled for help, James put the barrel
of the gun under Silver's right ear, fired a shot into Silver's
head, and then rifled through Silver's pockets. James took
Silver's wallet and drove away in a waiting car. The wallet
contained $35. The police arrested James on January 26, 1979 when
he bungled another robbery attempt and was shot with his own gun.
In December, 1981, James was convicted of first degree murder for
Silver's killing, and sentenced to death.
The procedural odyssey which has become James' death row
legacy had just begun. On direct appeal, while all courts have
affirmed his conviction, James' sentence has been overturned, and
he has been resentenced, twice, most recently in March, 1982. The
Louisiana Supreme Court upheld James' conviction and this final
sentence on April 4, 1983. Louisiana set the first execution date
for September of that year.
In all, the federal courts have issued five of James' ten
stays of execution, yet have never granted James relief on the
merits of his petitions. In July, 1984, James filed his first
fully adjudicated federal habeas corpus petition. The district
court granted a stay of execution, then denied James' claims on
October 17, 1985. James then petitioned the district court for a
new trial. On November 26, 1985, the district court granted a
second stay of execution to consider that petition, but ultimately
denied the motion ten months later on September 17, 1986. James
appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted another stay of execution
to consider his petition. The Court affirmed the district court
in 1987. On February 10, 1989, James brought yet another federal
attack on his conviction. The district court granted a stay of
execution and, on September 19, 1989, again denied James' claims.
Finally, the district court granted another stay of execution to
allow James to appeal its decision to the Fifth Circuit. On March
12, 1991, the Fifth Circuit denied James' most recent habeas corpus
petition.
Antonio James provides a classic illustration of the problems
with current habeas corpus procedure. He killed a woman 12 years
ago, and has been a fugitive from justice ever since. His case
classically illustrates the desperate need for reform of habeas
corpus in the federal courts. If Title II, Subtitle B, of the
President's "Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of 1991" had
been in effect when James was convicted and sentenced, he would
have been required to file his sole federal habeas corpus petition,
absent unusual circumstances, within 180 days from the date on
which counsel was appointed to represent him in state collateral
proceedings. The effect of this rule would have been to allow
James 90 days to file a state habeas corpus petition, and if relief
was denied, 90 days to file a federal habeas petition. During this
time, counsel would have been provided to him by the state. A stay
of execution would be granted automatically during this review
process, and would expire only after the state court, federal
district court and the court of appeals had finished their reviews.
Under the President's bill, those courts would have had 180
days each to render a decision. Once the stay of execution
expired, no federal court would have had the authority to grant a
second, let alone a fifth, stay of execution unless James presented
new grounds for relief which were not previously presented through
no fault of his own, and which would undermine the court's
confidence in the conviction. Under such a standard, James' first
petition in federal court in 1984-1985 would have been his last.
Instead, he has managed to cheat death, justice, and the state of
Louisiana for six additional years. Congressional passage of the
habeas corpus reforms in the President's crime bill will prevent
criminals like Antonio James from making a mockery of the criminal
justice system.
NOLLIE LEE MARTIN - FLORIDA
The long delay and potential for abuse inherent in the current
federal habeas corpus process for death-row inmates is well
illustrated by the case of Nollie Lee Martin.
On June 25, 1977, after serving five years in prison for the
second degree arson killing of three people, Nollie Lee Martin and
his accomplice decided to rob a convenience store in Delray Beach,
Florida. They held up the store at knife point; their take was
ninety dollars, two cases of beer and the store clerk, college
student Patricia Greenfield. The men blindfolded Greenfield and
drove her to Martin's apartment, where each man raped her.
They then drove Greenfield to a dump in nearby Lantana where
twice Martin attempted to strangle her with a short piece of rope
and Greenfield twice recovered her breath. Martin finally stabbed
her to death.
Martin was later arrested on unconnected rape charges and made
a taped confession to the Greenfield murder. In 1978, a Florida
jury convicted Martin of first degree murder, kidnapping, armed
robbery, and forcible sexual battery, and sentenced him to death.
Thirteen years have passed and Martin still has not paid the price
for raping and murdering Patricia Greenfield.
Everyone is entitled to his day in court. So far, however,
since the completion of the direct appeal of his sentence, Martin
has initiated ten separate judicial proceedings. After exhausting
his state remedies, Martin filed two separate federal habeas corpus
petitions. In both instances, the federal district court denied
the petitions, characterizing the latter as failing on the merits
and an abuse of process. Martin appealed both petitions to the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the denials. He
also petitioned the United States Supreme Court for relief in both
cases and he again was denied relief.
How much longer should the victim's family have to tolerate
the thought that the defendant escapes his punishment by filing
repetitive appeals? How much longer should law abiding taxpayers
tolerate having to pay for the state to litigate these petitions,
where the factual question of guilt or innocence is not the issue?
How many appeals are enough, 5, 10, 20?
The Bush Administration's proposal will prevent successive
federal habeas corpus petitions which raise technicalities
unrelated to guilt or innocence. Rather, the Administration's
proposal will introduce the concept of finality to capital cases
like Martin's. At the same time, the Administration's proposal
will preserve the federal oversight of state court adjudication of
federal questions that is demanded by our system of federalism.
WARREN MCCLESKEY - GEORGIA
On May 13, 1978, Warren McCleskey and three accomplices
decided to rob the Dixie Furniture Store in Atlanta, Georgia.
McCleskey's job was to secure the front of the store while his
partner in crime entered through the rear, tied up the employees,
and stole the store's cash. Before all the employees could be tied
up, Police Officer Frank Schlatt, answering a silent alarm, arrived
at the store and entered through the front door. As he proceeded
down the center isle, McCleskey shot him twice, once in the face
and once in the chest. Officer Schlatt died from his injuries.
McCleskey was charged with murder. At his trial, a co-
defendant and jail inmate testified that McCleskey admitted
shooting the officer; his jail inmate, Offie Evans, testified that
McCleskey went so far as to boast that he would have shot his way
out of the store even in the face of a dozen policemen.
In December of 1978, a jury convicted McCleskey of murder and
sentenced him to death. Since his conviction, McCleskey has
pursued direct and collateral remedies for over twelve years; his
case has been reviewed and rejected by the Supreme Court of Georgia
three times, once on direct review and twice on state habeas corpus
petition. His first federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus
was rejected by the federal district court, the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. More importantly,
his second federal petition for writ of habeas corpus was rejected
by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 16, 1991, because the court, in
a landmark decision, decided his petition was an abuse of the writ.
The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that McCleskey's claim, some
of which appeared for the first time in federal court in his second
petition, could have been raised in his first federal petition.
Furthermore, McCleskey did not show cause which would excuse his
failure to raise those claims in his first federal petition, or
show that he would suffer prejudice resulting from the denial of
the review of his claims. Indeed, in McCleskey's case, the so-
called error he was complaining about, the admission of his
confession to a jail inmate, served to prove his guilt, rather than
dispute it!
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision in McCleskey only
addresses one of the areas of the federal habeas corpus petition
process that is subject to abuse. Delay in the habeas corpus
process, both in terms of the length of time it takes a defendant
to file and in length of time it takes a court to decide a case,
still pollutes the criminal justice system.
The President's Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of
1991 addresses all these concerns. It would require defendants to
file their federal habeas corpus petitions within 180 days of the
appointment of counsel for state collateral proceedings. It would
require defendants to consolidate all their claims in one federal
- 2 -
petition. Most of all, it would introduce a sorely lacking measure
of finality into the seemingly endless process of federal court
review of state court criminal adjudications.
DUNCAN PEDER MCKENZIE - MONTANA
In December of 1974, Duncan Peder McKenzie was convicted of
deliberate homicide and aggravated kidnapping of a 23 year old
rural schoolteacher, Lana Harding. In the seventeen (17) years
since the time of his conviction and resulting death sentence,
McKenzie has delayed the imposition of the death penalty by the
skillful manipulation of various appellate procedures in both the
state and federal courts. McKenzie's case has been in front of
the Montana Supreme Court four times, the U.S. Supreme Court
three times and gone through a full set of federal habeas corpus
procedures in the federal district courts and the Court of
Appeals. McKenzie has recently filed a second federal habeas
corpus petition which, conveniently, will further delay his
execution yet again.
FACTS:
On January 22, 1974, Lana Harding, a schoolteacher in rural
Montana, failed to appear for work. A drag trail was found from
her residence to a nearby road; the trail was littered with her
clothing and her blood. The next day her body was found, clothed
only in a shirt, sweater and bra. She had been severely beaten
and strangled, and had died from a blow to the head which split
open the right side of her skull.
The evidence pinpointing the defendant as the culprit was
overwhelming. He had just purchased a used truck and had boasted
to co-workers that he always initiated a vehicle by having sexual
intercourse in it. Several days earlier he had stated he had had
intercourse with schoolteachers; they were naive and easy, and he
could teach them things. He was seen driving to the victim's
residence on the evening of the day she was last seen alive. Her
blood and brain tissue were discovered in the bed of his pickup
truck. His bloody gloves were found near her body. A piece of
brass from the defendant's truck was found near the body.
Overshoes with her blood and brain tissue on them, the sole
prints of which matched the defendant's boots, were found near
the body. The body was found in the area of the defendant's work
place. The list went on.
At the time of the crime, McKenzie had been off parole for
just three months for a 1970 conviction for the crime of
aggravated assault on another woman. That woman was found
brutally beaten, clad only in a blouse, crawling alongside a
road.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
McKenzie's case has been considered by the Montana Supreme
Court four times: McKenzie I - 1976
McKenzie III - 1980
McKenzie II - 1978
McKenzie IV - 1981
- 2 -
McKenzie has appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court three
times.
1.
1977: U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and
remands to the Montana Supreme Court in light of
Patterson. (Conviction and sentence affirmed in
McKenzie II.)
2.
1979: U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and
remands to the Montana Supreme Court in light of
Sandstrom. (Conviction and sentence affirmed in
McKenzie III.)
3.
1980: U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
McKenzie's petition for state habeas corpus was denied.
McKenzie's first petition for federal habeas corpus relief was
dismissed by the federal district court. A panel of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in 1986.
McKenzie then petitioned for a rehearing en banc and it was
granted (1987) The dismissal of the federal habeas corpus
petition was affirmed again by the Ninth Circuit en banc (1988).
After fifteen years of state and federal court proceedings,
one could forcefully argue that McKenzie has received due process
of the law. And yet, since the exhaustion of his state remedies
and the exhaustion of the federal remedies of the first writ of
habeas corpus, McKenzie has been able to delay his sentence for
over three more years, because of the filing of a second federal
habeas corpus petition. This kind of abuse of our criminal
justice system must end
JIMMY NEUSCHAFFER - NEVADA
In August, 1981, Jimmy Neuschaffer murdered a fellow inmate,
apparently as a result of a dispute over prescription drugs. At
the time, Neuschaffer was serving two consecutive life sentences
without possibility of parole for the rape and murder of two
teenage girls. In April, 1983, Neuschaffer was convicted of this
latest murder and sentenced to death.
In the eight years since the death penalty was imposed on
him, Neuschaffer's case has been heard in at least twelve
separate proceedings (not including hearings for stays of
execution). Although no court -- indeed, apparently no single
judge -- has ever found any of his challenges to his conviction
or sentence meritorious, he has successfully manipulated the
system to avoid punishment for his crime. A brief review of the
proceedings in his case shows the need for reform.
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Neuschaffer's death
sentence in 1985. He filed a first, and then a second state
post-conviction petition that year. They were denied, and the
Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial. Neuschaffer then filed
a first federal habeas petition which was denied. The Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Neuschaffer did not seek
a petition for certiorari. Rather, he filed a third state
petition, which was again denied, a decision affirmed by the
Nevada Supreme Court. Initially, Neuschaffer decided not to file
a second federal habeas petition. The ACLU unsuccessfully sought
to intervene on his behalf to file one without his permission.
Then, shortly before his execution, Neuschaffer filed a second
federal petition. A stay of execution was granted, the petition
was considered and denied as an abuse of the writ. This time,
the Ninth Circuit reversed, not because it found that any of
Neuschaffer's arguments were meritorious, but rather because it
held that he could exhaust his claims one at a time in the state
courts, and seek federal review following exhaustion of each
claim. The court recognized that it was inviting repetitive
writs, but felt it was constrained by Ninth Circuit precedent.
The result is that nearly ten years after this convicted
rapist and double murderer murdered a fellow inmate, his case is
back in the state courts for the third time for post-conviction
review, notwithstanding that any court has ever found merit in
any of his claims. In the meantime, he has simply continued
serving the prison term he was already serving -- in effect, he
has avoided any punishment whatsoever for his most recent murder.
It is estimated that incarceration costs alone have exceeded
$120 000 since he was sentenced to death (over $50,000 since his
first federal habeas petition was denied).
BOBBY LEWIS SHAW - MISSOURI
Bobby Lewis Shaw is a twice convicted murderer who has been
on death row for more than 10 years for the 1979 stabbing death
of a prison guard. The Missouri Supreme Court has twice upheld
his conviction and the U.S. Supreme Court has denied his petition
for certiorari as well. The Federal District Court in the
Eastern District of Missouri denied his first petition for a writ
of habeas corpus in 1988 (affirmed by the 8th Circuit Court of
Appeals in 1990). Shaw has since filed a second petition for
habeas corpus relief in the federal courts, virtually
guaranteeing that his sentence will be delayed further.
Shaw was convicted of first degree murder for the 1975
shooting death of Calvin Morris. Morris was the father of a
child of one of Shaw's sisters and a frequent visitor to the Shaw
house. Shaw shot Morris in cold blood in the living room of the
Shaw house in the middle of the day. For this murder, Shaw was
sentenced to life imprisonment in the Missouri State
Penitentiary.
While he was serving his life sentence, Shaw was assigned
duties in the prison's vegetable preparation room. Shaw and
other prisoners were required to prepare fresh vegetables for the
kitchen penitentiary, using knives which were locked up and
checked out only for specific tasks.
On the morning of July 16, 1979, Shaw used the kitchen's two
butcher knives to stab Walter Farrow, a penitentiary corrections
officer. The stab wound was approximately seven inches deep; it
penetrated the chest wall, went between the ribs, pierced the
diaphragm and right lobe of the liver, and ended at the bottom of
the liver. It severed the hepatic artery which supplies blood to
the liver; as a result approximately 3/4 of Farrow's blood
drained into the body cavity. Farrow died of blood loss about an
hour after the stabbing.
Immediately after stabbing Farrow, Shaw ran down a hall and
stabbed another prison official, who was also the prison warden's
uncle, severely injuring him. At trial, Shaw's actions were not
disputed although his motive for the stabbing was unclear;
evidence suggested that Shaw was promised money for the stabbing.
For this crime, Shaw was convicted of capital murder and
sentenced to death by a jury trial. Although this heinous crime
occurred over ten years ago, Shaw remains on death row in
Missouri and is not immediately threatened by his death sentence,
thanks to the filing of his second federal habeas petition.
Shaw was entitled to appeal his conviction for this murder
to the Missouri Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. He did
so and was denied relief. Shaw was also fully entitled to
petition the federal court in Missouri for a writ of habeas
- 2 -
corpus to review the trial record for constitutional violations.
He did so and was denied relief. He appealed that denial and was
again denied relief.
His second petition for a writ of habeas corpus is now
pending in the federal district court. How many federal
petitions should Shaw be entitled to after he has exhausted his
state remedies? The President believes the competing interest of
due process and finality are best served by guaranteeing
prisoners one petition for federal habeas corpus relief absent
unusual circumstances such as the discovery of new evidence of
the trial or obstruction of justice by the state's withholding of
evidence.
Accordingly, title II of the President's Comprehensive
Violent Crime Control Act of 1991 (S. 635) would limit death row
inmates to one federal habeas corpus petition and require a
strict 180-day limit in the Federal District Courts and Federal
Courts of Appeals within which death row inmates must file their
habeas corpus petitions after the appointment of counsel for
collateral review. This bill would apply the rule of law in 37
states, that those who kill must be prepared to pay with their
life, to those convicted of brutal murders such as Bobby Lewis
Blair.
DOYLE J. WILLIAMS - MISSOURI
Doyle J. Williams was convicted in Clay County, Missouri of
capital murder in 1981 for the pre-meditated murder of Kerry
Brummett. It has been almost eleven years since Williams
committed this brutal crime and ten years since he was sentenced
to death. Yet, because Williams has been able to clog the state
and federal court system with repetitive appeals, including his
recently filed third petition for a writ of federal habeas
corpus, he runs little risk of being executed in the near future.
Like many capital defendants nationwide, Williams has learned how
to manipulate the court system so as to delay, and deny, justice.
In the fall of 1980, Doyle Williams and an accomplice, John
Morgan, robbed a doctor's office in Auxvasse, Missouri. Williams
then attempted to forge a prescription for a controlled substance
with forms obtained in the robbery. Williams was arrested and
charged with fraud. In an attempt to beat the fraud charge,
Williams decided to murder the doctor whose office had been
burglarized, in the mistaken belief that by preventing the doctor
from testifying that he had not signed the prescription form, the
fraud charge would be dropped. The doctor's bullet-ridden body
was found on August 11, 1980. Williams was eventually convicted
of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison without the
possibility of parole for fifty years.
On or about the date of the doctor's murder, Williams and
his burglary accomplice, Morgan, also decided to kill Morgan's
roommate, Kerry Brummett, who could tie Williams to the burglary.
Morgan's girlfriend lured Brummett to a remote location on the
pretense of a date. Williams and Morgan were waiting for them;
when they arrived, Williams severely beat Brummett and hand-
cuffed him. Brummett realized he was about to be killed and
attempted to flee by running into the nearby Missouri River,
where he promptly sank. When he resurfaced for air, gunshots
were fired at him. He soon died of drowning. For this crime,
Williams was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
That was in 1981. In the ten years that have passed,
Williams has exhausted his state remedies, and has been denied
relief in two federal habeas corpus petitions. A petition for
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on the second habeas corpus
petition was just denied in February of this year (1991)
Williams has recently filed a third petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in the federal courts.
How many more petitions should a twice convicted murderer be
allowed to file before we are satisfied that he has been afforded
all the due process rights guaranteed to him in the U.S.
Constitution? Williams' claims are not based on new evidence;
they are the same claims he has been making for ten years.
The President's proposal to reform federal habeas corpus
- 2 -
petitions in capital cases, as contained in the Comprehensive
Violent Crime Control Act of 1991, Title II, subtitle B (S. 635) ,
is fair and straightforward. Only one federal habeas corpus
petition is allowed, absent certain specific and unusual
circumstances. This proposal would introduce a much needed
measure of finality into his system and stop violent offenders
from making a mockery of our federal habeas corpus system.
In addition, by setting a strict 180-day limit in the
Federal District Courts and Federal Courts of Appeals for the
review of habeas corpus petitions filed by death row inmates, the
federal courts would be precluded from inexplicably delaying the
execution of death sentences, and from operating as de facto
sanctuaries from justice for death row inmates who, pursuant to
the will of the people in 36 states, have been tried, convicted,
and sentenced to death.
P.01
-21-91 TUE 12:46 OPD
2
CH PRO DOMINA JUSTITIA
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
10th St. and Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, D. C. 20530
Tele-Fax Number: 514-8639
TO:
Beth Hinchlitte
FAX:
(202)456-6218
Additional Message:
FROM:
Brock Brower
DIRECT DIAL:
456-2930.
Number of Pages (excluding this page):
Date:
May 21 1991
continuation
of
12/6/61
II.
one of the first obstructions we run into - in law
enforcement today -- is delay. Let me illustrate this by
addressing the average seven-to-eight-year delays over imposition
of the death penalty. I realize the death penalty is not an
easy, or pleasant, subject, and many remain opposed as a matter
of principle. But legally, that debate is over. since the
Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality, 37 states along with
the federal government have legalized the death penalty.
Federal law allows capital punishment for only the most
serious crimes -- among them, presidential assussination,
airplane hijacking resulting in death, and fatal acts of
terrorism. The President's Crime Bill would extend these capital
offenses to include further modern-day savageries -- for example,
hoinous drug crimes, such as the murder of witnesses or trial
judges ordered by drug lords, or the reckless homicide randomly
incident to armed drug warfare.
Save for a few, however, federal death penalty statuted are
presently inoperative. They languish for lack of Congressional
action to provide constitutional procedures implementing the
death penalty. Clearly, Congress should take steps to end this
charade of laws on the books that cannot be enforced.
- 5 -
MAY-21-91 TUE 12:46 OPD
P.02
But there is more. The death penalty is also tied up by
endless court appeals. The other day Texas Attorney General Dan
Morales came by to tell me that their most recent executions in
that state had been delayed by ten and fifteen years,
respectively, by repetitive resort, usually for manifestly
inadequate cause, to the writ of habeas corpus.
Let me citc a particularly grievous case from the State of
washington. In 1974, Charles R. Campbell violently assaulted a
young mother named Renae Wicklund, holding a knife to her one-
year-old daughter's throat during his brutal acts. After the
attack, Renae sought help from her neighbor, Barbara Hendrickson.
Both testified against Campell, who was sent to prison for rape
in 1976.
Six years later, Campbell was transferred to a work release
facility near the Wicklund home. on April 24, 1982, he went back
there to find Renac sick at home, with her daughter, now eight,
and neighbor Barbara Hendrickson helping care for her. Midst
unspeakable brutalities, he slit all three of their throats.
Campbell was sentenced to death in November of 1982. But
today, nine years later, he is still on Washington's death row.
Both the victims' families -- the surviving Wicklunds and
Hendricksons -- are left to wonder why his life goes unforfeited,
- 6 -
MAY-21-91 TUE 12:46 OPD
P.03
how a ceaseless filing of appeals can paper him off from meeting
his just fate.
Only two weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled, six to three,
against such continued abuses. In McCleskey V. Zant, the Court
held second and subsequent appeals to the writ of habeas corpus
to far tighter restrictions, Justice Kennedy aptly noting,
"Perpotual disrespect for the finality of convictions disparages
the entire criminal justice system."
But the President's Crime Bill incorporates further
recommendations made by a commission chaired by former Justice
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. that would end this abuse altogether. If
Congress acts, the condemned will be limited to one timely appeal
to the Supreme Court, all his rights fully represented by
competent, court-appointed counsel, and protected by safeguards
against any racial bias. The condemned man would, to be sure,
have his day in court, but so would justice itself -- either way
-- be sooner, and finally, done.
III.
But there is a larger fault in the criminal law -- not one
of delay, but of deliberate cmission. I am speaking of the so-
called Exclusionary Rule, which requires that evidence be omitted
altogether from the prosecutor's case, when such evidence has
- 7 -
Ido
12:47
TUE
I6-IZ-OW
been obtained by law enforcement in ways challengeable under the
Fourth Amendment.
Back in 1926, Judge Cardozo famously ruled for the State of
New York: "The criminal is not to go free because the constable
has blundered." In the early 1960's, a bare majority of the
United States Supreme Court appeared, instead, to hold the
blunder a greater evil than the crime. But in United States V.
Leon, the Court made a 'good faith" exception for searches
requiring a warrant, asking, sensibly, how the constable would be
deterred from a wrongful search if he were entirely unconscious
of his blunder?
The Prosident's Crime Bill extends the Court's Leon ruling
to cover all searches and seizures challengeable under the Fourth
Amendment, 30 long as the policeman aots in good faith.
Remember, our police are often suddenly at the dangerous
scene of the crime -- particularly in drug and firearms cases -
forced to make split-second decisions to survive themselves, and
make the arrest, and haul in the evidence. How in fairness can
judges, over months of reflection, equitably second-guess a law
officer's good faith on-the-spot decision, made at a moment of
peril?
- 8 -
- MAY-21-91 TUE 12:47 OPD
But beyond that, not only can the constable's blunder let
the criminal go free. sometimes, even when the constable
ponders, the criminal goes free. Let me cite Sergeant J.J.
Brennan's experience, as a member of a Washington, D.C. drug
squad. At the Greyhound Bus station, Sergeant Brennan and his
men had seized as bag that they believed was likely to contain
cocaine. They consulted together, and decided the circumstances
probably required at warrant to search the bag. They called the
local prosecutor's office, and an experienced, seasoned lawyer
told them they didn't need a warrant. They opened the bag, and
sure enough, found a large supply of cocaine.
only, guess what? The federal judge ruled the evidence
inadmissable. Sergeant Brennan had acted in good faith - even
in contradiction of his own better instincts. That kind of
thoughtful, law-abiding police work should be rewarded, not
punished, and the President's Crime Bill would assure that such
evidence always survives in court.
IV.
Beyond these statutory reforms, there are other, more far-
reaching aspects to our right to be free of fear. Too often we
hear critics say that America is a violent society. We have
always resorted to violence, runs their argument, which once
moved lawlessly westward, and now surges back into our urban
- 9 -
MAY-21-91 TUE 12:48 OPD
canyons with the vicious venturism of the drug wars. While
understanding some of this criticism, I cannot accept that
regressive view of our communities. Like the President, I see us
as a law-abiding society, undeservedly plagued by violcnce. And
I believe that violence -- far from being part of our nature --
is a criminal force that denatures our very freedoms.
I do not believe we need live today by yesterday's Law of
the Six Gun. Our problems may include too many guns, but rising
violence is caused by too many criminals, armed and dangerous and
pursuing their own lawless ends. That is why the President's
approach aims at all dangerous criminals and the life-threatening
ways they use guns, whatever their source.
Some of these felons -- a small number -- may be deterred by
the so-called Brady Bill and other point-of-purchase gun control
proposals. But there are serious drawbacks to efforts to
regulate over-the-counter sale of handguns. Today the records
needed to make the match-up of a potential firearms purchaser
with his possible criminal past do not adequately exist. To put
it bluntly, we couldn't come up with the needed facts, on a
consistent basic -- even within a mandated seven-day waiting
period.
And I very much want that changed. In fact, wa've already
begun to do so at a cost of some $40 million dollars -- to
- 10 -
MAY-21-91 TUE 12:48 OPD
bring the FBI's files and state criminal files into sync, so that
we can track down all those felons who pose the greatest threat
to our society.
But let me warn you of something we cannot change. We
cannot change the disturbing but undeniable fact that today only
one out of six felons actually purchases his weapon at a sporting
goods store. we cannot change where five out of six murder
weapons actually come from -- the rampant, illegal, underground
black market in deadly arms.
We can, however, take more effective action to deal with
this rogue's gallery of armed felons who would be little deterred
by any gun control measure. Such criminals should be physically
rounded up, along with their illegal arms. Taking these
desperados and their firearms off the streets is exactly what we
are doing, right this moment, through Operation Triggerlock.
We launched Triggerlock last month, on my orders that every
U.S. Attorney assign a designated prosccutor to work with local
authorities to target criminals in their district who can be
charged under the Armed Career Criminal Act. What does this
mean? It means that those with three prior state falony
convictions for violent or drug offenses will be charged whenever
they are found in possession of a firearm. These may be hard
men, but they make easy marks. Under federal law, they can be
- 11 as
MAY-21-91 TUE 12:49 OPD
swiftly sentenced to 15 years -- no probation, no parole, no plea
bargaining, and no more problem to society.
And if Congress will pass new provisions of the President's
Crime Bill, these cases will be even easier and tougher. One
"prior" plus possession of a gun will send a felon away for five
years.
But there is one other provision of the President's Crime
Bill that is needed to close the noose on the armed career
criminal. The most important evidence to be brought into court
-- and off the street -- is the illegal gun itself. Therefore,
we are also proposing a specific exception to the Exclusionary
Rule for firearms. The seized weapon -- no matter how it was
obtained by law enforcement -- will stand as evidence. The
constable may be disciplined, but the firearm still goes to court
and to the jury.
Because the time has come -- in this grim and unequal
struggle for control over criminal violence -- for what I have
called an Inclusionary Rule. This will assure that the gun-
toting criminal will not go free because the court has blundered
by failing to allow his gun in evidence. And that is how we can
best assure the key really turns in Triggerlock.
12 -
60'd
12:49
TUE
I6-IZ-OW
That is also how to overcome the law's worst delay -- law
enforcement's failure, nationwide, to disarm these armed felons,
to confiscate their black-market arsenals and restore peace to
fearful neighborhoods. And our failure to clear our mean streets
of danger in any timely fashion good back to the delay of
Congress, over the past two years, to pass any Crime Bill worthy
of its name.
In terms of days, in light of the President's challenge, we
are even now past the halfway mark. so we must not let another
day pass without letting Congress know how far along they should
be -- and have yet to come -- in this urgent battle against
violent crime.
In terms of Good & Evil, this is, of course, not a new
terror. It was the old Testament prophet Ezekiel who intoned:
"The land is full of bloody crimes. And the city is full of
violence."
But the resolve to shield our communities from bloody crimes
and violence in these 1990s is very new, and very firm. We saw
it at the Crime Summit. I sense it in this legislative body
today, and I urge you to measure the President's proposals
against your own criminal laws. And you may very soon be able to
look them up in the federal statutes, for, in truth, I feel the
- 13 -
0110
MAY-21-91 TUE 12:50 OPD
Congress is at long last poised to take truly effcctive action
against violent crime.
Let us, together, then seize this moment so that even the
most vulnerable among us may walk abroad in the warmth of day, or
the comfort of the night, living free from fear -- and safe from
the armed and violent predator who today stalks too many of our
communities.
- 14 -
P.11
MAY-21-91 TUE 12:50 OPD
FBI ACADEMY
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
OF JUSTICE * * *
FEDERAL BUREAU BRAVERY OF DEPARTMENT
NEW AGENTS
TRAINING UNIT
FBI/DOJ
CONGRATULATIONS
FBI
WE TRAIN THE
BEST TO BE
THE BEST
From the
STAFF and FACULTY
of the
FBI ACADEMY
GRADUATING CLASS
PROGRAM
Osvaldo Alaniz
Edwin R. Lopez
Gerald D. Bell
Melaine B. Manteufel
Graduation Exercise
Jerry D. Bogard
Michael N. Matera
Aleta Bollinger
Rondie Peiscop-Grau
Ladislao Carballosa
Daniel K. Quinn
Mark P. Colgan
Martin D. Reardon
Jane M. Craig
Douglas Seccombe
New Agents Class
Jill A. Cumbey
Bryan S. Smith
Christopher W. Davis
William M. Soule
Beatrice A. DeFazio
Daniel J. Spielman
Tyrone K. Forte
John M. Sturrock
James A. Gagliano
David VanOsten
91 - 6
Mitchell P. Kanefsky
Michael L. Wineman
V.O. Little
Michael Luke Yepko
Anne E. Lonergan
May 30, 1991
Staff Counselor: Donald L. Peck
Field Counselors: Zechariah Shelton
Dale R. Monroe
PROGRAM
Call To Order:
ANTHONY E. DANIELS
Address:
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TRAINING DIVISION
Presentation
WILLIAM S. SESSIONS
of Badge and
DIRECTOR,
Invocation:
LT. CMDR. ROBERT F. MILEWSKI
Credentials:
FBI
CHC, USNR
Closing Remarks: WILLIAM S. SESSIONS
INTRODUCTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
DIRECTOR,
RICHARD THORNBURGH BY
FBI
WILLIAM S. SESSIONS, DIRECTOR, FBI
Benediction:
LT. CMDR. ROBERT F. MILEWSKI
INTRODUCTION OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH
CHC, USNR
BY ATTORNEY GENERAL
RICHARD THORNBURGH