Ralph Blumenthal reports in the New York Times, "Texas Ruling Signals Indefinite Halt to Executions."
Signaling an indefinite halt to executions in Texas, the state’s highest criminal appeals court late Tuesday stayed the lethal injection of a 28-year-old Honduran man who was scheduled to be put to death Wednesday.
The reprieve by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was granted a week after the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a form of lethal injection constituted cruel and unusual punishment barred under the Eighth Amendment. On Thursday, the Supreme Court stepped in to halt a planned execution in Texas at the last minute, and though many legal experts interpreted that as a signal for all states to wait for a final ruling on lethal injection before any further executions, Texas officials said they planned to move ahead with more.
As a result, Tuesday’s ruling by the Texas court was seen as a sign that judges in the nation’s leading death penalty state were taking guidance from the Supreme Court and putting off imminent executions.
The Texas court order gave state authorities up to 30 days to explain in legal papers why the execution of the inmate, Heliberto Chi, should proceed. With responses then certain from defense lawyers, the effect of the order was to put off the execution for months, lawyers said.
And:
Had the appeals court not halted the execution, Mr. Chi’s lawyers would have taken the case to the United States Supreme Court, which last Thursday stayed the execution for another Texas inmate, Carlton Turner Jr.
Bryan Stevenson, director of the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Ala., and a law professor at New York University, said the Supreme Court’s ruling was a sign that while it was reviewing the legality of lethal injection in a Kentucky case, “it was at least unseemly for states to be carrying out executions.”
Deborah Denno, a professor at Fordham Law School, called the latest stay in Texas significant. “I do think Texas is reaching a turning point,” Ms. Denno said. “It’s not unusual throughout the country, but it is unusual in Texas. And not uncommonly when people are talking about the death penalty, there’s Texas and everywhere else, because Texas seems to be in its own death penalty world.”
The Austin American-Statesman has, "Ruling could halt Texas executions." Let's focus on the section of the article on the CCA's refusal to consider a stay request last week.
The Chi ruling came as new details emerged about the Texas court's refusal to stay open past 5 p.m. on Sept. 25 so lawyers could file an appeal on behalf of death row inmate Michael Richard. The Supreme Court had accepted the lethal injection case earlier that day, and Richard's lawyers argued that the extra time was needed to respond to the new circumstances and to address computer problems that delayed the printing of Richard's motion.
Richard was executed later than night, and news of the court's refusal appeared in newspapers, and critical editorials, around the world.
Last week, court personnel declined to say who made the decision to close at 5 p.m.
It was revealed Tuesday that the decision was made by Presiding Judge Sharon Keller without consulting any of the court's eight other judges or later informing them about the decision — including Judge Cheryl Johnson, who was assigned to handle any late motions in Richard's case.
Johnson, who learned about the request to stay open past 5 p.m. in an Austin American-Statesman story, said her first reaction to the news was "utter dismay."
"And I was angry," she said. "If I'm in charge of the execution, I ought to have known about those things, and I ought to have been asked whether I was willing to stay late and accept those filings."
Johnson said she would have accepted the brief for consideration by the court. "Sure," she said. "I mean, this is a death case."
Judge Cathy Cochran said the Richard case raised troubling questions.
"First off, was justice done in the Richard case? And secondly, will the public perceive that justice was done and agree that justice was done?" Cochran said. "Our courts should be open to always redress a true wrong, and as speedily as possible. That's what courts exist for."
At least three judges were working late in the courthouse that evening, and others were available by phone if needed, court personnel said.
None of the judges was informed of Richard's request by Keller or by the court's general counsel, Edward Marty, who had consulted with Keller on the request.
Keller defended her actions, saying she was relating the court's longstanding practice to close on time.
"I got a phone call shortly before 5 and was told that the defendant had asked us to stay open. I asked why, and no reason was given," Keller said. "And I know that that is not what other people have said, but that's the truth. They did not tell us they had computer failure.
"And given the late request, and with no reason given, I just said, 'We close at 5.' I didn't really think of it as a decision as much as a statement," Keller said.
The Dallas Morning News has, "Arlington killer granted reprieve."
Attorneys for both the prosecution and defense said the stay signals a probable slowdown, if not a complete shutdown, of executions in Texas until the Supreme Court renders a decision in a pending case on the Eighth Amendment issue from Kentucky.
Mr. Chi, 28, was convicted in the 2001 murder of 56-year-old Armand Paliotta during a robbery of an Arlington men's clothing store. He was scheduled to die Wednesday.
Andre Keilen, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, which represented Mr. Chi, said she was encouraged "that the Texas Court did the right thing instead of waiting for another mandate from the Supreme Court."
Earlier in the day, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles declined both a request for commutation in the Chi case, as well as a request for a 180-day reprieve.
Governor Rick Perry has refused to enter the fray, saying the matter is for the courts to resolve and that he believes the procedure is proper.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has, "Gunman in Arlington case gets stay of execution."
In staying the execution, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered a hearing on how the process of lethal injection is carried out.
"We can now have a substantive debate on the manner in which we execute people in Texas," said David Dow of Houston, one of the lawyers seeking to spare Chi, a native of Honduras, from the execution that had been scheduled for Wednesday evening in Huntsville.
Dow, who represents the Honduran government, and Ball, who represents Chi, noted in separate filings to the Court of Criminal Appeals that the U.S. Supreme Court last week blocked the execution of Texas inmate Carlton Turner because the justices were preparing to consider whether any pain inflicted by the three-drug lethal cocktails used by most states that allow capital punishment violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The attorneys also pointed out that 10 states so far have suspended the practice of lethal injection amid concerns that the process masks intense suffering because one of the drugs paralyzes the condemned inmate in the minutes leading up to death. Texas, which leads the nation in the number of executions year in and year out, has no plans to suspend the use of lethal injection.
"Texas' absence from the list of 10 is glaring," Dow said in his brief submitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Houston Chronicle has, "Appeals court halts execution on Honduran man."
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Tarrant County District Attorney Tim Curry — whose office prosecuted Chi — have a month to "address the question of whether the current method of administering lethal injection in Texas constitutes cruel and unusual punishment such that the (TDCJ) would violate the Eighth Amendment," the order states.
The attorney general's office would respond on behalf of Nathaniel Quarterman, the director of TDCJ's Institutional Division, agency spokeswoman Michelle Lyons said.
Lyons added the prison system's long-standing position is that lethal injection "is constitutional and does not cause unwanton or unnecessary pain."
The next Texas execution is scheduled for Nov. 27, when convicted Arlington rapist-killer Dale Scheanette is set to die.
David Montague, staff attorney with the Tarrant County district attorney's office, which also is handling the Scheanette case, said Curry will continue to pursue death cases normally and that it's not entirely clear the Supreme Court has imposed a de facto temporary moratorium on lethal injection.
"I think I'd be very cautious about reading any more into what they're doing," he said.
The San Antonio Express-News also carries a version of the Chronicle report, "Execution postponed as legality considered."
Earlier, Nueces County District Attorney Carlos Valdez said his office would not seek the death penalty until the Supreme Court sorts out the legality of lethal injection.
"We're going to waive the death penalty until the Supreme Court gives us some direction," he said Tuesday. He said he would not interfere in the cases of the four Nueces County killers already on death row.
Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed could not be reached for comment.
Jefferson County District Attorney Tom Maness, who plans to keep operating as usual, said an appellate court climate that has recently given victories to capital punishment opponents demands that prosecutors be choosier in seeking the death penalty.
"I think it causes us to be more selective," Maness said, referring to recent abolitions on the death penalty for juveniles and the retarded. "It's hard to try one of these, so before we go spending monetary and (prosecutors') mental resources, we're going to make sure the case is absolutely, unequivocally deserving."
Comments