"Petition to President Clinton for Executive Clemency and Commutation of Death Sentence on Behalf of David Ronald Chandler"
John R. Martin

"Petition for Commutation of Sentence on Behalf of Juan Raul Garza" 
Bruce W. Gilchrist ( in PDF Format)

"Memorandum in Support of Petition for Clemency and Commutation of Death Sentence to Sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release on Behalf of Juan Raul Garza" 
Bruce W. Gilchrist ( in PDF Format)

"Second Supplement Memorandum in Support of Petition for Clemency and Commutation of Death Sentence to Sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release on Behalf of Juan Raul Garza" 
Bruce W. Gilchrist ( in PDF Format)

 

A Statement of Senator Feingold on the Federal Execution of Louis Jones, Jr.

March 18, 2003

Mr. FEINGOLD: "Mr. President, I want to take a moment to comment on the execution of Louis Jones, Jr., earlier today by the federal government.

Louis Jones was a highly decorated 22-year Army veteran, including service to our nation as an Army Ranger. He rose through the ranks to reach the top of enlisted personnel and retired with an honorable discharge in 1993 as a Master Sergeant. After serving on active duty in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield, Mr. Jones returned to the United States and began experiencing symptoms consistent with Gulf War Syndrome. He exhibited personality and behavior changes, including increased hostility, aggression, and a tendency to fixate irrationally.

In 1995, in a federal district court in Texas, Louis Jones, Jr., an African-American, was convicted and sentenced to death for the kidnaping and murder of an airwoman at Goodfellow Air Force Base in Lubbock, Texas. There is no question that Mr. Jones committed this horrific crime. Mr. Jones did not dispute his guilt. But what Mr. Jones requested, and what I believed he should have had, was further examination of his medical condition and its potential role in the crime he committed.

Evidence of his brain damage was not available at his trial, as scientific research about the effects of exposure to toxins during the Gulf War was still in its early stages. Since his trial, however, extensive research on Gulf War Syndrome and its symptoms has revealed brain damage as one possible result of exposure to toxins during the Gulf War. Dr. Robert Haley, one of the nation’s most renowned researchers and experts on Gulf War Syndrome, has now concluded that Mr. Jones’s symptoms were consistent with those of a subset of Gulf War Syndrome patients who were exposed to particularly toxic chemical agents during the Gulf War. Mr. President, had the jury known of Mr. Jones mental condition and that his condition was the result of service in the Gulf War, it is very possible that the jury would have returned a sentence other than death.

Mr. President, it is unconscionable that the federal government would execute a Gulf War veteran who displayed the symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome at the time of the crime, but was denied a fair opportunity to use this evidence to argue for a sentence other than death. Mr. President, on the eve of war, and especially on the eve of another war in the Persian Gulf region where more than 200,000 brave American men and women are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their nation, President Bush could have taken a small step for fairness and justice. He could have stayed the execution to allow further medical testing and examination.

I believe that President Bush should have done more. He should not have gone forward with this execution in the face of increasing concerns about the fairness of the federal death penalty system.

Today, more than two years after the U.S. Department of Justice released a survey showing geographic and racial disparities in the federal death penalty system, we still do not have an explanation of why who lives and who dies in the federal system appears to relate to the color of the defendant’s skin or the region of the country where the defendant is prosecuted. Attorney General Janet Reno was so disturbed by the results of this survey that she ordered a further, in-depth study of the results. Attorney General John Ashcroft pledged to continue that study, but we still await the results.

And while we await the results of this study, we have also learned that the Justice Department appears to be seeking the death penalty more aggressively in federal cases. Attorney General Ashcroft appears to be pursuing consistency in the application of the federal death penalty nationwide by seeking it more aggressively in jurisdictions where federal prosecutors have infrequently requested authorization from the Attorney General to seek the death penalty. In other words, he seems intent on making the federal system replicative of states that aggressively pursue the death penalty – states like Texas, which this week is scheduled to execute its 300th inmate in the modern death penalty era.

I am very concerned that the Attorney General’s apparent determination to increase death penalty prosecutions, including sometimes overriding decisions of local prosecutors, increases the risk that the federal government could execute an innocent person. Former federal prosecutors have said that “they need to take every last precaution to avoid the risk of condemning an innocent person to death.” Mr. President, last week I sent a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft expressing my grave concern about these issues and asking him to answer several questions about the Justice Department’s decision-making process in death-eligible cases. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to place a copy of that letter in the record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, there is no punishment in our criminal justice system more worthy of careful review and absolute certainty before we carry it out than capital punishment. Each time the federal government carries out the ultimate punishment while so many questions remain unanswered, it erodes confidence in the justice system. The case of Louis Jones, Jr., is no exception. His case is plagued by particularly troubling circumstances that also cast doubt on the fairness of the federal death penalty system. The existing cracks in our federal death penalty system seem to be widening, and new ones are appearing, further weakening the foundation of our justice system.

Today, with the execution of Mr. Jones, our federal criminal justice system has taken a step backward. Our goals of fairness and equal justice under law were not met, and the American people’s reason for confidence in our federal criminal justice system was diminished.

I urge my colleagues to support a temporary freeze on executions to allow a thorough, nationwide review of the fairness of the administration of the death penalty. I urge my colleagues to support the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor."

A Statement of Timothy Floyd, counsel for Louis Jones, Jr., following Mr. Jones' execution:

Louis Jones, Jr. died at approximately 7:00 a.m. on March 18, 2003.

It is a cruel irony that on the day that we go to war, the life of Sgt. Louis Jones, Jr., a consummate soldier, was ended at the hand of the government whom he proudly served -- the same government that failed to acknowledge the impact of nerve agents on Sgt. Jones, the brain damage that it caused, and the fact that jurors could not have known about this at the time of his trial.

As we mark his death, we need to remember his victim, Tracie McBride, and her family. They have suffered an unspeakable loss—a loss caused by Louis Jones. Louis Jones was put to death for a crime for which he accepted responsibility and experienced great remorse until the moment he died.

The act of lethal injection that ended Louis Jones’s life came after eight years of legal proceedings and enormous devotion of government resources to a single goal: ensuring his death as an act of retribution. It was a deliberate death carried out by the United States government—carried out on behalf of all Americans, including you and me. Lou acknowledged his guilt and would have pled guilty to a sentence of life without possibility of parole shortly after he was arrested in 1995. But our national system of capital punishment had targeted him, and the government spent eight years ensuring his death.

The execution of Louis Jones represents the failure of the federal government to understand and be accountable for the impact of nerve agents on the soldiers who are exposed to it in the service of their country—and on others who are affected by the damage done to those soldiers. It is a sad message that goes with our soldiers and their families—if you return from war damaged, the U.S. government won’t take responsibility for that damage and its consequences. Indeed, it may not even acknowledge it. And, it’s a frightening message for those who may be harmed because of the government’s failure to understand and to deal appropriately with the consequences of chemical warfare.

There was much more to Louis Jones’s life than the crime for which his life was ended. Louis Jones was a father, and he was a good one. He loved his daughter, Barbara, who was with him during the last day and night of his life. Barbara loved him and credits him with being a stabilizing force in her life, even during the last eight years while he was in prison. Barbara and her children are mourning the loss of a father and grandfather this morning.

Louis Jones was a soldier. He served honorably for 22 years as an Army Airborne Ranger, placing himself in harm’s way to protect our freedom. He retired as a Master Sergeant, one of the highest ranks attainable by an enlisted soldier, and was highly decorated, including recognition for combat service. It was during military service in the Gulf War that he was exposed to chemical weapons, including nerve gas. We now know that exposure caused brain damage and the resulting predisposition to violent behavior that provides a key piece of the puzzle of how a man of Louis Jones’s history and character could commit the crime he did.

As a soldier, he touched the lives of many, including those with whom he served and others who did not know him, but who knew of his story. In the last days and months, as we fought to save his life, veterans groups added their voices to those of politicians who called on President Bush to understand the link between Sergeant Jones’s military service and his crime--to avoid the senseless irony of the United States government’s putting a soldier to death for an act that might not have occurred but for his military service.

Louis Jones was a soldier in life and a soldier to the end. He understood that he had been sentenced to death for a brutal crime, and although he had a human desire for life, he accepted his punishment with strength and dignity--he faced his death as a soldier.

Louis Jones was a man of deep faith. He had put his trust in his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and had powerfully experienced God’s grace, forgiveness, and redemption. He lived out that faith the best way that he could from prison. Just as he did during his military service, he touched the lives of those around him during his eight years of confinement, including other inmates and many of the prison staff. And, he went to his death confident of God’s sustaining presence in his life. That confidence provided strength to those of us who were here to strengthen and support him.

I and others who knew him will remember Louis Jones as a father, soldier, friend, and man of faith. His execution should give us pause--and require all of us to ask whether, in executing a person like Lou Jones, we erode the compassionate mercy that is at the core of justice and diminish the quality of mercy that we all need to get along with each other and in the world.

A Statement of Gregory Wiercioch, counsel for Juan Garza, following Mr. Garza's execution:

Someday, this precise savagery will end. But not today. Someday, the Ashcroft Death Penalty Report will placed on the same shelf that holds the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson as a shameful attempt to justify the unjustifiable. But not today.

Someday, the United States will respect international law even when it requires us to alter our own practices. But not today.

Today, we bear witnesses to the expanding circle of victims and violence that the death penalty creates: Juan Garza's execution has left his four children fatherless. I do not have an answer when asked about the families devastated by Juan Garza's crimes. But I do know that this not the answer. I do know that justice does not demand death.

Today, President Bush had the last word. But he will not have the final say on the death penalty. History will.

 

A statement from attorney Robert Nigh upon the June 11 execution of his client, Timothy McVeigh:

At 7 a.m. this morning, we killed Tim McVeigh, the person responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. But we did much more than that. We also killed Sergeant McVeigh, the young man who joined the Army because he wanted to serve his country; the young soldier that was so dedicated to his duty that he became the top gunner in this battalion of 100.

He was the young man who took up arms on his country’s behalf and traveled half-way across the world to meet and engage our enemy. He placed his own life in jeopardy because we asked him to and because he thought it was his duty to do so.

His actions were of such character that he was awarded the Bronze Star with designation of valor.

But much more importantly than any of that, what we did this morning was to kill Tim McVeigh, friend to Bob Popovic, Allen Smith and Elizabeth McDermott. We killed Bill and Mickey’s son this morning. And we killed Jennifer McVeigh’s big brother.

Of course, we can say that it was Tim himself that caused their pain.

And we would be half-right. But it would be a lie to say that we did not double their pain and that we are not responsible, because there is a reasonable way to deal with crime that doesn’t involving killing another human being.

Although we might not express it in these terms because we know better, we might say that these people are simply collateral damage, but we know too well that there is no such thing as collateral damage. There are only real people with faces and names and loved ones who may never heal because of our actions, and that is true whether their grief was inflicted by Tim McVeigh or by federal law enforcement or by us collectively.

To the survivors in Oklahoma City who have had the courage to come out against capital punishment in spite of the tremendous pain they have suffered, I say thank you. To the victims in Oklahoma City, I say that I am sorry that I could not successfully help Tim to express words of reconciliation that he did not perceive to be dishonest. I do not fault them at all for looking forward to this day or for taking some sense of relief from it. But if killing Tim McVeigh does not bring peace or closure to them, I suggest to you that it is our fault. We have told them that we would help them heal their wounds this way.

We have taken it upon ourselves to promise to extract vengeance for them. We have made killing a part of the healing process. In order to do that we use such terms as reasoned moral response, but I submit there’s nothing reasonable or moral about what we have done today. That is true when killing a human being even means killing Tim McVeigh.

There was a time when we recognized this in our country. In 1972, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the death penalty as it existed at that time. In its concurring opinion in Furman v. Georgia, Justice Marshall wrote, "The measure of a country’s greatness is its ability to retain compassion in time of crisis."

"This is a country that stands tallest in troubled times; a country that clings to fundamental principles, cherishes its constitutional heritage and rejects simple solutions that compromise the values that lie at the roots of our democratic system. In striking down capital punishment, this court does not malign our system of government; on the contrary, it pays homage to it. In recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings, we pay ourselves the highest tribute. We achieve a major milestone in the long road from barbarism and join the approximately 70 other jurisdictions in the world which celebrate their regard for civilization and humanity by shunning capital punishment."

There has been a movement in the states to celebrate the dignity of human life and to start a moratorium on executions. It did not come soon enough for Tim McVeigh, but it can come soon enough for others.

Where we go from here is a question of critical importance. I have told you, honestly, that Tim cared for people. And some of the people he cared deepest about were his brothers on the federal death row. Even Tim recognized that our claims that we are not racially biased are false. If we believe that, then we ignore the reality that 18 of the 20 men behind me on the federal death row in Terre Haute are persons of color. Fully 90 percent belong to a minority. If we do not acknowledge that, we are lying to ourselves about what we are doing. We are killing the poor and the minority and the people that we believe to be different and lesser than ourselves.

Even in Tim McVeigh’s case, to which the racial disparity doesn’t apply, we were incapable of inflicting the death penalty in a fair manner.

The FBI could not participate in the prosecution without breaching its obligation to turn over the witness statements. This must make us realize that we are too fallible, we are simply too human to extract so final and irreversible a punishment.

If there is anything good that can come from the execution of Tim McVeigh, it may be to help us realize sooner that we simply cannot do this anymore. I am firmly convinced that it is not a question of if we will stop, it is simply a question of when.

 

Federal Executions and Race
by FDPRC

The above link is a chart providing information with respect to the 34 people executed by the United States government between 1927 and 1963, as well as a graphic representation of the race of those executed earlier in the century. 

Disposition of Federal Death Penalty Cases
by FDPRC

Since 1988, the federal government has taken to trial a total of 53 federal death penalty cases involving 87 defendants in 63 trials.  These 87 defendants were culled from larger pool of 211 against whom the Attorney General had authorized the government to seek the death penalty.  The majority of these 211 defendants avoided trial by negotiated plea, or when the government either dropped its request for the death penalty, or dismissed charges entirely.  Three were found not guilty of the capital charge.  Two were declared innocent.  One was granted clemency.  The dispositions of these cases, as of March 14, 2001 is summarized is the linked table below:

Graphical Representation of Racial Distribution in Federal Death Penalty Cases
by FDPRC

Of the total of 211 defendants against whom the Attorney General has authorized the government to request the death penalty, 53 have been white, 39 Hispanic, 12 Asian / Indian / Pacific Islander, 2 Arab and 105 African Americans. 158 of the 211 or 75%, of the defendants approved for a capital prosecution by three Attorney Generals to date are members of minority groups.  Seventeen of the twenty defendants now on federal death row under active death sentences, or 85%, are non-white.  A graphical representation of this racial distribution is in the table below.