www.texas-justice.com  

 

September 24, 2002

Open Letter to:

Supreme Court Justices

Governors of the Fifty States

Legislators

There is a line from an American "blue blood" commenting on her ancestry which goes "They weren't on the Mayflower; but they were on the boat right after that.". Well, my ancestors were on that boat, too. In the 1620's, they were deeded property for emigrating and helping build and defend New Amsterdam. The government took that property in the 1940's for "development" reason.

My family helped build this country and it saddens me to see that we are in serious danger of becoming what we fear.

Citizens depend on the police to be dogged and relentless in their pursuit of criminals; the prosecutors to analyze cases for credibility and surety of guilt; the judges to be fair and balanced in the treatment of defendants and presentation of evidence to a jury; elected state and federal officials to correct inequities when they become evident; a court to treat any case presented to it with fairness and justice; and the Supreme Court to weigh both the law and the intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in establishing the boundaries of permissible behavior in this society.

Nationally, in an optimistic light:

The President is attempting to protect American citizens and American interests. The Attorney General is trying to establish ways of bringing to justice individuals that would do us harm. Police are trying to be more vigilant in crime detection and prevention. Citizens are becoming more aware of what is happening around them. And the terrorists didn't win.

In a pessimistic light:

The President is fostering a nationalistic paranoia through a policy of "let's get them before they get us and if you don't help, you're next". The Attorney General, charged with protecting freedoms, is working to suppress constitutional guarantees. Police are taking photos and starting files on individuals that might one day maybe, just possibly commit a crime. Neighbors are spying on neighbors. And the terrorists have won because our country will never again be the same.

There are several thoughts I'd like you to keep in mind as you read:

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Application of law as worded by a legislature is an exercise in power, not justice.

Jesus Christ was crucified because of a public opinion poll

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I have a son on death row - in Texas - for something he did not do.

Travis County, Texas has declared war on my family and they are trying to kill one of us. The law says they can try. The law says we have two options - give up or go broke. We are not giving up.

My son's case is one that involves:

Abuse of Fifth Amendment rights and Miranda guidelines during interrogations

Abuse/misuse of Grand Jury procedures as expressed by a Grand Jury member

Perjury by detectives during pre-trials and trials

Lying to juries about relevant and irrelevant facts in the case by prosecutors

Trial rulings by judges that allow the presentation of unconstitutional material to jury

Trial rulings by judges that deny the presentation of exculpatory material

The inequities I've witnessed in my son's case and others I've read about can not be neatly categorized as dealing with race, age, finances, mental capacity, or quality of defense. These inequities are systemic and involve the process itself and how those responsible for it's application ignore or abuse their oath of office.

The Scale of Justice has two trays in balance and the Sword of Justice has two edges. The Scale of Justice I've seen has, quite often, someone's thumb resting on one tray. The Sword of Justice I've seen has one edge that is chipped and bloody; but the other edge is clean and unused.

In wielding the Sword of Justice, can I honestly expect the state to use it on itself?

Changes in how the legal system uses it's power to punish; not just on the death penalty issue; but at a much lower level of prosecution is mandatory.

I will not debate whether individuals like Manson, Bundy, McVey or the Trade Center terrorists "deserve" to die; but will point to the fact that over one hundred individuals have been exonerated and removed from death row. Add to these the thousands incarcerated for non-capital crimes who were tried and convicted of something they didn't do. Now add to these the exoneration of hundreds or thousands who, to avoid a death penalty jury, plea bargained a confession to a crime they didn't commit.

I used to find it ironic and now find it deeply and truly disturbing that police, prosecutors, and judges can go to prison for taking money or taking votes; but not for taking a life.

Here is a summary of what I consider the most applicable case of what constitutes state sponsored murder. It involves judicial and political ignorance and arrogance at all levels and, more importantly, it is a denial of the principles of individual rights on which this country was founded.

The Texas execution in 1993 of Leonel Herrera.

I know nothing about the man, good or evil; but whoever he was, he was executed because the "system" decided that the "system" was more important than an individual life.

The following is taken from a page at www.texas-justice.com

[ed. It has been pointed out that Mr. Humes is incorrect in stating Gov. Bush was involved in this case. Ann Richards was governor during 1993 and news articles state that she handled the review]

Excerpted from "Mean Justice" by Edward Humes, Pocket Star Books, 1999.

"The execution of Leonel Herrera, convicted of killing a police officer, takes place in Texas as scheduled, despite new witnesses, including an eyewitness and a former Texas state judge, who implicated someone else in the crime. Additionally, another suspect confessed, and Herrera passed a polygraph test attesting to his own innocence. But the United States Supreme Court ruled that Herrera was not entitled to a federal hearing on the case, not because the evidence was lacking or disprovable, but because of the strictly technical limits Texas places on the introduction of new evidence in an effort to speed up executions. The high court suggested Herrera seek a commutation from the governor of Texas, George W. Bush; Bush denied the plea, as he has done with every condemned prisoner who has sought a pardon. In dissent, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote of the Herrera case: 'Just as an execution without adequate safeguards is unacceptable, so too is an execution when the condemned prisoner can prove that he is innocent. The execution of a person who can show that he is innocent comes perilously close to simple murder.'"

One decision in one publicly obscure case. A decision that acknowledged a state's right to execute someone without cause. It wasn't right to allow that man's life to be taken that way. As for me and many others, the Court took the belief that, as a citizen of this country, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protected the value of my life.

The Court chose poorly.

I would like to recognize and commend those that, either through moral conviction or political reality, have accepted that there are considerable inequities in the legal system in it's treatment of defendants and are attempting to reestablish fairness and justice. I would also like to acknowledge that enforcing the law is a difficult and complex task.

Current DNA legislation will be of benefit to many; but It does not attack the root of the problem - MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! An analogy is requiring colleges to provide remedial courses for those that "graduated" from high school without being taught anything. It will assist some individuals; but it does nothing to address the core problems in education.

The negative result of this DNA legislation will be to further encourage police and prosecutors to use coercive techniques to gain incriminating statements so that a failure to match DNA becomes irrelevant to a conviction. This leads to justification of bad prosecution by using the phrase " ... it doesn't mean he wasn't there ...". Although a ridiculous supposition at best, it is an attitude that has been documented in interviews with several prosecutors and appeals judges, especially in Texas.

There are serious problems here and they need to be addressed

Legal protections and concepts of presumed innocence for defendants have been and continue to be systematically twisted or ignored.

Police routinely incriminate innocent persons and perjure themselves in court. Their investigative scope is often limited to acquiring evidence to convict rather than the solving of a crime.

Prosecutors routinely ignore case credibility, knowingly lie to a jury, and withhold or destroy relevant evidence or include irrelevant evidence in efforts to gain convictions rather than justice. The ordeals of Mr. Bloodsworth, Mr. Krone, Mr. "Hurricane" Carter, and Mr. Tice among many others prove the point that, all too often, prosecutions are not based on rational analysis of evidence and probable guilt.

Rulings by trial judges routinely ignore a defendants right to presumed innocence by creating a courtroom environment in which the defendant is not able to defend himself and, therefore, is perceived as not innocent. The result being that the legal and financial burdens of trials and appeals are shifted from the state to the defendant.

Appellate and Supreme Court rulings that have ignored the basic principles espoused in the phrase "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...". Individual protections and freedoms and the basic concepts of justice have been denied or ignored in favor of the power of the state to regulate and dominate the citizen.

Do I know how to fix these problems? No, I do not. On the surface, there appears to be too many concepts and too many different personalities involved to be considered simple; but it's not as complex as most people make it out to be. You can't just come up with answers; you have to ask the right questions.

I appreciate the definition of Miranda as read in an appeals decision - while not a right per se, it is the fence around that right and the attempt to climb over that fence quantifies the intent to violate that right.

I believe that there are so many cases detailing so many abuses by police, prosecutors and judges at all levels that they no longer deserve or can justify immunity for decisions made in prosecutions, trials or appeals under their control.

I believe something similar to Miranda needs to enforce the right of individuals to be presumed innocence during a trial. The individual's right to life, liberty, presumed innocence, etc. is the foundation of our society and it MUST be enforceable in the legal process.

I believe there needs be a redefinition of the differences between custodial and non-custodial interrogations.

I believe that Miranda needs to be expanded to cover custodial interrogations that are currently considered non-custodial by purely technical definition.

Any interrogation in a closed room where the subject is alone when confronted by police should be considered custodial.

I believe that the use of threats and verbal abuse has become excessive and a substitute for investigative work and has reached the level to qualify as custodial in nature.

I believe that police should not be allowed to continue interrogating someone without a break and that an individual should be allowed to take a break and make phone calls as often as requested.

I believe that attorneys hired by third parties must be recognized as representing a subject during an interrogation.

I believe that. should the state lose it's case at any level, the bond amount required by a court should be forfeit by the state to a defendant without any further legal requirements.

It needs to be ENFORCEABLE that police investigate responsibly BEFORE an arrest.

It needs to be ENFORCEABLE that prosecutors investigate responsibly BEFORE going to a Grand Jury or a trial.

It needs be ENFORCEABLE that judges conducting trials or appeals be REQUIRED to protect the defendant's right to presumption of innocence. Trial judges MUST be made to allow a defendant to present ANY reasonable testimony or evidence on his behalf.

I believe it is necessary to categorize offenses committed knowingly, including violations of constitutional guarantees, by law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges as Federal crimes against an individual and should be considered Civil Rights violations and fall within the prosecutorial scope of hate crimes. There should be mandatory prison guidelines for intentional violation of rights from any source, false prosecutions, and wrongful incarcerations.

Releasing someone wrongly convicted with an apology, some cash, and a "See, the system works!" sound bite is NOT justice. It is not justice in any sense of the word and it is certainly NOT the justice intended by the founders of this country.

The Sword of Justice needs to start swinging in BOTH directions.

Sincerely yours,

Robert Springsteen III

Here are a few examples of, what I consider to be state sponsored murder and attempted murder.

These cases and many others support the point that, like a legalized Mafia, if police and prosecutors decide that someone needs to die for a crime, more often than not, whoever they pick is as good as dead. (Examples summarized from "Mean Justice" by Edward Humes with the following exceptions, Derek Tice, Toronto Patterson, and Robert Springsteen)

TEXAS

1990 - Clarence Brandley - released - within days of execution - police officers threatened witnesses, trial judge and prosecutor who held secret meetings, prosecutors who destroyed evidence, state attorney general who lied, racial discrimination.

1991 - Frederico M. Macias - released within 2 days of execution -prosecution ignored evidence of innocence, grand jury refused to reindict because of lack of evidence.

1993 - Leonel Herrera - executed - missed filing deadline on evidence of eye witness and confession from another individual - committed by Texas, the Supreme Court and Governor Ann Richards

1995 - Jesse DeWayne Jacobs - executed - known wrongful conviction - Committed by Texas, the Supreme Court and Governor George Bush

2001 - Robert Springsteen - awaiting execution - misuse of grand jury, police coerce incriminating statements, prosecutors ignore probability of innocence, trial judge denies defense testimony and allows co-defendant's incriminating statements to be presented to the jury

2002 - Toronto Patterson - executed - claimed coerced confession; trial judge denies testimony of detective's history of coercing confessions

ARIZONA

1978 - Jonathan Treadway - released - pathologists discounted evidence

1991 - "Tucson Four" - prosecution dropped - coerced confessions finally discounted

VIRGINIA

1992 - Roger K. Coleman - executed - missed filing deadline on evidence - committed by defense attorneys, Virginia, the Supreme Court and the Governor of Virginia

2001 - Derek Tice - overturned and awaiting retrial - police coerce incriminating statements, prosecutors ignore probability of innocence, trial judge denies defense use of exculpatory evidence

GEORGIA

1978 - Earl Charles - released - alibi substantiated, city settled law suit

1991 - Gary Nelson - released -11 years on death row - official lies, false testimony and withholding evidence

CALIFORNIA

1991 - Titus L. Brown - released - after 7 years - prosecution knowingly used false evidence

1991 - Thomas R. Merrill - released - prosecution hid witness statement

NEW YORK

1992 - Walker - released - after 20 years - prosecution refused to acknowledge probable innocence

FLORIDA

1975 - Freddie Pitts - released - another man confessed.

1977 - Delbert Tibbs - released - evidence did not justify conviction

1992 - Jesse Tafero - executed - perjured testimony

PENNSYLVANIA

1992 - Jay Smith - released - egregious prosecutorial misconduct

MARYLAND

1993 - Kirk Bloodsworth - released - tried twice, DNA confirmed innocence