Man Given Death Penalty For Murder He Didn't Commit
by Laura Smith in All News, Texas News
Though he did not pull the trigger of the gun that killed Michael LaHood in August 1997, Kenneth Foster Jr. is scheduled to be executed in Texas at the end of the month. Foster and Mauriceo Brown, who is the actual shooter in LaHood's murder, were both sentenced to death. Brown was executed last year.
The incident took place on August 14, 1997. Foster, Brown, DeWayne Dillard, and Julius Steen were drinking and smoking marijuana when they decided to commit armed robbery at two different locations. On their way home, LaHood's girlfriend, Mary Patrick, flagged down their car. Brown got out of the car and shot LaHood. Foster had tried to leave the scene once Brown shot LaHood, but his friends made him wait for Brown to get back into the car. In a fateful decision, Foster agreed, and they were arrested shortly after fleeing the scene. Foster and Brown were tried together, and Foster was charged under a Texas "law of parties" that disintegrates the distinction between the person who actually committed the crime and the accomplice, making Foster just as guilty of the murder as Brown. Brown had tried to plead self-defense, but instead he received the death penalty.
The basis of the case for sentencing Foster shows that Foster knew what was going to happen when Brown left the car. The sentence is permissible by Texas law, but it is the most extreme sentence that could be given. The acting chair of the 7-person pardons and parole committee that will review Fosters case has received Foster's petition and will issue a decision on August 28. Meanwhile, Foster got married to one of the leaders of a small organization trying to free Foster. Should his execution go through, Foster will also leave behind an 11-year-old daughter who lives with her mother.
For related articles visit http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3475381&page=1 and http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2416.
3 users commented in " Man Given Death Penalty For Murder He Didn't Commit "
Steve Hall said,
in August 15th, 2007 at 11:23 am
There is extensive coverage of Kenneth Foster's case linked at http://www.StandDown.org
Bill Ferretti said,
in August 15th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
There are currently 93 countries where there is no possibility of an innocent person's being executed. These are the countries without capital punishment for any crime. There are another 52 countries where the execution of an innocent person is almost impossible. These countries retain the death penalty by law for certain crimes but have abandonned it in practice. Fifty-two countries retain the death penalty for everyday crimes and have carried out at least one execution in the last ten years, but only a handful of those are responsible for most of the executions in any given recent year. By retaining this ancient barbarity the U.S.A. keeps company with China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan.
The only certain way to avoid executing an innocent person is to join the civilized part of the world that has rejected state sanctioned murder. For more information, please visit:
http://www.handsoffcain.info/bancadati/index.php?tipotema=arg&idtema=9000595
Janet said,
in August 16th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Texas Moratorium Network has put up an alert on the Kenneth Foster website for people to write members of the Texas Legislature asking them to urge Governor Perry and the Board of Pardons and Paroles to stop the execution. Grits for Breakfast has an excellent open letter to the Governor and BPP about Foster
I'm writing you this open letter to suggest that you provide clemency to Kenneth Foster, Jr., who is scheduled for execution soon. However I think you should do so for reasons which likely disagree with the Texas Moratorium Network, which is asking folks to send letters in support of commuting Foster's death sentence.
Instead, I think that from your perspective as death penalty supporters, it's paramount that the punishment be reserved for those who actually committed the crimes of which they're accused. Not even prosecutors believe Kenneth Foster pulled the trigger; that person was himself executed last year, so the crime has already been avenged. The issue is whether Foster, the driver, knew what the shooter planned.
Three judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that "the applicant has identified new facts that might support a bare claim of actual innocence, under Ex parte Elizondo, (3) and would therefore allow the applicant to proceed on his fourth claim for relief." These judges would have granted him a stay of execution "to allow him to pursue this claim through the ordinary course of habeas corpus proceedings." (Here is the dissenting opinion written by Judge Tom Price and joined by Judges Charles Holcomb and Cheryl Johnson.)
The minority opinion states, that based on the new evidence "it appears evident that the applicant could not be guilty of capital murder under either of the theories of the law of parties that were submitted to the jury."
The problem with the CCA majority opinion is that they refused to address new facts, or minority arguments, apparently relying on a narrow statutory interpretation to say they cannot consider new evidence of any stripe, even if it points to innocence! Consider the arrogant brevity of the majority opinion, which decided against the defendant across the board but addressed none of the arguments substantively, in a death penalty case, no less, in the face of actual innocence claims! Indeed, this open letter to you may be longer than the court's opinion.