Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
AUSTIN - Texas Attorney General John Cornyn offers
the following information on Napoleon Beazley, who is scheduled to be
executed after 6 p.m. on Tuesday, May 28, 2002:
MEDIA NOTE: In two related cases, Thompson v.
Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 108 S. Ct. 2687 (1988) and Stanford v. Kentucky,
492 U.S. 361, 109 S. Ct. 2969 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court held that
the Eighth and 14th Amendments prohibited the execution of a defendant
convicted of first-degree murder when he was 15 years old, but a
defendant's constitutional rights were not violated when the sentence
was imposed on a defendant who was at least 16 years old at the time of
the capital offense. Most states cite Stanford as justification for
imposing capital sentences on 16 or 17 year olds.
FACTS OF THE CRIME
On March 17, 1995, Napoleon Beazley was sentenced for
the capital offense of murdering John Luttig during a car jacking in
Tyler, Texas, on April 19, 1994. At the time of the crime, Beazley, now
25, was approximately three and a half months short of his 18th birthday.
On April 18, 1994, Beazley and his friend, Cedric
Coleman, drove from their homes in Grapeland to Corsicana. Cedric had
plans to meet some girls at a Corsicana college.
Previously, Beazley had
repeatedly expressed a desire to steal a car, and friends had seen him
carry a gun. On the way to Corsicana, Beazley told Cedric that he wanted
to jack a car."
Beazley carried a .45-caliber pistol on the trip. When
reaching the college campus, Beazley looked around at cars and asked
Cedric when the students would return to their dorms.
Later in the
evening, Beazley stated that he wanted to go to Dallas to steal a car.
However, Cedric talked Beazley into waiting another day and the two
returned home.
On April 19, 1994, Beazley told a friend that he
might soon be driving a Mercedes to school. That evening, Beazley
borrowed his mother's car and drove with Cedric and Cedric's younger
brother Donald, to Corsicana. Beazley brought his .45-caliber pistol, as
well as a sawed-off shotgun.
After driving to Corsicana, they decided to
drive to Tyler, and on the way, Beazley spotted a Lexus and told Cedric
to follow it. They followed the Lexus to Tyler, but eventually lost
sight of it, which angered Beazley.
Later, when heading to a local restaurant, Beazley
saw a Mercedes in the restaurant's parking lot. As the driver of the
Mercedes exited his vehicle, Beazley jumped out of his car armed with
the .45-caliber pistol. However, the driver entered the restaurant
before Beazley could reach him, apparently without noticing Beazley.
Cedric yelled at Beazley to get back into the car,
and without stopping to eat, Cedric began driving the group back home.
Beazley ordered Cedric to turn around and return to Tyler, commenting, "You
know, I guess I'm going to have to shoot my driver."
Cedric then pulled
the car over and told Beazley that, under the circumstances, he would
have to do his own driving. Beazley took the wheel and stated again that
he wanted to steal a car. When Cedric asked why, Beazley explained that
he wanted to see what it was like to kill somebody.
As the group approached Tyler for the second time,
Beazley spotted a 1987 Mercedes driven by John Luttig. He and his wife,
Bobbie Luttig, were on their way home from Dallas.
Beazley followed the
Luttigs to their home and stopped at the end of the driveway. Beazley
got out of the car and stripped off his shirt. Armed with the
.45-caliber pistol, Beazley ran toward the garage.
Donald followed
shortly after, carrying Beazley's sawed-off shotgun. Beazley fired one
round from his pistol, hitting Mr. Luttig in the side of the head,
leaving him alive but stunned and in a seated position.
Beazley next ran
around the car where Mrs. Luttig was getting out of the vehicle and
fired at her at close range. Although he missed, she fell to the ground.
Beazley then returned to Mr. Luttig, raised his gun, took careful aim,
and fired point blank into Mr. Luttig's head. Standing in his victim's
blood, Beazley then rifled Mr. Luttig's pockets looking for the keys to
the Mercedes.
As he searched for the keys, Beazley asked Donald if
Mrs. Luttig was dead. When Donald said she was still moving, Beazley
shouted for him to shoot her, but Donald refused.
Beazley then moved to
shoot her, but Donald quickly recanted his previous statement and said
that she was dead. [Mrs. Luttig survived the incident and later
testified at Beazley's trial.]
Once Beazley found the keys to the
Mercedes, he jumped into the car and ordered Donald to get in. Beazley
then backed the car out of the garage. However, he ran into a retaining
wall, damaging the vehicle, causing him eventually to abandon it a short
distance away.
He then rejoined the group, who had followed him from the
crime scene, in his mother's car. Beazley stated that he would get rid
of anyone who said anything about the incident. Beazley and his cohorts
returned to Grapeland.
A few days after the crime, Beazley confided to a
friend that he and the Coleman brothers had attempted to steal a car,
and he had shot a man three times in the head and had attempted to kill
a woman.
When arrested, Beazley's father asked if he committed the crime
of which he was accused, and Beazley replied he had. Beazley later
commented, in describing his experience of the car jacking and murder,
that it "was a trip."
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
July 7, 1994 - Beazley was charged by an indictment
returned in Smith County, Texas, with the capital offense of
intentionally murdering John Luttig during a robbery.
March 17, 1995 - A jury found Beazley guilty of
capital murder on March 13, 1995, and following a separate punishment
hearing, assessed the death penalty.
Feb. 26, 1997 - The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
denied relief on 38 points of error, affirmed Beazley's conviction and
sentence, and later denied rehearing in April 1997. Beazley did not seek
certiorari review from the U.S. Supreme Court.
June 3, 1997 - Beazley filed an application for state
writ of habeas corpus with the state trial court of conviction.
Sept. 5, 1997 - An evidentiary hearing was held by the trial court.
Oct. 31, 1997 - The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions
of law denying habeas relief.
Jan. 21, 1998 - The Court of Criminal Appeals accepted findings and
denied relief.
Oct. 1, 1998 - Beazley petitioned for habeas corpus in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Sept. 30, 1999 - The U.S. District Court denied relief.
Oct. 26, 1999 - The district court denied reconsideration.
Dec. 28, 1999 - The district court granted permission for Beazley to
appeal.
June 1, 2000 - Beazley filed his brief on appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 9, 2001 - The Fifth Circuit issued a published opinion affirming
the denial of habeas relief.
March 15, 2001 - The Fifth Circuit denied Beazley's petition for
rehearing.
March 30, 2001 - The District Court of Smith County, Texas, scheduled
Beazley's execution for Aug. 15, 2001.
June 13, 2001 - Beazley petitioned for certiorari review from the denial
of federal habeas relief.
June 28, 2001 - Beazley applied for a stay of execution from the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Aug. 13, 2001 - The United States Supreme Court denied Beazley's
application for stay of execution.
Aug. 15, 2001 - The day of his execution, the Court of Criminal Appeals
granted a stay of execution.
Oct. 1, 2001- The United States Supreme Court denies certiorari review.
Apr. 17, 2002 - The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacates the stay of
execution.
Apr. 26, 2002 - The District Court of Smith County, Texas, scheduled
Beazley's execution for May 28, 2002.
May 7, 2002 - Beazley files a petition for clemency with the Texas Board
of Pardons and Paroles.
May 13, 2002 - Beazley files a supplemental petition for clemency.
May 17, 2002- Beazley and 3 others file 1983 suit in the U.S. District
Court alleging inadequate representation.
May 17, 2002 - U.S. District Judge Hayden Head dismisses the lawsuit.
Notice of Appeal filed.
May 21, 2002 - The Fifth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the lower
court's judgment, denying injunctive relief.
May 22, 2002 - Beazley petitions for certiorari review to the United
States Supreme Court.
** Currently, Beazley's petition for certiorari
review and his application for stay of execution are still pending with
the United States Supreme Court. In addition, his petition for clemency
is still pending with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. **
PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY
No evidence of prior criminal convictions was
presented to the jury at the punishment phase of trial. However, the
jury heard evidence that Beazley had been selling drugs since age 13.
Napolean Beazley and 2 friends spotted John Luttig's
Mercedes Benz on the night of April 19, 1994, and followed it to the
Luttig home in an affluent neighborhood of this East Texas city of
75,000.
The plan was to steal the car and sell it to a Dallas
"chop shop." Luttig pulled into his garage and got out of the car.
Beazley shot the 63-year-old man twice in the head with a .45-caliber
handgun. Bobbie Luttig dropped face down on the garage floor to hide.
She could see her husband bleeding on the pavement. She thought she was
going to die. Speeding from the Luttigs' home, Beazley damaged the car
and abandoned it on a nearby street.
The 3 men, Beazley and brothers Cedrick and Donald
Coleman, fled back to their home town of Grapeland, about 70 miles
southwest of Tyler.
A year later, the Colemans were in prison and Beazley
was on death row. The Luttigs' son helped put them there. "Words seem
trite in describing what follows when your . . . father is stripped away
from your life: the despair, the chaos, the confusion, the sense --
perhaps temporary, perhaps not -- that one's life has no further purpose,"
his son, J. Michael Luttig, said at the Colemans' trial.
He would give
similar, lengthy testimony in Beazley's capital murder trial. It might
have just been another mid-'90s carjacking turned deadly if Michael
Luttig was not one of the most influential judges on one of the most
influential federal appeals courts in the country -- and one of the
toughest appeals court when it comes to death penalty cases. Sitting on
the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 1991, Luttig
is apparently the only living federal judge whose father had been slain.
At the federal hijacking trial of the Colemans,
Luttig addressed the judge and described how difficult it was to receive
word from a close friend that his father was dead . . . "realizing at
that very moment, at that very moment that the man you have worshipped
all your life is lying on his back in your driveway with two bullets
through his head. It is thinking the unthinkable that perhaps the act
was in retaliation for something you had done in your own job," said
Luttig. "On behalf of my dad and on behalf of my mother and family I
respectfully request that those who committed this brutal crime receive
the full punishment that the law provides," Luttig said.
Luttig made
similar remarks in Beazley's capital murder trial in state court, but
did not ask for the death penalty. Shortly after the death penalty was
imposed, he was quoted by the media as saying, "There's no one in my
family that's happy about what occurred today." However, he also said: "Individuals
must be held accountable at some point for actions such as this. I
thought this was an appropriate case for the death penalty." . . .
A quicker red light, a longer green, a wrong turn and
John Luttig and Napolean Beazley might never have met. Luttig, born in
Pittsburgh, was a Korean War veteran. He married, and raised a son and
daughter. He was a petroleum engineer for Atlantic Richfield and then he
went into business for himself, supervising wells across the country.
In his private life, he was an elder at Tyler's First Presbyterian Church
and vice moderator of the Grace Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church
U.S.A., said the Rev. Dick Ramsey, former pastor of the church. Luttig
had also served on the Tyler Planning Zoning Commission. "John was a
great guy, he really was," said Jim Rippy a friend and fellow oil man.
"He was a gentlemen in everything he did -- outgoing, he had kind of a
nice wit about him and he had a good relationship with everybody here."
As part of a Christmas present to his wife, Luttig enrolled Bobbie in a
night class at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, where she was
studying for a master of divinity degree, Ramsey said. On the night he
died, Luttig had driven her to Dallas for the 6 p.m. class, waited for
her, then they drove home.
Napolean Beazley, 17, was the president of his senior
class. The starting running back for the Grapeland High School Sandies
his last season and a 440-relay track runner, Beazley was headed for the
Marine Corps after high school.
Then, about 47 days after Luttig was
killed, a tip led police to Grapeland. 2 weeks after Beazley graduated
13th out of his class of 60, he was arrested and charged with murder.
About 47 days elapsed between the slaying and Beazley's arrest. "He was
well-known . . . he had plenty of friends and he did a lot of good
things in his life," his father, Ireland Beazley, said. The senior
Beazley is a steel worker and city councilman in Grapeland which has a
population of 1,468. His wife, Rena, was the secretary to the county
judge. Beazley said that, in addition to football and track, his son
played baseball and lifted weights competitively.
The Beazleys were proud of Napolean. They did not
know he was leading a secret life. On April 19, Beazley took his
mother's red Ford Probe and wound up in Tyler with the Colemans. Beazley,
a crack dealer armed with a .45-caliber handgun, was looking for a car
to hijack. "I went to school, I went to Sunday school every Sunday, I
walked old ladies across the street -- all that stuff," said Beazley,
interviewed on Texas' death row. He said he wasn't using crack at the
time of the murder and he wasn't drunk, either. So, what happened? "A
lot of people ask that question. I ask myself that question, too," said
Beazley. "I can't really explain it to you, because it would always seem
like a justification. When you lay it all out . . . it can come out as a
justification and, for me, there is no justification for what happened."
With an appeal pending, there is much about the crime that he cannot
discuss. "I don't admit anything. . . . I don't say anything about it.
Let the evidence speak for itself.
The testimony mostly came from those 2 guys who were
also involved in the crime." The Coleman brothers, who received life
sentences, testified against Beazley. Beazley does not deny he was there.
"They had a bloody footprint from my shoe, they had a palm print on the
body of the car that came from me." And, he says, "I don't blame my
family, I don't blame my friends, I don't blame society, I can't blame a
federal judge. I don't blame anybody else for being here but me."
During
his trial, Beazley remembers Judge Luttig testifying. He said he felt
sorry for him for losing his father. He has not tried to contact the
family and apologize for fear of hurting them further, he said. "They're
going through their own pain right now and I don't want to add to that.
If I could alleviate it, if I could take it away from them, then I would."
Beazley paused when asked if given the chance to talk to Michael Luttig
what would he say? "What can you say to somebody in that situation? No
words could comfort him, not coming from me, anyway. I don't think I
would say anything. I think I would, for once, just listen. What would I
do if somebody murdered my daddy? How would I feel?" He said he is not
sure.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LUTTIG AT THE SENTENCING OF
CEDRIC AND DONALD COLEMAN IN FEDERAL COURT
AN ALLOCUTION OF A FEDERAL JUDGE ON VICTIMIZATION -
Three young men bent on stealing a Mercedes-Benz killed a federal
judge's father on April 19, 1994, in Dallas.
Before brothers Donald
Coleman, 19, and Cedric Coleman, 21, were sentenced last January by
Senior U.S. District Judge William Steger of Tyler for carjacking,
possession of a firearm and possession of a short-barreled shotgun, the
victim's son, Judge Michael Luttig of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, stood to tell the court how terribly their crime had hurt him
and his family.
The Coleman brothers and Napoleon Beazley were in a red
Ford Probe the night they followed John and Bobbie Luttig home and
Beazley and Donald Coleman jumped from their own car armed with a pistol
and a sawed-off shotgun.
According to the Tyler Morning Telegraph's
accounts of the trial, John Luttig was shot in the head as he stepped
out of his car; his wife survived by feigning death and rolling under
the car. The assailants backed the car out of the garage over her and
abandoned it a few blocks away.
The three men were arrested two months
later. (Beazley, now 18, was a minor at the time of the crime and was
not named in the federal indictment.) Judge Luttig asked for the maximum,
a life sentence. But after his emotional statement to the court, Steger
said he could not depart from the sentencing guidelines. Donald Coleman
got 43 years, nine months in prison. Cedric Coleman got 40 years, five
months. They and Beazley face capital murder and aggravated robbery
charges in state court.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LUTTIG
May it please the Court. It is one of life's ironies
that I appear before the Court for the reason that I do. But I do so to
represent my dad -- who is not here -- and his wife, and daughters. His
family, my family. More than anything else, I do this to honor him,
because if the roles were reversed, he would be standing here today. Of
this I am certain. I also owe this to the other victims of violent crime
who either stand silently by, or who speak and are not heard. I owe it
to the public. I owe it, as well, to Donald and Cedric Coleman, who may
yet not understand the magnitude of the losses they inflicted on the
night of April 19.
Words seem trite in describing what follows when your
husband is murdered in your presence, when your father is stripped from
your life. The horror, the agony, the emptiness, the despair, the chaos,
the confusion, the sense -- perhaps temporary, but perhaps not -- that
one's life no longer has any purpose, the doubt, the hopelessness. There
are no words that can possibly describe it, and all it entails. But
being the victim of a violent crime such as this is at least these
things. Exactly these things in my family's case; the equivalent of
these things in the countless other cases.
While it is happening and in the seconds and the
minutes thereafter. . .
... it's the sheer horror of half-clothed people with
guns storming up your driveway toward you in the dark of night, when you
are totally defenseless.
... it's what must be the terrifying realization that
you are first about to be, and then actually being, murdered.
... it's perhaps seeing in your last moment what in
your mind you know was the murder of your wife.
... it's crawling on the floor of your own garage in
the grease and filth, pretending you're dead, so that you won't be shot
through the head by the person who just murdered your husband.
... it's realizing your husband has been gunned down
in your driveway on your return from the final class you needed to
complete your education -- an education that had been the goal of both
of you since the day you were married.
... it's knowing that the reason that your husband
was with you -- indeed, the reason that you were in the car that night
at all -- is that his Christmas gift to you the previous year was the
promise that you could take the class and that he would take you to and
from, so that nothing would happen to you.
... it's mercilessly punishing yourself over whether
you could have done something, anything at all, to have stopped the
killing.
Moments later, across a continent...
... it's being frightened out of your mind in the
middle of the night by a frantic banging on your door -- calling the
police, then canceling the call -- and then answering the door. Your
body goes limp as you see one of your best friends standing in the
doorway. No words need even be spoken. For you know that the worst in
life has happened. Then, he tells you: "Your mom just called. Father was
murdered in the driveway of your home."
... it's realizing that, at that very moment, the man
you have worshipped all your life is lying on his back in your driveway
with two bullets through his head.
Across the globe. . .
... it's your husband taking the emergency
international call, pulling down the receiver, fumbling for the words,
as he starts to deliver the news. "This is the hardest thing I will ever
have to tell you," he begins. Then, it is the calls home, or at least to
what used to be home, first one, then the other. In eerie, stunned
calmness, you hear your mother utter the feared confirmation: "Yes, your
dad was just murdered. You better come home." Now you believe.
Within hours. . .
... it's arriving home to television cameras in your
front yard, to see your house cordoned off by police lines; police
conducting ballistics and forensics tests, and studying the place in the
driveway where your father had finally fallen dead -- all as if it were
a set from a television production.
... it's going down to the store where your dad had
always shopped for clothes, to buy a shirt, a tie that will match his
suit, and a package of three sets of underwear (you can only buy them in
sets of three) so your dad will look nice when he is buried.
... it's being called by the funeral home and told
that it recommends that the casket be closed and that perhaps your mom,
sister, and wife should not see the body -- and you know why, without
even asking.
... it's walking into the viewing room at the funeral
home and having your sister cry out that that just can't be him, it just
can't be.
In the days that follow . . .
... it's living in a hotel in your own hometown,
blocks away from where you have lived your whole life, because you just
can't bear to go back.
... it's packing up the family home, item by item,
memory by memory, as if all of the lives that were there only hours
before are no more.
... it's reading the letters from you, your sister,
and your wife, that your dad secreted away in his most private places,
unbeknownst to you, realizing that the ones he invariably saved were the
ones that just said "thanks" or "I love you." And really understanding
for the first time that that truly was all that he ever needed to hear
or to receive in return, just as he always told you.
... it's carefully folding each or your husband's
shirts, as you have always done, so that they will be neat when they are
given away.
... it's watching your mother do this, in your own
mind begging her to stop.
... it's cleaning out your dad's sock drawer, his
underwear drawer, his ties.
... it's packing up your dad's office for him, from
the family picture to the last pen and pencil.
... it's reading the brochures in his top drawer
about the fishing trip you and he were to take in two months -- the trip
that your mother had asked you to go on because it meant so much to your
dad.
In the weeks thereafter. . .
... it's living in absolute terror, not knowing who
had murdered your husband and tried to murder you, but realizing that
often such people come back to complete the deed, and wondering if they
would return this time.
... it's furiously writing down the license number of
every Ford Probe for no reason other than it was a Ford Probe, hoping
that through serendipity, it might be, and sometimes fearing, that that
is exactly what might happen.
... it's never spending another night in your own
home because the pain is too great and the memories too fresh.
... it's all day every day, and all night, racking
your brain to the point of literal exhaustion over who possibly could
have done this. It's questioningly looking in the corners of every
relationship, to the point that, at times, you are almost ashamed of
yourself. Yet you have no choice but to continue, because, as they say,
it could be anyone.
... it's thinking the unthinkable, that perhaps the
act was in retaliation for something you had done in your job. You ask
yourself, "If it was, should I just walk away?"
... it's watching the re-enactment of your dad's,
your husband's murder on television, day and night, and every time you
pick up the newspaper.
... it's reading the "wanted" poster for the people
who murdered him, while checking out at the grocery store.
... it's telling your family night after night that
it will be all right, when you don't believe it yourself.
Then they are finally found, and. . .
... it's collapsing on the kitchen floor when you are
told -- not from relief, but from the ultimate despair in learning that
your husband was indeed killed for nothing but a car, and in an act so
random as to defy comprehension.
... it's watching your mother collapse on the floor
when she hears this news and knowing that she will not just have to
relive the fateful night in her own mind, now she will have to relive it
in public courtrooms, over and over again, for months on end.
In the months that follow. . .
... it's putting the family home up for sale and
being told that everyone thinks it is beautiful, but they just don't
think they could live there, because a murder took place in the
driveway.
... it's the humiliation of being told by the credit
card companies, after they closed your husband's accounts because of his
death, that they are unable to extend you credit because you are not
currently employed.
... it's receiving an anonymous call that begins, "I
just learned of the brutal carjacking and murder of your father," and
that ends by saying. "I only wish your mother had been raped and
murdered, too."
... it's the crushing anxiety of awaiting the trauma
and uncertainties of public trials.
The day arrives, and. . .
... it's listening, for the first time, to the tape
of your mother's 911 call to report that her husband, your father, had
been murdered. Hearing the terror in her voice. Catching yourself before
you pass out from the shock of knowing that, through that tape, you are
present at the very moment it all happened.
... it's hearing the autopsy report on how the
bullets entered your father's skull, penetrated and exited his brain,
and went through his shoulder and arm.
... it's listening to testimony as to how long he
might have been conscious, and thus aware of what was happening -- not
just to him but to the woman that he had always said he would give his
life for.
... it's looking at the photographs of your dad lying
in the driveway in a pool of blood, as they are projected on a large
screen before your friends and family, and before what might as well be
the whole world.
... it's having to ask your son what the expression
was on your husband's face.
... it's listening to a confession in which the
person says that he just thought your dad was "playing possum."
... it's listening to your own mother, a lady of
ultimate grace, testify publicly as to how she crawled under the car, in
the grease and the filth, to avoid being murdered.
... it's hearing her say that the only thing she
could think of was what it was going to be like to be shot through the
back of the head.
... it's watching her face as she relives that night,
time and again.
As the trauma of the trial subsides. . .
... it's getting down on your hands and knees and
straightening your dad's new grave marker and packing the fresh dirt
around it, so that it will be perfect, as he always insisted that things
be for you.
... it's sitting across from each other at
Thanksgiving dinner, each knowing that there is but one thing on the
other's mind, yet pretending otherwise for their sake.
... it's telling your wife that the meat was great,
when you could barely keep it down and hardly wait to finish.
... it's trying to pick out a Christmas gift for your
mother that your dad would have picked out for her.
... it's sitting beside your father's grave into the
night in 30-degree weather, so that he won't be alone on the first
Christmas.
... it's putting up, by yourself, the basketball goal
that you got last Christmas so that you and your dad could relive
memories as you passed the years together.
... it's finishing by yourself all of the projects
that you have not an idea how to do, and that your dad had said, "Save
for the summer and we'll do them together. I'll show you how."
... it's hearing your 2-year-old daughter ask for "Pawpaw"
and seeing your wife choke back the tears and tell her, "He's gone now,
he's in heaven."
... it's having the clothes your dad was most proud
of altered, so you can wear them in his honor.
... it's wondering whether your wearing the clothes
will be too painful for your mother.
In the larger sense. . .
... it's shaking every time you drive into a darkened
driveway.
... it's feeling your body get rigid every time that
you drive into a garage.
... it's being nervous every time you walk to your
car, even in the open daylight.
... it's being scared to answer any phone call or any
knock at the door at night (or, for that matter, during the day) because
another messenger may be calling.
Finally, it's the long-term effects. .
... it's the inexplicable sense of embarrassment when
you tell someone that your husband or your father was murdered -- almost
a sense of guilt over injecting ugliness into their lives.
... it's going out to dinner alone, knowing that you
will be going out alone the rest of your life.
... it's that feeling -- wrong, but inevitable --
that you will always be the fifth wheel.
... it's living the rest of your life with the fact
that your husband, your father, suffered one of the most horrifying
deaths possible.
... it's never knowing, yet fearing that you know all
too well, what those final moments must have been like.
... it's constantly visualizing yourself in his place
that night, moment by excruciating moment.
... it's realizing that you will never even get the
chance to repay your dad for making your dreams come true.
... it's living with the uncomfortable irony that he
lived just long enough to see to it that your dreams came true, but that
his never will.
... it's knowing you never had, and will never have,
that one last time to say thanks for giving me, first, life itself, and
then, all that it holds.
And. . .
... it's knowing that this is only the beginning and
the worst is yet to come... The haunting images... The emptiness... The
loneliness... The directionlessness... The sickening sense that it all
ended some time ago, and that you are but biding time.
Of course, for my mother, my sister, my wife and I,
the sun will come up again, but it will never come up again for the real
victim of this crime. Not only will he never see what he worked a
lifetime for, and was finally within reach of obtaining. That would be
tragedy enough. But, even worse, he died knowing that the only thing
that ever could have ruined his life had come to pass -- that his wife
and his family might have to suffer the kind of pain that is now ours --
and he was helpless to prevent it even as he saw its inevitability. We
live by law in this county so that, ideally, no one will ever have to
know what it is like to be a victim of such violent crime. If I had any
wish, any wish in the world, it would be that no one ever again would
have to go through what my mother and my father experienced on the night
of April 19, what my family has endured since and must carry with us the
rest of our lives. Crimes such as that committed against my family are
intolerable in any society that calls itself not only free, but
civilized. The law recognizes as much, and it provides for punishment
that will ensure at least that others will not suffer again at the same
hands, even if it does not prevent recurrence at the hands of others. On
behalf of my dad, and on behalf of my mother and family, I respectfully
request that these who committed this brutal crime receive the full
punishment that the law provides. Three people were needed to complete
this crime. Each of the three was as instrumental to its success as the
other. There were no passive bystanders among the gang that executed my
dad. Thank you, Your Honor.
Txexecutions.org
Napoleon Beazley, 25, was executed by lethal
injection on 28 May in Huntsville, Texas for the murder of a man he and
two others carjacked.
In April, Beazley, then 17, borrowed his mother's car
and drove with two other youths to Tyler, Texas. Beazley's friend,
Cedric Coleman, drove, and Cedric's younger brother, Donald, went with
them. They saw a Mercedes in a restaurant parking lot. Beazley jumped
out of his car, armed with a .45-caliber pistol, and approached the
driver of the Mercedes. The man entered the restaurant, apparently
without noticing Beazley.
Beazley got back in the car and the group began
driving back home. However, according to trial testimony, Beazley told
Cedric Coleman to turn back so he could shoot the driver and steal the
Mercedes. Coleman pulled the car over and told Beazley he would have to
do his own driving, so Beazley took the wheel.
As the group approached Tyler for the second time,
Beazley spotted a 1987 Mercedes Benz. Beazley followed the car until it
pulled into the garage of a house. He then got out of his car and ran to
the driver's side of the Mercedes. He fired one round from his .45,
hitting John E. Luttig, 63, in the head. He then ran around to the
passenger's side, where Bobbie Luttig was getting out of the vehicle. He
fired at her and, though he missed, she fell to the ground. Beazley then
returned to Mr. Luttig, saw that he was still alive in the driver's
seat, and fired again at his head at close range.
While Beazley was looking for the keys, he asked
Donald Coleman, who was carrying Beazley's sawed-off shotgun, whether
Mrs. Luttig was dead. When Donald said she was still moving, Beazley
shouted for him to shoot her, but he refused. Beazley then began to come
around to shoot her, but Donald quickly changed his statement and said
that she was dead. Once Beazley found the keys, he backed the car out of
the garage. However, he hit a wall, damaging the vehicle. He abandoned
it a short distance away, rejoined the Coleman brothers in his mother's
car, and the group returned home. They were arrested more than 45 days
later.
Cedric Coleman, Donald Coleman, and Bobbie Luttig
testified against Beazley at his trial. A jury found him guilty of
capital murder in March 1995 and sentenced him to death. The Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and death sentence in
February 1997. Beazley received an evidentiary hearing for his state
habeas corpus appeal in September 1997. That appeal was later denied, as
were all of his subsequent appeals in state and federal court. Cedric
and Donald Coleman pleaded guilty to capital murder and received life
sentences. They were also convicted of carjacking in federal court and
are currently serving time in federal prison.
After the trial, the Coleman brothers recanted some
of their testimony, claiming they were manipulated by Smith County
prosecutor David Dobbs. "Dobbs actually threatened me by telling me if I
didn't testify the way he wanted that he would make sure my brother got
the death penalty," Cedric Coleman stated in an affidavit in July 2001.
This matter was not raised in Beazley's original state habeas corpus
appeal. Beazley's lawyer, Walter Long, also raised some objections
regarding the fairness of Beazley's trial, such as the fact that his
jury was all-white, while he was black, and concerns that the victim's
son, who is a federal judge, might have meddled in the case. Long argued
that Beazley's former lawyer was incompetent for not making these
objections during the case's habeas corpus stage.
Beazley was originally scheduled to be executed on 15
August 2001. The U.S. Supreme Court denied his final appeal, and the
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles rejected his clemency appeal by a
10-6 vote. However, on the morning of his scheduled execution, Beazley
won a stay from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
In April 2002, the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled
unfavorably on another death penalty case dealing with attorney
incompetence during habeas corpus appeals. After making this ruling, the
court lifted Beazley's stay and allowed his execution to be rescheduled.
Beazley's case drew international attention because
he was 3½ months shy of his 18th birthday when he killed John Luttig.
Texas is one of 22 states that allows the death penalty for defendants
17 or older, and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld such state laws.
Nevertheless, Beazley's lawyers and U.S. and international
anti-death-penalty activists lobbied the governor and the parole board
for clemency.
The victim was the father of J. Michael Luttig, a
federal appeals court judge. Three members of the U.S. Supreme Court who
have personal ties with Michael Luttig -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence
Thomas, and David Souter -- removed themselves from Beazley's case
whenever it was before them. In August 2001, the other six members of
the court voted 3-3 to deny a stay to Beazley. On 27 May, when his stay
request came before them for the second time, the vote was 6-0 against.
Legal experts said that none of the three Justices
were legally required to remove themselves from Beazley's case, but they
did so to remove the appearance of bias.
Beazley's own statements regarding his requests for
clemency did not mirror the arguments made by his lawyer and the
activists lobbying on his behalf. He did not claim that he was unfairly
convicted or sentenced or that he did not deserve death because he was
only 17 when he committed the crime. "I don't like to give ...
explanations or excuses," he said from death row. "Whether I was 15, 16,
17, 21, 25, it should never have happened." Instead, he said that he was
remorseful for what he had done, was a changed person, and was no longer
a threat to anyone. "It's my fault," he said in a court hearing in April.
"I violated the law. I violated this city, and I violated a family ...
I'm sorry. I wish I had a second chance to make up for it."
When Beazley killed Luttig, he was from an
upper-middle class family, was a star athlete at his high school, and
was the president of his senior class. He had never been arrested, but
he had started carrying guns and dealing drugs. "There is no turning
point where I can say I decided to be bad," he said from death row. It's
a process. An acorn doesn't become an oak tree overnight." A model
prisoner during his eight years on death row, Beazley said that he was
no longer a threat to anyone and could prove that he had changed.
Beazley said that the fact that people around the world were supporting
him and working to prevent his execution gave him no consolation. "I
could have the support of the whole world ... but if Mrs. Luttig and her
family wouldn't give me [forgiveness], It would be for nothing."
Smith County District Attorney Jack Skeen, whose
office prosecuted Beazley, said that Beazley's actions following the
crime showed a lack of remorse. Skeen pointed out that Beazley avoided
arrest for 45 days, attempted to hide the murder weapon, and lied to
police about his involvement in the murder. He did not apologize to the
Luttig family until his execution date drew near and his clemency
requests were being prepared, prosecutors said.
On the day of his execution, the Texas Board of
Pardons and Paroles voted 10-7 against commuting Beazley's sentence to
life in prison. Governor Rick Perry declined to grant an emergency 30-day
stay. At his execution, the warden asked Beazley if he wanted to make a
last statement. Beazley turned his head towards Suzanne Luttig, the
victim's daughter, paused, and said "no." He shook his head, said, "no"
again, and then turned his head to face the ceiling. He was pronounced
dead at 6:17 p.m.
In a statement released to the media after his
execution, Beazley apologized again for his "senseless" crime, but also
criticized the Texas criminal justice system for not giving him a second
chance.
May 28, 2002
HUNTSVILLE -- Despite appeals from around the globe
that he be spared the death penalty, Napoleon Beazley was executed
Tuesday for killing a Tyler businessman when he was 17 years old. The
outpouring of indignation over the execution of a youthful offender to
influence Gov. Rick Perry, who rejected a final plea for clemency. "To
delay his punishment would delay justice," Perry said in a statement
shortly before the execution.
Beazley, 25, clad in prison whites and covered with a
white sheet that partially hid the straps holding him to a gurney, was
pronounced dead at 6:17 p.m., about nine minutes after he was injected
with lethal chemicals. Asked by the warden if he had a final comment, he
turned his head and looked for a few seconds at Suzanne Luttig, the
daughter of victim John Luttig, and then said, "No." He closed his eyes
and coughed, then his head bounced slightly as he gasped and sputtered.
Prison spokeswoman Michelle Lyon said Beazley did not ask for a last
meal.
Prison officials issued a written statement from
Beazley after the execution. "I'm not only saddened, but disappointed
that a system that is supposed to protect and uphold what is just and
right can be so much like me when I made the same shameful mistake," the
statement read. "Tonight, we tell our children that in some instances,
in some cases, killing is right." The one-page statement ended with, "No
one wins tonight. No one gets closure. No one walks away victorious."
Suzanne Luttig declined to make a statement.
About 30 anti-death-penalty protesters, some from
overseas, gathered outside barricades at the end of the block where the
red brick Walls unit that houses the execution chamber sits. "It's more
about revenge than it is about punishment and rehabilitation," said
Sana-Andrea Vogt, 35, who traveled from Germany to protest Beazley's
execution and meet with other death-row inmates she has befriended.
Beazley was executed for the April 19, 1994, murder
of Luttig, 63, during an attempt to carjack his Mercedes. Beazley was a
star athlete and class president at Grapeland. The teen and two
companions ambushed Luttig and his wife, Bobbie, as the couple pulled
into their driveway. Beazley shot Luttig twice in the head and fired at
his wife, who escaped by playing dead.
Hours before Beazley was to be executed, his lawyers
prepared last-minute appeals after learning that the Missouri Supreme
Court had halted the execution of a juvenile offender pending a U.S.
Supreme Court decision on a Virginia case on the constitutionality of
executing the mentally retarded. Austin attorney Walter Long was on his
way to Huntsville when he learned about the stay given to Missouri
death-row inmate Christopher Simmons. Long drove back to Austin, where
he prepared a motion asking the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to stop
the execution. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule in the next
two months in Atkins v. Virginia. The argument that mentally retarded
individuals lack mental culpability for their crimes could apply to
juvenile offenders, Long said.
At about 5:45 p.m., the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals refused to grant a stay. The vote was 5-3 with one judge not
participating. Perry then announced that he would not grant a 30-day
reprieve. "I'm appalled that the state of Missouri can do the equitable
and just thing and that among all the decision makers in our state we
can't pull ourselves together to do likewise," said Long.
Texas is one of 22 states that allow the death
penalty for people as young as 17. Seventeen states allow the death
penalty for 16-year-olds.
The Board of Pardons and Paroles had voted about
seven hours before Beazley's execution to reject his request that the
death sentence be commuted. The board voted 10-7 against recommending to
Perry that he reduce the penalty to life in prison and 13-4 against a
reprieve. The parole board voted 10-6 last August to deny a similar
request, but the execution was halted with four hours to spare after a
state appeals court agreed to hear an appeal by Beazley's attorneys.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused a request Tuesday to
hear the case after turning down a similar appeal last week. Three U.S.
Supreme Court judges recused themselves from Beazley's appeals because
of their relationships with the victim's son. Luttig was the father of
J. Michael Luttig, a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Richmond, Va. Those seeking to spare Beazley from the executioner
included Smith County state District Judge Cynthia Stevens Kent, who
presided over the murder trial, 18 state representatives and Nobel Peace
Prize winners Archbishop Desmond Tutu and F.W. de Klerk, former
president of South Africa.
When Kent set his execution date last month, Beazley
tearfully apologized for his crime. "I violated the law. I violated this
city, and I violated a family -- all to satisfy my misguided emotions.
I'm sorry. I wish I had a second chance to make up for it, but I don't,"
he said.
Beazley was the 14th prisoner executed in Texas this
year and the fourth this month. He was the 19th prisoner executed in the
United States for a murder committed when the accused was younger than
18, and the 11th in Texas.
May 29, 2002
Napoleon Beazley, whose case drew international
attention to the execution of those who commit capital crimes before the
age of 18, was put to death Tuesday night in Huntsville for the 1994
carjacking-murder of a Tyler oilman.
The execution was carried out hours
after the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted 10-7 against
recommending that Gov. Rick Perry commute Mr. Beazley's death sentence.
Mr. Beazley, 25, was sentenced to die after a Smith
County jury found him guilty of gunning down John Luttig in a botched
carjacking. Mr. Luttig, 63, was shot at close range as he and his wife
Bobbie returned home from a Bible study.
Ms. Luttig survived by falling
to the ground and playing dead as Mr. Beazley and two accomplices took
the couple's 1989 Mercedes-Benz. Mr. Beazley acknowledged his guilt
after his conviction and offered a tearful public apology to Mr.
Luttig's family in an April hearing in Tyler. In a recent televised
interview, he commented on his age at the time of the crime: "If I was
15, if I was 20, if I was 25, it doesn't matter. It never should have
happened."
Mr. Beazley appeared calm as he watched witnesses
entering the death chamber. When asked whether he had a final statement,
Mr. Beazley looked toward Suzanne Luttig of Tyler, the daughter of the
victim, and paused. He then shook his head and said, "No." He was
pronounced dead at 6:17 p.m. In a one-page typed statement released
after his death, Mr. Beazley described his crime as "not just heinous.
It was senseless." He said he was saddened that the was not given a
second chance, adding, "No one wins tonight."
A high school class president, honors student and
football star who was described by some in his hometown of Grapeland as
a crack-cocaine dealer, Mr. Beazley was the 14th inmate executed in
Texas this year and the fourth this month. He had requested that no
family or friends witness his execution.
Mr. Luttig's daughter and FBI Agent Dennis Murphy of
Tyler, a Luttig family friend, witnessed the execution along with Smith
County District Attorney Jack Skeen and Assistant District Attorney Ed
Marty. Prison officials said only about 30 death-penalty supporters and
opponents demonstrated at the Walls Unit – a relatively small number
compared with other high-profile executions.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected last-minute appeals
Tuesday from Mr. Beazley's lawyers. Mr. Perry issued a statement denying
Mr. Beazley's request for a 30-day reprieve, saying delaying punishment
would "delay justice." Mr. Beazley came within hours of execution last
August but received a late stay from the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals.
Days before that stay, the Supreme Court made an unprecedented
3-3 ruling not to grant Mr. Beazley a reprieve, with three justices
abstaining because of personal ties to Mr. Luttig's son – 4th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig. The parole board then
voted 10-6 against recommending commutation.
The case drew widespread attention because of Mr.
Beazley's age at the time of the slaying and because of his lack of
prior convictions. Pleas for clemency came from entities ranging from
the European Union to Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, the
American Bar Association, the judge who presided over Mr. Beazley's
capital murder trial and the district attorney in Mr. Beazley's home
county.
Dr. William Schultz, executive director of Amnesty
International USA, said in Washington on Tuesday that the execution
violated international law, and other officials with the human-rights
group said that the United States was now among only five countries,
including Congo, Nigeria, Iran and Saudi Arabia – to execute such
youthful offenders. "The U.S. continues its shameful unwillingness to
acknowledge the failures of its capital punishment system – the failure
to apply the death penalty justly, the failure to protect innocent
people from capital prosecution and conviction, and the failure of the
death penalty to decrease crime," Dr. Schultz said.
Some of Mr. Beazley's supporters and defense team
tried to suggest that he didn't get a fair trial because he was black,
his victim was a prominent white man, and his case was heard by an all-white
jury. They also argued that Judge Luttig was too actively involved in
the prosecution, noting that the federal appellate judge moved his
office to Tyler for the trial and alleging that the district attorney's
office conferred with him too closely.
But Smith County prosecutors maintained that Mr.
Beazley was legally an adult under Texas law and that he and two
accomplices came to Tyler, stalked the Luttigs and gunned Mr. Luttig
down without provocation in his own driveway. District Attorney Jack
Skeen noted Tuesday that Mr. Beazley's defense lawyers rejected or
struck one black jury panelist and state and federal courts rejected
claims of prosecutorial bias in the striking of several other black
people from the jury. "The legal issue on the age at which a defendant
can be executed has already been decided and was settled long before
this case gained so much national attention," Mr. Skeen said. "It's
clear that Mr. Beazley certainly knew what his actions were, made
intentional choices, and under Texas law, stands to receive the
consequences of those actions – as he should."
Mr. Skeen and his former chief deputy prosecutor,
David Dobbs, said the ordeal of Mr. Luttig's family had been
particularly difficult because of what they termed an orchestrated
effort by death-penalty opponents to attack Mr. Luttig's son. Both said
the judge was no more interested or involved in his father's case than
any other murder victim's relative. "While people accused Mike Luttig of
politicizing this case, he did anything but that, and the way the case
became politicized is through a very public, deliberate campaign that
has re-victimized him because of his national stature," said Mr. Dobbs,
who is now in private practice. "What is being lost in the rhetoric –
and it seems deliberately obscured – is the fact that Mike and his
sister Suzanne Luttig lost their father and Bobbie Luttig lost her
husband – all for a vehicle."
Defense lawyer David Botsford of Austin said he was
particularly disappointed in the parole board's Tuesday vote because he
believes the Legislature could soon outlaw execution in such cases. He
noted that a bill that would've barred death sentences for young
offenders passed the Texas House in last year's legislative session
before dying in committee. "That's unfortunate that we are so
bloodthirsty that we have to kill our children," he said.
Pardons and Paroles Board member Brendolyn Rogers-Johnson
of Duncanville, one of seven members to recommend clemency, said Mr.
Beazley's age was only one of a number of factors influencing her vote.
"I looked at the fact that he was not a repeat offender, whether or not
he would appear to be a continuous threat to society. I looked at his
background," she said, adding that her vote was "one of the most
difficult decisions I've ever had to make."
Board member Lynn Brown said the overriding factor in
his vote against clemency was the viciousness of Mr. Beazley's crime and
the certainty of his guilt. He said he interviewed Mr. Beazley in May,
after defense lawyers requested a board interview, and asked him whether
his age should be a factor in a clemency decision. "He said, 'I have
never put that forth as an argument; my attorneys put that forth,' " Mr.
Brown said. "I asked him, 'Should the fact that you were age 17 have
made the surviving victim any less terrified?' His answer was no. I also
asked him the question, 'Did the fact that you were 17 make this any
less lethal to the victim who died?' And he said no." Board Chairman
Gerald Garrett of Austin, who voted to recommend clemency, said the
split vote from a board that usually votes unanimously should not be
viewed as a "signal" of a shift in the board's view of capital cases
involving young offenders.
Since reinstatement of the death penalty in the
1970s, Texas has executed nine other people who committed capital crimes
while under the age of 18. Another 28 are on death row, including
another Smith County offender convicted of kidnapping and killing an 8-year-old
boy.
"Many are suggesting ... that this is precedent-setting,
that this is some change in our mind-set. I would caution against that,"
Mr. Garrett said of the board's Tuesday vote. "The next application
before us, if that person happens to have been 17 at the time of the
crime and that's brought to us as an issue, it will be thoroughly
evaluated," he said. "But I would say that there won't be another case
brought before the parole board like Napoleon Beazley's. No two cases
are exactly alike."
Staff writer Michelle Mittelstadt in Washington and
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
To: Letters to the Editor, Fort Worth Star-Telegram
FWST columnist Bob Ray Sanders, with a confusion that
can best be described as willful blindness, seeks to enshrine the final
words of capital murderer Napoleon Beazley.("Beazley's own words best
decry capital punishment", 6/5/02, Fort Worth Star-Telegram). It is
Beazley who is decried, by his own words.
Beazley states "I'm . . . disappointed that a system
that is supposed to protect and uphold what is just and right can be so
much like me when I made the same shameful mistake." Beazley equates the
premeditated, undeserved and brutal capital murder of a totally innocent
man with his own just punishment for committing that crime. Such moral
relativism is simply foul, regardless of your feelings about capital
punishment.
Beazley humbly offers: "If someone tried to dispose
of everyone here (those witnessing the execution) for participating in
this killing, I'd scream a resounding, 'No.' I'd tell them to give them
all the gift that they would not give me ... and that's to give them all
a second chance." How generous. Beazley wouldn't execute those
witnessing his just execution. Saint Beazley. And Beazley didn't have a
second chance? Please. He had infinite chances to choose a life outside
of crime. He had a great life, a wonderful family, was president of his
school class, a great athlete. He had it all. And what did he do? He
threw it away, just as he so casually pumped two bullets into the head
of John Luttig. Mrs. Luttig survived by playing dead, after Beazley
threw some lead in her direction -- he missed.
Beazley continues: "Tonight we tell the world that
there are no second chances in the eyes of justice. ... Tonight, we tell
our children that in some instances, in some cases, killing is right."
Just the opposite. Justice gave Beazley 8 years on death row to make
every thing as right as he could. To make amends, to show true remorse
and contrition. But, instead, he threw that opportunity away, as well.
Instead, it is all about poor Napoleon. And yes, Napoleon, it is a good
lesson for our children. Yes, in some cases killing is right, though
never easy. It is right to search out and kill terrorists that pledge to
murder innocents. And, it is just and right to execute terrorists like
Napoleon Beazley.
Napoleon asks: "But who's wrong if in the end we're
all victims?" It is so common for self serving criminals to see
themselves as victims. Beazley was no different.
Beazley implores: "Give (death row murderers) a
chance to undo their wrongs." It is, of course, impossible to undo a
capital murder and the ensuing horror and pain that still remains with
those who cared and loved John Luttig. You would think that after 8
years of dealing with his deep remorse that Beazley may have figured
that out. But, it seems he figured out very little. More opportunities
wasted.
Mr. Sanders, Beazley's final words say little about
capital punishment, but a lot about Napoleon Beazley.
Dudley Sharp, Resource Director, Justice For All
May 25, 2002
LIVINGSTON, Texas (AP) - Napoleon Beazley seems
oblivious to the tumult he's causing outside the concrete walls and
razor-wire fences of Texas' death row. Prosecutors are eager to see him
executed for the murder of a federal judge's father, while death penalty
opponents decry the punishment for a man who was a juvenile at the time
of the killing. The case has drawn international attention, yet Beazley
is calm about what he expects to be a short future.
"This is a crime, a mistake on my part," he said. "It's
something I'm very sorry for. You reach the point where you say: `Man, I
wish I had a second chance to make the right the things I've done wrong,
to fix the stuff I've started.' But you don't have that second chance."
Beazley readily admits that when he was 17, he and two companions
stalked John and Bobbie Luttig and ambushed the couple on the driveway
of their Tyler home to steal a 10-year-old Mercedes Benz.
He shot at both, hitting John Luttig, 63, in the head
but missing Luttig's wife, who fell and feigned death as Beazley pumped
a second .45-caliber slug into her husband. Beazley, now 25, is
scheduled to be executed Tuesday for the slaying.
Several factors distinguish Beazley from Texas' other
450-plus condemned killers and the 269 who have preceded him to the
nation's busiest death chamber: his age at the time of the murder, the
absence of previous convictions, a sterling school record, good family
background and legal connections of his victim to the nation's highest
court.
Beazley's death would make him the 19th U.S. prisoner
to die since 1976 for a murder committed by a killer younger than 18. He
would be the 11th in Texas.
Numerous organizations, including the Texas Coalition
to Abolish the Death Penalty and Amnesty International, argue that he
was a juvenile offender. "The federal government doesn't allow the
execution of juveniles," lawyer David Botsford said in an appeal that
was turned down Friday by the Supreme Court. "Texas is one of few states
that's done it and the majority of states do not allow it. This is an
issue that needs to be resolved nationwide." The appeal also addressed
John Luttig's tie to the Supreme Court. Justices Clarence Thomas, David
Souter and Antonin Scalia recused themselves because Luttig's son, J.
Michael Luttig, was a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Richmond, Va., and has advised or worked as a clerk for the justices.
Last summer, the remaining justices voted 3-3 to go
forward with the punishment. Supreme Court rules say a tie means the
request for a reprieve is denied. But about four hours before the
execution time, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considered legal
questions raised by his attorneys and the execution was stayed. That
court lifted its order last month. The Supreme Court has ruled in
previous cases a defendant's rights were not violated when the death
sentence was imposed on a murder convict who was at least 16 at the time
of the offense.
In Beazley's case, thousands of signatures were
collected, primarily overseas, on petitions urging the Texas Board of
Pardons and Paroles to spare his life. The American Bar Association
joined clergy from around the world protesting. "I am astounded that
Texas and a few other states in the United States take children from
their families and execute," said Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South
Africa. Eighteen state representatives and Beazley's trial judge,
Cynthia Kent, have urged Rick Gov. Perry to commute Beazley's death
sentence to life in prison, the punishment given to his companions the
night of the murder. The Pardons and Parole Board will submit its
recommendation to Perry hours before Beazley's scheduled injection, and
Perry will announce his decision then.
Kent has said she has a "principled objection" to
executing a youthful offender, though she added that she was "very bound
by the constraints of the law." District Attorney Jack Skeen describes
the Luttig killing as "horrific ... premeditated and predatory." "I am
still convinced the death sentence is the appropriate punishment for
this crime," Skeen said. "I would make the same decision today."
May 28, 2002
HUNTSVILLE, Texas (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court
rejected an emergency stay of execution and a last-ditch appeal Tuesday
for Texas death row inmate Napoleon Beazley. The decision was announced
less than two hours before Beazley was scheduled to die by lethal
injection for the April 1994 killing of 63-year-old John Luttig.
Beazley was convicted of shooting Luttig -- whose son
is now a federal judge -- twice in the head as he and two friends tried
to steal Luttig's Mercedes-Benz from his driveway. Beazley is scheduled
to be executed at 6 p.m. Tuesday (7 p.m. ET). Justices David Souter,
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas all recused themselves from the case
because Michael Luttig, the victim's son, had worked for them. Michael
Luttig is now a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Richmond, Virginia. The high court rejected another appeal last week.
Beazley's lawyers argued that executing Beazley, who
was 17 at the time of the murder, would violate the Eighth Amendment's
provision against cruel and unusual punishment. They also said that
executing an inmate who was under 18 at the time of his crime would
violate international treaties on civil and political rights.
International opponents of Beazley's execution
include Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who recently wrote a letter
to the Texas pardons board asking for clemency. According to The
Associated Press, Beazley's execution would make him the 11th prisoner
in Texas and the 19th in the United States to be put to death since 1976
for a murder committed when the killer was younger than 18.
Earlier Tuesday, the Texas Board of Pardons and
Paroles voted 10-7 against commuting Beazley's sentence to life in
prison and 13-4 against blocking the execution. The board makes
recommendations on executions to the governor, who can either accept or
reject their advice. In the past 30 years, the board has voted for
clemency only once, in 1998.
Beazley originally was scheduled to be executed last
August, but the state Court of Criminal Appeals granted a stay of
execution about four hours before he was scheduled to die. At that time,
the pardons board voted 10-6 against clemency. In recent years, the
United States has seen growing opposition to the death penalty for
people who commit murder under the age of 18.
Indiana this year abolished the death penalty in such
cases, and Illinois and Maryland halted all executions until they can be
sure such issues as racial bias and legal fairness have been properly
addressed. Executions continue in 36 other states, including Texas.
Beazley, who was president of his senior class and a
football star, lived in Grapeland, a small town about 60 miles from
Tyler, Texas. He had no arrest record, although he has said he sold
crack and owned a gun. He has apologized to the Luttig family, saying
there is no excuse for what he did.
May 28, 2002
Nobody contests that Napoleon Beazley murdered John
Luttig of Tyler on the night of April 19, 1994. Even Beazley himself
admits to shooting Luttig with a .45 caliber pistol in the head from
three feet away while trying to steal Luttig's Mercedes. "The only
reason I'm here is because of me," Beazley said in an August 2001
interview with The Huntsville Item.
Still, a large number of anti-death penalty activists
and a horde of American and international media are expected to be in
Huntsville today as Beazley faces a second execution date this evening.
The reason for the attention has nothing to do with Beazley's guilt or
innocence, but his age: Beazley was 17 years old -- a minor -- the night
he ended Luttig's life. Today, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles is
set to vote on whether to recommend to Gov. Rick Perry that Beazley's
death sentence be commuted to life.
Before the night of April 19, 1994, Beazley appeared
to be on his way to becoming a Texas success story. The class president
of Grapeland High School, Beazley was a member of the football team and
was the runner-up in the school's "most popular" competition. However,
Beazley was in possession of some less than wholesome desires. The night
before Luttig's murder, Beazley told his friend Cedric Coleman -- who
would be an accomplice in the crime -- that he wanted to "jack a car."
The next day, he told a friend at school that he "might be driving a
(Mercedes) Benz soon."
That night, Beazley borrowed his mother's car and
drove with Coleman and his brother Donald to Tyler. On the way to Tyler,
Beazley repeated his intention to steal a car and said he wanted to find
out what it was like to kill someone. As they entered Tyler, Beazley
spotted a 1987 Mercedes driven by Luttig. Luttig and his wife Bobbie
were returning from a trip from Dallas when they passed Beazley and the
Coleman brothers.
The trio followed the Luttigs to their house, at
which time Beazley stripped off his shirt and ran towards the car.
Donald Coleman followed him, carrying a sawed-off shotgun. Beazley
opened the driver's side door and fired one shot with his pistol,
hitting Luttig in the head but not killing him. He then fired at Mrs.
Luttig and missed. Bobbie Luttig then played dead on the ground, hoping
that Beazley and Coleman would think the shot fired by Beazley had hit
her.
Beazley then returned to John Luttig and shot him
again in the head, killing him instantly. He then asked Coleman if Mrs.
Luttig was dead, to which he replied that she was still moving. "Shoot
the (expletive)," Beazley said. Coleman said she had stopped moving and
was dead.
Beazley obtained his objective -- the Mercedes -- but
only for a short time. He quickly ran into a retaining wall and was
forced to abandon it. Beazley rejoined the Coleman brothers and returned
to Grapeland. A few days later, Beazley told a friend in conversation
that he had committed the crime and was arrested a short time later.
When asked by his father if he had indeed killed Luttig, Beazley said he
had. "It was a trip," he said.
The death sentence given to Beazley for the crime on
March 17, 1995 by a Smith County jury has drawn the ire of a number of
activist groups, who feel Beazley's actions as a juvenile should not be
grounds for capital punishment. "At 17, Napoleon Beazley wasn't old
enough to buy cigarettes or vote, but he was old enough to be sent to
death row," author Shawn E. Rhea wrote in the September 2001 issue of
Savoy magazine, who quoted one person as saying Beazley was "a kid from
a fine family with a good background." "While the rest of the world has
agreed that rehabilitation must win out over punishment as the
overriding objective in responding to crimes of children, Texas is set
to execute a young offender whose rehabilitative potential was testified
to by a stream of trial witnesses who had known him for years," says one
column written by Amnesty International and found on the Canadian
Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty's Web site. "If he lived in
China, or Yemen, or Kyrgyzstan, or Kenya, or Russia ... Napoleon Beazley
would not be suffering this fate."
Amnesty International has also insinuated that the
influence of Luttig's son, a federal appeals court judge, might have
played a role in Beazley's sentence. "While we have the utmost sympathy
for the suffering of the Luttig family, we are concerned by the role
that the victim's son, a federal judge, played in the proceedings," the
group said in a press release. The 43-nation Council of Europe has also
urged for Beazley's sentence to be commuted, with Council President Lord
Russell-Johnston and Secretary-general Walter Schwimmer making a written
plea to Perry on Beazley's behalf. "We call on you now to show restraint
in the case of Napoleon Beazley whose life now depends entirely on your
decision," they wrote. "It is a matter of human decency to right the
wrong before it is too late."
While much attention has been placed on the efforts
to commute Beazley's sentence, strong support for his execution exists
as well. "(We sought the death penalty) based on the facts of the
crime," Ed Marty, Smith County assistant district attorney told the Item
in August, 2001. "There is all this breast beating from all these people
with Amnesty International. They have absolutely forgotten about John
Luttig."
The Houston-based Activist group Justice For All
maintains a Web site called prodeathpenalty.com, on which they take
issue with those who would want to have Beazley's death sentence
commuted. One columnist ripped into Rhea's story in Savoy magazine,
writing, "This, dear reader, is what is passing for logic on the the
left side of the African-American political spectrum these days ...
Because Beazley couldn't buy a pack of Kools, the reasoning goes, he
shouldn't be held accountable for cold-blooded murder."
Another column on the site condemns citizens of
European Union nations for "whining" about Beazley's execution. "Shut up
about America's death penalty laws. And you can climb off our backs
about our gun laws, too," the column says. "Funny how none of the
countries worried about America's death penalty or gun laws when they
needed us ... We deserve some compensation for keeping them safe. The
cost should be either to take our death row inmates (to their countries)
or dummy up about how the death penalty is applied in America."
Regardless of the arguments, Beazley's fate lies in
the hands of an appeal before the United States Supreme Court. Barring a
stay of execution from that appeal, or an unexpected move from Perry,
Beazley will be executed by lethal injection in the death chamber at the
Huntsville "Walls" Unit sometime after 6 p.m. today.
That sentence seems to be one Marty has no problems
with. "I think the people of Texas understand, and ultimately, that's
what I care about," he told the Item in August 2001. "I think that the
people of Texas understand that under these facts, Napoleon Beazley
deserves a death sentence."
NAPOLEON BEAZLEY, JUVENILE OFFENDER - Execution date:
5/28/2002.
Napoleon Beazley, a black male aged 24, is scheduled
to be executed on May 30 for the 1994 death of John Luttig, a prominent
Texas businessman. Only 17 at the time of his offense, Beazley is one of
29 Texas inmates presently on death row for crimes committed as
juveniles.
In order to be eligible for the death penalty in
Texas, the jury must deem the defendant a continuing threat to society.
In Beazley's trial, the jury's finding of future dangerousness was based
solely on the testimony of Beazley's co-defendants in the crime, Cedric
and Donald Coleman, who provided the only trial evidence describing the
offense and Beazley's state of mind in relation to the offense.
Their
statements were in stark contrast to the personal accounts given by more
than 15 people testifying on Beazley's behalf. Napoleon's teacher
described him as a student who was "popular, well-respected, liked, and
friendly." A talented athlete, Napoleon was both the senior class
president and an academic tutor. He had no prior arrest record and no
history of discipline problems at school. Cindy Garner, the district
attorney from Beazley's hometown, also testified to Beazley's law-abiding,
peaceful reputation.
Since testifying in court, Cedric and Donald Coleman
have signed sworn statements that they suppressed a deal reached with
the Smith County DA's office, an agreement in which the state implicitly
agreed not to pursue the death penalty in their cases in return for
their testimonies against Beazley.
The prosecution portrayed Beazley as
a "lurking animal" to the all-white jury. In a post-conviction
investigation, a juror referred to Beazley as the "nigger who got what
he deserved." Another juror was a long-time employee of the victim's
business partner, a significant fact the individual failed to disclose.
Until recently, Beazley's attorneys have never adequately addressed
these issues. The state-appointed habeas attorney failed to raise any
claim regarding the blatantly racist juror. Beazley's attorney in his
first appeal was jailed for contempt of court for failing to produce a
brief.
Support in Texas for juvenile executions is not
strong. A recent poll in the Houston Chronicle indicated that only a
third of respondents supported the death penalty for juvenile offenders.
In Beazley's trial, the state of Texas craftily painted the picture of a
habitually violent young man, a far cry from the teenager considered a
leader among his peers.
Texas Governor Rick Perry can only commute Beazley's
sentence if the state's Board of Pardon and Paroles recommends it. The
Board has demonstrated that they will only make such a recommendation if
the majority of trial officials of the court of conviction request it.
Judge Kent, the trial judge at Beazley's trial, wrote a letter to Gov.
Perry last August to ask him to spare Beazley's life. Beazley's last
stay was granted so that the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals could take
a closer look at his sentence. Since the stay was lifted, however, the
Board again needs to be persuaded that executing juvenile offenders is
an affront to human rights around the world. Write to the state of Texas
to protest the possible execution of Texas' second juvenile offender in
less than half a year.
NEWS
Judge sets May execution date for Napoleon Beazley
An East Texas judge on Friday set a May 28 execution
date for Napoleon Beazley, a convicted killer who last year received a
stay just hours before he was to be executed by lethal injection.
State District Judge Cynthia Kent, who presided over
Beazley's trial and last year wrote Gov. Rick Perry in favor of
commuting the convicted killer's sentence, set the date in the case that
has received international scrutiny.
After the ruling, Beazley, who was 17 when he killed
a prominent Tyler businessman, turned and apologized to a packed
courtroom as his family members wept.
Beazley, now 25, was a high school class president
and star athlete at the time of the 1994 murder of John Luttig, 63. The
victim's son, J. Michael Luttig, is a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. Defense attorneys argued that it was
against international law to set an execution date for Beazley because
he was 17 at the time of the killing. Defense attorney David Botsford
had requested a Sept. 17 execution date, which would give him enough
time to file another appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Mr. Beazley is
not going anywhere," Botsford said. "He's going to be down in Livingston,
where he has been all along."
Beazley and brothers Cedric and Donald Coleman, all
from Grapeland, about 120 miles southeast of Dallas, were arrested 7
weeks after the shooting based on an anonymous tip. The Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, which issued Beazley's stay in August, lifted it last
week.
On Thursday, the Texas chapter of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People asked that Beazley's
sentence to be commuted to life in prison since he was 17 when he
committed the crime. Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP, said
race may have played a factor with an all-white jury deciding the fate
of Beazley, who is black. Luttig was white.
A group of 18 Democratic legislators and Houston
County District Attorney Cindy Garner, who calls herself a strong
advocate of the death penalty, also have written Perry urging
commutation. Under Texas law, Perry can grant a 30-day reprieve from
execution but can't order a commutation without the recommendation of
the state Board of Pardons and Paroles. The board voted 10-6 last year
against commuting the sentence. Beazley's attorneys filed a motion
asking Kent to postpone the rescheduling hearing until after the 2003
legislative session, giving supporters time to lobby for changes in
state law.
Napoleon Beazley -- who had no prior criminal history
and who was just 17 years old at the time of his offense -- is now
scheduled for execution on August 15, 2001 in Texas. He was sentenced to
death for the April 19, 1994 murder of Mr. John Luttig in Tyler, Texas.
Because he was a juvenile at the time of his crime, Napoleon's execution
would be contrary to American standards of justice, fairness, and
decency as well as international law. This is a call for his sentence to
be commuted to life in prison. In appealing for clemency on behalf of
Napoleon Beazley, we do not, in any way, seek either to excuse the crime
or to minimize the pain and suffering it caused the family and friends
of Mr. John Luttig.
I. NAPOLEON HAS EXPRESSED HIS REMORSE AND REGRET FOR
KILLING MR. JOHN LUTTIG.
Shortly after committing this crime, 17 year old
Napoleon told friends that "he had made a big mistake" and that being
involved in killing Mr. Luttig was the "stupidest thing he had ever
done." He was reportedly even suicidal in the days following the murder.
He recently stated, "[i]t was an impulsive act, one I regretted
instantly." He says that he is overwhelmed by what he did and "thinks
about it every day." He continues to struggle to reconcile his crime
with whom he has since become and has stated that "there is no
justification for what happened... I don't blame anybody else for being
here (on death row) but me." In the seven years he has been in prison,
he has continued to read and write, to mature emotionally, and to make
his life as productive and meaningful as possible. For example, when at
the Ellis One Unit near Huntsville, Texas, Napoleon was trusted by
prison officials to move outside of his cell and to do various jobs
within the death row facility.
II. NAPOLEON DID NOT HAVE ANY PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD
AND WAS WELL LIKED AND RESPECTED BY HIS FAMILY, FRIENDS, SCHOOL, CHURCH
AND COMMUNITY.
Prior to this crime, Napoleon had never been arrested
or involved in any juvenile or criminal proceedings. Moreover, he was
elected president of his senior class in high school, was runner up for
his hometown's "Mr. Grapeland" and was also runner up for his high
school's title of "most athletic" (excelling in baseball, track and
football). He attended church regularly and was considered kind and
helpful by members of his church. In his community, he had a reputation
for being "polite, courteous, respectful, friendly and kind."
Indeed, at his sentencing hearing testimony regarding
his good character and achievements was given by teachers, coaches and
his high school principal as well as members of his community, family,
church and school board. As one of his teachers testified, "good people
can do some horrible things" and there was much more to Napoleon than
the terrible crime that he had committed. Even Cindy Garner, the
District Attorney from Napoleon's home county (Houston County),
testified at the sentencing hearing on Napoleon's behalf. While she has
been a strong proponent of the death penalty, she continues to maintain
that the death penalty is inappropriate in Napoleon's case.
III. NAPOLEON WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH BASED ON WEAK
AND INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT HE POSED A CONTINUING DANGER TO
SOCIETY, INCLUDING SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS BY HIS ACCOMPLICES MADE IN
EXCHANGE FOR AN AGREEMENT THAT THEIR LIVES WOULD BE SPARED.
Under Texas law, one of the most critical factors
that a jury must consider in imposing a sentence of death is "whether
there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of
violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society" --
otherwise known as future dangerousness. Texas juries are permitted to
consider this factor notwithstanding scientific and medical proof that
"future dangerousness" is impossible to predict on an individual basis.
At Napoleon's trial, the most damaging witness against him was a
psychologist who had never testified for the defense in a capital trial,
who had never found a defendant in a capital case NOT to be a future
danger, and who did not personally interview Napoleon or review his life
history.
Conceding that the best indicators of future
dangerousness are past criminal acts and that Napoleon had none, the
psychologist nevertheless found Napoleon likely to be a future danger.
The psychologist admitted that he based his opinion on a number
statements about Napoleon which were made by Donald and Cedric Coleman (who
were also involved in the killing and robbery of Mr. Luttig). Since the
trial, the Coleman brothers have signed affidavits admitting that
several of these statements and much of their critical trial testimony
were untrue. They have also admitted that they testified for the State
of Texas against Napoleon on the basis of an undisclosed deal that
secured them life sentences.
Perhaps the most damaging piece of evidence relied on
by the psychologist (and by the trial jury and appellate court) was
testimony by Cedric and Donald Coleman that -- prior to the murder --
Napoleon had stated that "he wanted to feel what it was like to kill
someone." Donald Coleman now admits that he never heard Napoleon say
this. Cedric Coleman now swears that Napoleon never made such a
statement prior to the murder. Rather he now states that, days after the
crime, Napoleon was suicidal and depressed for having killed Mr. Luttig
and -- in an effort to make sense of why he had done such a terrible
thing -- stated, "I guess I was tripping and wanted to see what it was
like to shoot somebody." Therefore, critical evidence used by the jury
as the basis to sentence Napoleon to death was either unreliable, untrue
or taken out of its actual context.
IV. EXECUTING JUVENILE OFFENDERS RUNS COUNTER TO
BASIC AMERICAN STANDARDS OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
The execution of a juvenile offender is contrary to
fundamental principles of American justice which punishes according to
the degree of culpability and reserves the death penalty for the "worst
of the worst" offenders. By their very nature, teenagers are less
mature, and therefore less culpable, than adults who commit similar acts
but have no such explanation for their conduct.
Adolescence is a transitional period of life when
cognitive abilities, emotions, judgment, impulse control, identity --
even the brain -- are still developing. Indeed, immaturity is the reason
we do not allow those under eighteen to assume the major
responsibilities of adulthood such as military combat service, voting,
entering into contracts, drinking alcohol or making medical decisions.
A number of organizations such as the American Bar
Association, The American Psychiatric Association, the Child Welfare
League of America, the Children's Defense Fund, the Youth Law Center,
the Juvenile Law Center, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, the
American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy for
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Mental Health Association,
and the Constitution Project have come to oppose executions for crimes
committed by offenders under the age of 18. Similarly, the United
Nations High Commission for Human Rights, the European Union, the
Council of Europe and the Vatican have expressed their strongest
opposition to the execution of juvenile offenders.
V. A MAJORITY OF STATES HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT
SUBJECTING ADOLESCENTS AND TO THE DEATH PENALTY IS CONTRARY TO BASIC AND
EVOLVING STANDARDS OF DECENCY
Of the 38 states that permit the death penalty, only
23 permit the execution of persons who were under the age of 18 at the
time of their crimes. Among these 23 states, only 16 have juvenile
offenders on their death rows while only 7 have carried out actual
executions of juveniles since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973.
In 1999, the State of Montana abolished the juvenile death penalty while
the Florida Supreme Court raised the age of eligibility from 16 to 17. A
growing number of states are considering legislation to abolish the
execution of juvenile offenders, including: Arizona, Indiana,
Pennsylvania, Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas, and
Texas. Indeed, in the Texas 2001 legislative session, a bill to
eliminate the death penalty for offenders under 18 passed the House and
gained significant support in the Senate before it was procedurally
barred from reaching a vote on the Senate floor. Moreover, a recent
national poll conducted by the Houston Chronicle indicated that solid
support for the capital punishment of juvenile offenders has fallen to
only 26%.
VI. EXECUTING JUVENILE OFFENDERS IS CONTRARY TO
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS
In continuing to execute juvenile offenders, the
United States acts in defiance of international law and almost complete
agreement among nations. Indeed, such executions have all but ended
around the world, except in the United States. The death penalty for
juvenile offenders is expressly prohibited by the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the American Convention on Human
Rights and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The
United States and Somalia (which has no recognizable government) are the
only two countries that have failed to ratify the CRC -- 191 nations
have adopted the fundamental standards articulated in this treaty.
In the last decade, the United States has executed
more juvenile offenders than all the world's nations combined. Since
1990, only seven countries are reported to have executed prisoners who
were under 18 years of age at the time of the crime: The Democratic
Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the
United States. The nations of Pakistan, and Yemen have since abolished
the juvenile death penalty, while Saudi Arabia and Nigeria deny that
they have executed juvenile offenders. In the last three years the
number of nations that execute juvenile offenders has dropped
significantly to only three: Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo and
the United States. Moreover, just this past year, Iran stated that it no
longer executes juvenile offenders while the leader of the Democratic
Republic of Congo commuted the death sentences of four juvenile
offenders. The execution of Napoleon Beazley would further alienate the
United States from the international community, thus damaging our
legitimacy as a leader on the protection and promotion of human rights,
particularly the rights of children.
ACTION AVAILABLE - Under Texas law, the Texas Board
of Pardons and Paroles has the exclusive power to commute a sentence of
death to life in prison. The Board may do this upon the request of an
inmate or if two of three trial officials seek a commutation. The trial
officials are the trial judge, the trial prosecutor, and the county
sheriff. In order to avoid burdening the court, please do not write the
trial judge. Otherwise, please write to: Governor Rick Perry.
August 23, 2001
It now turns out the same people who are hysterical
about the possibility of executing the innocent are also hysterical
about the idea of executing the guilty. Unless you are zealously opposed
to capital punishment in all cases (except a baby sleeping peacefully in
its mother's womb), death-row inmate Napoleon Beazley deserves the death
penalty.
Beazley, 25, is the senior-class president with a "ready
smile" who put a gun to the head of a 63-year-old man and pulled the
trigger. I'm only guessing about the "ready smile" part. Vicious, lumpen
predators who would slaughter an old man for a three-block joy ride are
always described in the press as having "ready smiles."
Beazley lost his proud boast of having no criminal
record when he killed a man at 17 years old. Along with his two hoodlum
friends, Beazley confronted John Luttig and his wife, Bobbie, in their
own driveway in 1994. Beazley wanted their Mercedes-Benz, so he shot
them. He then walked into a puddle of Mr. Luttig's blood and shot him a
second time directly in the head. He rifled through the dead man's pants
pocket for the car keys and took the Mercedes. Mrs. Luttig survived by
playing dead.
This wasn't a crime out of Columbo. Beazley crashed
the Mercedes a few blocks away and left it behind, awash with his prints.
Also not good from the "perfect crime" standpoint, Beazley had
previously informed his classmates that he soon expected to be driving a
Mercedes. The evidence was overwhelming and, consequently, 12 jurors
sentenced Beazley to death. No one, including Beazley, denies that he
murdered Mr. Luttig, shot at Mrs. Luttig, and stole the car.
The jury's correct conclusion that he committed a
felony murder he admits to, Beazley says, was sadly predictable: "The
cards were stacked against me already." Evidently the real reason for
the jury's verdict was not the heinous murder, but rank prejudice. As
Beazley explained: "[The victim] was a prominent businessman. I was at
his home, in his area. People were already pissed off. I wasn't too
shocked." It was a touching show of remorse.
The fact that no one claims Beazley is innocent is
the only truly shocking development. Preposterous claims of innocence
are de rigueur in death penalty cases. If Beazley had lyingly claimed to
be innocent, no further information about the crime would ever have been
revealed by the American press corps. Newspaper headlines would read
"Napoleon Beazley: Killer or Victim?" Polls would be commissioned
asking: "Should the innocent be executed?"
The most likely reason Beazley's lawyers opted
against a manifestly false claim of innocence is that the victim's son
is a prominent federal judge. He could probably publicize the true facts
of the case if necessary. In all other respects, Beazley's post-conviction
claims are indistinguishable from those of all the "innocent" guys on
death row. The modus operandi of anti-death-penalty fanatics never
changes.
Inevitably, the defense counsel steps forward to
admit he did a lousy job in order to create an "ineffective assistance
of counsel" claim. The lawyer's incompetence is always framed in a
manner to avoid his having to forfeit his law license. Beazley's lawyer
says it was a lack of money that prevented him from mounting an
effective defense. Also like clockwork, some soppy-headed lady lawyer
involved in the case, generally the prosecutor, will issue a surprise
plea for the killer's life. In Beazley's case, it was the presiding
trial judge, Cynthia Kent.
Then there are the rote claims of racism. Here, the
defense alleges that in a post-trial interview, one of the jurors used
the N-word in front of Beazley's lawyer. This, frankly, is pretty
pathetic. Usually the defense can pester at least one juror into
attesting to the jury's invidious prejudice. This time we have it on the
word of a criminal defense attorney. As a rule of thumb, criminal
defense lawyers would gleefully sign affidavits swearing the Earth is
flat if it would prevent just one vicious killer from being executed.
Finally, Amnesty International denounces the death
sentence for some unique barbarity never before seen in a death-penalty
case, making it the single most monstrous punishment ever imposed in the
history of mankind. This time, Amnesty complains that Beazley is being
punished for an act he committed as a "child." Beazley, it seems, was a
few months shy of his 18th birthday when he murdered Mr. Luttig in cold
blood.
It's good to get all this out in the Beazley case. It
can now be said that even when the defense counsel is ineffective, the
trial judge opposes the capital sentence, the jurors are racist, and
Amnesty International is hysterical — American juries still manage to
come to the correct decision! Beazley admits he committed a barbaric
murder. That's precisely what the jury found.
CNN to debut locally shot documentary on execution
A nationwide television audience will get a small
glimpse at life in Huntsville this weekend, as a CNN documentary filmed
here last year will make its domestic debut.
The program, entitled "CNN Presents: Scheduled to Die,"
followed several members of the Huntsville community on the day of the
2001 scheduled execution of Napoleon Beazley, who was later given a stay.
Beazley is now scheduled to be put to death Tuesday.
The program will air Saturday at 8 p.m. and Sunday at
6 and 10 p.m. "The original interest in this story was just to come and
chronicle an execution," said Bill Smee, senior supervising producer of
"CNN Presents." "It sort of evolved because of the extraordinary
development in the Napoleon Beazley case, with the 11th-hour stay. Now,
it chronicles his story a little more."
The case of Beazley, who was sentenced to death for
killing the father of a federal appeals court judge when he was 17 years
old, has gained international attention. For Beazley's first execution
date, a large contingent of foreign media -- as well as protesters --
converged on Huntsville. "It was interesting for us for us to see," Smee
said. "For some, Napoleon Beazley is the poster child for the injustice
(in Texas); for others, there's no question about his guilt."
The story, which was done by CNN's international
correspondent Christiane Amanpour, followed the daily activities of
people like Texas Department of Criminal Justice public information
officer Larry Fitzgerald and then-prison chaplain James Brazzil -- both
of whom were profiled this past week in The Huntsville Item -- as well
as former Item reporter Michelle Lyons, who would have covered the
execution.
"Larry is at the center of the story, because he has
to deal with the media from around the world. He was very colorful and
candid," Smee said. "To some, Michelle's job was an extraordinary thing
for a young reporter. But, as you know now, it's just part of that job."
"They followed me around all day, even when I'd do
things like go and get coffee," said Lyons, now a public information
officer with TDCJ. "They came to see how we cover a high-profile
execution." The documentary, which was originally supposed to air last
September, was postponed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It aired
last week internationally for the first time, and did not go unnoticed.
"I've gotten e-mails from people in places like South Africa and England,"
Lyons said. "Most of them came from anti-death penalty folks who feel
executing Napoleon Beazley is wrong."
Smee said one of the more interesting things the CNN
crews discovered was the interest of the Huntsville community in
executions -- or, more precisely, the lack thereof. "There was some
surprise at the extent to which the town goes about its business and how
it's just a part of life there," he said. "Locally, it just doesn't
generate much interest or outrage that executions do elsewhere. We went
to the Cafe Texan and saw how life just goes on and people didn't change
as the clock ticked down to the execution."
AUSTIN - Passionate pleas directed to Gov. Rick Perry
and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles were heard from members of
the clergy, attorneys, civil rights advocates and family members for the
commutation of Napoleon Beazley's death sentence to life in prison
during a Thursday press conference held in the state Capitol in Austin.
The small Senate pressroom was filled to capacity
with supporters, family and media as clemency for Beazley, who is
sentenced to die for the 1994 robbery/slaying of 63-year-old civic
leader John Luttig.
Beazley's execution was set for Tuesday by state
District Judge Cynthia Kent last month after all of his appeals were
exhausted, but his attorneys continue to work on his behalf.
Walter Logan, Beazley's attorney, said during the
press conference he had filed for a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court
to stay the Tuesday execution and also filed an appeal based on
arguments on the Eighth amendment. Logan said interpretation is
beginning to sway in the highest court in the land and his argument is
the amendment does not allow the execution of a minor. "I will continue
to work to have this sentence commuted, but in Texas, it is like holding
out against hope," he said.
The board is to vote Friday for the second time on
whether to commute Beazley's death sentence to life in prison. The board
last year voted, 10-6, against commuting Beazley's death sentence, and a
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stay was later lifted.
Beazley was 17 when he gunned down Luttig in the
victim's driveway. At the forefront of his lawyers' arguments is the
defendant's age. The trial judge, some legislators and church leaders
have opposed killing Beazley because he was young when he committed
capital murder. The state of Texas recognizes those 17 and older as
eligible for criminal prosecution, but Beazley's lawyers predict
executing killers who were 17 when they committed their crimes will soon
by barred by law. "I think it is important the public continue to be
educated on these issues," Logan said.
He said the board may reach a decision by Friday, but
more than likely it would be Tuesday at the earliest, because of the
Memorial Day holiday weekend. During the press conference, Dr. Beverly
Sutton, an Austin child psychiatrist, said Texas is only one of a few
places left in the world that allows the execution of minors. "Many of
us Texans still have a frontier mentality, as in an eye for an eye
justice. I ask for clemency to be granted for Napoleon Beazley," she
said.
Dr. Sutton's words were reiterated as each person who
spoke at the press conference made the same request of Perry and the
Board. The Rev. David Hoster, St. George's Episcopal Church, Austin,
read excerpts of a letter from The More Rev. Desmond M. Tutu, Anglican
Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, Africa.
"The obstinacy of the Smith County District Attorney,
who within the last week has set about getting the death penalty against
a new child offender, is something with which I lament that I am all too
familiar. During the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings in my
country, there were members of the apartheid government who refused to
see that the human rights abuses they had committed were wrong and
unlawful. I stand assured the Smith County authorities have been
educated on that fact," said Tutu, the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Tutu said he "humbly pleaded" for Beazley's life to be spared.
Sister Mary Lou Stubles read a prepared statement
from the Diocese of Austin Bishop Gregory Aymond, the Catholic Church of
Central Texas, which said Catholic bishops across the nation renewed
their opposition to the death penalty in 1999 on Good Friday. "The
values of my faith call me to seek restorative justice. Therefore, I ask
the Board of Pardons and Paroles to seek the commutation of Napoleon
Beazley's sentence from death to life in prison, and I ask Gov. Perry to
commute his sentence," he said. "We cannot teach killing is wrong by
killing," he said.
Beazley's parents said they are proud of their son
and love him more than words could describe. "If this would not have
been a federal judge's father, the death penalty would not have been
sought by the Smith County District Attorney's Office. It's not a
question of whether he was there or not. It is a question of whether he
is a menace to society and he isn't. I think he deserves to live," said
Rena Beazley, his mother.
Ireland Beazley choked back tears as he began to
speak to those attending the press conference. "I don't know how to
express the love I feel for my son. I'm proud of him. He grew up like
anyone else. He just got caught up in a bad situation," he said.
The elder Beazley asked Perry and the board to grant
his son clemency. "My son did wrong, but overzealous prosecutors in
Smith County sought the death penalty," he said.
Smith County District Attorney Jack Skeen said
Thursday he would again seek the death penalty in this case if he tried
it today and the press conference was a ploy to influence the board and
the governor. "Press conferences such as the one held today in Austin,
publicized by the press releases to the media from death penalty
opponents, do not change the facts of Beazley's horrific crime or that
he was a dope dealer in Grapeland. He denied involvement in the crime
and never took responsibility or even expressed any 'claimed' remorse
until years later when he lost appeals and faced the death penalty," he
said. Beazley supporters now wait for word from the board and governor
on what fate he will face.
AUSTIN (AP) - Napoleon Beazley's parents and more
than two dozen central Texas clergy members pleaded Thursday for Gov.
Rick Perry and state officials to commute Beazley's death sentence to
life in prison because he was 17 when he shot a Tyler businessman in
1994. "I think he deserves to live," said Beazley's mother, Rena Beazley.
Her son is scheduled to die by lethal injection Tuesday.
Beazley has acknowledged his guilt and has apologized
to the victim's family. "It's not a question of whether he was there or
not," Rena Beazley said. "It's the question of whether he is a menace to
society and he isn't."
Under Texas law, Perry can grant a 30-day reprieve
from execution, but can't order a commutation without the recommendation
of the state Board of Pardons and Paroles. The board voted 10-6 last
year against commuting the sentence. The board can review the case again.
Perry spokesman Gene Acuna said the governor would not comment.
Beazley's case has received international scrutiny
from critics of Texas' capital punishment system. Defense attorneys
argue the execution would violate international law and have questioned
whether race played a role. Beazley is black and his victim was white.
He was convicted by an all-white jury. Prosecutors say that Texas law,
in which a 17-year-old is considered an adult, takes precedence over an
international treaty.
The case also includes some interesting twists. The
victim, 63-year-old John Luttig, was the father of a federal judge. The
East Texas judge who sentenced Beazley to die wrote to Perry last year
urging Beazley's life be spared.
A group of 18 Democratic legislators and Houston
County District Attorney Cindy Garner, who calls herself a strong
advocate of the death penalty, also have written Perry urging
commutation. Beazley avoided the death chamber in August when the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals issued a stay of execution just hours before
he was to die. The stay was lifted last month and the new execution date
was set.
Beazley, now 25, was a high school class president
and star athlete at the time of the 1994 murder of John Luttig, 63. The
victim's son, J. Michael Luttig, is a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.
The clergy members attending the new conference at
the state Capitol presented a letter supporting Beazley's case from
retired Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa to Gerald
Garrett, chairman of the parole board. "I find it incomprehensible that
the death penalty should be imposed upon a person who was a child when
the offense occurred," Tutu wrote.
Beazley's attorney, Walter Long, said he has filed a
motion with U.S. Supreme Court seeking to stop the execution. Having
worked several death row cases in Texas, including infamous pick-axe
killer Karla Faye Tucker who was executed in 1998, Long sounded
pessimistic about Beazley's chances for a commutation in the nation's
leading death penalty state.
"In Texas, it's like holding out against hope," he
said.
Again, Mr. Napoleon Beazley has received a date of
execution, May 28th, 2002. Mr. Beazley was 17 years old when Mr. John
Luttig (white) was tragically and senselessly killed at the hands of
Beazley (colored). An all white jury sentenced Mr. Beazley to death.
This execution will be illegal according to international laws strictly
prohibiting the execution of any person under the age of 18 at the time
of a crime.
It's time for the international community to
interfere and send the strongest message possible to the United States
that we do not accept so-called legal killings of any human being, let
alone a completely changed juvenile person, convicted by an obvious
racist jury. Mr. Beazley had the following comment to his new execution
date:
"8 years ago, I involved myself in a crime I
instantly regret. I knew it was wrong. I know it is wrong now. I've been
trying to make up for it ever since that moment. I've apologized ever
since that moment, not just through words, but through my acts. If I
didn't care about what happened to John Luttig, then I wouldn't have
cared enough to change. Nobody is going to win in this situation, and if
we all lose, then I know all of those losses start with me. There's a
lot of people involved in this -- not just me. The Luttig family, the
DA's, Tyler, Grapeland, my family, whole bunch of other people involved.
People against the death penalty, for it, everybody involved.
I want everybody to know, those people, the reason
ya'll are here is because of me. It's my fault. I violated the law. I
violated this city, and I violated a family -- all to satisfy my own
misguided emotions. I'm sorry. I wish I had a 2nd chance to make up for
it, but I don't."
Mr. Beazley is a completely changed person. Like
everyone else, he has changed character since the age of 17. The
execution of a juvenile person is meaningless in each and every sense,
because it completely ignores the growing potential in a child. One can
never say that a 17-years-old is too corrupted for change. Beazley has
been a model prisoner while on death row. Still - he is going to be
killed for what he did when he was too immature to fully comprehend the
consequences of his actions. The action in itself was incredibly tragic
and meaningless, and the worst crime possible was committed when a life
was taken.
However, the tragedy will grow deeper if Texas
approves of and actually carries out the execution of a juvenile. 2/3 of
the juvenile death row prisoners globally, reside in Texas, and
juveniles are the fastest growing part of the population on Texas death
row. This execution will not heal any wounds, and it's an insult to
international justice, because the execution of a person under the age
of 18 at the time of the crime in any event will be internationally
illegal. The authorities will have to stop the execution plans
immediately and Texas will have to take a thorough look at its death
penalty laws. Governor Rick Perry: Please, take a good look at the death
penalty laws that are imposed on juveniles in your state. Which exact
nations are you in company with?
Mr. Beazley behaves like a model prisoner and has
been ever since he arrived on death row. He demonstrates deep remorse
for the terrible crime he committed. He is a colored juvenile, illegally
sentenced to die by an all white jury. If this execution does go as
planned, The United States generally, and Texas especially, expect to be
included in international forums where human rights are being discussed?
Why doesn’t the U.S. immediately assemble a national forum to look into
what they can do to respect the Human Rights within their own country?
Should the United States of America, which doesn’t
respect this international law, be allowed to discuss Human Rights with
other nations, which do? As a European organization working to abolish
the death penalty worldwide, we consider it increasingly necessary to
raise our voices against this incredible violation against Humanity and
International Law.
The international community is in outrage over this
insult against international justice! Please urge the Board of Pardons
and Parole to recommend to the Governor an Executive Clemency for Mr.
Beazley as soon as possible.
After an emotional Friday hearing in which he voiced
remorse for the 1st time in court, Napoleon Beazley was sentenced to die
on May 28 for the 1994 murder of a local oilman.
State District Judge Cynthia Kent set the date after
speaking at length about her "principled" discomfort over imposing a
death sentence for a crime that Mr. Beazley committed as a 17-year-old.
Mr. Beazley, an honors graduate from Grapeland, about
60 miles from Tyler, was sentenced to die in 1995 after a jury found him
guilty of gunning down John Luttig in a botched carjacking.
Mr. Luttig, 63, was shot at close range in his
driveway as he and his wife, Bobbie, returned home from a Bible study.
Mrs. Luttig survived by playing dead after being wounded by Mr. Beazley.
Mr. Beazley asked to address the court after being
sentenced and expressed regret that members of Mr. Luttig's family were
not there to hear him. He then stood weeping in chains as he asked "for
everybody's forgiveness."
Beazley statement
Mr. Beazley:"I wanted to say something to certain
people. As I see, it was, first and foremost, to Mrs. Luttig and her
family. As I see, none of them are in the courtroom today. I want to say
it anyway, and hopefully, maybe, they will hear it.
8 years ago, I involved myself in a crime I instantly
regret. I knew it was wrong. I know it is wrong now. I've been trying to
make up for it ever since that moment. I've apologized ever since that
moment, not just through words, but through my acts. If I didn't care
about what happened to John Luttig, then I wouldn't have cared enough to
change. Nobody is going to win in this situation, and if we all lose,
then I know all of those losses start with me. There's a lot of people
involved in this -- not just me. The Luttig family, the DA's, Tyler,
Grapeland, my family, whole bunch of other people involved. People
against the death penalty, for it, everybody involved.
I want everybody to know, those people, the reason
ya'll are here is because of me. It's my fault. I violated the law. I
violated this city, and I violated a family -- all to satisfy my own
misguided emotions. I'm sorry. I wish I had a 2nd chance to make up for
it, but I don't."
Courtroom spectator: "You don't have to be sorry,
Napoleon."
Mr. Beazley: "But I don't. And if nothing else, I ask
for everybody's forgiveness. That's all."
Mr. Beazley , 25, has faced 2 previous execution
dates. He came within hours of being put to death in August before a
stay from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Just three days earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court had
announced an unprecedented 3-3 deadlock that denied Mr. Beazley a
federal reprieve. Three justices abstained because of personal ties to
Mr. Luttig's son 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael
Luttig of Virginia.
The case has drawn international attention, including
pleas for clemency from the European Union, the American Bar Association
and even the district attorney in Mr. Beazley's home county because of
his age and lack of prior criminal convictions.
But prosecutors have maintained that Mr. Beazley
should be executed because he was an adult under Texas law when he and
two accomplices came to Tyler, stalked the Luttigs' Mercedes-Benz and
shot the couple because they wanted to steal a luxury car. Many Tyler
residents believed Judge Kent played a role in Mr. Beazley's 11th-hour
execution stay in August because it came the day she sent a letter to
Gov. Rick Perry asking that his life be spared because of his age at the
time of the murder.
Local media reports last summer included speculation
that Judge Kent's membership in the Roman Catholic Church which opposes
capital punishment had influenced her actions. After the Texas appeals
court lifted the stay last week, Smith County District Attorney Jack
Skeen said that he considered seeking the judge's recusal from the case
because of concerns that her letter showed bias. That prompted a lengthy
defense Friday from the 46-year-old Republican judge. Speaking to a
courtroom packed with Mr. Beazley's supporters, Judge Kent noted that
state statutes allow trial judges, prosecutors and sheriffs to offer
their opinions on cases being considered for clemency.
Judge Kent said she sent a letter voicing "principled
objection" to the execution of a youthful offender after being asked by
defense lawyers "only hours" before Mr. Beazley was scheduled to die.
She added that she faxed her letter directly to Mr. Perry because she
knew that the parole board would not have time to consider it.
The governor can order a 30-day reprieve but can
commute a death sentence only if the parole board recommends it. In a
rare close vote, the board decided 10-6 against commutation for Mr.
Beazley.
The judge said Friday that she wanted to make clear
that she was not responsible for last year's execution delay, as some
critics suggested. She noted that she sentenced each of the 5 people
executed from Smith County since 1938. "It is not that this court is
some weak-kneed judge. ... If I were a judge who did not follow the law,
I had many chances to be intellectually dishonest and cause actions that
would've resulted in the case being reversed."
She noted that judges are required to "be obedient to
the law, but we don't have to be silent about it," and she suggested
repeatedly that her letter was part of an ongoing national debate on
capital punishment. "I think the courts are very bound by the
constraints of the law. When it comes to mercy, I do not see that within
the purview of the courts to individually dole that out as if we are
gods. We are not. We're just people. Just like Mr. Luttig. Just like Mr.
Beazley."
Judge sets May execution date for convicted killer
Beazley
An East Texas judge on Friday set a May 28 execution
date for Napoleon Beazley, a convicted killer who last year received a
stay just hours before he was to be executed by lethal injection.
State District Judge Cynthia Kent, who presided over
Beazley's trial and last year wrote Gov. Rick Perry in favor of
commuting the convicted killer's sentence, set the date in the case that
has received international scrutiny.
After the ruling, Beazley, who was 17 when he killed
a prominent Tyler businessman, turned and apologized to a packed
courtroom as his family members wept.
"This is a horrible crime," Smith County District
Attorney Jack Skeen Jr. said. "We've gone as far as we can go in the
justice system. Now it's time for the execution to be carried out and
justice to be served."
Beazley, now 25, was a high school class president
and star athlete at the time of the 1994 murder of John Luttig, 63. The
victim's son, J. Michael Luttig, is a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.
Defense attorneys argued that it was against
international law to set an execution date for Beazley because he was 17
at the time of the killing. Defense attorney David Botsford had
requested a Sept. 17 execution date, which would give him enough time to
file another appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Mr. Beazley is not going
anywhere," Botsford said. "He's going to be down in Livingston, where he
has been all along."
Beazley and brothers Cedric and Donald Coleman, all
from Grapeland, about 120 miles southeast of Dallas, were arrested 7
weeks after the shooting based on an anonymous tip.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which issued
Beazley's stay in August, lifted it last week.
On Thursday, the Texas chapter of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People asked that Beazley's
sentence to be commuted to life in prison since he was 17 when he
committed the crime. Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP, said
race may have played a factor with an all-white jury deciding the fate
of Beazley, who is black. Luttig was white. A group of 18 Democratic
legislators and Houston County District Attorney Cindy Garner, who calls
herself a strong advocate of the death penalty, also have written Perry
urging commutation.
Under Texas law, Perry can grant a 30-day reprieve
from execution but can't order a commutation without the recommendation
of the state Board of Pardons and Paroles. The board voted 10-6 last
year against commuting the sentence. Beazley's attorneys filed a motion
asking Kent to postpone the rescheduling hearing until after the 2003
legislative session, giving supporters time to lobby for changes in
state law.
(source: Associated Press)
According to the Texas Defender Service, ''homicide
is the eighth leading cause of death among both black Texans (18.7 in
100,000) and Latino Texans (9.6 in 100,000), but is not even among the
top ten causes of death for white Texans (4 in 100,000)''. Some 249
people had been executed in Texas by 11 July 2001. In 202 cases (81 per
cent), the crimes involved white victims. In 57 cases (23 per cent) the
defendant was a black convicted of killing a white. None of the 249
people executed have been whites convicted of killing blacks.
Of the 31 juvenile offenders on death row in Texas in
July 2001, 11 (36 per cent) were black, 12 (39 per cent) were Hispanic,
seven (23 per cent) were white and one was Asian. In 22 of the 31 cases
(71 per cent) the crime involved a white victim. In 15 cases (48 per
cent), the defendant was black or Hispanic and the victim was white. In
two cases, the defendant was white and the victim Hispanic. In no cases
was the defendant white and the victim black.
Of the nine juvenile offenders executed in Texas
since 1977, seven (78 per cent) were for crimes involving white victims
and two for Latino victims. Three of the nine (33 per cent) were black
defendants convicted of killing white victims. Napoleon Beazley's
execution would make it four out of 10.
Smith County's population is about 75 per cent white
and 19 per cent black. By July 2001, Smith County accounted for five
executions and eight people on death row. In five of these 13 cases the
defendant was white; the remaining eight (62 per cent) were black. Ten
of these 13 cases (77 per cent) involved white victims. In five cases
(38.5 per cent), including that of Napoleon Beazley, the defendant was
black and the victim white.
While murders involving white victims appear most
likely to result in a death sentence, studies have also shown that when
the defendant is black and the victim white, the likelihood of a death
sentence is even greater. How much greater when the jury selected to
determine verdict and sentence itself had not a single African American
sitting on it?
On 28 June 1908, an African American teenager, Monk
Gibson, who had narrowly avoided being lynched, was hanged in east Texas
for the murder of five members of a white family committed when he was
17. Some 2,500 people came to witness the execution. Two months earlier,
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had rejected an appeal that the
selection of an all-white jury for his trial in 1905 had been unfair.
At Napoleon Beazley's trial 90 years later, the Smith
County prosecution removed four African American prospective jurors
during the selection process by peremptory challenges, the right to
exclude individuals deemed to be unsuitable without giving a reason. In
1986, the US Supreme Court had ruled that jurors could only be removed
for ''race neutral'' reasons. To win an appeal on this issue, the
defendant must show that ''purposeful discrimination'' took place.
Proving ''purposeful discrimination'' is nearly impossible, since
prosecutors need only present a vaguely plausible non-racial reason for
dismissing potential jurors.
In Napoleon Beazley's trial, for example, the
prosecutor - challenged by the defence to explain his use of peremptory
strikes against African Americans - stated that he had struck one of the
black jurors because 12 years earlier that individual had been charged
with driving while intoxicated in Smith County. Although the man in
question had been acquitted of the charges, the prosecutor believed that
his experience would make him biassed against the state. This was
despite the fact that during selection questioning, the black juror had
said that not only did he harbour no hard feelings towards the state for
his prosecution, but that the experience had helped him because he had
stopped drinking as a result of the incident.
In contrast, a white juror was selected who had been
convicted of driving while intoxicated, and had also been arrested and
fined within the previous three years for public intoxication. This same
juror has been shown since the trial to harbour profound racial
prejudice against African Americans. In 1997, a defence investigator
went to speak to this juror, who told him that ''the state said that we
don't have to say noth'n to nobody''. As he was closing the door, the
investigator heard him say ''the nigger got what he deserved''. The
juror's wife of 20 years was then contacted by the defence. She stated
in an affidavit in 1998:
...the first question the investigator asked me was
if I knew of any reason why my husband James could not have been
impartial in determining the verdict of the young man. My first thought,
and what I told the investigator, was that James is racially prejudiced.
I have heard James use many derogatory terms, including the use of the
word ''nigger'' on more occasions than not when he is talking about
black people... I cannot say without any doubt that James' prejudice
affected the young man who was on trial. However, I would find it
difficult to believe that James could have set his prejudice aside and
not let it influence him to some degree.
Would this juror or any of the 11 other white jurors
have had their prejudices inflamed by the prosecution's depiction of the
black defendant as an ''animal''? Arguing for execution in his closing
argument at the punishment phase, one of the prosecutors stated of
Napoleon Beazley:
He's not an adolescent when he gets to Tyler. When he
gets to Tyler, he is an armed predator... He's an armed predator hunting
down prey... He then just happened to see the Luttigs, stalking his prey,
just stalking his prey, which happened to be human beings, and falling
in behind them like some animal falling in behind their prey... Because
while men like John Luttig is [sic] pulling into his driveway and about
to get out with his wife in his garage, the predator is lurking, and
he's out, and he's ready, and now the prey is stalked, now the prey is
cornered, now the prey is in the garage, not on the road, the human prey....
The prey was in there in the garage, out in a minute, jacked up, here we
go, a .45 Haskell, up the driveway, shirt off, it's on, just like the
animal about to hunt and comes from behind and gets his prey.
The prosecutor's message was clear. There are ''men
like John Luttig'' and there are ''animals'' like Napoleon Beazley.
There is a link through history to such dehumanizing language in the
state's use of the death penalty. For example, in September 1952 in the
small town of Palestine in East Texas, a short distance from Tyler, a
black defendant was on trial for the rape of a 15-year-old white girl.
The prosecutor reportedly argued: ''This Negro is a lustful animal,
without anything to transform him to any kind of valuable citizen,
because he lacks the very fundamental elements of mankind''.
This is not unique to Texas. At a trial in 1995 in
Nevada, the white prosecutor had, in front of an all-white jury, a white
judge, two white defence lawyers, and another white prosecutor, referred
to the black defendant as ''a rabid animal''. The Nevada Supreme Court
said that this was ''wholly unnecessary'' and amounted to prosecutorial
misconduct - ''such toying with the jurors' imagination is risky and the
responsibility of the prosecutor is to avoid the use of language that
might deprive a defendant of a fair trial''.
During another capital
trial in Nevada, one or more white jurors referred to the black
defendant as ''a gorilla, a baboon, a native tribesman who is not
dangerous to his own people but would club or murder anyone outside his
territory...'' . One of the Nevada Supreme Court Justices wrote: ''The
use of blatantly racist speech by non-black jurors about a black
defendant reflects those jurors' racist predispositions and denied [the
defendant] his right to an impartial jury. Several of the jurors'
expressions epitomize racist stereotypes of African Americans and
evidence deep racial prejudice.''
In Texas, before a jury can pass a death sentence, it
must unanimously find that the defendant poses a future danger to
society (see below). If prosecutors conjure up stereotypical imagery of
black defendants, this risks rousing white jurors' conscious or
unconscious fears and increases the likelihood of their finding ''future
dangerousness''.
Last year, the Texas Attorney General took the
unprecedented step of conceding that the use of race at the sentencing
phase of Victor Hugo Saldaño's 1991 trial had undermined the fairness of
the proceedings. The prosecution had introduced testimony of a clinical
psychologist, who included race as one of the factors establishing the
defendant's future dangerousness, pointing to the fact that blacks and
Hispanics are over-represented in the criminal justice system.
The US
Supreme Court overturned the death sentence on 5 June 2000. In a
statement, the Texas Attorney General said: ''[I]t is inappropriate to
allow race to be considered as a factor in our criminal justice system...
The people of Texas want and deserve a system that affords the same
fairness to everyone. I will continue to do everything I can to assure
Texans of our commitment to an equitable criminal justice system.''
As the US Supreme Court stated in 1986: ''Because of
the range of discretion entrusted to a jury in a capital sentencing
hearing there is a unique opportunity for racial prejudice to operate
but to remain undetected... [A] juror who believes that blacks are
violence prone or morally inferior might well be influenced by that
belief... More subtle, less consciously held racial attitudes could also
influence a juror's decision... Fear of blacks, which could easily be
stirred up by the violent facts of [the] crime, might incline a juror to
favor the death penalty.'' The Smith County prosecutor's use of
dehumanizing language to depict a black defendant to an all-white jury,
coupled with the revelation that at least one of those jurors harboured
severe undisclosed racial prejudice against blacks, should ring alarm
bells in the Attorney General's office and cause it to oppose the
execution of Napoleon Beazley.
As the US Government itself noted last year: ''The
United States has struggled to overcome the legacies of racism... [I]ssues
relating to race, ethnicity and national origin continue to play a
negative role in American society. Racial discrimination persists
against various groups... The path towards true racial equality has been
uneven, and substantial barriers must still be overcome''.
A few weeks after Napoleon Beazley was sentenced to
death in Texas, South Africa's Constitutional Court ruled that the death
penalty violated the new constitution. Justice Mohamed, who was to
become his country's first black Chief Justice, wrote that the
constitution represented ''a decisive break from, and a ringing
rejection of, that part of the past which is disgracefully racist,
authoritarian, insular, and repressive and a vigorous identification of
and commitment to a democratic, universalistic, caring and
aspirationally egalitarian ethos''. The death penalty was a part of this
past. Justice Mohamed also wrote:
The death sentence must, in some measure, manifest a
philosophy of indefensible despair in its execution, accepting as it
must do, that the offender it seeks to punish is so beyond the pale of
humanity as to permit of no rehabilitation, no reform, no repentance, no
inherent spectre of hope or spirituality... the finality of the death
penalty allows for none of these redeeming possibilities. It annihilates
the potential for their emergence.
More than half the countries of the world have, in
law or practice, abolished the death penalty against anyone. Among the
diminishing number that retain it, almost all have abolished its use
against children, reflecting the commonly held belief that children -
due to their immaturity, impulsiveness, vulnerability to peer pressure,
and capacity for rehabilitation - should never be put ''beyond the pale''.
Texas law remains in the dark ages on this issue, and still allows a
capital jury to write off a child's life.
Based on false testimony? The finding of future
dangerousness
''I was told by the [prosecutor] to say everything in
a way that would make Napoleon look as bad as it could in front of the
jury''. Cedric Coleman, affidavit, July 2001
Before they could pass a death sentence, Napoleon
Beazley's jurors had to reach a unanimous finding that there was ''a
probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence
that would constitute a continuing threat to society'' - so called ''future
dangerousness'' - and that there was insufficient mitigating evidence to
warrant a life sentence.
Napoleon Beazley's case was unusual in that it did
not involve mitigating evidence of deprivation, abuse or mental
impairment that characterizes many cases of death row prisoners in the
USA, and the majority of condemned child offenders.
Instead, trial counsel only presented strong evidence
depicting a good child who grew up in a good household with attentive,
caring parents. The child became an adolescent who excelled in sports
and was so popular that he was elected student government president and
was runner-up for the honor of most-popular boy in his high school. The
youth had no criminal history whatsoever, and was not known to be
assaultive or even physically aggressive. Then, over the course of a
year or so prior to the offense, the young man apparently fell into a
secret world of smalltime drug-dealing, he began to take some dangerous
risks, and his very-promising future crashed in the solitary flashes of
a pistol on a night in April 1994.
A stream of mitigation witnesses described a
respectful, decent, helpful teenager, whose involvement in the Luttig
murder appeared to be aberrational behaviour given the absence of
evidence of prior violence or threat of violence attributable to him.
Among the witnesses who testified to Napoleon Beazley's good character
and potential for rehabilitation were the head teacher of his high
school, numerous other teachers, a Lieutenant in the Smith County
Sheriff's Department, the District Attorney of Napoleon Beazley's home
county (who has also appealed for clemency, see appendix), fellow school
pupils, and other members of the community.
For their part, the prosecutors sought to ensure that
the jury would reject the character evidence presented by the defence.
Indeed, they encouraged the jurors to view it as aggravating rather than
mitigating evidence. One of the prosecutors argued:
Where is the mitigation in his background with his
family? He comes from a good family. He has no reason to go get a
Mercedes Benz. Has all the social skills in the world. Popular guy.
Popular guy. What reason does that give to mitigate this crime? That
makes his crime all the more horrible. Just think, he didn't have
organic brain damage. He didn't have some kind of a head injury. Doesn't
have any kind of a mitigating circumstance. He wasn't intoxicated at the
time of this offense. It's just a coldblooded killer who goes 80 miles
and kills John Luttig.
The second prosecutor reinforced this line of attack
on the defence evidence:
Tell me where there's a shred of mitigating evidence
in this case that reduces this defendant's moral blameworthiness for
what he did in that driveway. It's not there. It's not there. He made
conscious, individual choices out of a good home life to become an armed
predator and a killer rather that what he could have been. And it's no
one's fault but his. And it's not your responsibility. It's no one's
responsibility but his.
In addition, in order to ensure that the jury could
find that the defendant was a future danger, the prosecution relied upon
the testimony of Napoleon Beazley's co-defendants to paint a picture of
a dangerous, remorseless, crack cocaine-dealing individual, obsessed
with death and gang culture, who was bent on committing a carjacking and
unrepentant about it afterwards.
The Coleman's testimony gave Napoleon Beazley's jury
essentially the only evidence it would hear about his state of mind
immediately before, during, and after the shooting of John Luttig, and
his attitude to the crime. Donald Coleman claimed that Beazley had said
''I'm going back into Tyler to get me a car. I want to see what it feels
like to see somebody die''. He asserted that Beazley had said after the
shooting that ''if anybody said anything that he would kill them''.
He described Beazley as watching gang-related films like ''Boyz in the Hood''
and ''Menace to Society'' and one called ''Faces of Death'', a video of
people dying. He said that Beazley had put a message on his answering
machine after a line from ''Boyz in the Hood'' ''This is Napoleon
Beazley's Mortuary, we stab'em, we bag 'em''. Donald Coleman said that
after Beazley watched the films, he would act out of character. Likewise
Cedric Coleman said that Napoleon Beazley had said that he wanted ''to
see what it's like to kill somebody'' shortly before the crime, and that
Beazley had threatened him and his brother if they said anything about
the murder to anyone.
He recounted an alleged conversation with Napoleon
Beazley in which the latter had said that he took his girlfriend to the
hospital where he saw a doctor who asked what he, Beazley, was doing
with a white girlfriend. According to Coleman, Beazley had said that the
doctor ''reminded him of the man that he had killed in Tyler and he said
that he wanted to kill the doctor too''. Cedric Coleman also said that
Beazley had never indicated to him ''that he was sorry about what
happened to Mr Luttig''.
The prosecution's expert psychological witnesses
proceeded to put a stamp of authority on the state's assertion of
Napoleon Beazley's ''future dangerousness'', but in doing so relied
largely upon the testimony of the Coleman brothers. In finding that
Beazley represented a future risk to society, one of these experts spoke
of ''an incredible level of coldness, remorselessness, senselessness''
and found that there was not ''one shred of remorse''.
He admitted,
however, that if the accuracy of the Coleman's testimony were called
into question, his opinion would be affected and that if the jury did
not accept the Coleman testimony, that ''would weaken the value of [his]
testimony to the jury''. Another of the prosecution's experts said that
he ''substantially'' believed the Coleman's statements.
Throughout the proceedings, the state claimed that no
sentencing deals had been made with Cedric or Donald Coleman in return
for their testimony. The brothers themselves denied that any deals had
been struck. Then, in 1998, both Colemans signed affidavits that the
state had agreed not to seek the death penalty against either of them if
they testified against Napoleon Beazley and that this had been finalized
at the time of the Beazley trial. Napoleon Beazley's trial lawyer
recalls:
During Mr Beazley's trial, there was testimony from
Mr Beazley's co-defendants, Donald and Cedric Coleman. Although both co-defendants
denied there was any type of 'implied deal' in return for their
testimony, I did not believe that then, nor do I believe it now. If
there was an implied deal for the Coleman brothers' testimony, that
would have been very important for the jury to know. The only 'real
evidence' of future dangerousness came from the Coleman brothers'
testimony regarding statements allegedly made by Mr Beazley prior to and
subsequent to the killing of John Luttig. Had the jury been in a
position to view the Coleman's testimony in light of a deal, the outcome
may have been different, especially in view of Dr Allen's testimony that
his opinion would be different if the testimony of the Colemans was
inaccurate.
Indeed, the Coleman's affidavits suggest that the
jury (and the experts) did not hear an accurate portrayal of Napoleon
Beazley's state of mind on which to base its finding of future
dangerousness. In particular, the affidavits point to a teenager who was
in fact remorseful. This is a critical point, given that research
indicates that a defendant's perceived lack of remorse is a highly
aggravating factor in the sentencing decisions of capital jurors. Cedric
Coleman stated (corrected spelling):
Also after my federal trial a group of Federal agents
came in and questioned me over my testimony that I would give in
Napoleon's trial. They would ask me questions and when I would respond
to the questions, if I gave an answer that they didn't like they would
say ''that's not what we want you to say'' or ''we're not going to ask
you that''. For instance when I was asked if Napoleon meant to shoot
anyone and I said ''no because he told me he didn't'' they said we're
not going to ask you that. I feel that he didn't mean to shoot him, and
after he told me that he didn't mean to kill the man he began saying
that he was going to kill himself. After I talked him out of that he
cried all the way home.
Similarly, Donald Coleman's affidavit claims:
Napoleon didn't mean to shoot Mr Luttig. He cried all the way home. He
was still crying when he came over to see my brother the next day. That
night I believe that Napoleon would have killed himself if my brother
didn't get the gun from him. Mr Luttig rushed at Napoleon and the gun
went off. Everything got out of hand after that. The FBI agents later
told me not to say anything about Napoleon crying and that he didn't
mean to shoot Mr Luttig. I went along with them.
In July 2001, the two brothers signed additional
affidavits. They asserted that various parts of their trial testimony
had been ''false''. Cedric Coleman stated:
...I was told by the [prosecutor] to say everything
in a way that would make Napoleon look as bad as it could in front of
the jury. I told [him] the truth about how things really happened.
Depending on what we were talking about [he] would either say that he
didn't want the jury to know that information about Napoleon or he would
make me change the way I said something so Napoleon looked worse... [The
prosecutor] actually threatened me by telling if I didn't testify the
way he wanted he would make sure my brother got the death penalty. I [testified]
that Napoleon told me that he wanted to kill the doctor... This was
false... The truth is that Napoleon told me the doctor reminded him of
Mr Luttig and that seeing the doctor made him visualize that night.
Napoleon was very upset when he was telling me this. Napoleon was saying
he felt bad about what happened. I told [the prosecutor] this but he
didn't want me to testify about it. My...testimony that, prior to
killing Mr Luttig, Napoleon said he ''wanted to feel what it was like to
kill someone'' was false. The way Napoleon's comment about ''killing
someone'' really came out was when I was talking to Napoleon two or
three days after we got back to Grapeland. We were at his mom's house.
Napoleon was saying things about how he had made a big mistake shooting
Mr Luttig and that he was going to kill himself. Napoleon was saying
this in a depressing way. I was asking him what he was thinking about
when he ran up to the house and Mr Luttig got shot. It was like he
couldn't really explain it even to himself. That's when he said ''I
guess I was just tripping and wanted to see what it was like to shoot
somebody''. [The prosecutor] wanted me to change when Napoleon said that
and [he] wanted me to testify like Napoleon was angry when he said it. [The
prosecutor] and I both know that the way I testified would have given
the wrong impression about what was really said by Napoleon and when.
...you could tell Napoleon was sorry for what he did... [The District
Attorney] told me that wasn't what he wanted the jury to hear and [he]
made it clear to me that if I testified differently at Napoleon's trial
that he would not give Donald and me the deal.
For his part, Donald Coleman's 2001 affidavit says:
What I said...about Napoleon saying, when we went back to Tyler before
the offense, that he wanted to hurt someone or see what it was like for
someone to die is completely false. I never have heard Napoleon say
anything like this. However, I knew that if I did not go along with
Napoleon saying something like this, [the prosecutor] could say that I
went back on our agreement and I might face the death penalty.
The jury's finding of future dangerousness has also
been called into question by the fact that Napoleon Beazley has been a
model prisoner. Before death row was recently moved from Ellis Unit in
Huntsville to its new location in Terrell Unit, Livingston, and all
prisoners were confined to their cells for 23 hours a day, Napoleon
Beazley was one of a few prisoners assigned to jobs within the prison.
At the trial the state's experts had testified that Beazley would pose a
threat of violence in prison. It seems they were wrong.
Conclusion - Time for clemency
''America's continued practice of executing juvenile
offenders has alarming implications for our society's visions of
morality, crime and punishment, conformance to international law and
indeed childhood itself. When we execute juvenile offenders, we ignore
what we know about the ways in which children and adolescents are
different from adults''
The murder for which Napoleon Beazley is scheduled to
die was a terrible act of violence with tragic consequences. Those who
have suffered as a result deserve compassion, respect and justice. These
objectives cannot be furthered by killing Napoleon Beazley. No insight
will be gained into juvenile violence. Another grieving family will be
created, this time by the state.
The planned killing of Napoleon Beazley is illegal
under international law. The USA maintains that it has reserved the
right to ignore this ban. In so doing it has sabotaged its own claims to
be a progressive force for human rights. While rest of the world has
agreed that rehabilitation must win out over punishment as the
overriding objective in responding to the crimes of children, Texas is
set to execute a young offender whose rehabilitative potential was
testified to by a stream of trial witnesses. His record in prison would
appear to justify the confidence they placed in him.
Beyond the illegality of the execution, and the fact
that it flies in the face of conventional wisdom relating to the
treatment of young offenders, the case of Napoleon Beazley raises the
sort of issues which continue to generate substantial domestic concern
about the fairness and reliability of the US capital justice system.
Was the state's decision to seek the death penalty in
any way influenced by the identity and status of the victim? Did private
vengeance steal into the proceedings against Napoleon Beazley? Did
prejudice taint the decision by 12 white jurors to vote to execute an
African American teenager accused of the high-profile murder of a senior
member of the local white community? Did the state's aggravating
evidence represent a true picture of the defendant, or an embellished
portrait painted by co-defendants out to save themselves from execution?
Whether or not the scales of justice were tipped
against Napoleon Beazley from the start, his execution does not have to
be a foregone conclusion. The courts may have ruled in the state's
favour all the way through the process, including in their rejection of
the international prohibition on the execution, but the power of
executive clemency exists precisely to compensate for the rigidities of
the judicial system.
The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles should
recommend to Governor Perry that he commute Napoleon Beazley's death
sentence on humanitarian grounds and in the interests of justice,
decency and the reputation of the State of Texas and the USA as a whole.
If no such recommendation is forthcoming, the governor should grant a
reprieve and call upon the Board to reconsider. Prosecutors and
legislators in Texas, as well as the federal administration, should
support this outcome.
Extracts from an interview with Rena Beazley
I had never really thought about the death penalty...
I know that's the case [with other people]. Now that they know us - the
local people know us and they knew Napoleon - it's changed them, it's
got a lot of people thinking. When this happened, people were coming
from every direction saying ''that could have been my child'', you know,
''that could have been me''.
Until then, I'd never thought I'd visit a prison, let
alone death row... Napoleon helps me to handle it... I feel as though,
if he sees me falling apart... I'm not going to allow that... I have to
be strong for him. As long as he's OK, I'm OK... One day at a time. And
that's the way we are. One day at a time.
Jamal [Napoleon's younger brother], he's seventeen
now, he can go a while without seeing Napoleon, whereas I can't. I
missed last week's visit [to death row] and Napoleon was like ''I knew
you'd be here'' - I saw him yesterday - ''I know you can't stay away
from me that long''. I'm like, ''You sure think highly of yourself!''
But it's true. Two weeks is the most. I'm irritable if I can't see him.
And I don't know why, once I'm there and I see him I'm fine. And I can
turn and come back home. You know, I just need to see him.... If he's
killed..... I don't want to focus on that. I'm trying to hold on to the
hope, because he's still here and anything can happen, anything can
happen.
I've had people ask me if I would attend the
execution if it gets to that. Well, yes, I have to, that choice was made
for me. I didn't make it, it was made for me. How can I not go? The way
I see it is if the closest person to you is in hospital dying with
cancer, and the doctors call you and say you need to get here, you do
it, you go. I don't have a choice. I wish I did, but I don't. I was
there when he got here, and I'll be there... if that's the case, I'll be
there. If Napoleon says when the time comes that he doesn't want it,
then I'll be outside, as close as I can get.
Napoleon doesn't deserve to die. I know there's got
to be punishment, but death for a 17-year-old? People change. I've
changed. If you do a list today and five years from now you go back and
look at that sheet of your thoughts, your whatever, you will even wonder
if that was you that put that on that paper. People change. To take a
child, to take somebody's life at 17, you can't hold a 17-year-old by
the same standards as you do me or you. I've made poor decisions,
everybody does. But experience, you know, life - life is a teacher. And
I know even today Napoleon is much better now than he was then.
What happened that night, I don't know what happened,
I'm not sure Napoleon knows what happened. He got caught up in this. I
don't know whether it was peer pressure, but he just got caught up in it.
And it happened. And it's sad that it happened. But I don't think he
should be put to death for it. I don't feel that if he's put to death,
it's going to - the [Luttig] family say it's going to bring closure, but
in reality, in reality....
I think it's sad that there's so much hatred here in
the United States.. I'm thinking that hopefully that other countries
will maybe force the United States to change its ways. I feel as though
one day it will change - it might be too late for us, I pray that it
isn't - but I feel that one day it's going to change, it's going to
change. I just feel it will change.
Text of clemency letter from Houston County
District Attorney
Members of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
8610 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78757 July 20, 2001
Attn: Executive Clemency Section
Dear Members,
I am writing in support of commutation of Napoleon
Beazley's death sentence to life in prison.
I have been a strong advocate for the death penalty
my entire adult life and have made decisions regarding the death penalty
during my tenure as District Attorney. Based on my knowledge of Napoleon
Beazley as a person, as well as my knowledge of the facts of his
criminal offense, I would not have sought the death penalty had this
case been filed in Houston County. Although it is not my habit to
testify on behalf of defendants during a criminal trial, I did so during
Mr Beazley's trial. My reasons for testifying are the same as my reasons
for corresponding with you today.
I have know Napoleon Beazley for over ten (10) years
as I have lived in the small community where he was raised and have
known his family my entire life. This young man was raised with a focus
on honesty, respect, hard work and being a contributing member of
society. He was a good son and loved by his family who had high hopes
for his future. He was respected by his teachers and fellow students and
had plans to enter the United States Armed Forces when he graduated from
High School. There is no reasonable explanation for what Mr Beazley did
in Smith County, Texas. I was shocked when I learned the facts of the
case. I do not condone what he did and believe he should be punished,
but I do not believe he should suffer the ultimate punishment as his
prior record is without blemish and there is no indication he would be a
continuing threat to society.
I am further concerned the decision to seek the death
penalty in this case was based, in part, on the fact the victim's son
was a federal judge. Certainly, if my own father was murdered I would
want everyone involved to be executed – that is a decision based on
emotion, not legal precedence, and I'm sure the victim's son took every
opportunity to encourage the prosecutor to seek the death penalty. I do
not believe death is the correct sentence in this case as Mr Beazley had
no prior record nor did he exhibit behavior indicating he would be a
continuing threat to society.
Bottom line, Mr Beazley is a young, black man from a
small community who could have done great things in his life because he
was charming, smart, respectful and a genuinely good kid. He was a fool
to be influenced by his co-defendants and a fool to act like a common
street thug in this one instance. He made a terrible mistake this one
time, but I hope you will consider his background, his remorse for the
sorrow he has brought to the victim's family as well as his own and the
fact this is an isolated incident and commute his sentence to life in
prison.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sincerely,
Cindy Maria Garner, District Attorney
International ban on execution of child offenders
- selected chronology
1949 - Fourth Geneva Convention adopted. Article 68.4
states that ''the death penalty may not be pronounced against a
protected person who was under eighteen of age at the time of the
offence.''
1955 - USA ratifies the Fourth Geneva Convention
without reservation to article 68.4, thereby agreeing that in the event
of war or other armed conflict in which the US may become involved, it
will protect all civilian children in occupied countries from the death
penalty.
1977 - the USA signs the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the American Convention on Human
Rights (ACHR), thereby binding itself in good faith not to do anything
which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaties, pending a
decision on whether to ratify them (Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties (1979), article 18a). Both the ICCPR and the ACHR forbid the
use of the death penalty against those under 18 at the time of the crime
(ICCPR, article 6.5; ACHR, article 4.5).
1984 - UN adopts, by consensus, the Safeguards
Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of those Facing the Death Penalty.
Safeguard 6 states that ''persons below 18 at the time of the commission
of the crime shall not be sentenced to death...''.
1987 - the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
declares that the USA violated Article 1 of the American Declaration of
the Rights and Duties of Man when Texas executed James Terry Roach and
Jay Pinkerton in 1986 for crimes committed when they were 17 years old.
The Commission referred to the ''emerging'' principle of customary
international law prohibiting the execution of child offenders.
1989 - the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC) is adopted by the UN General Assembly. Article 37 reiterates the
ban on the execution of people who were under 18 years old at the time
of the crime.
1992 - the USA ratifies the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) with a reservation purporting to
exempt it from article 6(5)'s prohibition on the use of the death
penalty against under18-year-olds. Yet Article 4 of the ICCPR states
that there can be no derogation from article 6, even in times of
emergency. Eleven countries formally object to the US reservation.
1994 - Yemen, one of only six countries known to have
executed a child offender in the 1990s, abolishes the death penalty for
those under 18 at the time of the crime.
1995 - Napoleon Beazley sentenced to death in Texas.
1995 - the UN Human Rights Committee, the expert body
which monitors countries' compliance with the ICCPR, rules that the US
reservation violates the object and purpose of the treaty and should be
withdrawn. The Committee ''deplores'' the USA's continuing use of the
death penalty against child offenders.
1995 - the USA signs the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, thereby binding itself to respect its terms in good faith.
1997 - China abolishes the death penalty for those
under 18 at the time of the crime, to be in compliance with its
obligations under the CRC, which it ratified in 1992.
1998 - UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions, in the report of his 1997 mission to
the USA, reiterates that the US reservation to the ICCPR should be
considered void and that the use of the death penalty against child
offenders violates international law.
1999 - 10th anniversary of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child. The treaty has been ratified by 191 countries, all
but the USA and the collapsed state of Somalia.
1999 - Montana becomes the 15th retentionist US state
to forbid the use of the death penalty against those who were under 18
at the time of the crime. Given that 12 states forbid the death penalty
altogether, this means that 27 US states, more than half, are now in
compliance with the global ban. Children are also ineligible for the
death penalty under US federal and military capital statutes.
1999 - the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights ''condemns unequivocally the imposition and
execution of the death penalty on those aged under 18 at the time of the
commission of the offence'' and calls on countries which still allow
such use of capital punishment to stop.
1999 - The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
appeals to the US Government and Virginia state authorities to prevent
the scheduled execution of Douglas Christopher Thomas and to ''reaffirm
the customary international law ban on the use of the death penalty on
juvenile offenders''.
1999 - the US Government files a brief in the US
Supreme Court urging the Court not to consider the claim of Nevada
inmate Michael Domingues, sentenced to death for a crime committed when
he was 16, that his sentence violates international law. The Court
subsequently refuses to consider the Domingues appeal.
2000 - Pakistan's Juvenile Justice System Ordinance,
signed by the country's President on 1 July, abolishes the death penalty
for people under 18 at the time of the crime. Pakistan is one of five
countries reported to have executed a child offender since 1994.
2000 - In June, Gary Graham becomes the fourth child
offender executed in the USA in six months. The UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights expresses ''deep regret'' at the execution. The Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions said that
the execution was ''evidence of disregard for the growing international
movement for abolition of the death penalty''.
2000 - the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights affirms that ''the imposition of the death
penalty on those aged under 18 at the time of the commission of the
offence is contrary to customary international law''. The Sub-Commission
repeats its unequivocal condemnation of such use of the death penalty
and calls upon countries that retain the death penalty for child
offenders to abolish it as soon as possible and, ''in the meantime, to
remind their judges that the imposition of the death penalty against
such offenders is in violation of international law.
2001 - The UN Commission on Human Rights calls upon
all retentionist states to comply fully with their obligations under the
ICCPR and the CRC, including not to impose the death penalty for crimes
committed by persons below eighteen years of age. It calls on countries
to withdraw any reservations they have lodged to article 6 of the ICCPR
given that this article ''enshrines the minimum rules for the protection
of the right to life and the generally accepted standards in this area''.
The Commission also welcomes the Sub-Commission's resolution of 2000,
above.