The Impending Execution of Eddie Duval Powell

Eddie Duval Powell III is scheduled to be executed by the people of Alabama tomorrow, on 16 June 2011. After a three-week self-imposed break from blogging, I am once again attempting to review each death penalty case before the person is executed. Regarding Eddie Powell, I offer this summary from his appeal to the Alabama Criminal Court of Appeals

(1) In the early morning hours before sunrise on March 25, 1995, the victim, [M.W.], was brutally attacked, raped, sodomized and shot to death. The victim was an elderly widow and was attacked in her home in Holt, Alabama, as she apparently attempted to escape her attacker.

(2) Defendant and a friend, Bobby Johnson, lived at the Johnson home across the street from the victim. Defendant and Bobby Johnson both worked at O'Charley's restaurant. Defendant borrowed Bobby Johnson's leather jacket and left the Johnson home in the early hours of March 25, 1995.

(3) The evidence plainly showed that the Defendant had been at the home of the victim, contrary to Defendant's statement. The Defendant's semen was found in the victim's mouth, rectum, and vagina. The victim's blood was found on the Defendant's pants and on Bobby Johnson's leather jacket, which was worn by the Defendant on this date. The Defendant's handprint was found on the window on the front of the victim's home, where a screen had been cut. A matchbook from O'Charley's restaurant was found in the unfinished basement under the victim's home immediately after the murder. The matchbook appeared to have been there only a short time since it had no dust on it, unlike most other things in the basement.

(4) The victim was shot about 5:25 A.M. on March 25, 1995, and the Defendant was first seen on videotape at the Shell Oil Station in Alberta City about an hour later at 6:27 A.M. This station was a walking distance of about forty-two minutes from the victim's home, considering a stop the Defendant made along the way, that was in evidence. The Shell Oil Station employee testified that the Defendant paid for wine mostly in nickels and had a lot of change in small coins. This was significant because the victim kept a container of small change in her purse for use in nickel and dime card games. The container of small change was missing, and the victim's handgun was missing also. The Defendant appeared at the Shell Oil Station wearing a leather jacket with a wet stain on it. The victim's blood was on the leather jacket worn by the Defendant on March 25, 1995. The Defendant wore this bloodstained jacket, which belonged to Bobby Johnson, to the residence of his friend, Jason Long, on the morning the victim was killed.

(5) Testimony showed that the contents of the leather jacket pockets included an O'Charley's matchbook, small change, and jewelry similar to jewelry owned by the victim. None of these items belonged to Bobby Johnson, who owned the jacket and stated that no bloodstain was on the jacket when the Defendant took it.

(6) The evidence showed that Defendant had a handgun after he arrived at the residence of Jason Long, which was about daybreak or between 6:30 and 7:00 A.M. on March 25, 1995. The Defendant asked Jason Long, who lived near the Shell Oil Station, to get rid of the handgun. Jason Long complied with this request, and the handgun was never found.

(7) On the morning of March 25, 1995, the Defendant had fresh scratches on the back of his neck. Lawrence Bunkley, an acquaintance of Defendant and a friend of Jason Long, testified that the Defendant told him on the day the victim was killed something to the effect that he did the bitch, she ran up on him and he shot her.

With respect to the execution of Eddie Duval Powell III, I stand mute.

The Impending Execution of Lee Taylor

Because of demands elsewhere, I removed myself from blogging for the last three weeks. During that period, one execution, that of Gaylord Bradford, was carried out though I had not reviewed it. Now late in this day, the 15th of June,  will review the cases of two people about to die.

I begin with the case of Lee Andrew Taylor of Texas. The case is, from my perspective, simple. He killed a fellow prisoner with malice and premeditation. Of that, there seems to be little dispute.  From his District Court appeal, I offer the following summary.

At the age of sixteen, Taylor was sentenced to life in prison for aggravated robbery. On April 1, 1999, while serving that sentence, he killed Donta Greene, another inmate. Greene had been involved in stealing property from inmate Daniel Richbourg, who was a friend of Taylor's. During the night of March 31, 1999, Taylor and Richbourg, communicating by note, planned a response to the theft. The next morning, Taylor fastened an ice-pick like weapon to his hand, and, when he encountered Greene, stabbed him some thirteen times. Richbourg, who had fastened a knife-like weapon to his hand, kept other inmates from breaking up the fight between Taylor and Greene. Eventually the guards gassed the room and ordered the inmates to lay down. Taylor did so, and then unfastened his weapon and threw it to the guards. As he was being led from the room, he shouted to Greene, "That's what you get for stealing, Bitch." Greene died shortly thereafter.

While I oppose the execution of anyone who might be factually innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced to death, I stand mute regarding the probity, wisdom, or morality of most executions.

In the case of Lee Taylor, I stand mute.

I Interview Speeding Ticket Ace Will Foreman

Will Foreman has now beat another speeding ticket by relying on facts. That's a least six times, maybe more. That makes him aces in my book

Before I disappeared for a few weeks, I asked him a series of questions (via email) about his court appearances. He answered. I asked if he would mind if I posted his answers as an email interview. He didn't. I asked a few more questions. He answered.

Now through the magic of cut and paste (and some grammatical correction), I offer a first hand perspective of what it is like to go into a Maryland courtroom to fight a speeding ticket. I offer the interview without comment. I offer my thoughts on the interview in my next post.

For the extremely dense of you out there, TSJ will stand for The Skeptical Juror and WF will stand for Will Foreman.

TSJ: When you appear in court, who represents the State?
WF: They normally have just a Forest Heights Police Officer (the last time I was there they had 2 officers, and Optotraffic had 2 reps there as well.

TSJ: How is the case against you presented to the judge?
WF: The officer reads the statement describing the location time place and speed.  He always explains how the machine "self checks itself daily"

TSJ: Would you be allowed to call witnesses?
WF: Sure

TSJ: Would you be allowed to subpoena people or documents?
WF: In advance I believe.

TSJ: Would you be allowed to have an attorney?
WF: Yes, but why? 

TSJ: Are all the cases being heard traffic ticket cases?
WF: Not all just traffic cases, the entire room is just Forest Heights / Optotraffic "offenders"

TSJ: About how long does each of your cases take?
WF: It varies.  Some judges have a problem grasping the matter.

TSJ Did you watch any of the other people present their case?
WF: That is the saddest part.  Forest Heights is not an affluent area.  Many of the people are there because they cannot afford to lose the 40 bucks.  At the risk of sounding like an elitist, there is a always a parade of poor uneducated people totally unprepared to defend themselves.  People argue their car cannot go that fast.  They claim there isn't a school near there.  I've even heard "I have lived here for x number of years, I know the camera is there, I always slow down there.  It is very, very sad.  And that's what makes me so upset!

WF: btw: The Wednesday morning courtroom is dedicated to just Forest Heights / Optotraffic cases.

[End of first round of questioning. Beginning of second round of questioning.]

TSJ: Can you elect to have a jury trial? 
WF: Yes It costs $80.00 and it's elevated to circuit court.

TSJ: Can you appeal a guilty verdict?  If so, how?
WF: Yes, again it's elevated to circuit court.

TSJ: Are you told what time your case will be heard, or do you have to plan to be there the entire time?
WF: No you must arrive for the calling of the docket and remain there until your hearing.

TSJ: What sort of defenses have been successful?
WF: I saw a scientist successfully make his case.  He was able to dispute the technology used by Optotraffic. I am requesting the transcript from the hearing because I want his name.  The Judge heard our defenses simultaneously.  We had to wait until the end.  We never met, but it was apparent to the Judge that both of our arguments were thoughtful and coherent.  In an attempt to expedite he heard us together. Some have gotten off because they were ticketed long after school hours. The majority of the successful arguments have focused on distance traveled between images.

TSJ: What sort of defenses have been unsuccessful?
WF: The most common is when the accused explains how long they have lived there.  That they are aware of the camera's presence.  That they make a conscious effort to slow down at the location.  Others have unsuccessfully argued that their cars cannot accelerate from the previous traffic light that quickly.  Many claim the camera isn't near a school. 

Our store manager unsuccessfully argued on our behalf for about 6 tickets regarding the cameras violations regarding the camera's placement.  Several guidelines found in the state's brochure regarding placement were violated: the camera isn't supposed to be on an incline, it is; the camera isn't supposed to be near a red light camera, it is 350 ft; the camera isn't supposed to be in a speed reduction zone, it is; there was supposed to be a 30 day period when the camera is introduced to a community.  Forest Heights camera spent its introductory period on a side street, far off the path.  When the 30 days were up they moved the unit to a 4 lane highway with guardrails, State Highway 210, and began issuing citations immediately.
 
TSJ: What is the nominal fine if you fight the case?
WF: It depends on the Judge.  My most recent session the Judge offers to everyone present that if they plead guilty he would reduce the fine to $2.00 plus court costs of $22.00.


TSJ: What is the nominal fine if you plead guilty?  
WF: I don't know what normal is, just what I stated above. 

TSJ: Why might someone show up and plead guilty rather than just pay the ticket by mail? 
WF: They are intimidated by the prospect of appearing before the Judge as well as the police officer that patrols the very streets where they reside. 

TSJ: What are the conditions of payment? Do people have to pay on the spot? Must they pay cash? 
WF: You must pay on the spot.  They will accept cash or credit cards. 

TSJ: What if people are unable to pay the penalty? 
WF: I don't know.

TSJ: What sorts of attitude do people generally assume? Are they angry? Are they subservient? Do they plead for mercy?
WF: All of the above.  Most are disgusted!  Many feel violated and absolutely helpless. Many won't return to fight because they feel it's not worth their time.

Back With a Whimper

This is the way the blogging resumes,

This is the way the blogging resumes,

This is the way the blogging resumes,

Not with a bang but with a whimper.

(100 meaningless points to the person who can identify the cultural reference.)

A lot has happened since I went dark.

Jason Williams was executed by the people of Alabama.

Donald Beaty was executed by the people of Arizona

Gaylord Bradford was executed by the people of Texas

Robert Simon, Jr. was granted a stay of execution by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

The Texas Forensic Science Commission sidestepped a finding regarding Cameron Todd Willingham. Governor Rick Perry is going to celebrate the whitewash by running for president of the United States.

David Wayne Spence is back in the news, in a dead sort of way. I scored him as 94 out of 100 on my Actual Innocence Scorecard.

The Supreme Court overturned Delma Banks death penalty. I previously scored Delma Banks 57 out of 100 on my Actual Innocence Scorecard.

Judge Kevin Fine threw out a jury's murder conviction and his own sentence.

Antonin Scalia got wrapped up with math once again, and it didn't work out.

Unfortunately, you missed the details because I was off doing whatever.  I didn't even complete whatever, and I still have a hell of a lot of work to do on whatever, but I'm going to try to ease my way back into blogging.

With all the heavy duty stuff that I missed and I should now be writing about, I'm going to take the easy way out. I'm going to write about Will Foreman and his traffic tickets.

Did I mention he beat another automated ticket in court?

Stay tuned.

Going Dark

I will not be posting any more this month or during the first week in June. I have a pressing, self-imposed obligation demanding my attention.

On Memorial Day, please remember to think of our troops. Consider doing something nice for one or more of them to show your appreciation.

tsj