BACKGROUND: (Billy Joe Wardklow): "He received his death sentence in 1993 for killing an 82-year old man during a robbery when he was 18-years old. Here's what the jury was told about whether Wardlow would constitute a future danger to others in prison: The most chilling testimony for the state came from Royce Smithey, an investigator for a group that prosecutes felony crimes committed in Texas prisons. If the jury sentenced Wardlow to death, the investigator said, he would be “segregated” and “severely restricted” until he was executed. He would have limited access to prison employees whom he might harm. Solitary confinement on death row would punish Wardlow and protect prison employees from the continuing danger he represented, Smithey testified. But if the jury gave him a life sentence, he asserted, Wardlow would be released into the general prison population with other felony offenders. Recently, Frank G. Aubuchon, who was a correctional officer and an administrator with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) for more than 26 years, reviewed Smithey’s testimony at the request of Wardlow’s current lawyers. Aubuchon wrote, “Mr. Smithey’s multiple falsehoods served to mislead the jury into believing that TDCJ would be completely unprepared to imprison Mr. Wardlow in a secure environment unless he received a death sentence. Based on my decades of experience as a TDCJ corrections officer, administrator, and prison classifications expert, I can say that this is categorically false.”
Execution scheduled based on bogus future dangerousness," published by Grits for Breakfast on January 18, 2020.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY; "Burr is asking the Supreme Court to review new research that shows that because of the way the brain grows – or doesn't – the prediction of future dangerousness in an 18-year-old is scientifically impossible. If the court rules in his favor, the law would no longer be applicable to 18-year-olds, and Wardlow – who, you will recall, was 18 at the time of his crime – could receive a new sentence. The question at the heart of Burr's argument – at what point is a person mature enough to be held responsible for his actions? – is one the Supreme Court has grappled with before. In 2005, the Court ruled that executing those under 18 years of age is unconstitutional because their character is not yet fully formed. One line that appears near the end of the ruling is particularly relevant to Wardlow's case: "The qualities that distinguish juveniles from adults do not disappear when an individual turns 18." New research shows how correct that statement is."
----------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This length, powerful article explains why it would be a horrible irreparable miscarriage of justice if Texas is take his life. The whole article is worth a read. For now, here is the section on 'The New Arguments.'
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
------------------------------------------------
STORY: "A dangerous man," by reporter Bryant Bingamon, published why The Austin Chronicle on June 26, 2020.
SUB-HEADING: "At 18 Billy Joe Wardlow took another man's life. Nearly 30 years later the state still wants his."
GIST: "The New Arguments: After the TCCA denied Wardlow's habeas appeal in 2004, Richard Burr took over the case. He appealed it for 15 years, all the way to the Supreme Court, and was rejected at every stop. In October of 2019, Wardlow was given an execution date – April 29 (it has since been moved to July 8 because of the coronavirus pandemic). But by then, Burr had filed new appeals for his client, and he continues to do so. One of his most compelling arguments relates to the concept of "future dangerousness."
Future dangerousness has always been controversial. Practically anything, even the mere facts of the crime itself, can be proof of it.
In order to get the death penalty in Texas, juries must decide that a convicted man will probably commit violent acts in the future. If they can't agree to this, he is given life without parole. This prediction, called future dangerousness, has always been controversial. Practically anything, even the mere facts of the crime itself, can be proof of it. Juries make the prediction in almost every capital murder case they see.
Burr is asking the Supreme Court to review new research that shows that because of the way the brain grows – or doesn't – the prediction of future dangerousness in an 18-year-old is scientifically impossible. If the court rules in his favor, the law would no longer be applicable to 18-year-olds, and Wardlow – who, you will recall, was 18 at the time of his crime – could receive a new sentence.
The question at the heart of Burr's argument – at what point is a person mature enough to be held responsible for his actions? – is one the Supreme Court has grappled with before. In 2005, the Court ruled that executing those under 18 years of age is unconstitutional because their character is not yet fully formed. One line that appears near the end of the ruling is particularly relevant to Wardlow's case: "The qualities that distinguish juveniles from adults do not disappear when an individual turns 18."
New research shows how correct that statement is. In the years following Wardlow's sentence, scientists began using a new invention, magnetic resonance imaging, to study the brain. Today, after 20 years of MRI research, there is universal agreement that 18-year-olds are not full-fledged adults.
In an amicus brief filed on Wardlow's behalf with the TCCA in February, professors from UT-Austin and Texas A&M describe, from a biological perspective, why young adults do stupid, violent things. Citing dozens of studies published within the last decade, they write that during the early years of adolescence the parts of the brain that control aggression and risk-taking grow quickly. Only much later, in the early 20s, do the parts responsible for controlling these impulses begin to catch up. The studies show that 5-6% of young offenders will continue to be violent. But since the brain isn't finished developing there is no way to determine which young people those will be.
"There is thus no reliable way to determine whether an 18-year-old capital defendant will commit acts of violence in the future," the brief concludes, "making the overwhelming probability in the present case that Mr. Wardlow was sentenced to death based on a determination of future dangerousness that was theoretically and empirically unfounded, and which has proven untrue as he has grown into adulthood."
In addition to this major argument, Burr has appealed to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles for clemency for Wardlow, in a letter co-signed by 58 members of the Texas Legislature. He's also appealed yet again to the TCCA, asking them to reconsider their 2004 rejection of Wardlow's original appeals and to stop the execution while they determine a response. And after the Supreme Court recently ruled against Texas in a case with similarities to Wardlow's – Andrus v. Texas – Burr plans to file a second petition asking the court to review Wardlow's claim that his trial attorney was ineffective.
In short, Wardlow's July 8 execution is not yet a done deal."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2020-06-26/a-dangerous-man/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
