Halt Texas Executions Now!
Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee
.png)
How many Texas prisoners have been executed in cases where newly developed or freshly evaluated evidence should also have been considered in court, but they were procedurally barred? This is something the Texas legislature should examine thoroughly in light of Robert Roberson’s near-execution in October, 2024.
The courts refused to hear a fresh look at the evidence used to convict and sentence Robert Roberson to be executed. The Texas clemency process is a hoax. Out of nearly 600 executions since 1982, only five prisoners have received a recommendation for clemency from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and only three of those five had their executions halted.
If not for the heroic Hail Mary lawsuit brought my members of the Texas House Jurisprudence Committee, the execution of Robert Roberson would have gone forward. We must thank the House members who have stepped forward, and urge them to see and address this bigger picture. Procedural bars inhibit fairness and justice, not only in possible innocence cases, but also when issues of culpability such as mental capacity, or blatant unfairness are demand consideration.
Two Recent Examples
- Arthur Brown was executed in 2023 after courts refused to consider newly developed evidence of his innocence. Brown’s appeals raised only in the weeks before his execution were rejected in state and federal courts because they were raised too late and with too little new information.
- John Balentine was also executed in 2023, despite evidence of racial bias in his jury. His appeal was rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals because it was raised too late – it was procedurally barred.
Texas legislators must find a way to halt all executions at least until the law is changed to ensure that newly developed or freshly evaluated evidence is fully considered in court. Such reform should include not only questions of innocence due to developments in science, but also other new evidence of innocence, and questions of culpability and fairness.
Sponsored by
To:
Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee
From:
[Your Name]
Chairman Leach, Chairman Moody, and members of the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee
Thank you for your efforts that resulted in halting the execution of Robert Roberson. Thank you also for holding the historic hearing on Oct 21, 2024. Your efforts to stop the unjust execution of a possibly innocent man are heroic, and you are all to be applauded.
The fact that courts procedurally barred any fresh look at evidence in Roberson's case, and that the clemency process also failed miserably, should be enough evidence that the capital punishment system is dangerously broken.
With all due respect, your investigation about whether newly developed scientific evidence is actually resulting in a review of evidence is too narrow. What if the evidence developed too late was about newly developed evidence of innocence unrelated to new scientific standards, but raised issues of culpability such as mental capacity, or unfairness? Please expand your investigation to look more broadly.
Two Recent Examples
* Arthur Brown was executed in 2023 after courts refused to consider newly developed evidence of his innocence. Brown’s appeals raised only in the weeks before his execution were rejected in state and federal courts because they were raised too late and with too little new information.
* John Balentine was also executed in 2023, despite evidence of racial bias in his jury. His appeal was rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals because it was raised too late – it was procedurally barred.
Because the Judiciary and the Executive have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to grab serious review, we urge you as Texas Legislators to pass legislation in the 89th Texas Legislature to:
1) Halt all executions at least until the law is corrected to ensure that newly developed or freshly evaluated evidence is fully considered in court.
2) Codify within Texas law that in addition to questions of innocence due to developments in science, Courts must also consider other new evidence of innocence, as well as questions of culpability and fairness.
3) Enact real-time oversight to ensure that any such legislation is adhered to in an appropriately thorough manor
Thank you,