Stop the execution of Willie James Pye in Georgia
Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole
1. Willie Pye is an intellectually disabled man with a 68 IQ.
2. The U.S. Constitution prohibits the execution of intellectually disabled persons.
3. Georgia is the only state in the nation that requires proof of intellectual disability “beyond a reasonable doubt” to prevent execution. This is an unattainable standard. Had Willie Pye been tried in a state that uses “preponderance of evidence” as a standard of proof, he would have been ineligible for the death penalty.
4. Spalding County, where Willie was tried and convicted in the mid-1990s, sought the death penalty at a far higher rate than counties of comparable sizes and disproportionately against Black defendants.
5. Willie Pye’s trial attorney, Johnny Mostiler, was not only wildly ineffective, but had a long and well documented history of anti-Black racism. A qualified and experienced capital defense attorney would have assembled a team that included a mitigation specialist with the expertise required to conduct a thorough investigation into Willie’s deeply traumatic childhood, intellectual disability, and the pervasive racism in the community in which he was raised.
Sponsored by
To:
Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole
From:
[Your Name]
We stand together to urge you to grant clemency for Willie James Pye.
Executing an intellectually disabled person is wrong, as established by the US Supreme Court in Atkins v Virginia in 2002. How is it that the State of Georgia could possibly be executing Willie Pye, who has an established IQ of 68?
We know that Spalding County where Mr Pye was tried and convicted in the mid-1990s, sought the death penalty at a far higher rate than counties of comparable sizes and disproportionately against Black defendants.
Additionally, Willie Pye’s trial attorney, Johnny Mostiler, was not only wildly ineffective but had a long and well documented history of anti-Black racism. A qualified and experienced capital defense attorney would have assembled a team that included a mitigation specialist with the expertise required to conduct a thorough investigation into Willie’s deeply traumatic childhood, intellectual disability, and the pervasive racism in the community in which he was raised.
There are three substantive aspects of the case that the jury did not hear during Mr Pye's trial:
1) The jury did not hear that Mr. Pye was raised in an environment of severe poverty, neglect, and abuse. The jury heard no evidence of the violence and chaos in his family home, and they heard only a single fleeting reference to the fact that the family was poor.
2) The jury did not hear that Mr. Pye has been helpful and nonviolent while incarcerated and posed no danger to society. The district attorney who prosecuted Mr. Pye argued that the jury must sentence him to death in order to avoid the risk of Mr. Pye killing a prison guard while serving a life sentence. Johnny Mostiler failed to counter this argument with evidence that during Mr. Pye’s previous incarceration, he had been respectful and helpful, “was never menacing, never made any threatening remarks, and helped . . . keep the rest of the unit safe.” Had Mr. Mostiler called prison guards who knew Mr. Pye to testify at sentencing, the jury would have heard this critical evidence.
3) The jury was not presented with evidence that Willie was intellectually disabled and struggled to function in the world.
For nearly thirty years, Mr. Pye has remained a non-violent presence in the prison.
We acknowledge the gravity of this decision upon you, and implore you to grant clemency to Mr Pye.