Robert Fratta is scheduled for execution in Texas on January 10, 2023 for the 1994 murder-for-hire shooting death of his wife, Farah Fratta.

• See Supreme Court filings here and here.
• Read about the lawsuit over Texas using expired drugs to carry out executions. (UPDATE - Lawsuit was dismissed but the ruling may be appealed.)

BACKGROUND:

Robert Fratta is seeking to raise new evidence about hypnosis of eyewitness and immunity for prosecution star witness in challenge to capital murder conviction.

The State plans to kill Robert Fratta on Tuesday, January 10, 2023 for the murder of his wife, Farah Fratta. A filing by Mr. Fratta presents facts that the State obtained his conviction and death sentence through unreliable and unconstitutional tactics. Fratta has always maintained his innocence.

Detectives and prosecutors used hypnosis to alter the memory of a key eyewitness. Fratta’s wife was shot and killed in her garage while Fratta was at Church with their children. The only person who saw the shooting occur was a neighbor who had a clear view into the garage. The night of the murder, she told police that she saw three perpetrators at the scene: a shooter in red pants running from the garage; a man dressed in all black waiting outside the garage; and a getaway driver who arrived at the scene minutes after the shooting.

The State’s theory of Fratta’s guilt hinged on the presence of two—not three—perpetrators at the scene of the crime. After the eyewitness gave her initial statement to detectives, they arranged for her to be hypnotized and re-questioned. Following the hypnosis, the eyewitness began to assert that what she previously described as someone in red pants was not a person, but merely a “red flash.” At trial, the eyewitness maintained she saw two people and a “red flash,” which prosecutors argued was a muzzle flash from the gun.

The State did not disclose the hypnosis to Fratta’s defense lawyers. When evidence of the hypnosis was discovered several years later, prosecutors claimed they did not know any witnesses were hypnotized. Detectives claimed the subject matter of the questions asked during the hypnosis session was limited to the getaway car. Recently, Fratta discovered that information was false: a detective and an investigator from the district attorney’s office were present during the hypnosis, and the eyewitness was also questioned about the third person in red pants. Several questions remain about what occurred during the hypnosis session. But prosecutors claim there is no documentation about the hypnosis, and the detective who was present during the hypnosis, Danny Billingsley, refused to talk to Fratta’s legal team.

Prosecutors secured Fratta’s conviction by offering an accomplice to the murder immunity in exchange for her testimony. The State’s case at trial centered on the testimony of star witness Mary Gipp. Without Gipp’s testimony, the State presented no evidence of the identity of the shooter or that was Fratta connected to him. Prosecutors accused Gipp of being an accomplice to the murder and granted her immunity in exchange for her testimony against Fratta. Despite repeated requests, the State has never disclosed the terms of Gipp’s immunity deal to the defense. Multiple courts have found that two key prosecutors who built the case against Fratta and were involved in Gipp’s immunity deal—Dan Rizzo and Kelly Siegler—have withheld exculpatory evidence that had to be turned over to the defense in other cases, leading courts to overturn convictions in high-profile murder cases. (Link/Link)

A juror who ultimately convicted Fratta and sentenced him to death had prior knowledge about the case that destroyed the presumption that Fratta was innocent until proven guilty. Fratta’s initial conviction was based largely on the confession of a codefendant who implicated Fratta. Federal courts concluded that confession was coerced and unreliable. As a result, Fratta’s initial conviction and death sentence were overturned. Prior to serving on the jury at Fratta’s retrial, a juror read in the newspaper that after the appeal of Fratta’s prior conviction, the prosecution would be barred from using confessions in Fratta’s new trial. Not only did this article tell the juror that Fratta had been previously convicted, but it made him believed there was more evidence of Fratta’s guilt than what the jury would receive at trial. Fratta’s trial lawyers did not object to the juror serving.

Fratta raised these and several other violations of his rights in an application for writ of habeas corpus in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Yesterday, the court denied Fratta’s application on procedural grounds. His Clemency Application is still pending before the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Texas' aggressive execution schedule marks it as an outlier in its use of the death penalty while the majority of other states are on a downward trend of executions. In the last few years, Texas has been one of only a handful of states that have carried out death sentences - and it continues to do so targeting the poor, the mentally ill and people of color.

Please sign the petition asking Governor Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to do everything within their power to stop this execution, including issuing a stay, and seeking a path to clemency in the case.

Additionally, you may reach out now to the Board at bpp_clemency@tdcj.texas.gov and the Governor at www.gov.texas.gov/contact/ and (512) 463-1782. You can simply leave a voice message, or choose to speak to a representative if you prefer.

Please note: In Texas, the Governor does have limited power when it comes to the death penalty. But the story we are told that "it's out of the governor's hands," is only true if we allow it to be. Yes, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles must recommend clemency in that state in order for the Governor to grant clemency (mercy) by commuting a death sentence. But the fact is that the governor appoints the members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. He can choose to appoint members who will take valid claims and concerns more seriously, instead of acting like rubber-stamping gate-keepers. He can still use his position of power and influence to enact justice in the State of Texas.