This death row inmate says he should not be executed because he did not fire the bullet that killed the victim. But...

Trial testimony revealed Thompson shot store clerk Mubarakali Meredia four times but did not kill him. After the clerk opened the cash drawer, Thompson placed his pistol to Meredia's neck and pulled the trigger a fifth time. The weapon was out of bullets. Thompson then clubbed Meredia with his pistol.

Details.

How could the medical evidence show that the victim would not have died from the first four bullets and the clubbing? Can an intervening set of circumstances negate your intent? THe jury didn't think so, and I would imagine the facts and pictures were pretty clear that the two did not intend for the clerk to live.

If you shoot someone and they crawl into the street and get run over before the bullet kills the person, have you no longer committed murder?

This is a very interesting set of facts, but probably not as rare as one might think. Two actors who split the dirty deeds up and it makes it hard to show intent. Seems clear was his intent was, though, even if the other partner took the last shot.

It would be sad to say this guy should be let go because his partner shot a wild bullet in running away and that somehow takes away from this defendant's culpability.

As I read that, a different person died than the one he shot. Still, it is obvious that he intended to kill the person he did shoot, and his accomplice killed someone else as they were getting away.

[This message was edited by JohnR on 10-27-09 at .]

Whoops! I meant to inject you with the H1N1 vaccine. So sorry.

Houston killer Robert Lee Thompson is headed to the death chamber tonight after Gov. Rick Perry rejected the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole's clemency recommendation.

Details.

[Watch for it. Anti-death penalty advocates will accuse Perry of being inconsistent, claiming he already gave clemency to a party to a capital murder. Of course, he granted clemency in that case only because that defendant received the DP in a joint trial with the shooter, a problem already addressed by the Legislature in prohibiting such joint trials. As the facts in the Thompson case make very clear, party liability does not mean you can't deserve the DP. And Thompson's facts are ready-made for such a decision. Apparently, only a misfire prevented Thompson from being the triggerman causing the death of a victim (although he did manage to get in four shots).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
Of course, he granted clemency in that case only because that defendant received the DP in a joint trial with the shooter, a problem already addressed by the Legislature in prohibiting such joint trials.

---

Your comment on the Foster case is correct, but that bill to require separate trials in DP cases was pulled down by its Senate sponsor and failed to pass (it's a long story that I will not recount here). Separate trials in DP cases are probably a better practice, but it is not (yet) required by law.

Right you are. Thanks for the correction. There was agreement on the bill by state prosecutors as to that change. Issues beyond the control of prosecutors led to the failure of the bill to pass.

This notion on the part of some that only "triggermen" deserve the death penalty is kind of silly and actually ignores at least one of the enumerated statutory means by which capital murder might be committed, i.e., murder for hire. Anyone who believes that a "non-triggerman" can't be deserving of the needle should revisit the case of Markum Duff-Smith and the 1979 murders of the Wanstrath family in Harris County where this defendant hired the killings of his sister, brother-in-law and their 14 month old son who was lying in his crib when he was shot to death by a hired gunman.

Can you name other infamous murderers who were mere parties to the crime?

Charles Milles Manson was convicted of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders, carried out by members of the group at his instruction. He was found guilty of the murders themselves through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's object. Details.

P.S. Manson's death sentence was automatically reduced to life imprisonment when a 1972 decision by the Supreme Court of California temporarily eliminated the state's death penalty.

Evidently, one is about to go to trial in New York: Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.

Patrick Murphy of the TX7 was convicted and sentenced to death as a party. He was parked in front of the Oshman's when his fellow escapees all opened fire on Officer Hawkins in the loading dock. Of course, he was the one who warned them of the officer's approach. And while he didn't fire a shot,he was armed with an arsenal and - in his own words - prepared to "engage in a firefight with police."

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
Can you name other infamous murderers who were mere parties to the crime?

---

Osama bin Laden

quote:

---

Can you name other infamous murderers who were mere parties to the crime?

---

Adolph Hitler.

Pontius Pilate.

A whole host of dictators,past and present!

JAS

Lucky Luciano. Carlo Gambino. John Gotti. You get the picture.

Oh, and a host of grand dragons of the United Klans of America.

Inventor of Hal 9000

China executed a dairy farmer and a milk salesman Tuesday, the only two people sentenced to death in a scheme to water down infant formula with an industrial chemical that left at least six children dead and sickened more than 300,000.

Details.

I agree with the earlier posts, especially the thought that death sentences against non-triggermen are not uncommon and are often well-deserved.

The thought I wanted to add to the subject is that the distortions of reality which those opposed to the death penalty often engage in in their attempts to influence the public's attitudes toward the death penalty go a step further than what has been mentioned so far.

In particular, anti-death penalty advocates attacking death sentences against a party to the crime fail to mention the fact that the United States Supreme Court has specifically addressed the question of when a death sentence may be imposed on a non-triggerman in such cases as Tison v. Arizona and Enmund v. Florida.

They also totally ignore the fact that Texas law, consistent with those Supreme Court decisions, does not authorize a death sentence merely based on a conviction as a party and instead requires the jury to unanimously answer "yes" to a punishment special issue whether the defendant either actually caused the death of the deceased or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be taken.

Sometimes the non-triggerman is more dangerous than the triggerman. Jeff Starnge and I tried a man named Bart Whitaker, who over a period of years convinced separate sets of individuals to kill his family; the final set of defendant's friends did so. The jury knew what the punishment was for all participants (i.e., getaway driver - 15 years, triggerman - life,), listened to the evidence, argument of counsel, and answered the questions based upon the defendant himself, not others, and the def was sentenced to death. Jeff said in his argument, that we as prosecutors are duty bound to follow the law, and if we are doing our job as representatives of the State, we must acknowledge that sometimes a triggerman is not a candidate for the death penalty and sometimes the "mastermind" / non-triggerman easily meets the criteria. Bart Whitaker easily met the standards.