Texas Attorney General Media Advisory

AUSTIN - Texas Attorney General John Cornyn offers the following information on Napoleon Beazley, who is scheduled to be executed after 6 p.m. on Tuesday, May 28, 2002:

MEDIA NOTE: In two related cases, Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 108 S. Ct. 2687 (1988) and Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 109 S. Ct. 2969 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth and 14th Amendments prohibited the execution of a defendant convicted of first-degree murder when he was 15 years old, but a defendant's constitutional rights were not violated when the sentence was imposed on a defendant who was at least 16 years old at the time of the capital offense. Most states cite Stanford as justification for imposing capital sentences on 16 or 17 year olds.

FACTS OF THE CRIME

On March 17, 1995, Napoleon Beazley was sentenced for the capital offense of murdering John Luttig during a car jacking in Tyler, Texas, on April 19, 1994. At the time of the crime, Beazley, now 25, was approximately three and a half months short of his 18th birthday.

On April 18, 1994, Beazley and his friend, Cedric Coleman, drove from their homes in Grapeland to Corsicana. Cedric had plans to meet some girls at a Corsicana college. Previously, Beazley had repeatedly expressed a desire to steal a car, and friends had seen him carry a gun. On the way to Corsicana, Beazley told Cedric that he wanted to jack a car." Beazley carried a .45-caliber pistol on the trip. When reaching the college campus, Beazley looked around at cars and asked Cedric when the students would return to their dorms. Later in the evening, Beazley stated that he wanted to go to Dallas to steal a car. However, Cedric talked Beazley into waiting another day and the two returned home.

On April 19, 1994, Beazley told a friend that he might soon be driving a Mercedes to school. That evening, Beazley borrowed his mother's car and drove with Cedric and Cedric's younger brother Donald, to Corsicana. Beazley brought his .45-caliber pistol, as well as a sawed-off shotgun. After driving to Corsicana, they decided to drive to Tyler, and on the way, Beazley spotted a Lexus and told Cedric to follow it. They followed the Lexus to Tyler, but eventually lost sight of it, which angered Beazley.

Later, when heading to a local restaurant, Beazley saw a Mercedes in the restaurant's parking lot. As the driver of the Mercedes exited his vehicle, Beazley jumped out of his car armed with the .45-caliber pistol. However, the driver entered the restaurant before Beazley could reach him, apparently without noticing Beazley.

Cedric yelled at Beazley to get back into the car, and without stopping to eat, Cedric began driving the group back home. Beazley ordered Cedric to turn around and return to Tyler, commenting, "You know, I guess I'm going to have to shoot my driver." Cedric then pulled the car over and told Beazley that, under the circumstances, he would have to do his own driving. Beazley took the wheel and stated again that he wanted to steal a car. When Cedric asked why, Beazley explained that he wanted to see what it was like to kill somebody.

As the group approached Tyler for the second time, Beazley spotted a 1987 Mercedes driven by John Luttig. He and his wife, Bobbie Luttig, were on their way home from Dallas. Beazley followed the Luttigs to their home and stopped at the end of the driveway. Beazley got out of the car and stripped off his shirt. Armed with the .45-caliber pistol, Beazley ran toward the garage. Donald followed shortly after, carrying Beazley's sawed-off shotgun. Beazley fired one round from his pistol, hitting Mr. Luttig in the side of the head, leaving him alive but stunned and in a seated position. Beazley next ran around the car where Mrs. Luttig was getting out of the vehicle and fired at her at close range. Although he missed, she fell to the ground. Beazley then returned to Mr. Luttig, raised his gun, took careful aim, and fired point blank into Mr. Luttig's head. Standing in his victim's blood, Beazley then rifled Mr. Luttig's pockets looking for the keys to the Mercedes.

As he searched for the keys, Beazley asked Donald if Mrs. Luttig was dead. When Donald said she was still moving, Beazley shouted for him to shoot her, but Donald refused. Beazley then moved to shoot her, but Donald quickly recanted his previous statement and said that she was dead. [Mrs. Luttig survived the incident and later testified at Beazley's trial.] Once Beazley found the keys to the Mercedes, he jumped into the car and ordered Donald to get in. Beazley then backed the car out of the garage. However, he ran into a retaining wall, damaging the vehicle, causing him eventually to abandon it a short distance away. He then rejoined the group, who had followed him from the crime scene, in his mother's car. Beazley stated that he would get rid of anyone who said anything about the incident. Beazley and his cohorts returned to Grapeland.

A few days after the crime, Beazley confided to a friend that he and the Coleman brothers had attempted to steal a car, and he had shot a man three times in the head and had attempted to kill a woman. When arrested, Beazley's father asked if he committed the crime of which he was accused, and Beazley replied he had. Beazley later commented, in describing his experience of the car jacking and murder, that it "was a trip."

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 7, 1994 - Beazley was charged by an indictment returned in Smith County, Texas, with the capital offense of intentionally murdering John Luttig during a robbery.

March 17, 1995 - A jury found Beazley guilty of capital murder on March 13, 1995, and following a separate punishment hearing, assessed the death penalty.

Feb. 26, 1997 - The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief on 38 points of error, affirmed Beazley's conviction and sentence, and later denied rehearing in April 1997. Beazley did not seek certiorari review from the U.S. Supreme Court.

June 3, 1997 - Beazley filed an application for state writ of habeas corpus with the state trial court of conviction.
Sept. 5, 1997 - An evidentiary hearing was held by the trial court.
Oct. 31, 1997 - The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law denying habeas relief.
Jan. 21, 1998 - The Court of Criminal Appeals accepted findings and denied relief.
Oct. 1, 1998 - Beazley petitioned for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Sept. 30, 1999 - The U.S. District Court denied relief.
Oct. 26, 1999 - The district court denied reconsideration.
Dec. 28, 1999 - The district court granted permission for Beazley to appeal.
June 1, 2000 - Beazley filed his brief on appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 9, 2001 - The Fifth Circuit issued a published opinion affirming the denial of habeas relief.
March 15, 2001 - The Fifth Circuit denied Beazley's petition for rehearing.
March 30, 2001 - The District Court of Smith County, Texas, scheduled Beazley's execution for Aug. 15, 2001.
June 13, 2001 - Beazley petitioned for certiorari review from the denial of federal habeas relief.
June 28, 2001 - Beazley applied for a stay of execution from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Aug. 13, 2001 - The United States Supreme Court denied Beazley's application for stay of execution.
Aug. 15, 2001 - The day of his execution, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted a stay of execution.
Oct. 1, 2001- The United States Supreme Court denies certiorari review.
Apr. 17, 2002 - The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacates the stay of execution.
Apr. 26, 2002 - The District Court of Smith County, Texas, scheduled Beazley's execution for May 28, 2002.
May 7, 2002 - Beazley files a petition for clemency with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.
May 13, 2002 - Beazley files a supplemental petition for clemency.
May 17, 2002- Beazley and 3 others file 1983 suit in the U.S. District Court alleging inadequate representation.
May 17, 2002 - U.S. District Judge Hayden Head dismisses the lawsuit. Notice of Appeal filed.
May 21, 2002 - The Fifth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the lower court's judgment, denying injunctive relief.
May 22, 2002 - Beazley petitions for certiorari review to the United States Supreme Court.

** Currently, Beazley's petition for certiorari review and his application for stay of execution are still pending with the United States Supreme Court. In addition, his petition for clemency is still pending with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. **

PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY

No evidence of prior criminal convictions was presented to the jury at the punishment phase of trial. However, the jury heard evidence that Beazley had been selling drugs since age 13.

ProDeathPenalty.com

A year later, the Colemans were in prison and Beazley was on death row. The Luttigs' son helped put them there. "Words seem trite in describing what follows when your . . . father is stripped away from your life: the despair, the chaos, the confusion, the sense -- perhaps temporary, perhaps not -- that one's life has no further purpose," his son, J. Michael Luttig, said at the Colemans' trial. He would give similar, lengthy testimony in Beazley's capital murder trial. It might have just been another mid-'90s carjacking turned deadly if Michael Luttig was not one of the most influential judges on one of the most influential federal appeals courts in the country -- and one of the toughest appeals court when it comes to death penalty cases. Sitting on the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 1991, Luttig is apparently the only living federal judge whose father had been slain.

At the federal hijacking trial of the Colemans, Luttig addressed the judge and described how difficult it was to receive word from a close friend that his father was dead . . . "realizing at that very moment, at that very moment that the man you have worshipped all your life is lying on his back in your driveway with two bullets through his head. It is thinking the unthinkable that perhaps the act was in retaliation for something you had done in your own job," said Luttig. "On behalf of my dad and on behalf of my mother and family I respectfully request that those who committed this brutal crime receive the full punishment that the law provides," Luttig said. Luttig made similar remarks in Beazley's capital murder trial in state court, but did not ask for the death penalty. Shortly after the death penalty was imposed, he was quoted by the media as saying, "There's no one in my family that's happy about what occurred today." However, he also said: "Individuals must be held accountable at some point for actions such as this. I thought this was an appropriate case for the death penalty." . . .

A quicker red light, a longer green, a wrong turn and John Luttig and Napolean Beazley might never have met. Luttig, born in Pittsburgh, was a Korean War veteran. He married, and raised a son and daughter. He was a petroleum engineer for Atlantic Richfield and then he went into business for himself, supervising wells across the country. In his private life, he was an elder at Tyler's First Presbyterian Church and vice moderator of the Grace Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., said the Rev. Dick Ramsey, former pastor of the church. Luttig had also served on the Tyler Planning Zoning Commission. "John was a great guy, he really was," said Jim Rippy a friend and fellow oil man. "He was a gentlemen in everything he did -- outgoing, he had kind of a nice wit about him and he had a good relationship with everybody here." As part of a Christmas present to his wife, Luttig enrolled Bobbie in a night class at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, where she was studying for a master of divinity degree, Ramsey said. On the night he died, Luttig had driven her to Dallas for the 6 p.m. class, waited for her, then they drove home.

Napolean Beazley, 17, was the president of his senior class. The starting running back for the Grapeland High School Sandies his last season and a 440-relay track runner, Beazley was headed for the Marine Corps after high school. Then, about 47 days after Luttig was killed, a tip led police to Grapeland. 2 weeks after Beazley graduated 13th out of his class of 60, he was arrested and charged with murder. About 47 days elapsed between the slaying and Beazley's arrest. "He was well-known . . . he had plenty of friends and he did a lot of good things in his life," his father, Ireland Beazley, said. The senior Beazley is a steel worker and city councilman in Grapeland which has a population of 1,468. His wife, Rena, was the secretary to the county judge. Beazley said that, in addition to football and track, his son played baseball and lifted weights competitively.

The Beazleys were proud of Napolean. They did not know he was leading a secret life. On April 19, Beazley took his mother's red Ford Probe and wound up in Tyler with the Colemans. Beazley, a crack dealer armed with a .45-caliber handgun, was looking for a car to hijack. "I went to school, I went to Sunday school every Sunday, I walked old ladies across the street -- all that stuff," said Beazley, interviewed on Texas' death row. He said he wasn't using crack at the time of the murder and he wasn't drunk, either. So, what happened? "A lot of people ask that question. I ask myself that question, too," said Beazley. "I can't really explain it to you, because it would always seem like a justification. When you lay it all out . . . it can come out as a justification and, for me, there is no justification for what happened." With an appeal pending, there is much about the crime that he cannot discuss. "I don't admit anything. . . . I don't say anything about it. Let the evidence speak for itself.

The testimony mostly came from those 2 guys who were also involved in the crime." The Coleman brothers, who received life sentences, testified against Beazley. Beazley does not deny he was there. "They had a bloody footprint from my shoe, they had a palm print on the body of the car that came from me." And, he says, "I don't blame my family, I don't blame my friends, I don't blame society, I can't blame a federal judge. I don't blame anybody else for being here but me." During his trial, Beazley remembers Judge Luttig testifying. He said he felt sorry for him for losing his father. He has not tried to contact the family and apologize for fear of hurting them further, he said. "They're going through their own pain right now and I don't want to add to that. If I could alleviate it, if I could take it away from them, then I would." Beazley paused when asked if given the chance to talk to Michael Luttig what would he say? "What can you say to somebody in that situation? No words could comfort him, not coming from me, anyway. I don't think I would say anything. I think I would, for once, just listen. What would I do if somebody murdered my daddy? How would I feel?" He said he is not sure.

Justice For All

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LUTTIG AT THE SENTENCING OF CEDRIC AND DONALD COLEMAN IN FEDERAL COURT

AN ALLOCUTION OF A FEDERAL JUDGE ON VICTIMIZATION - Three young men bent on stealing a Mercedes-Benz killed a federal judge's father on April 19, 1994, in Dallas. Before brothers Donald Coleman, 19, and Cedric Coleman, 21, were sentenced last January by Senior U.S. District Judge William Steger of Tyler for carjacking, possession of a firearm and possession of a short-barreled shotgun, the victim's son, Judge Michael Luttig of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stood to tell the court how terribly their crime had hurt him and his family. The Coleman brothers and Napoleon Beazley were in a red Ford Probe the night they followed John and Bobbie Luttig home and Beazley and Donald Coleman jumped from their own car armed with a pistol and a sawed-off shotgun. According to the Tyler Morning Telegraph's accounts of the trial, John Luttig was shot in the head as he stepped out of his car; his wife survived by feigning death and rolling under the car. The assailants backed the car out of the garage over her and abandoned it a few blocks away. The three men were arrested two months later. (Beazley, now 18, was a minor at the time of the crime and was not named in the federal indictment.) Judge Luttig asked for the maximum, a life sentence. But after his emotional statement to the court, Steger said he could not depart from the sentencing guidelines. Donald Coleman got 43 years, nine months in prison. Cedric Coleman got 40 years, five months. They and Beazley face capital murder and aggravated robbery charges in state court.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LUTTIG

May it please the Court. It is one of life's ironies that I appear before the Court for the reason that I do. But I do so to represent my dad -- who is not here -- and his wife, and daughters. His family, my family. More than anything else, I do this to honor him, because if the roles were reversed, he would be standing here today. Of this I am certain. I also owe this to the other victims of violent crime who either stand silently by, or who speak and are not heard. I owe it to the public. I owe it, as well, to Donald and Cedric Coleman, who may yet not understand the magnitude of the losses they inflicted on the night of April 19.

Words seem trite in describing what follows when your husband is murdered in your presence, when your father is stripped from your life. The horror, the agony, the emptiness, the despair, the chaos, the confusion, the sense -- perhaps temporary, but perhaps not -- that one's life no longer has any purpose, the doubt, the hopelessness. There are no words that can possibly describe it, and all it entails. But being the victim of a violent crime such as this is at least these things. Exactly these things in my family's case; the equivalent of these things in the countless other cases.

While it is happening and in the seconds and the minutes thereafter. . .

... it's the sheer horror of half-clothed people with guns storming up your driveway toward you in the dark of night, when you are totally defenseless.

... it's what must be the terrifying realization that you are first about to be, and then actually being, murdered.

... it's perhaps seeing in your last moment what in your mind you know was the murder of your wife.

... it's crawling on the floor of your own garage in the grease and filth, pretending you're dead, so that you won't be shot through the head by the person who just murdered your husband.

... it's realizing your husband has been gunned down in your driveway on your return from the final class you needed to complete your education -- an education that had been the goal of both of you since the day you were married.

... it's knowing that the reason that your husband was with you -- indeed, the reason that you were in the car that night at all -- is that his Christmas gift to you the previous year was the promise that you could take the class and that he would take you to and from, so that nothing would happen to you.

... it's mercilessly punishing yourself over whether you could have done something, anything at all, to have stopped the killing.

Moments later, across a continent...

... it's being frightened out of your mind in the middle of the night by a frantic banging on your door -- calling the police, then canceling the call -- and then answering the door. Your body goes limp as you see one of your best friends standing in the doorway. No words need even be spoken. For you know that the worst in life has happened. Then, he tells you: "Your mom just called. Father was murdered in the driveway of your home."

... it's realizing that, at that very moment, the man you have worshipped all your life is lying on his back in your driveway with two bullets through his head.

Across the globe. . .

... it's your husband taking the emergency international call, pulling down the receiver, fumbling for the words, as he starts to deliver the news. "This is the hardest thing I will ever have to tell you," he begins. Then, it is the calls home, or at least to what used to be home, first one, then the other. In eerie, stunned calmness, you hear your mother utter the feared confirmation: "Yes, your dad was just murdered. You better come home." Now you believe.

Within hours. . .

... it's arriving home to television cameras in your front yard, to see your house cordoned off by police lines; police conducting ballistics and forensics tests, and studying the place in the driveway where your father had finally fallen dead -- all as if it were a set from a television production.

... it's going down to the store where your dad had always shopped for clothes, to buy a shirt, a tie that will match his suit, and a package of three sets of underwear (you can only buy them in sets of three) so your dad will look nice when he is buried.

... it's being called by the funeral home and told that it recommends that the casket be closed and that perhaps your mom, sister, and wife should not see the body -- and you know why, without even asking.

... it's walking into the viewing room at the funeral home and having your sister cry out that that just can't be him, it just can't be.

In the days that follow . . .

... it's living in a hotel in your own hometown, blocks away from where you have lived your whole life, because you just can't bear to go back.

... it's packing up the family home, item by item, memory by memory, as if all of the lives that were there only hours before are no more.

... it's reading the letters from you, your sister, and your wife, that your dad secreted away in his most private places, unbeknownst to you, realizing that the ones he invariably saved were the ones that just said "thanks" or "I love you." And really understanding for the first time that that truly was all that he ever needed to hear or to receive in return, just as he always told you.

... it's carefully folding each or your husband's shirts, as you have always done, so that they will be neat when they are given away.

... it's watching your mother do this, in your own mind begging her to stop.

... it's cleaning out your dad's sock drawer, his underwear drawer, his ties.

... it's packing up your dad's office for him, from the family picture to the last pen and pencil.

... it's reading the brochures in his top drawer about the fishing trip you and he were to take in two months -- the trip that your mother had asked you to go on because it meant so much to your dad.

In the weeks thereafter. . .

... it's living in absolute terror, not knowing who had murdered your husband and tried to murder you, but realizing that often such people come back to complete the deed, and wondering if they would return this time.

... it's furiously writing down the license number of every Ford Probe for no reason other than it was a Ford Probe, hoping that through serendipity, it might be, and sometimes fearing, that that is exactly what might happen.

... it's never spending another night in your own home because the pain is too great and the memories too fresh.

... it's all day every day, and all night, racking your brain to the point of literal exhaustion over who possibly could have done this. It's questioningly looking in the corners of every relationship, to the point that, at times, you are almost ashamed of yourself. Yet you have no choice but to continue, because, as they say, it could be anyone.

... it's thinking the unthinkable, that perhaps the act was in retaliation for something you had done in your job. You ask yourself, "If it was, should I just walk away?"

... it's watching the re-enactment of your dad's, your husband's murder on television, day and night, and every time you pick up the newspaper.

... it's reading the "wanted" poster for the people who murdered him, while checking out at the grocery store.

... it's telling your family night after night that it will be all right, when you don't believe it yourself.

Then they are finally found, and. . .

... it's collapsing on the kitchen floor when you are told -- not from relief, but from the ultimate despair in learning that your husband was indeed killed for nothing but a car, and in an act so random as to defy comprehension.

... it's watching your mother collapse on the floor when she hears this news and knowing that she will not just have to relive the fateful night in her own mind, now she will have to relive it in public courtrooms, over and over again, for months on end.

In the months that follow. . .

... it's putting the family home up for sale and being told that everyone thinks it is beautiful, but they just don't think they could live there, because a murder took place in the driveway.

... it's the humiliation of being told by the credit card companies, after they closed your husband's accounts because of his death, that they are unable to extend you credit because you are not currently employed.

... it's receiving an anonymous call that begins, "I just learned of the brutal carjacking and murder of your father," and that ends by saying. "I only wish your mother had been raped and murdered, too."

... it's the crushing anxiety of awaiting the trauma and uncertainties of public trials.

The day arrives, and. . .

... it's listening, for the first time, to the tape of your mother's 911 call to report that her husband, your father, had been murdered. Hearing the terror in her voice. Catching yourself before you pass out from the shock of knowing that, through that tape, you are present at the very moment it all happened.

... it's hearing the autopsy report on how the bullets entered your father's skull, penetrated and exited his brain, and went through his shoulder and arm.

... it's listening to testimony as to how long he might have been conscious, and thus aware of what was happening -- not just to him but to the woman that he had always said he would give his life for.

... it's looking at the photographs of your dad lying in the driveway in a pool of blood, as they are projected on a large screen before your friends and family, and before what might as well be the whole world.

... it's having to ask your son what the expression was on your husband's face.

... it's listening to a confession in which the person says that he just thought your dad was "playing possum."

... it's listening to your own mother, a lady of ultimate grace, testify publicly as to how she crawled under the car, in the grease and the filth, to avoid being murdered.

... it's hearing her say that the only thing she could think of was what it was going to be like to be shot through the back of the head.

... it's watching her face as she relives that night, time and again.

As the trauma of the trial subsides. . .

... it's getting down on your hands and knees and straightening your dad's new grave marker and packing the fresh dirt around it, so that it will be perfect, as he always insisted that things be for you.

... it's sitting across from each other at Thanksgiving dinner, each knowing that there is but one thing on the other's mind, yet pretending otherwise for their sake.

... it's telling your wife that the meat was great, when you could barely keep it down and hardly wait to finish.

... it's trying to pick out a Christmas gift for your mother that your dad would have picked out for her.

... it's sitting beside your father's grave into the night in 30-degree weather, so that he won't be alone on the first Christmas.

... it's putting up, by yourself, the basketball goal that you got last Christmas so that you and your dad could relive memories as you passed the years together.

... it's finishing by yourself all of the projects that you have not an idea how to do, and that your dad had said, "Save for the summer and we'll do them together. I'll show you how."

... it's hearing your 2-year-old daughter ask for "Pawpaw" and seeing your wife choke back the tears and tell her, "He's gone now, he's in heaven."

... it's having the clothes your dad was most proud of altered, so you can wear them in his honor.

... it's wondering whether your wearing the clothes will be too painful for your mother.

In the larger sense. . .

... it's shaking every time you drive into a darkened driveway.

... it's feeling your body get rigid every time that you drive into a garage.

... it's being nervous every time you walk to your car, even in the open daylight.

... it's being scared to answer any phone call or any knock at the door at night (or, for that matter, during the day) because another messenger may be calling.

Finally, it's the long-term effects. .

... it's the inexplicable sense of embarrassment when you tell someone that your husband or your father was murdered -- almost a sense of guilt over injecting ugliness into their lives.

... it's going out to dinner alone, knowing that you will be going out alone the rest of your life.

... it's that feeling -- wrong, but inevitable -- that you will always be the fifth wheel.

... it's living the rest of your life with the fact that your husband, your father, suffered one of the most horrifying deaths possible.

... it's never knowing, yet fearing that you know all too well, what those final moments must have been like.

... it's constantly visualizing yourself in his place that night, moment by excruciating moment.

... it's realizing that you will never even get the chance to repay your dad for making your dreams come true.

... it's living with the uncomfortable irony that he lived just long enough to see to it that your dreams came true, but that his never will.

... it's knowing you never had, and will never have, that one last time to say thanks for giving me, first, life itself, and then, all that it holds.

And. . .

... it's knowing that this is only the beginning and the worst is yet to come... The haunting images... The emptiness... The loneliness... The directionlessness... The sickening sense that it all ended some time ago, and that you are but biding time.

Of course, for my mother, my sister, my wife and I, the sun will come up again, but it will never come up again for the real victim of this crime. Not only will he never see what he worked a lifetime for, and was finally within reach of obtaining. That would be tragedy enough. But, even worse, he died knowing that the only thing that ever could have ruined his life had come to pass -- that his wife and his family might have to suffer the kind of pain that is now ours -- and he was helpless to prevent it even as he saw its inevitability. We live by law in this county so that, ideally, no one will ever have to know what it is like to be a victim of such violent crime. If I had any wish, any wish in the world, it would be that no one ever again would have to go through what my mother and my father experienced on the night of April 19, what my family has endured since and must carry with us the rest of our lives. Crimes such as that committed against my family are intolerable in any society that calls itself not only free, but civilized. The law recognizes as much, and it provides for punishment that will ensure at least that others will not suffer again at the same hands, even if it does not prevent recurrence at the hands of others. On behalf of my dad, and on behalf of my mother and family, I respectfully request that these who committed this brutal crime receive the full punishment that the law provides. Three people were needed to complete this crime. Each of the three was as instrumental to its success as the other. There were no passive bystanders among the gang that executed my dad. Thank you, Your Honor.

Texas Execution Information Center by David Carson.

Napoleon Beazley, 25, was executed by lethal injection on 28 May in Huntsville, Texas for the murder of a man he and two others carjacked.

In April, Beazley, then 17, borrowed his mother's car and drove with two other youths to Tyler, Texas. Beazley's friend, Cedric Coleman, drove, and Cedric's younger brother, Donald, went with them. They saw a Mercedes in a restaurant parking lot. Beazley jumped out of his car, armed with a .45-caliber pistol, and approached the driver of the Mercedes. The man entered the restaurant, apparently without noticing Beazley.

Beazley got back in the car and the group began driving back home. However, according to trial testimony, Beazley told Cedric Coleman to turn back so he could shoot the driver and steal the Mercedes. Coleman pulled the car over and told Beazley he would have to do his own driving, so Beazley took the wheel.

As the group approached Tyler for the second time, Beazley spotted a 1987 Mercedes Benz. Beazley followed the car until it pulled into the garage of a house. He then got out of his car and ran to the driver's side of the Mercedes. He fired one round from his .45, hitting John E. Luttig, 63, in the head. He then ran around to the passenger's side, where Bobbie Luttig was getting out of the vehicle. He fired at her and, though he missed, she fell to the ground. Beazley then returned to Mr. Luttig, saw that he was still alive in the driver's seat, and fired again at his head at close range.

While Beazley was looking for the keys, he asked Donald Coleman, who was carrying Beazley's sawed-off shotgun, whether Mrs. Luttig was dead. When Donald said she was still moving, Beazley shouted for him to shoot her, but he refused. Beazley then began to come around to shoot her, but Donald quickly changed his statement and said that she was dead. Once Beazley found the keys, he backed the car out of the garage. However, he hit a wall, damaging the vehicle. He abandoned it a short distance away, rejoined the Coleman brothers in his mother's car, and the group returned home. They were arrested more than 45 days later.

Cedric Coleman, Donald Coleman, and Bobbie Luttig testified against Beazley at his trial. A jury found him guilty of capital murder in March 1995 and sentenced him to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and death sentence in February 1997. Beazley received an evidentiary hearing for his state habeas corpus appeal in September 1997. That appeal was later denied, as were all of his subsequent appeals in state and federal court. Cedric and Donald Coleman pleaded guilty to capital murder and received life sentences. They were also convicted of carjacking in federal court and are currently serving time in federal prison.

After the trial, the Coleman brothers recanted some of their testimony, claiming they were manipulated by Smith County prosecutor David Dobbs. "Dobbs actually threatened me by telling me if I didn't testify the way he wanted that he would make sure my brother got the death penalty," Cedric Coleman stated in an affidavit in July 2001. This matter was not raised in Beazley's original state habeas corpus appeal. Beazley's lawyer, Walter Long, also raised some objections regarding the fairness of Beazley's trial, such as the fact that his jury was all-white, while he was black, and concerns that the victim's son, who is a federal judge, might have meddled in the case. Long argued that Beazley's former lawyer was incompetent for not making these objections during the case's habeas corpus stage.

Beazley was originally scheduled to be executed on 15 August 2001. The U.S. Supreme Court denied his final appeal, and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles rejected his clemency appeal by a 10-6 vote. However, on the morning of his scheduled execution, Beazley won a stay from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

In April 2002, the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled unfavorably on another death penalty case dealing with attorney incompetence during habeas corpus appeals. After making this ruling, the court lifted Beazley's stay and allowed his execution to be rescheduled.

Beazley's case drew international attention because he was 3½ months shy of his 18th birthday when he killed John Luttig. Texas is one of 22 states that allows the death penalty for defendants 17 or older, and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld such state laws. Nevertheless, Beazley's lawyers and U.S. and international anti-death-penalty activists lobbied the governor and the parole board for clemency.

The victim was the father of J. Michael Luttig, a federal appeals court judge. Three members of the U.S. Supreme Court who have personal ties with Michael Luttig -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and David Souter -- removed themselves from Beazley's case whenever it was before them. In August 2001, the other six members of the court voted 3-3 to deny a stay to Beazley. On 27 May, when his stay request came before them for the second time, the vote was 6-0 against.

Legal experts said that none of the three Justices were legally required to remove themselves from Beazley's case, but they did so to remove the appearance of bias.

Beazley's own statements regarding his requests for clemency did not mirror the arguments made by his lawyer and the activists lobbying on his behalf. He did not claim that he was unfairly convicted or sentenced or that he did not deserve death because he was only 17 when he committed the crime. "I don't like to give ... explanations or excuses," he said from death row. "Whether I was 15, 16, 17, 21, 25, it should never have happened." Instead, he said that he was remorseful for what he had done, was a changed person, and was no longer a threat to anyone. "It's my fault," he said in a court hearing in April. "I violated the law. I violated this city, and I violated a family ... I'm sorry. I wish I had a second chance to make up for it."

When Beazley killed Luttig, he was from an upper-middle class family, was a star athlete at his high school, and was the president of his senior class. He had never been arrested, but he had started carrying guns and dealing drugs. "There is no turning point where I can say I decided to be bad," he said from death row. It's a process. An acorn doesn't become an oak tree overnight." A model prisoner during his eight years on death row, Beazley said that he was no longer a threat to anyone and could prove that he had changed. Beazley said that the fact that people around the world were supporting him and working to prevent his execution gave him no consolation. "I could have the support of the whole world ... but if Mrs. Luttig and her family wouldn't give me [forgiveness], It would be for nothing."

Smith County District Attorney Jack Skeen, whose office prosecuted Beazley, said that Beazley's actions following the crime showed a lack of remorse. Skeen pointed out that Beazley avoided arrest for 45 days, attempted to hide the murder weapon, and lied to police about his involvement in the murder. He did not apologize to the Luttig family until his execution date drew near and his clemency requests were being prepared, prosecutors said.

On the day of his execution, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted 10-7 against commuting Beazley's sentence to life in prison. Governor Rick Perry declined to grant an emergency 30-day stay. At his execution, the warden asked Beazley if he wanted to make a last statement. Beazley turned his head towards Suzanne Luttig, the victim's daughter, paused, and said "no." He shook his head, said, "no" again, and then turned his head to face the ceiling. He was pronounced dead at 6:17 p.m.

In a statement released to the media after his execution, Beazley apologized again for his "senseless" crime, but also criticized the Texas criminal justice system for not giving him a second chance.

Houston Chronicle

"Juvenile Offender Executed," by Harvey Rice. (May 28, 2002)

HUNTSVILLE -- Despite appeals from around the globe that he be spared the death penalty, Napoleon Beazley was executed Tuesday for killing a Tyler businessman when he was 17 years old. The outpouring of indignation over the execution of a youthful offender to influence Gov. Rick Perry, who rejected a final plea for clemency. "To delay his punishment would delay justice," Perry said in a statement shortly before the execution.

Beazley, 25, clad in prison whites and covered with a white sheet that partially hid the straps holding him to a gurney, was pronounced dead at 6:17 p.m., about nine minutes after he was injected with lethal chemicals. Asked by the warden if he had a final comment, he turned his head and looked for a few seconds at Suzanne Luttig, the daughter of victim John Luttig, and then said, "No." He closed his eyes and coughed, then his head bounced slightly as he gasped and sputtered. Prison spokeswoman Michelle Lyon said Beazley did not ask for a last meal.

Prison officials issued a written statement from Beazley after the execution. "I'm not only saddened, but disappointed that a system that is supposed to protect and uphold what is just and right can be so much like me when I made the same shameful mistake," the statement read. "Tonight, we tell our children that in some instances, in some cases, killing is right." The one-page statement ended with, "No one wins tonight. No one gets closure. No one walks away victorious." Suzanne Luttig declined to make a statement.

About 30 anti-death-penalty protesters, some from overseas, gathered outside barricades at the end of the block where the red brick Walls unit that houses the execution chamber sits. "It's more about revenge than it is about punishment and rehabilitation," said Sana-Andrea Vogt, 35, who traveled from Germany to protest Beazley's execution and meet with other death-row inmates she has befriended.

Beazley was executed for the April 19, 1994, murder of Luttig, 63, during an attempt to carjack his Mercedes. Beazley was a star athlete and class president at Grapeland. The teen and two companions ambushed Luttig and his wife, Bobbie, as the couple pulled into their driveway. Beazley shot Luttig twice in the head and fired at his wife, who escaped by playing dead.

Hours before Beazley was to be executed, his lawyers prepared last-minute appeals after learning that the Missouri Supreme Court had halted the execution of a juvenile offender pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision on a Virginia case on the constitutionality of executing the mentally retarded. Austin attorney Walter Long was on his way to Huntsville when he learned about the stay given to Missouri death-row inmate Christopher Simmons. Long drove back to Austin, where he prepared a motion asking the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to stop the execution. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule in the next two months in Atkins v. Virginia. The argument that mentally retarded individuals lack mental culpability for their crimes could apply to juvenile offenders, Long said.

At about 5:45 p.m., the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to grant a stay. The vote was 5-3 with one judge not participating. Perry then announced that he would not grant a 30-day reprieve. "I'm appalled that the state of Missouri can do the equitable and just thing and that among all the decision makers in our state we can't pull ourselves together to do likewise," said Long.

Texas is one of 22 states that allow the death penalty for people as young as 17. Seventeen states allow the death penalty for 16-year-olds.

The Board of Pardons and Paroles had voted about seven hours before Beazley's execution to reject his request that the death sentence be commuted. The board voted 10-7 against recommending to Perry that he reduce the penalty to life in prison and 13-4 against a reprieve. The parole board voted 10-6 last August to deny a similar request, but the execution was halted with four hours to spare after a state appeals court agreed to hear an appeal by Beazley's attorneys.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused a request Tuesday to hear the case after turning down a similar appeal last week. Three U.S. Supreme Court judges recused themselves from Beazley's appeals because of their relationships with the victim's son. Luttig was the father of J. Michael Luttig, a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. Those seeking to spare Beazley from the executioner included Smith County state District Judge Cynthia Stevens Kent, who presided over the murder trial, 18 state representatives and Nobel Peace Prize winners Archbishop Desmond Tutu and F.W. de Klerk, former president of South Africa.

When Kent set his execution date last month, Beazley tearfully apologized for his crime. "I violated the law. I violated this city, and I violated a family -- all to satisfy my misguided emotions. I'm sorry. I wish I had a second chance to make up for it, but I don't," he said.

Beazley was the 14th prisoner executed in Texas this year and the fourth this month. He was the 19th prisoner executed in the United States for a murder committed when the accused was younger than 18, and the 11th in Texas.

Dallas Morning News

"Beazley is Put to Death," by Lee Hancock. (May 29, 2002)

Napoleon Beazley, whose case drew international attention to the execution of those who commit capital crimes before the age of 18, was put to death Tuesday night in Huntsville for the 1994 carjacking-murder of a Tyler oilman. The execution was carried out hours after the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted 10-7 against recommending that Gov. Rick Perry commute Mr. Beazley's death sentence.

Mr. Beazley, 25, was sentenced to die after a Smith County jury found him guilty of gunning down John Luttig in a botched carjacking. Mr. Luttig, 63, was shot at close range as he and his wife Bobbie returned home from a Bible study. Ms. Luttig survived by falling to the ground and playing dead as Mr. Beazley and two accomplices took the couple's 1989 Mercedes-Benz. Mr. Beazley acknowledged his guilt after his conviction and offered a tearful public apology to Mr. Luttig's family in an April hearing in Tyler. In a recent televised interview, he commented on his age at the time of the crime: "If I was 15, if I was 20, if I was 25, it doesn't matter. It never should have happened."

Mr. Beazley appeared calm as he watched witnesses entering the death chamber. When asked whether he had a final statement, Mr. Beazley looked toward Suzanne Luttig of Tyler, the daughter of the victim, and paused. He then shook his head and said, "No." He was pronounced dead at 6:17 p.m. In a one-page typed statement released after his death, Mr. Beazley described his crime as "not just heinous. It was senseless." He said he was saddened that the was not given a second chance, adding, "No one wins tonight."

A high school class president, honors student and football star who was described by some in his hometown of Grapeland as a crack-cocaine dealer, Mr. Beazley was the 14th inmate executed in Texas this year and the fourth this month. He had requested that no family or friends witness his execution.

Mr. Luttig's daughter and FBI Agent Dennis Murphy of Tyler, a Luttig family friend, witnessed the execution along with Smith County District Attorney Jack Skeen and Assistant District Attorney Ed Marty. Prison officials said only about 30 death-penalty supporters and opponents demonstrated at the Walls Unit – a relatively small number compared with other high-profile executions.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected last-minute appeals Tuesday from Mr. Beazley's lawyers. Mr. Perry issued a statement denying Mr. Beazley's request for a 30-day reprieve, saying delaying punishment would "delay justice." Mr. Beazley came within hours of execution last August but received a late stay from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Days before that stay, the Supreme Court made an unprecedented 3-3 ruling not to grant Mr. Beazley a reprieve, with three justices abstaining because of personal ties to Mr. Luttig's son – 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig. The parole board then voted 10-6 against recommending commutation.

The case drew widespread attention because of Mr. Beazley's age at the time of the slaying and because of his lack of prior convictions. Pleas for clemency came from entities ranging from the European Union to Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, the American Bar Association, the judge who presided over Mr. Beazley's capital murder trial and the district attorney in Mr. Beazley's home county.

Dr. William Schultz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said in Washington on Tuesday that the execution violated international law, and other officials with the human-rights group said that the United States was now among only five countries, including Congo, Nigeria, Iran and Saudi Arabia – to execute such youthful offenders. "The U.S. continues its shameful unwillingness to acknowledge the failures of its capital punishment system – the failure to apply the death penalty justly, the failure to protect innocent people from capital prosecution and conviction, and the failure of the death penalty to decrease crime," Dr. Schultz said.

Some of Mr. Beazley's supporters and defense team tried to suggest that he didn't get a fair trial because he was black, his victim was a prominent white man, and his case was heard by an all-white jury. They also argued that Judge Luttig was too actively involved in the prosecution, noting that the federal appellate judge moved his office to Tyler for the trial and alleging that the district attorney's office conferred with him too closely.

But Smith County prosecutors maintained that Mr. Beazley was legally an adult under Texas law and that he and two accomplices came to Tyler, stalked the Luttigs and gunned Mr. Luttig down without provocation in his own driveway. District Attorney Jack Skeen noted Tuesday that Mr. Beazley's defense lawyers rejected or struck one black jury panelist and state and federal courts rejected claims of prosecutorial bias in the striking of several other black people from the jury. "The legal issue on the age at which a defendant can be executed has already been decided and was settled long before this case gained so much national attention," Mr. Skeen said. "It's clear that Mr. Beazley certainly knew what his actions were, made intentional choices, and under Texas law, stands to receive the consequences of those actions – as he should."

Mr. Skeen and his former chief deputy prosecutor, David Dobbs, said the ordeal of Mr. Luttig's family had been particularly difficult because of what they termed an orchestrated effort by death-penalty opponents to attack Mr. Luttig's son. Both said the judge was no more interested or involved in his father's case than any other murder victim's relative. "While people accused Mike Luttig of politicizing this case, he did anything but that, and the way the case became politicized is through a very public, deliberate campaign that has re-victimized him because of his national stature," said Mr. Dobbs, who is now in private practice. "What is being lost in the rhetoric – and it seems deliberately obscured – is the fact that Mike and his sister Suzanne Luttig lost their father and Bobbie Luttig lost her husband – all for a vehicle."

Defense lawyer David Botsford of Austin said he was particularly disappointed in the parole board's Tuesday vote because he believes the Legislature could soon outlaw execution in such cases. He noted that a bill that would've barred death sentences for young offenders passed the Texas House in last year's legislative session before dying in committee. "That's unfortunate that we are so bloodthirsty that we have to kill our children," he said.

Pardons and Paroles Board member Brendolyn Rogers-Johnson of Duncanville, one of seven members to recommend clemency, said Mr. Beazley's age was only one of a number of factors influencing her vote. "I looked at the fact that he was not a repeat offender, whether or not he would appear to be a continuous threat to society. I looked at his background," she said, adding that her vote was "one of the most difficult decisions I've ever had to make."

Board member Lynn Brown said the overriding factor in his vote against clemency was the viciousness of Mr. Beazley's crime and the certainty of his guilt. He said he interviewed Mr. Beazley in May, after defense lawyers requested a board interview, and asked him whether his age should be a factor in a clemency decision. "He said, 'I have never put that forth as an argument; my attorneys put that forth,' " Mr. Brown said. "I asked him, 'Should the fact that you were age 17 have made the surviving victim any less terrified?' His answer was no. I also asked him the question, 'Did the fact that you were 17 make this any less lethal to the victim who died?' And he said no." Board Chairman Gerald Garrett of Austin, who voted to recommend clemency, said the split vote from a board that usually votes unanimously should not be viewed as a "signal" of a shift in the board's view of capital cases involving young offenders.

Since reinstatement of the death penalty in the 1970s, Texas has executed nine other people who committed capital crimes while under the age of 18. Another 28 are on death row, including another Smith County offender convicted of kidnapping and killing an 8-year-old boy.

"Many are suggesting ... that this is precedent-setting, that this is some change in our mind-set. I would caution against that," Mr. Garrett said of the board's Tuesday vote. "The next application before us, if that person happens to have been 17 at the time of the crime and that's brought to us as an issue, it will be thoroughly evaluated," he said. "But I would say that there won't be another case brought before the parole board like Napoleon Beazley's. No two cases are exactly alike."

Staff writer Michelle Mittelstadt in Washington and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

To: Letters to the Editor, Fort Worth Star-Telegram

FWST columnist Bob Ray Sanders, with a confusion that can best be described as willful blindness, seeks to enshrine the final words of capital murderer Napoleon Beazley.("Beazley's own words best decry capital punishment", 6/5/02, Fort Worth Star-Telegram). It is Beazley who is decried, by his own words.

Beazley states "I'm . . . disappointed that a system that is supposed to protect and uphold what is just and right can be so much like me when I made the same shameful mistake." Beazley equates the premeditated, undeserved and brutal capital murder of a totally innocent man with his own just punishment for committing that crime. Such moral relativism is simply foul, regardless of your feelings about capital punishment.

Beazley humbly offers: "If someone tried to dispose of everyone here (those witnessing the execution) for participating in this killing, I'd scream a resounding, 'No.' I'd tell them to give them all the gift that they would not give me ... and that's to give them all a second chance." How generous. Beazley wouldn't execute those witnessing his just execution. Saint Beazley. And Beazley didn't have a second chance? Please. He had infinite chances to choose a life outside of crime. He had a great life, a wonderful family, was president of his school class, a great athlete. He had it all. And what did he do? He threw it away, just as he so casually pumped two bullets into the head of John Luttig. Mrs. Luttig survived by playing dead, after Beazley threw some lead in her direction -- he missed.

Beazley continues: "Tonight we tell the world that there are no second chances in the eyes of justice. ... Tonight, we tell our children that in some instances, in some cases, killing is right." Just the opposite. Justice gave Beazley 8 years on death row to make every thing as right as he could. To make amends, to show true remorse and contrition. But, instead, he threw that opportunity away, as well. Instead, it is all about poor Napoleon. And yes, Napoleon, it is a good lesson for our children. Yes, in some cases killing is right, though never easy. It is right to search out and kill terrorists that pledge to murder innocents. And, it is just and right to execute terrorists like Napoleon Beazley.

Napoleon asks: "But who's wrong if in the end we're all victims?" It is so common for self serving criminals to see themselves as victims. Beazley was no different.

Beazley implores: "Give (death row murderers) a chance to undo their wrongs." It is, of course, impossible to undo a capital murder and the ensuing horror and pain that still remains with those who cared and loved John Luttig. You would think that after 8 years of dealing with his deep remorse that Beazley may have figured that out. But, it seems he figured out very little. More opportunities wasted.

Mr. Sanders, Beazley's final words say little about capital punishment, but a lot about Napoleon Beazley.

Dudley Sharp, Resource Director, Justice For All

Associated Press

"Teen-Age Murderer's Execution Set," by Michael Graczyk.(May 25, 2002)

LIVINGSTON, Texas (AP) - Napoleon Beazley seems oblivious to the tumult he's causing outside the concrete walls and razor-wire fences of Texas' death row. Prosecutors are eager to see him executed for the murder of a federal judge's father, while death penalty opponents decry the punishment for a man who was a juvenile at the time of the killing. The case has drawn international attention, yet Beazley is calm about what he expects to be a short future.

"This is a crime, a mistake on my part," he said. "It's something I'm very sorry for. You reach the point where you say: `Man, I wish I had a second chance to make the right the things I've done wrong, to fix the stuff I've started.' But you don't have that second chance." Beazley readily admits that when he was 17, he and two companions stalked John and Bobbie Luttig and ambushed the couple on the driveway of their Tyler home to steal a 10-year-old Mercedes Benz.

He shot at both, hitting John Luttig, 63, in the head but missing Luttig's wife, who fell and feigned death as Beazley pumped a second .45-caliber slug into her husband. Beazley, now 25, is scheduled to be executed Tuesday for the slaying.

Several factors distinguish Beazley from Texas' other 450-plus condemned killers and the 269 who have preceded him to the nation's busiest death chamber: his age at the time of the murder, the absence of previous convictions, a sterling school record, good family background and legal connections of his victim to the nation's highest court.

Beazley's death would make him the 19th U.S. prisoner to die since 1976 for a murder committed by a killer younger than 18. He would be the 11th in Texas.

Numerous organizations, including the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and Amnesty International, argue that he was a juvenile offender. "The federal government doesn't allow the execution of juveniles," lawyer David Botsford said in an appeal that was turned down Friday by the Supreme Court. "Texas is one of few states that's done it and the majority of states do not allow it. This is an issue that needs to be resolved nationwide." The appeal also addressed John Luttig's tie to the Supreme Court. Justices Clarence Thomas, David Souter and Antonin Scalia recused themselves because Luttig's son, J. Michael Luttig, was a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., and has advised or worked as a clerk for the justices.

Last summer, the remaining justices voted 3-3 to go forward with the punishment. Supreme Court rules say a tie means the request for a reprieve is denied. But about four hours before the execution time, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considered legal questions raised by his attorneys and the execution was stayed. That court lifted its order last month. The Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases a defendant's rights were not violated when the death sentence was imposed on a murder convict who was at least 16 at the time of the offense.

In Beazley's case, thousands of signatures were collected, primarily overseas, on petitions urging the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to spare his life. The American Bar Association joined clergy from around the world protesting. "I am astounded that Texas and a few other states in the United States take children from their families and execute," said Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa. Eighteen state representatives and Beazley's trial judge, Cynthia Kent, have urged Rick Gov. Perry to commute Beazley's death sentence to life in prison, the punishment given to his companions the night of the murder. The Pardons and Parole Board will submit its recommendation to Perry hours before Beazley's scheduled injection, and Perry will announce his decision then.

Kent has said she has a "principled objection" to executing a youthful offender, though she added that she was "very bound by the constraints of the law." District Attorney Jack Skeen describes the Luttig killing as "horrific ... premeditated and predatory." "I am still convinced the death sentence is the appropriate punishment for this crime," Skeen said. "I would make the same decision today."

CNN.Com

"High Court Rejects Beazley Appeal." (May 28, 2002)

HUNTSVILLE, Texas (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an emergency stay of execution and a last-ditch appeal Tuesday for Texas death row inmate Napoleon Beazley. The decision was announced less than two hours before Beazley was scheduled to die by lethal injection for the April 1994 killing of 63-year-old John Luttig.

Beazley was convicted of shooting Luttig -- whose son is now a federal judge -- twice in the head as he and two friends tried to steal Luttig's Mercedes-Benz from his driveway. Beazley is scheduled to be executed at 6 p.m. Tuesday (7 p.m. ET). Justices David Souter, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas all recused themselves from the case because Michael Luttig, the victim's son, had worked for them. Michael Luttig is now a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. The high court rejected another appeal last week.

Beazley's lawyers argued that executing Beazley, who was 17 at the time of the murder, would violate the Eighth Amendment's provision against cruel and unusual punishment. They also said that executing an inmate who was under 18 at the time of his crime would violate international treaties on civil and political rights.

International opponents of Beazley's execution include Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who recently wrote a letter to the Texas pardons board asking for clemency. According to The Associated Press, Beazley's execution would make him the 11th prisoner in Texas and the 19th in the United States to be put to death since 1976 for a murder committed when the killer was younger than 18.

Earlier Tuesday, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted 10-7 against commuting Beazley's sentence to life in prison and 13-4 against blocking the execution. The board makes recommendations on executions to the governor, who can either accept or reject their advice. In the past 30 years, the board has voted for clemency only once, in 1998.

Beazley originally was scheduled to be executed last August, but the state Court of Criminal Appeals granted a stay of execution about four hours before he was scheduled to die. At that time, the pardons board voted 10-6 against clemency. In recent years, the United States has seen growing opposition to the death penalty for people who commit murder under the age of 18.

Indiana this year abolished the death penalty in such cases, and Illinois and Maryland halted all executions until they can be sure such issues as racial bias and legal fairness have been properly addressed. Executions continue in 36 other states, including Texas.

Beazley, who was president of his senior class and a football star, lived in Grapeland, a small town about 60 miles from Tyler, Texas. He had no arrest record, although he has said he sold crack and owned a gun. He has apologized to the Luttig family, saying there is no excuse for what he did.

The Huntsville Item

"Controversial Execution Set Tonight," by Mark Passwaters. (May 28, 2002)

Nobody contests that Napoleon Beazley murdered John Luttig of Tyler on the night of April 19, 1994. Even Beazley himself admits to shooting Luttig with a .45 caliber pistol in the head from three feet away while trying to steal Luttig's Mercedes. "The only reason I'm here is because of me," Beazley said in an August 2001 interview with The Huntsville Item.

Still, a large number of anti-death penalty activists and a horde of American and international media are expected to be in Huntsville today as Beazley faces a second execution date this evening. The reason for the attention has nothing to do with Beazley's guilt or innocence, but his age: Beazley was 17 years old -- a minor -- the night he ended Luttig's life. Today, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles is set to vote on whether to recommend to Gov. Rick Perry that Beazley's death sentence be commuted to life.

Before the night of April 19, 1994, Beazley appeared to be on his way to becoming a Texas success story. The class president of Grapeland High School, Beazley was a member of the football team and was the runner-up in the school's "most popular" competition. However, Beazley was in possession of some less than wholesome desires. The night before Luttig's murder, Beazley told his friend Cedric Coleman -- who would be an accomplice in the crime -- that he wanted to "jack a car." The next day, he told a friend at school that he "might be driving a (Mercedes) Benz soon."

That night, Beazley borrowed his mother's car and drove with Coleman and his brother Donald to Tyler. On the way to Tyler, Beazley repeated his intention to steal a car and said he wanted to find out what it was like to kill someone. As they entered Tyler, Beazley spotted a 1987 Mercedes driven by Luttig. Luttig and his wife Bobbie were returning from a trip from Dallas when they passed Beazley and the Coleman brothers.

The trio followed the Luttigs to their house, at which time Beazley stripped off his shirt and ran towards the car. Donald Coleman followed him, carrying a sawed-off shotgun. Beazley opened the driver's side door and fired one shot with his pistol, hitting Luttig in the head but not killing him. He then fired at Mrs. Luttig and missed. Bobbie Luttig then played dead on the ground, hoping that Beazley and Coleman would think the shot fired by Beazley had hit her.

Beazley then returned to John Luttig and shot him again in the head, killing him instantly. He then asked Coleman if Mrs. Luttig was dead, to which he replied that she was still moving. "Shoot the (expletive)," Beazley said. Coleman said she had stopped moving and was dead.

Beazley obtained his objective -- the Mercedes -- but only for a short time. He quickly ran into a retaining wall and was forced to abandon it. Beazley rejoined the Coleman brothers and returned to Grapeland. A few days later, Beazley told a friend in conversation that he had committed the crime and was arrested a short time later. When asked by his father if he had indeed killed Luttig, Beazley said he had. "It was a trip," he said.

The death sentence given to Beazley for the crime on March 17, 1995 by a Smith County jury has drawn the ire of a number of activist groups, who feel Beazley's actions as a juvenile should not be grounds for capital punishment. "At 17, Napoleon Beazley wasn't old enough to buy cigarettes or vote, but he was old enough to be sent to death row," author Shawn E. Rhea wrote in the September 2001 issue of Savoy magazine, who quoted one person as saying Beazley was "a kid from a fine family with a good background." "While the rest of the world has agreed that rehabilitation must win out over punishment as the overriding objective in responding to crimes of children, Texas is set to execute a young offender whose rehabilitative potential was testified to by a stream of trial witnesses who had known him for years," says one column written by Amnesty International and found on the Canadian Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty's Web site. "If he lived in China, or Yemen, or Kyrgyzstan, or Kenya, or Russia ... Napoleon Beazley would not be suffering this fate."

Amnesty International has also insinuated that the influence of Luttig's son, a federal appeals court judge, might have played a role in Beazley's sentence. "While we have the utmost sympathy for the suffering of the Luttig family, we are concerned by the role that the victim's son, a federal judge, played in the proceedings," the group said in a press release. The 43-nation Council of Europe has also urged for Beazley's sentence to be commuted, with Council President Lord Russell-Johnston and Secretary-general Walter Schwimmer making a written plea to Perry on Beazley's behalf. "We call on you now to show restraint in the case of Napoleon Beazley whose life now depends entirely on your decision," they wrote. "It is a matter of human decency to right the wrong before it is too late."

While much attention has been placed on the efforts to commute Beazley's sentence, strong support for his execution exists as well. "(We sought the death penalty) based on the facts of the crime," Ed Marty, Smith County assistant district attorney told the Item in August, 2001. "There is all this breast beating from all these people with Amnesty International. They have absolutely forgotten about John Luttig."

The Houston-based Activist group Justice For All maintains a Web site called prodeathpenalty.com, on which they take issue with those who would want to have Beazley's death sentence commuted. One columnist ripped into Rhea's story in Savoy magazine, writing, "This, dear reader, is what is passing for logic on the the left side of the African-American political spectrum these days ... Because Beazley couldn't buy a pack of Kools, the reasoning goes, he shouldn't be held accountable for cold-blooded murder."

Another column on the site condemns citizens of European Union nations for "whining" about Beazley's execution. "Shut up about America's death penalty laws. And you can climb off our backs about our gun laws, too," the column says. "Funny how none of the countries worried about America's death penalty or gun laws when they needed us ... We deserve some compensation for keeping them safe. The cost should be either to take our death row inmates (to their countries) or dummy up about how the death penalty is applied in America."

Regardless of the arguments, Beazley's fate lies in the hands of an appeal before the United States Supreme Court. Barring a stay of execution from that appeal, or an unexpected move from Perry, Beazley will be executed by lethal injection in the death chamber at the Huntsville "Walls" Unit sometime after 6 p.m. today.

That sentence seems to be one Marty has no problems with. "I think the people of Texas understand, and ultimately, that's what I care about," he told the Item in August 2001. "I think that the people of Texas understand that under these facts, Napoleon Beazley deserves a death sentence."

Deathrow.at

NAPOLEON BEAZLEY, JUVENILE OFFENDER - Execution date: 5/28/2002.

Napoleon Beazley, a black male aged 24, is scheduled to be executed on May 30 for the 1994 death of John Luttig, a prominent Texas businessman. Only 17 at the time of his offense, Beazley is one of 29 Texas inmates presently on death row for crimes committed as juveniles.

In order to be eligible for the death penalty in Texas, the jury must deem the defendant a continuing threat to society. In Beazley's trial, the jury's finding of future dangerousness was based solely on the testimony of Beazley's co-defendants in the crime, Cedric and Donald Coleman, who provided the only trial evidence describing the offense and Beazley's state of mind in relation to the offense. Their statements were in stark contrast to the personal accounts given by more than 15 people testifying on Beazley's behalf. Napoleon's teacher described him as a student who was "popular, well-respected, liked, and friendly." A talented athlete, Napoleon was both the senior class president and an academic tutor. He had no prior arrest record and no history of discipline problems at school. Cindy Garner, the district attorney from Beazley's hometown, also testified to Beazley's law-abiding, peaceful reputation.

Since testifying in court, Cedric and Donald Coleman have signed sworn statements that they suppressed a deal reached with the Smith County DA's office, an agreement in which the state implicitly agreed not to pursue the death penalty in their cases in return for their testimonies against Beazley. The prosecution portrayed Beazley as a "lurking animal" to the all-white jury. In a post-conviction investigation, a juror referred to Beazley as the "nigger who got what he deserved." Another juror was a long-time employee of the victim's business partner, a significant fact the individual failed to disclose. Until recently, Beazley's attorneys have never adequately addressed these issues. The state-appointed habeas attorney failed to raise any claim regarding the blatantly racist juror. Beazley's attorney in his first appeal was jailed for contempt of court for failing to produce a brief.

Support in Texas for juvenile executions is not strong. A recent poll in the Houston Chronicle indicated that only a third of respondents supported the death penalty for juvenile offenders. In Beazley's trial, the state of Texas craftily painted the picture of a habitually violent young man, a far cry from the teenager considered a leader among his peers.

Texas Governor Rick Perry can only commute Beazley's sentence if the state's Board of Pardon and Paroles recommends it. The Board has demonstrated that they will only make such a recommendation if the majority of trial officials of the court of conviction request it. Judge Kent, the trial judge at Beazley's trial, wrote a letter to Gov. Perry last August to ask him to spare Beazley's life. Beazley's last stay was granted so that the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals could take a closer look at his sentence. Since the stay was lifted, however, the Board again needs to be persuaded that executing juvenile offenders is an affront to human rights around the world. Write to the state of Texas to protest the possible execution of Texas' second juvenile offender in less than half a year.

NEWS

Judge sets May execution date for Napoleon Beazley

An East Texas judge on Friday set a May 28 execution date for Napoleon Beazley, a convicted killer who last year received a stay just hours before he was to be executed by lethal injection.

State District Judge Cynthia Kent, who presided over Beazley's trial and last year wrote Gov. Rick Perry in favor of commuting the convicted killer's sentence, set the date in the case that has received international scrutiny.

After the ruling, Beazley, who was 17 when he killed a prominent Tyler businessman, turned and apologized to a packed courtroom as his family members wept.

Beazley, now 25, was a high school class president and star athlete at the time of the 1994 murder of John Luttig, 63. The victim's son, J. Michael Luttig, is a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. Defense attorneys argued that it was against international law to set an execution date for Beazley because he was 17 at the time of the killing. Defense attorney David Botsford had requested a Sept. 17 execution date, which would give him enough time to file another appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Mr. Beazley is not going anywhere," Botsford said. "He's going to be down in Livingston, where he has been all along."

Beazley and brothers Cedric and Donald Coleman, all from Grapeland, about 120 miles southeast of Dallas, were arrested 7 weeks after the shooting based on an anonymous tip. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which issued Beazley's stay in August, lifted it last week.

On Thursday, the Texas chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People asked that Beazley's sentence to be commuted to life in prison since he was 17 when he committed the crime. Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP, said race may have played a factor with an all-white jury deciding the fate of Beazley, who is black. Luttig was white.

A group of 18 Democratic legislators and Houston County District Attorney Cindy Garner, who calls herself a strong advocate of the death penalty, also have written Perry urging commutation. Under Texas law, Perry can grant a 30-day reprieve from execution but can't order a commutation without the recommendation of the state Board of Pardons and Paroles. The board voted 10-6 last year against commuting the sentence. Beazley's attorneys filed a motion asking Kent to postpone the rescheduling hearing until after the 2003 legislative session, giving supporters time to lobby for changes in state law.

Napoleon Beazley -- who had no prior criminal history and who was just 17 years old at the time of his offense -- is now scheduled for execution on August 15, 2001 in Texas. He was sentenced to death for the April 19, 1994 murder of Mr. John Luttig in Tyler, Texas. Because he was a juvenile at the time of his crime, Napoleon's execution would be contrary to American standards of justice, fairness, and decency as well as international law. This is a call for his sentence to be commuted to life in prison. In appealing for clemency on behalf of Napoleon Beazley, we do not, in any way, seek either to excuse the crime or to minimize the pain and suffering it caused the family and friends of Mr. John Luttig.

I. NAPOLEON HAS EXPRESSED HIS REMORSE AND REGRET FOR KILLING MR. JOHN LUTTIG.

Shortly after committing this crime, 17 year old Napoleon told friends that "he had made a big mistake" and that being involved in killing Mr. Luttig was the "stupidest thing he had ever done." He was reportedly even suicidal in the days following the murder. He recently stated, "[i]t was an impulsive act, one I regretted instantly." He says that he is overwhelmed by what he did and "thinks about it every day." He continues to struggle to reconcile his crime with whom he has since become and has stated that "there is no justification for what happened... I don't blame anybody else for being here (on death row) but me." In the seven years he has been in prison, he has continued to read and write, to mature emotionally, and to make his life as productive and meaningful as possible. For example, when at the Ellis One Unit near Huntsville, Texas, Napoleon was trusted by prison officials to move outside of his cell and to do various jobs within the death row facility.

II. NAPOLEON DID NOT HAVE ANY PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD AND WAS WELL LIKED AND RESPECTED BY HIS FAMILY, FRIENDS, SCHOOL, CHURCH AND COMMUNITY.

Prior to this crime, Napoleon had never been arrested or involved in any juvenile or criminal proceedings. Moreover, he was elected president of his senior class in high school, was runner up for his hometown's "Mr. Grapeland" and was also runner up for his high school's title of "most athletic" (excelling in baseball, track and football). He attended church regularly and was considered kind and helpful by members of his church. In his community, he had a reputation for being "polite, courteous, respectful, friendly and kind."

Indeed, at his sentencing hearing testimony regarding his good character and achievements was given by teachers, coaches and his high school principal as well as members of his community, family, church and school board. As one of his teachers testified, "good people can do some horrible things" and there was much more to Napoleon than the terrible crime that he had committed. Even Cindy Garner, the District Attorney from Napoleon's home county (Houston County), testified at the sentencing hearing on Napoleon's behalf. While she has been a strong proponent of the death penalty, she continues to maintain that the death penalty is inappropriate in Napoleon's case.

III. NAPOLEON WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH BASED ON WEAK AND INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT HE POSED A CONTINUING DANGER TO SOCIETY, INCLUDING SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS BY HIS ACCOMPLICES MADE IN EXCHANGE FOR AN AGREEMENT THAT THEIR LIVES WOULD BE SPARED.

Under Texas law, one of the most critical factors that a jury must consider in imposing a sentence of death is "whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society" -- otherwise known as future dangerousness. Texas juries are permitted to consider this factor notwithstanding scientific and medical proof that "future dangerousness" is impossible to predict on an individual basis. At Napoleon's trial, the most damaging witness against him was a psychologist who had never testified for the defense in a capital trial, who had never found a defendant in a capital case NOT to be a future danger, and who did not personally interview Napoleon or review his life history.

Conceding that the best indicators of future dangerousness are past criminal acts and that Napoleon had none, the psychologist nevertheless found Napoleon likely to be a future danger. The psychologist admitted that he based his opinion on a number statements about Napoleon which were made by Donald and Cedric Coleman (who were also involved in the killing and robbery of Mr. Luttig). Since the trial, the Coleman brothers have signed affidavits admitting that several of these statements and much of their critical trial testimony were untrue. They have also admitted that they testified for the State of Texas against Napoleon on the basis of an undisclosed deal that secured them life sentences.

Perhaps the most damaging piece of evidence relied on by the psychologist (and by the trial jury and appellate court) was testimony by Cedric and Donald Coleman that -- prior to the murder -- Napoleon had stated that "he wanted to feel what it was like to kill someone." Donald Coleman now admits that he never heard Napoleon say this. Cedric Coleman now swears that Napoleon never made such a statement prior to the murder. Rather he now states that, days after the crime, Napoleon was suicidal and depressed for having killed Mr. Luttig and -- in an effort to make sense of why he had done such a terrible thing -- stated, "I guess I was tripping and wanted to see what it was like to shoot somebody." Therefore, critical evidence used by the jury as the basis to sentence Napoleon to death was either unreliable, untrue or taken out of its actual context.

IV. EXECUTING JUVENILE OFFENDERS RUNS COUNTER TO BASIC AMERICAN STANDARDS OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS

The execution of a juvenile offender is contrary to fundamental principles of American justice which punishes according to the degree of culpability and reserves the death penalty for the "worst of the worst" offenders. By their very nature, teenagers are less mature, and therefore less culpable, than adults who commit similar acts but have no such explanation for their conduct.

Adolescence is a transitional period of life when cognitive abilities, emotions, judgment, impulse control, identity -- even the brain -- are still developing. Indeed, immaturity is the reason we do not allow those under eighteen to assume the major responsibilities of adulthood such as military combat service, voting, entering into contracts, drinking alcohol or making medical decisions.

A number of organizations such as the American Bar Association, The American Psychiatric Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the Children's Defense Fund, the Youth Law Center, the Juvenile Law Center, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Mental Health Association, and the Constitution Project have come to oppose executions for crimes committed by offenders under the age of 18. Similarly, the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, the European Union, the Council of Europe and the Vatican have expressed their strongest opposition to the execution of juvenile offenders.

V. A MAJORITY OF STATES HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT SUBJECTING ADOLESCENTS AND TO THE DEATH PENALTY IS CONTRARY TO BASIC AND EVOLVING STANDARDS OF DECENCY

Of the 38 states that permit the death penalty, only 23 permit the execution of persons who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes. Among these 23 states, only 16 have juvenile offenders on their death rows while only 7 have carried out actual executions of juveniles since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973. In 1999, the State of Montana abolished the juvenile death penalty while the Florida Supreme Court raised the age of eligibility from 16 to 17. A growing number of states are considering legislation to abolish the execution of juvenile offenders, including: Arizona, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas. Indeed, in the Texas 2001 legislative session, a bill to eliminate the death penalty for offenders under 18 passed the House and gained significant support in the Senate before it was procedurally barred from reaching a vote on the Senate floor. Moreover, a recent national poll conducted by the Houston Chronicle indicated that solid support for the capital punishment of juvenile offenders has fallen to only 26%.

VI. EXECUTING JUVENILE OFFENDERS IS CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW AND FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS

In continuing to execute juvenile offenders, the United States acts in defiance of international law and almost complete agreement among nations. Indeed, such executions have all but ended around the world, except in the United States. The death penalty for juvenile offenders is expressly prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the American Convention on Human Rights and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The United States and Somalia (which has no recognizable government) are the only two countries that have failed to ratify the CRC -- 191 nations have adopted the fundamental standards articulated in this treaty.

In the last decade, the United States has executed more juvenile offenders than all the world's nations combined. Since 1990, only seven countries are reported to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years of age at the time of the crime: The Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the United States. The nations of Pakistan, and Yemen have since abolished the juvenile death penalty, while Saudi Arabia and Nigeria deny that they have executed juvenile offenders. In the last three years the number of nations that execute juvenile offenders has dropped significantly to only three: Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the United States. Moreover, just this past year, Iran stated that it no longer executes juvenile offenders while the leader of the Democratic Republic of Congo commuted the death sentences of four juvenile offenders. The execution of Napoleon Beazley would further alienate the United States from the international community, thus damaging our legitimacy as a leader on the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly the rights of children.

ACTION AVAILABLE - Under Texas law, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has the exclusive power to commute a sentence of death to life in prison. The Board may do this upon the request of an inmate or if two of three trial officials seek a commutation. The trial officials are the trial judge, the trial prosecutor, and the county sheriff. In order to avoid burdening the court, please do not write the trial judge. Otherwise, please write to: Governor Rick Perry.

National Review (Ann Coulter)

"The Beazley Boy," by Ann Coulter. (August 23, 2001)

It now turns out the same people who are hysterical about the possibility of executing the innocent are also hysterical about the idea of executing the guilty. Unless you are zealously opposed to capital punishment in all cases (except a baby sleeping peacefully in its mother's womb), death-row inmate Napoleon Beazley deserves the death penalty.

Beazley, 25, is the senior-class president with a "ready smile" who put a gun to the head of a 63-year-old man and pulled the trigger. I'm only guessing about the "ready smile" part. Vicious, lumpen predators who would slaughter an old man for a three-block joy ride are always described in the press as having "ready smiles."

Beazley lost his proud boast of having no criminal record when he killed a man at 17 years old. Along with his two hoodlum friends, Beazley confronted John Luttig and his wife, Bobbie, in their own driveway in 1994. Beazley wanted their Mercedes-Benz, so he shot them. He then walked into a puddle of Mr. Luttig's blood and shot him a second time directly in the head. He rifled through the dead man's pants pocket for the car keys and took the Mercedes. Mrs. Luttig survived by playing dead.

This wasn't a crime out of Columbo. Beazley crashed the Mercedes a few blocks away and left it behind, awash with his prints. Also not good from the "perfect crime" standpoint, Beazley had previously informed his classmates that he soon expected to be driving a Mercedes. The evidence was overwhelming and, consequently, 12 jurors sentenced Beazley to death. No one, including Beazley, denies that he murdered Mr. Luttig, shot at Mrs. Luttig, and stole the car.

The jury's correct conclusion that he committed a felony murder he admits to, Beazley says, was sadly predictable: "The cards were stacked against me already." Evidently the real reason for the jury's verdict was not the heinous murder, but rank prejudice. As Beazley explained: "[The victim] was a prominent businessman. I was at his home, in his area. People were already pissed off. I wasn't too shocked." It was a touching show of remorse.

The fact that no one claims Beazley is innocent is the only truly shocking development. Preposterous claims of innocence are de rigueur in death penalty cases. If Beazley had lyingly claimed to be innocent, no further information about the crime would ever have been revealed by the American press corps. Newspaper headlines would read "Napoleon Beazley: Killer or Victim?" Polls would be commissioned asking: "Should the innocent be executed?"

The most likely reason Beazley's lawyers opted against a manifestly false claim of innocence is that the victim's son is a prominent federal judge. He could probably publicize the true facts of the case if necessary. In all other respects, Beazley's post-conviction claims are indistinguishable from those of all the "innocent" guys on death row. The modus operandi of anti-death-penalty fanatics never changes.

Inevitably, the defense counsel steps forward to admit he did a lousy job in order to create an "ineffective assistance of counsel" claim. The lawyer's incompetence is always framed in a manner to avoid his having to forfeit his law license. Beazley's lawyer says it was a lack of money that prevented him from mounting an effective defense. Also like clockwork, some soppy-headed lady lawyer involved in the case, generally the prosecutor, will issue a surprise plea for the killer's life. In Beazley's case, it was the presiding trial judge, Cynthia Kent.

Then there are the rote claims of racism. Here, the defense alleges that in a post-trial interview, one of the jurors used the N-word in front of Beazley's lawyer. This, frankly, is pretty pathetic. Usually the defense can pester at least one juror into attesting to the jury's invidious prejudice. This time we have it on the word of a criminal defense attorney. As a rule of thumb, criminal defense lawyers would gleefully sign affidavits swearing the Earth is flat if it would prevent just one vicious killer from being executed.

Finally, Amnesty International denounces the death sentence for some unique barbarity never before seen in a death-penalty case, making it the single most monstrous punishment ever imposed in the history of mankind. This time, Amnesty complains that Beazley is being punished for an act he committed as a "child." Beazley, it seems, was a few months shy of his 18th birthday when he murdered Mr. Luttig in cold blood.

It's good to get all this out in the Beazley case. It can now be said that even when the defense counsel is ineffective, the trial judge opposes the capital sentence, the jurors are racist, and Amnesty International is hysterical — American juries still manage to come to the correct decision! Beazley admits he committed a barbaric murder. That's precisely what the jury found.

Canadian Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty - Napoleon Beazley Homepage)

2002 NEWS OF NAPOLEON BEAZLEY

CNN to debut locally shot documentary on execution

A nationwide television audience will get a small glimpse at life in Huntsville this weekend, as a CNN documentary filmed here last year will make its domestic debut.

The program, entitled "CNN Presents: Scheduled to Die," followed several members of the Huntsville community on the day of the 2001 scheduled execution of Napoleon Beazley, who was later given a stay. Beazley is now scheduled to be put to death Tuesday.

The program will air Saturday at 8 p.m. and Sunday at 6 and 10 p.m. "The original interest in this story was just to come and chronicle an execution," said Bill Smee, senior supervising producer of "CNN Presents." "It sort of evolved because of the extraordinary development in the Napoleon Beazley case, with the 11th-hour stay. Now, it chronicles his story a little more."

The case of Beazley, who was sentenced to death for killing the father of a federal appeals court judge when he was 17 years old, has gained international attention. For Beazley's first execution date, a large contingent of foreign media -- as well as protesters -- converged on Huntsville. "It was interesting for us for us to see," Smee said. "For some, Napoleon Beazley is the poster child for the injustice (in Texas); for others, there's no question about his guilt."

The story, which was done by CNN's international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, followed the daily activities of people like Texas Department of Criminal Justice public information officer Larry Fitzgerald and then-prison chaplain James Brazzil -- both of whom were profiled this past week in The Huntsville Item -- as well as former Item reporter Michelle Lyons, who would have covered the execution.

"Larry is at the center of the story, because he has to deal with the media from around the world. He was very colorful and candid," Smee said. "To some, Michelle's job was an extraordinary thing for a young reporter. But, as you know now, it's just part of that job."

"They followed me around all day, even when I'd do things like go and get coffee," said Lyons, now a public information officer with TDCJ. "They came to see how we cover a high-profile execution." The documentary, which was originally supposed to air last September, was postponed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It aired last week internationally for the first time, and did not go unnoticed. "I've gotten e-mails from people in places like South Africa and England," Lyons said. "Most of them came from anti-death penalty folks who feel executing Napoleon Beazley is wrong."

Smee said one of the more interesting things the CNN crews discovered was the interest of the Huntsville community in executions -- or, more precisely, the lack thereof. "There was some surprise at the extent to which the town goes about its business and how it's just a part of life there," he said. "Locally, it just doesn't generate much interest or outrage that executions do elsewhere. We went to the Cafe Texan and saw how life just goes on and people didn't change as the clock ticked down to the execution."

Source: The Huntsville Item: http://www.itemonline.com/display/inn_news/news7.txt

ANTI-DEATH PENALTY COALITION FIGHTS FOR BEAZLEY

AUSTIN - Passionate pleas directed to Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles were heard from members of the clergy, attorneys, civil rights advocates and family members for the commutation of Napoleon Beazley's death sentence to life in prison during a Thursday press conference held in the state Capitol in Austin.

The small Senate pressroom was filled to capacity with supporters, family and media as clemency for Beazley, who is sentenced to die for the 1994 robbery/slaying of 63-year-old civic leader John Luttig.

Beazley's execution was set for Tuesday by state District Judge Cynthia Kent last month after all of his appeals were exhausted, but his attorneys continue to work on his behalf.

Walter Logan, Beazley's attorney, said during the press conference he had filed for a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the Tuesday execution and also filed an appeal based on arguments on the Eighth amendment. Logan said interpretation is beginning to sway in the highest court in the land and his argument is the amendment does not allow the execution of a minor. "I will continue to work to have this sentence commuted, but in Texas, it is like holding out against hope," he said.

The board is to vote Friday for the second time on whether to commute Beazley's death sentence to life in prison. The board last year voted, 10-6, against commuting Beazley's death sentence, and a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stay was later lifted.

Beazley was 17 when he gunned down Luttig in the victim's driveway. At the forefront of his lawyers' arguments is the defendant's age. The trial judge, some legislators and church leaders have opposed killing Beazley because he was young when he committed capital murder. The state of Texas recognizes those 17 and older as eligible for criminal prosecution, but Beazley's lawyers predict executing killers who were 17 when they committed their crimes will soon by barred by law. "I think it is important the public continue to be educated on these issues," Logan said.

He said the board may reach a decision by Friday, but more than likely it would be Tuesday at the earliest, because of the Memorial Day holiday weekend. During the press conference, Dr. Beverly Sutton, an Austin child psychiatrist, said Texas is only one of a few places left in the world that allows the execution of minors. "Many of us Texans still have a frontier mentality, as in an eye for an eye justice. I ask for clemency to be granted for Napoleon Beazley," she said.

Dr. Sutton's words were reiterated as each person who spoke at the press conference made the same request of Perry and the Board. The Rev. David Hoster, St. George's Episcopal Church, Austin, read excerpts of a letter from The More Rev. Desmond M. Tutu, Anglican Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, Africa.

"The obstinacy of the Smith County District Attorney, who within the last week has set about getting the death penalty against a new child offender, is something with which I lament that I am all too familiar. During the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings in my country, there were members of the apartheid government who refused to see that the human rights abuses they had committed were wrong and unlawful. I stand assured the Smith County authorities have been educated on that fact," said Tutu, the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize winner. Tutu said he "humbly pleaded" for Beazley's life to be spared.

Sister Mary Lou Stubles read a prepared statement from the Diocese of Austin Bishop Gregory Aymond, the Catholic Church of Central Texas, which said Catholic bishops across the nation renewed their opposition to the death penalty in 1999 on Good Friday. "The values of my faith call me to seek restorative justice. Therefore, I ask the Board of Pardons and Paroles to seek the commutation of Napoleon Beazley's sentence from death to life in prison, and I ask Gov. Perry to commute his sentence," he said. "We cannot teach killing is wrong by killing," he said.

Beazley's parents said they are proud of their son and love him more than words could describe. "If this would not have been a federal judge's father, the death penalty would not have been sought by the Smith County District Attorney's Office. It's not a question of whether he was there or not. It is a question of whether he is a menace to society and he isn't. I think he deserves to live," said Rena Beazley, his mother.

Ireland Beazley choked back tears as he began to speak to those attending the press conference. "I don't know how to express the love I feel for my son. I'm proud of him. He grew up like anyone else. He just got caught up in a bad situation," he said.

The elder Beazley asked Perry and the board to grant his son clemency. "My son did wrong, but overzealous prosecutors in Smith County sought the death penalty," he said.

Smith County District Attorney Jack Skeen said Thursday he would again seek the death penalty in this case if he tried it today and the press conference was a ploy to influence the board and the governor. "Press conferences such as the one held today in Austin, publicized by the press releases to the media from death penalty opponents, do not change the facts of Beazley's horrific crime or that he was a dope dealer in Grapeland. He denied involvement in the crime and never took responsibility or even expressed any 'claimed' remorse until years later when he lost appeals and faced the death penalty," he said. Beazley supporters now wait for word from the board and governor on what fate he will face.

Source: Tyler Morning Telegraph

Family, clergy plea for commutation for convicted killer

AUSTIN (AP) - Napoleon Beazley's parents and more than two dozen central Texas clergy members pleaded Thursday for Gov. Rick Perry and state officials to commute Beazley's death sentence to life in prison because he was 17 when he shot a Tyler businessman in 1994. "I think he deserves to live," said Beazley's mother, Rena Beazley. Her son is scheduled to die by lethal injection Tuesday.

Beazley has acknowledged his guilt and has apologized to the victim's family. "It's not a question of whether he was there or not," Rena Beazley said. "It's the question of whether he is a menace to society and he isn't."

Under Texas law, Perry can grant a 30-day reprieve from execution, but can't order a commutation without the recommendation of the state Board of Pardons and Paroles. The board voted 10-6 last year against commuting the sentence. The board can review the case again. Perry spokesman Gene Acuna said the governor would not comment.

Beazley's case has received international scrutiny from critics of Texas' capital punishment system. Defense attorneys argue the execution would violate international law and have questioned whether race played a role. Beazley is black and his victim was white. He was convicted by an all-white jury. Prosecutors say that Texas law, in which a 17-year-old is considered an adult, takes precedence over an international treaty.

The case also includes some interesting twists. The victim, 63-year-old John Luttig, was the father of a federal judge. The East Texas judge who sentenced Beazley to die wrote to Perry last year urging Beazley's life be spared.

A group of 18 Democratic legislators and Houston County District Attorney Cindy Garner, who calls herself a strong advocate of the death penalty, also have written Perry urging commutation. Beazley avoided the death chamber in August when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a stay of execution just hours before he was to die. The stay was lifted last month and the new execution date was set.

Beazley, now 25, was a high school class president and star athlete at the time of the 1994 murder of John Luttig, 63. The victim's son, J. Michael Luttig, is a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.

The clergy members attending the new conference at the state Capitol presented a letter supporting Beazley's case from retired Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa to Gerald Garrett, chairman of the parole board. "I find it incomprehensible that the death penalty should be imposed upon a person who was a child when the offense occurred," Tutu wrote.

Beazley's attorney, Walter Long, said he has filed a motion with U.S. Supreme Court seeking to stop the execution. Having worked several death row cases in Texas, including infamous pick-axe killer Karla Faye Tucker who was executed in 1998, Long sounded pessimistic about Beazley's chances for a commutation in the nation's leading death penalty state.

"In Texas, it's like holding out against hope," he said.

Source: Abilene Reporter News: http://www.reporternews.com/2002/texas/fam0524.html

TEXAS - Internationally Illegal Execution Date Again Set For Mr. Napoleon Beazley.

Again, Mr. Napoleon Beazley has received a date of execution, May 28th, 2002. Mr. Beazley was 17 years old when Mr. John Luttig (white) was tragically and senselessly killed at the hands of Beazley (colored). An all white jury sentenced Mr. Beazley to death. This execution will be illegal according to international laws strictly prohibiting the execution of any person under the age of 18 at the time of a crime.

It's time for the international community to interfere and send the strongest message possible to the United States that we do not accept so-called legal killings of any human being, let alone a completely changed juvenile person, convicted by an obvious racist jury. Mr. Beazley had the following comment to his new execution date:

"8 years ago, I involved myself in a crime I instantly regret. I knew it was wrong. I know it is wrong now. I've been trying to make up for it ever since that moment. I've apologized ever since that moment, not just through words, but through my acts. If I didn't care about what happened to John Luttig, then I wouldn't have cared enough to change. Nobody is going to win in this situation, and if we all lose, then I know all of those losses start with me. There's a lot of people involved in this -- not just me. The Luttig family, the DA's, Tyler, Grapeland, my family, whole bunch of other people involved. People against the death penalty, for it, everybody involved.

I want everybody to know, those people, the reason ya'll are here is because of me. It's my fault. I violated the law. I violated this city, and I violated a family -- all to satisfy my own misguided emotions. I'm sorry. I wish I had a 2nd chance to make up for it, but I don't."

Mr. Beazley is a completely changed person. Like everyone else, he has changed character since the age of 17. The execution of a juvenile person is meaningless in each and every sense, because it completely ignores the growing potential in a child. One can never say that a 17-years-old is too corrupted for change. Beazley has been a model prisoner while on death row. Still - he is going to be killed for what he did when he was too immature to fully comprehend the consequences of his actions. The action in itself was incredibly tragic and meaningless, and the worst crime possible was committed when a life was taken.

However, the tragedy will grow deeper if Texas approves of and actually carries out the execution of a juvenile. 2/3 of the juvenile death row prisoners globally, reside in Texas, and juveniles are the fastest growing part of the population on Texas death row. This execution will not heal any wounds, and it's an insult to international justice, because the execution of a person under the age of 18 at the time of the crime in any event will be internationally illegal. The authorities will have to stop the execution plans immediately and Texas will have to take a thorough look at its death penalty laws. Governor Rick Perry: Please, take a good look at the death penalty laws that are imposed on juveniles in your state. Which exact nations are you in company with?

Mr. Beazley behaves like a model prisoner and has been ever since he arrived on death row. He demonstrates deep remorse for the terrible crime he committed. He is a colored juvenile, illegally sentenced to die by an all white jury. If this execution does go as planned, The United States generally, and Texas especially, expect to be included in international forums where human rights are being discussed? Why doesn’t the U.S. immediately assemble a national forum to look into what they can do to respect the Human Rights within their own country?

Should the United States of America, which doesn’t respect this international law, be allowed to discuss Human Rights with other nations, which do? As a European organization working to abolish the death penalty worldwide, we consider it increasingly necessary to raise our voices against this incredible violation against Humanity and International Law.

The international community is in outrage over this insult against international justice! Please urge the Board of Pardons and Parole to recommend to the Governor an Executive Clemency for Mr. Beazley as soon as possible.

Beazley remorseful as execution date is set

After an emotional Friday hearing in which he voiced remorse for the 1st time in court, Napoleon Beazley was sentenced to die on May 28 for the 1994 murder of a local oilman.

State District Judge Cynthia Kent set the date after speaking at length about her "principled" discomfort over imposing a death sentence for a crime that Mr. Beazley committed as a 17-year-old.

Mr. Beazley, an honors graduate from Grapeland, about 60 miles from Tyler, was sentenced to die in 1995 after a jury found him guilty of gunning down John Luttig in a botched carjacking.

Mr. Luttig, 63, was shot at close range in his driveway as he and his wife, Bobbie, returned home from a Bible study. Mrs. Luttig survived by playing dead after being wounded by Mr. Beazley.

Mr. Beazley asked to address the court after being sentenced and expressed regret that members of Mr. Luttig's family were not there to hear him. He then stood weeping in chains as he asked "for everybody's forgiveness."

Beazley statement

Mr. Beazley:"I wanted to say something to certain people. As I see, it was, first and foremost, to Mrs. Luttig and her family. As I see, none of them are in the courtroom today. I want to say it anyway, and hopefully, maybe, they will hear it.

8 years ago, I involved myself in a crime I instantly regret. I knew it was wrong. I know it is wrong now. I've been trying to make up for it ever since that moment. I've apologized ever since that moment, not just through words, but through my acts. If I didn't care about what happened to John Luttig, then I wouldn't have cared enough to change. Nobody is going to win in this situation, and if we all lose, then I know all of those losses start with me. There's a lot of people involved in this -- not just me. The Luttig family, the DA's, Tyler, Grapeland, my family, whole bunch of other people involved. People against the death penalty, for it, everybody involved.

I want everybody to know, those people, the reason ya'll are here is because of me. It's my fault. I violated the law. I violated this city, and I violated a family -- all to satisfy my own misguided emotions. I'm sorry. I wish I had a 2nd chance to make up for it, but I don't."

Courtroom spectator: "You don't have to be sorry, Napoleon."

Mr. Beazley: "But I don't. And if nothing else, I ask for everybody's forgiveness. That's all."

Mr. Beazley , 25, has faced 2 previous execution dates. He came within hours of being put to death in August before a stay from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Just three days earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court had announced an unprecedented 3-3 deadlock that denied Mr. Beazley a federal reprieve. Three justices abstained because of personal ties to Mr. Luttig's son 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig of Virginia.

The case has drawn international attention, including pleas for clemency from the European Union, the American Bar Association and even the district attorney in Mr. Beazley's home county because of his age and lack of prior criminal convictions.

But prosecutors have maintained that Mr. Beazley should be executed because he was an adult under Texas law when he and two accomplices came to Tyler, stalked the Luttigs' Mercedes-Benz and shot the couple because they wanted to steal a luxury car. Many Tyler residents believed Judge Kent played a role in Mr. Beazley's 11th-hour execution stay in August because it came the day she sent a letter to Gov. Rick Perry asking that his life be spared because of his age at the time of the murder.

Local media reports last summer included speculation that Judge Kent's membership in the Roman Catholic Church which opposes capital punishment had influenced her actions. After the Texas appeals court lifted the stay last week, Smith County District Attorney Jack Skeen said that he considered seeking the judge's recusal from the case because of concerns that her letter showed bias. That prompted a lengthy defense Friday from the 46-year-old Republican judge. Speaking to a courtroom packed with Mr. Beazley's supporters, Judge Kent noted that state statutes allow trial judges, prosecutors and sheriffs to offer their opinions on cases being considered for clemency.

Judge Kent said she sent a letter voicing "principled objection" to the execution of a youthful offender after being asked by defense lawyers "only hours" before Mr. Beazley was scheduled to die. She added that she faxed her letter directly to Mr. Perry because she knew that the parole board would not have time to consider it.

The governor can order a 30-day reprieve but can commute a death sentence only if the parole board recommends it. In a rare close vote, the board decided 10-6 against commutation for Mr. Beazley.

The judge said Friday that she wanted to make clear that she was not responsible for last year's execution delay, as some critics suggested. She noted that she sentenced each of the 5 people executed from Smith County since 1938. "It is not that this court is some weak-kneed judge. ... If I were a judge who did not follow the law, I had many chances to be intellectually dishonest and cause actions that would've resulted in the case being reversed."

She noted that judges are required to "be obedient to the law, but we don't have to be silent about it," and she suggested repeatedly that her letter was part of an ongoing national debate on capital punishment. "I think the courts are very bound by the constraints of the law. When it comes to mercy, I do not see that within the purview of the courts to individually dole that out as if we are gods. We are not. We're just people. Just like Mr. Luttig. Just like Mr. Beazley."

(source for both: Dallas Morning News)

TEXAS----new execution date for juvenile offender

Judge sets May execution date for convicted killer Beazley

An East Texas judge on Friday set a May 28 execution date for Napoleon Beazley, a convicted killer who last year received a stay just hours before he was to be executed by lethal injection.

State District Judge Cynthia Kent, who presided over Beazley's trial and last year wrote Gov. Rick Perry in favor of commuting the convicted killer's sentence, set the date in the case that has received international scrutiny.

After the ruling, Beazley, who was 17 when he killed a prominent Tyler businessman, turned and apologized to a packed courtroom as his family members wept.

"This is a horrible crime," Smith County District Attorney Jack Skeen Jr. said. "We've gone as far as we can go in the justice system. Now it's time for the execution to be carried out and justice to be served."

Beazley, now 25, was a high school class president and star athlete at the time of the 1994 murder of John Luttig, 63. The victim's son, J. Michael Luttig, is a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.

Defense attorneys argued that it was against international law to set an execution date for Beazley because he was 17 at the time of the killing. Defense attorney David Botsford had requested a Sept. 17 execution date, which would give him enough time to file another appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Mr. Beazley is not going anywhere," Botsford said. "He's going to be down in Livingston, where he has been all along."

Beazley and brothers Cedric and Donald Coleman, all from Grapeland, about 120 miles southeast of Dallas, were arrested 7 weeks after the shooting based on an anonymous tip.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which issued Beazley's stay in August, lifted it last week.

On Thursday, the Texas chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People asked that Beazley's sentence to be commuted to life in prison since he was 17 when he committed the crime. Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP, said race may have played a factor with an all-white jury deciding the fate of Beazley, who is black. Luttig was white. A group of 18 Democratic legislators and Houston County District Attorney Cindy Garner, who calls herself a strong advocate of the death penalty, also have written Perry urging commutation.

Under Texas law, Perry can grant a 30-day reprieve from execution but can't order a commutation without the recommendation of the state Board of Pardons and Paroles. The board voted 10-6 last year against commuting the sentence. Beazley's attorneys filed a motion asking Kent to postpone the rescheduling hearing until after the 2003 legislative session, giving supporters time to lobby for changes in state law.

(source: Associated Press)

Amnesty International

"USA - Too young to vote, old enough to be executed; Texas set to kill another child offender." (Amnesty International July 31, 2001)

''People change. You know, to take somebody's life at 17 - you can't hold a 17-year-old by the same standards as you do me or you... I've made poor decisions, everybody does. But experience - you know, life - life is a teacher, and I know even today Napoleon is much better now than he was then.'' (Rena Beazley, mother of Napoleon Beazley, May 2001)

Napoleon Beazley's government is planning to kill him on 15 August 2001 for a murder committed when he was aged 17. If he lived in China, or Yemen, or Kyrgyzstan, or Kenya, or Russia, or Indonesia, or Japan, or Cuba, or Singapore, or Guatemala, or Cameroon, or Syria, or almost any other of the diminishing number of countries that retain the death penalty, Napoleon Beazley would not be confronting this fate. But he lives, and is scheduled to die, in the United States of America, a rogue state as far as capital punishment is concerned. His government believes that it is above the fundamental principle of international law that no one be subjected to the death penalty for a crime, however heinous, committed when he or she was under 18 years old. As a result, the United States leads a tiny number of countries which flout this prohibition. Within the USA, Napoleon Beazley's home state of Texas - where under 18-year-olds are considered too young to drink, vote, or serve on a jury - is the worst offender.

Of the thousands of judicial executions documented worldwide in the past decade, only 25 have been of prisoners who were under 18 at the time of the crime. Of these 25, more than half - 13 - were carried out in the United States (see appendix). The USA has carried out eight of the last 12 such executions. Around 80 people are on death row in the USA for crimes committed when they were 16 or 17. Thirty-one of them are facing execution in Texas. Too young to serve on a jury, but old enough to be condemned to death by one.

Texas accounts for 53 per cent (nine of 17) of such executions carried out in the USA since the country resumed judicial killing in 1977. Of the 25 worldwide executions of child offenders in the past 10 years, seven were carried out in Texas. Only Iran comes close to this, with six in the same period. In other words, while Texas has less than half of one per cent of the world's population, it accounts for 28 per cent of the executions of child offenders documented worldwide in the past decade.

US politicians frequently justify their country's resort to judicial killing on the grounds that public opinion supports it. Yet most such officials offer nothing in the way of public education about the human and practical realities of this destructive policy and do not even follow their own philosophy through.(2) For example, recent opinion polls have indicated majority public support for a moratorium on executions in the USA, but no such moratoria have been forthcoming. In Texas, a February 2001 Houston Chronicle poll showed only 25 percent in Harris County and 34 percent statewide support the death penalty for juveniles. In May, the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill that would have raised the death penalty eligibility age to 18, but it failed in the Senate after high-level political intervention.(3)

While Texas and other US states have pursued the death penalty against children into the 21st century, global progress away from this punishment against has continued. On 17 July 1998, for example, the United Nations adopted the Statute for a permanent International Criminal Court, which will try what are generally considered to be humanity's most serious crimes - genocide, other crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court will not be able to impose the death penalty, a sign of the degree to which the international community has turned against capital punishment.

Against this backdrop, there is growing domestic and international concern about the fairness and reliability of the US death penalty, and the damage it inflicts upon individuals, families, society and the reputation of a country that claims to be a leading light for human rights. In 1998, for example, the Chairman of the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with the United States wrote to the Governor of Texas: ''[W]e are concerned that the almost universal repugnance felt in Europe and elsewhere for the continued application of the death penalty in certain American states may also have economic consequences. Europe is the foremost foreign investor in Texas. Many companies, under pressure from shareholders and public opinion to apply ethical business practices, are beginning to consider the possibility of restricting investment in the U.S. to states that do not apply the death penalty.''(4)

In June 2001, nine senior former US diplomats filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the US Supreme Court which argued that the USA's use of the death penalty against people with mental retardation ''has become manifestly inconsistent with evolving international standards of decency''. Continuing to execute such defendants, the brief asserted, ''will strain diplomatic relations with close American allies, provide ammunition to countries with demonstrably worse human rights records, increase US diplomatic isolation, and impair the United States foreign policy interests''.(5) If this is true of the execution of people with mental retardation, it can be no less true in relation to the execution of child offenders, an illegal practice now virtually unknown outside of the United States and condemned in all corners of the globe.

Some judges have expressed concern. For example, in July Texas District Judge C.C. Cooke, who as a state representative some three decades earlier had helped to craft Texas' capital legislation, said: ''I think the mood is changing in this country and people are realizing there are deficiencies in the system.'' He reportedly stated that, while still supporting capital punishment, he himself was concerned about ''a lot of flaws'' in its application, including inadequate legal representation and racial disparities.(6)

In a speech on 2 July, the 25th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that allowed executions to resume(7), US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said: ''After 20 years on the high court, I have to acknowledge that serious questions are being raised about whether the death penalty is being fairly administered in this country.''(8) As US Senator Russ Feingold pointed out, this statement was from the ''same Justice O'Connor who has generally supported the death penalty during her twenty years on the Court. The same Justice O'Connor who has championed states' rights, including the right to carry out executions. The same Justice O'Connor who joined or wrote key opinions that made it more difficult for defendants facing the death penalty to have their state sentences overturned in federal court. And...the same Justice O'Connor who voted in favour of allowing executions of teenage children who committed crimes at age 16 or 17.''(9) Napoleon Beazley is scheduled to become the next victim of that 1989 Supreme Court decision. His execution should be opposed by judges, legislators, the public, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and Governor Rick Perry.

The federal government, which under international law must ensure that all US jurisdictions adhere to the country's international human rights obligations, should also intervene.(10) Napoleon Beazley was sentenced to death a few weeks after George W. Bush took office as Governor of Texas. During his five-year term in office, four child offenders were executed in Texas and others sentenced to death. Now leader of his country, President Bush should not repeat his earlier failure to oppose such violations of international law and must make every effort to stop this latest execution.

It is time for Texas and the USA to catch up with international standards of justice and decency. There would be no better place to start than by commuting the death sentence of Napoleon Beazley.

Creating victims in the name of victims' rights

Amnesty International has the utmost sympathy for the victims of violent crime and their families. Their suffering deserves compassion and justice. Nevertheless, the organization believes that neither are served by the death penalty, a policy which nurtures vengeance, hatred and division, and represents a perpetuation of the violence it seeks to condemn.

Politicians often speak of the ''closure'' that a retributive execution can bring to the family of the murder victim, despite a lack of evidence that it can guarantee any such thing. Besides, if this were the case, then society is denying ''closure'' to the vast majority of victims' relatives in the USA whose loved ones' murders do not result in an execution.

In an interview on death row last year, Napoleon Beazley said that he had not tried to contact the victim's family for fear of compounding their suffering: ''They're going through their own pain right now, and I don't want to add to that. If I could alleviate it, if I could take it away from them, then I would''. Asked what he would say to the victim's son, he said: ''What can you say to somebody in that situation? No words could comfort him, not coming from me anyway. I don't think I would say anything. I think I would, for once, just listen.''(11) Those who appeal for clemency in capital cases are often accused of ignoring the murder victims. This has already happened in this case. A local prosecutor has referred to letters urging clemency for Napoleon Beazley as ''insulting'' to the murder victim's family, and asserted that such appeals ''could not possibly take into account the horror of the dying man'' and his family.(12)

Yet it is the state which should acknowledge that it is engaged in creating more grieving relatives - the family of the condemned prisoner. In Napoleon Beazley's case, these include his mother and father, Rena and Ireland Beazley, his older sister Maria and younger brother Jamal. How will the state seek to grant them ''closure'' when it kills their loved one?

Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states: ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State''. Article 6 of the Covenant recognizes the existence of the death penalty, but places restrictions on it. One of these is the prohibition against the use of the death penalty for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age. Amnesty International believes therefore that the execution of a child offender not only violates article 6(5) but also article 23 of the ICCPR.

Death on demand?

''On behalf of the family of John Luttig and the Smith County District Attorney's Office, let me thank you for your verdict of guilty''. Opening statement of prosecutor to jury at sentencing phase of Napoleon Beazley's trial

John Luttig was shot dead in the garage of his home in Tyler, a town in Smith County in Eastern Texas, on the evening of 19 April 1994. He was shot in the head. The murder occurred in the presence of his wife, Bobbie Luttig, who survived the attack. It was a carjacking murder, with the perpetrators stealing one of the Luttig's two Mercedes-Benz cars in which the couple had just returned home. The stolen vehicle, damaged in the getaway, was abandoned a short distance from the Luttig home.

Three teenagers from Grapeland, a small community in Houston County about 90 kilometres south of Tyler, were arrested for the crime - Napoleon Beazley, 17, Cedric Coleman, 19, and Donald Coleman, 18. The Coleman brothers were tried under a federal carjacking charge in September 1994, but were not convicted at state level until after Napoleon Beazley's trial. The state would use the testimony of the Colemans against their younger co-defendant to achieve a death sentence against Beazley. In return, according to recent affidavits signed by the brothers, they would not face the possibility of the death penalty, an alleged agreement denied at the time of Beazley's trial. Both Cedric and Donald Coleman are serving life sentences. Napoleon Beazley's trial judge rejected a defence request to move the teenager's trial away from Smith County because of the substantial local pre-trial publicity on the case.

The trial took place in 1995, the same year that the Human Rights Committee, the expert UN body which monitors countries' compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ''deplored'' the USA's continuing use of the death penalty against child offenders and stated that the US reservation to article 6 of the ICCPR purporting to exempt the United States from the ban on such use of capital punishment contravened the object and purpose of the treaty and should be withdrawn.(13) Also in 1995, the USA signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, thereby binding itself to respect its spirit and intent. Like the ICCPR, the Convention, ratified by all countries except the USA and Somalia, prohibits the use of the death penalty against those who were under 18 at the time of the crime.

In Texas as elsewhere in the USA, the prosecutor (district attorney) in the county where the murder occurred decides whether to seek the death penalty or not. For example, the District Attorney of Houston County has said that, knowing the facts of the case and the background of the defendant, she would not have sought the death penalty against Napoleon Beazley (see appendix). Local prosecutorial discretion accounts for massive geographic disparities in the application of the death penalty in the United States, as well as arbitrariness within local jurisdictions when one person receives a death sentence and another avoids it by plea bargain.(14)

Outcomes where one defendant is sentenced to death and another to a prison term for similar crimes or similar levels of culpability in the same crime arguably violate the USA's obligations under the ICCPR, article 6(1) of which states that ''[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life''.(15) The Human Rights Committee has stated that 'arbitrariness' should not be equated to 'against the law', but that it should be interpreted more broadly, to include notions of inappropriateness, injustice and lack of predictability. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions reiterated this in his 1998 report on the USA. Article 26 of the ICCPR which states that ''[a]ll persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law'', is particularly pertinent given the extent to which the geographic location of the murder, and the race or economic status of the defendant or victim appear to be key determinants in who is sentenced to death in the USA. A US criminologist recently told the Houston Chronicle, ''I think it's a class thing. In deciding whether to seek a death sentence, we look at the value of the victims to society''.(16)

Many district attorneys - who are elected officials - consult with relatives of the murder victim in making the decision as to whether to seek the death penalty, which is a potential source of arbitrariness in capital sentencing.

In 1997, two teenagers, Ahmad McAdoo, 18, and Derrick Williams, 17, killed Juan Javier Cotera and Brandon Shaw in a carjacking murder in Austin, Texas. The victims were locked in the boot of Shaw's car, and the vehicle pushed into a lake. The Travis County prosecutor had said that he would seek execution if the case went to trial. The parents of the victims did not want the death penalty for their sons' murderers, and pleaded with the prosecutor not to seek it. The prosecution accepted a plea bargain under which McAdoo and Williams pleaded guilty in order to avoid capital punishment. Both youths were sentenced to life imprisonment. The victims' parents formed the Shaw Cotera Juvenile Violence Consortium at the University of Texas, dedicated to the study of juvenile crime.(17) Napoleon Beazley had no prior record, and no history of violence before the Luttig carjacking. In his case, at a pre-trial hearing in January 1995, the defence indicated to the judge that the defendant was willing to plead guilty in return for a sentence of life imprisonment. The prosecutor noted the ''substantial contact with the family of the victim'' in explaining that the state was unwilling to accept such a deal.

The murder victim, John Luttig, was a senior member of Tyler society, a Korean War veteran and an oil businessman. He was also the father of the Honourable Michael Luttig, a judge on the federal US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, one of the most conservative federal appeal courts in the country.(19) Is it possible that the identity or status of the murder victim and his family played any role in the prosecutorial decision? It would not be the first time in the USA.

Elected district attorneys, many of whom regard high-profile capital cases as the surest route to a judgeship, cater to certain bereaved relatives while ignoring and slighting others. Not surprisingly, well-known whites attract prosecutorial interest; poor and obscure blacks do not. Thus, for example, in the Chattahoochee Circuit in Georgia, the district attorney asked the father of the white victim, a prominent contractor, if he wanted the death penalty. Upon receiving an affirmative answer, the prosecutor said this was all he needed to know. After obtaining the desired sentence, he was awarded with a $5,000 campaign contribution in the next judicial election.(20)

Throughout Napoleon Beazley's trial, the prosecution sought to compare the murder victim to the defendant. For example, in his opening argument to the jury, one of the prosecutors said:

And I want to say something to you. There were two names mentioned in this indictment. You remember them? Napoleon Beazley and John Luttig. All of us can sit in this courtroom, we can look right over here at this table, and we can see Napoleon Beazley. We can look right over here, and we can see the nice suit that he has on, the tie that he's wearing. We can see it. The evidence in this case is going to show a different Napoleon Beazley than the one sitting over there at the counsel table in that nice suit.... That's what this case is all about. Not about a man sitting over here in a coat and tie and a name on an indictment. It's about a man who can best be described by the neighbours that you'll hear from who knew John Luttig, because he was a man who spent a lot of time in his front yard with his dog... and he would go over, and he would play with the children.... who meticulously took care of his yard... the kind of man who posed no threat to anybody, the kind of man who worked hard all his life, the kind of man who was proud of what he had, was proud of his children, was proud of his wife.

Thus the prosecution encouraged the jury to weigh the life and character of John Luttig against the life and character of Napoleon Beazley. This was cemented by various other references to the good character of John Luttig, including in the victim impact testimony presented by Judge Michael Luttig and other members of his family at the sentencing phase of the trial.(21) For example, Judge Luttig told the jury that ''my dad was an extraordinary man. He was a man of great integrity. He was a man of great discipline''. The defence objected that such testimony went beyond victim impact evidence and into inadmissible evidence of the victim's character, but the judge allowed it.

One of the Grapeland High School teachers, who had known Napoleon Beazley for 12 years and who testified at the sentencing hearing as a character witness, described him as a ''model'' and ''kind'' student and agreed that ''there is something innately good about Napoleon Beazley''. In cross-examining this defence witness, the prosecution asked her a series of questions about if she knew ''a person by the name of John Luttig'' and if she had ''any idea for this jury about what kind of man John Luttig was'' and if she knew ''what kind of good John Luttig may have had in his remaining years on this planet''. Whereas the character of the defendant is relevant to the issue of rehabilitative potential, evidence of the character of the victim is irrelevant to a capital jury's sentencing decision and brings with it the potential for arbitrariness in that decision-making.

Judge Michael Luttig, who had reportedly moved his office and staff from Virginia to Texas for the proceedings, was quoted as saying after the trial: ''Individuals must be held accountable at some point for actions such as this. I thought this was an appropriate case for the death penalty.''(22) Napoleon Beazley's trial lawyer recalls that Judge Luttig's involvement in the case went beyond that of a victim impact witness:

Judge Luttig exercised a tremendous influence over the prosecution of this case... In my opinion, Judge Luttig's status as a federal judge influenced the decision to seek the death penalty for Mr Beazley. In other words, I do not think that the State would have sought the death penalty for Mr Beazley had the victim's son not been a Federal Judge. Due to 'family' influence, I feel that the State would not consider a negotiated plea to a life sentence.... During the trial of both the Coleman brothers and Mr Beazley, Judge Luttig was present at times with his law clerks. On occasion, Judge Luttig actually briefed the State on evidentiary points during the trial. I feel as if Judge Luttig's involvement consisted of basically directing the Smith County District Attorney's Office in the prosecution of the case from investigation through jury selection, trial, punishment evidence and necessary legal research, etc.(23)

At the pre-trial hearing in 1995, the prosecution asked for an overnight delay during the jury selection process. The prosecutor stated: ''The only reason I make that request is that Judge Luttig has requested an opportunity to go over the [juror] questionnaires with us...''.

Donald Coleman, one of Napoleon Beazley's two co-defendants, stated in an affidavit in May 1998:

[My lawyer] told me that he socialized with the Luttigs and had to live in the Tyler community. He told me the Luttigs would be upset if I did not testify against Napoleon Beazley and that I should take [the prosecution's] first plea offer and not make him defend me at trial and drag the Luttig family through it all again after Napoleon's trial... I decided not to follow [my lawyer's] advice to accept this offer... [The prosecutor] came to visit me at the Smith County Jail... [He] told me that Mrs Luttig (John Luttig's wife) and Judge Luttig were furious that I was not going to testify against Napoleon and that Judge Luttig wanted all three of us (me, Cedric and Napoleon) to die for what happened to his father. [The prosecutor] said he thought he could get Judge Luttig to agree to the idea that the State would not seek the death penalty against me and Cedric, if I would testify against Napoleon. I saw Judge Luttig talking to the District Attorneys all the time. I even saw him come out of Judge Kent's office [the trial judge]. I thought that, if Judge Luttig talked to them all the time, Judge Luttig could get my death penalty dropped if I cooperated... So, I agreed to testify against Napoleon in exchange for the State not seeking the death penalty against me in state court.

The federal US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas rejected the claim, raised on appeal, that the prosecution had lost control of the case to the Luttig family as ''ludicrous and not supported by any evidence''.(24) Amnesty International does not share the District Court's confidence.

A jury of whose peers, the victim's or defendant's?

''What to look for in a juror: You are looking for a strong, stable, individual who believes that Defendants are different from them in kind, rather than degree. You are not looking for any member of a minority group which may be subject to oppression – they almost always empathize with the accused.''(25)

While Napoleon Beazley's Smith County jury was being selected, on the other side of the world the Constitutional Court of South Africa was hearing oral arguments in a case which would herald the abolition of the death penalty in that country as part of its emergence from a history of racism and violence. In the subsequent decision, Chief Justice Chaskalson would write that ''[i]t cannot be gainsaid that poverty, race and chance play roles in the outcome of capital cases and in the final decision as to who should live and who should die.''(26) A year earlier, a US Supreme Court Justice had said: ''Even under the most sophisticated death penalty statutes, race continues to play a major role in determining who shall live and who shall die.''(27) In his 1998 report on the death penalty in the USA, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions noted that: ''Race, ethnic origin and economic status appear to be key determinants of who will, and who will not, receive a sentence of death.''(28) And last year, the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism wrote that he was concerned at the ''discriminatory manner in which the death penalty is applied in the United States of America''.(29)

John Luttig was white. Napoleon Beazley is African American. At his trial, the two prosecutors(30) and two defence lawyers were white, the judge was white, and the black teenager faced an all-white jury. In addition, one of the jurors appears to have been a long-time employee of one of John Luttig's business partners, which was not revealed during jury selection.

TEXAS - Black - White
Population - 11.5% - 71%
Death row - 41.6% - 34.4%
On death row for crime at age 17 - 36% - 23%
Male 17-year-olds in population - 13% - 50%

Research into the US death penalty over the past two decades has consistently shown a pattern of sentencing anomalies which cannot be explained without reference to racial factors, particularly in relation to the race of the murder victim.(31) In 1990, the General Accounting Office (an independent agency of the US government) issued a report on death penalty sentencing patterns. After reviewing and evaluating 28 major studies, the report concluded that 82 per cent of the surveys found a correlation between the race of the victim and the likelihood of a death sentence. The finding was ''remarkably consistent across data sets, states, data collection methods and analytic techniques. . .[T]he race of victim effect was found at all stages of the criminal justice system process . .''.(32)

More than 720 men and women have been executed in the USA since 1977 – in over 80 per cent of cases the original crime had involved a white murder victim. Yet blacks and whites are the victims of murder in almost equal numbers in the USA.

The population of the USA is approximately 75 per cent white and 12 per cent black. Since 1976, blacks have been six to seven times more likely to be murdered than whites, with the result that blacks and whites are the victims of murder in the USA in about equal numbers. Fifty one per cent of those murdered from 1976 to 1999 were white, and 47 per cent were black. From 1989 to 1999, 48 per cent of murder victims were white and 49.5 per cent were black.(33) Most murders in the USA are intraracial. Between 1976 and 1999, 86 per cent of white murder victims were killed by whites, and 94 per cent of black murder victims were killed by blacks. Of the 705 men and women executed by 1 April 2001, 51.9 per cent were whites convicted of killing whites, 23.3 per cent blacks convicted of killing whites, 1.6 per cent whites convicted of killing blacks and 9.8 per cent were blacks convicted of killing blacks.(34)

According to the Texas Defender Service, ''homicide is the eighth leading cause of death among both black Texans (18.7 in 100,000) and Latino Texans (9.6 in 100,000), but is not even among the top ten causes of death for white Texans (4 in 100,000)''.(35) Some 249 people had been executed in Texas by 11 July 2001. In 202 cases (81 per cent), the crimes involved white victims. In 57 cases (23 per cent) the defendant was a black convicted of killing a white. None of the 249 people executed have been whites convicted of killing blacks.

Of the 31 juvenile offenders on death row in Texas in July 2001, 11 (36 per cent) were black, 12 (39 per cent) were Hispanic, seven (23 per cent) were white and one was Asian. In 22 of the 31 cases (71 per cent) the crime involved a white victim. In 15 cases (48 per cent), the defendant was black or Hispanic and the victim was white. In two cases, the defendant was white and the victim Hispanic. In no cases was the defendant white and the victim black.

Of the nine juvenile offenders executed in Texas since 1977, seven (78 per cent) were for crimes involving white victims and two for Latino victims. Three of the nine (33 per cent) were black defendants convicted of killing white victims. Napoleon Beazley's execution would make it four out of 10.

Smith County's population is about 75 per cent white and 19 per cent black. By July 2001, Smith County accounted for five executions and eight people on death row. In five of these 13 cases the defendant was white; the remaining eight (62 per cent) were black. Ten of these 13 cases (77 per cent) involved white victims. In five cases (38.5 per cent), including that of Napoleon Beazley, the defendant was black and the victim white.

While murders involving white victims appear most likely to result in a death sentence, studies have also shown that when the defendant is black and the victim white, the likelihood of a death sentence is even greater.(36) How much greater when the jury selected to determine verdict and sentence itself had not a single African American sitting on it?

On 28 June 1908, an African American teenager, Monk Gibson, who had narrowly avoided being lynched, was hanged in east Texas for the murder of five members of a white family committed when he was 17. Some 2,500 people came to witness the execution. Two months earlier, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had rejected an appeal that the selection of an all-white jury for his trial in 1905 had been unfair.(37)

At Napoleon Beazley's trial 90 years later, the Smith County prosecution removed four African American prospective jurors during the selection process by peremptory challenges, the right to exclude individuals deemed to be unsuitable without giving a reason. In 1986, the US Supreme Court had ruled that jurors could only be removed for ''race neutral'' reasons. To win an appeal on this issue, the defendant must show that ''purposeful discrimination'' took place. Proving ''purposeful discrimination'' is nearly impossible, since prosecutors need only present a vaguely plausible non-racial reason for dismissing potential jurors.

In Napoleon Beazley's trial, for example, the prosecutor - challenged by the defence to explain his use of peremptory strikes against African Americans - stated that he had struck one of the black jurors because 12 years earlier that individual had been charged with driving while intoxicated in Smith County. Although the man in question had been acquitted of the charges, the prosecutor believed that his experience would make him biassed against the state. This was despite the fact that during selection questioning, the black juror had said that not only did he harbour no hard feelings towards the state for his prosecution, but that the experience had helped him because he had stopped drinking as a result of the incident.

In contrast, a white juror was selected who had been convicted of driving while intoxicated, and had also been arrested and fined within the previous three years for public intoxication. This same juror has been shown since the trial to harbour profound racial prejudice against African Americans. In 1997, a defence investigator went to speak to this juror, who told him that ''the state said that we don't have to say noth'n to nobody''. As he was closing the door, the investigator heard him say ''the nigger got what he deserved''. The juror's wife of 20 years was then contacted by the defence. She stated in an affidavit in 1998:

...the first question the investigator asked me was if I knew of any reason why my husband James could not have been impartial in determining the verdict of the young man. My first thought, and what I told the investigator, was that James is racially prejudiced. I have heard James use many derogatory terms, including the use of the word ''nigger'' on more occasions than not when he is talking about black people... I cannot say without any doubt that James' prejudice affected the young man who was on trial. However, I would find it difficult to believe that James could have set his prejudice aside and not let it influence him to some degree.

Would this juror or any of the 11 other white jurors have had their prejudices inflamed by the prosecution's depiction of the black defendant as an ''animal''? Arguing for execution in his closing argument at the punishment phase, one of the prosecutors stated of Napoleon Beazley:

He's not an adolescent when he gets to Tyler. When he gets to Tyler, he is an armed predator... He's an armed predator hunting down prey... He then just happened to see the Luttigs, stalking his prey, just stalking his prey, which happened to be human beings, and falling in behind them like some animal falling in behind their prey... Because while men like John Luttig is [sic] pulling into his driveway and about to get out with his wife in his garage, the predator is lurking, and he's out, and he's ready, and now the prey is stalked, now the prey is cornered, now the prey is in the garage, not on the road, the human prey.... The prey was in there in the garage, out in a minute, jacked up, here we go, a .45 Haskell, up the driveway, shirt off, it's on, just like the animal about to hunt and comes from behind and gets his prey.

The prosecutor's message was clear. There are ''men like John Luttig'' and there are ''animals'' like Napoleon Beazley. There is a link through history to such dehumanizing language in the state's use of the death penalty. For example, in September 1952 in the small town of Palestine in East Texas, a short distance from Tyler, a black defendant was on trial for the rape of a 15-year-old white girl. The prosecutor reportedly argued: ''This Negro is a lustful animal, without anything to transform him to any kind of valuable citizen, because he lacks the very fundamental elements of mankind''.(38)

This is not unique to Texas. At a trial in 1995 in Nevada, the white prosecutor had, in front of an all-white jury, a white judge, two white defence lawyers, and another white prosecutor, referred to the black defendant as ''a rabid animal''. The Nevada Supreme Court said that this was ''wholly unnecessary'' and amounted to prosecutorial misconduct - ''such toying with the jurors' imagination is risky and the responsibility of the prosecutor is to avoid the use of language that might deprive a defendant of a fair trial''.(39) During another capital trial in Nevada, one or more white jurors referred to the black defendant as ''a gorilla, a baboon, a native tribesman who is not dangerous to his own people but would club or murder anyone outside his territory...'' . One of the Nevada Supreme Court Justices wrote: ''The use of blatantly racist speech by non-black jurors about a black defendant reflects those jurors' racist predispositions and denied [the defendant] his right to an impartial jury. Several of the jurors' expressions epitomize racist stereotypes of African Americans and evidence deep racial prejudice.''(40)

In Texas, before a jury can pass a death sentence, it must unanimously find that the defendant poses a future danger to society (see below). If prosecutors conjure up stereotypical imagery of black defendants, this risks rousing white jurors' conscious or unconscious fears and increases the likelihood of their finding ''future dangerousness''.

Last year, the Texas Attorney General took the unprecedented step of conceding that the use of race at the sentencing phase of Victor Hugo Saldaño's 1991 trial had undermined the fairness of the proceedings. The prosecution had introduced testimony of a clinical psychologist, who included race as one of the factors establishing the defendant's future dangerousness, pointing to the fact that blacks and Hispanics are over-represented in the criminal justice system. The US Supreme Court overturned the death sentence on 5 June 2000. In a statement, the Texas Attorney General said: ''[I]t is inappropriate to allow race to be considered as a factor in our criminal justice system... The people of Texas want and deserve a system that affords the same fairness to everyone. I will continue to do everything I can to assure Texans of our commitment to an equitable criminal justice system.''(41)

As the US Supreme Court stated in 1986: ''Because of the range of discretion entrusted to a jury in a capital sentencing hearing there is a unique opportunity for racial prejudice to operate but to remain undetected... [A] juror who believes that blacks are violence prone or morally inferior might well be influenced by that belief... More subtle, less consciously held racial attitudes could also influence a juror's decision... Fear of blacks, which could easily be stirred up by the violent facts of [the] crime, might incline a juror to favor the death penalty.''(42) The Smith County prosecutor's use of dehumanizing language to depict a black defendant to an all-white jury, coupled with the revelation that at least one of those jurors harboured severe undisclosed racial prejudice against blacks, should ring alarm bells in the Attorney General's office and cause it to oppose the execution of Napoleon Beazley.

As the US Government itself noted last year: ''The United States has struggled to overcome the legacies of racism... [I]ssues relating to race, ethnicity and national origin continue to play a negative role in American society. Racial discrimination persists against various groups... The path towards true racial equality has been uneven, and substantial barriers must still be overcome''.(43)

A few weeks after Napoleon Beazley was sentenced to death in Texas, South Africa's Constitutional Court ruled that the death penalty violated the new constitution. Justice Mohamed, who was to become his country's first black Chief Justice, wrote that the constitution represented ''a decisive break from, and a ringing rejection of, that part of the past which is disgracefully racist, authoritarian, insular, and repressive and a vigorous identification of and commitment to a democratic, universalistic, caring and aspirationally egalitarian ethos''. The death penalty was a part of this past. Justice Mohamed also wrote:

The death sentence must, in some measure, manifest a philosophy of indefensible despair in its execution, accepting as it must do, that the offender it seeks to punish is so beyond the pale of humanity as to permit of no rehabilitation, no reform, no repentance, no inherent spectre of hope or spirituality... the finality of the death penalty allows for none of these redeeming possibilities. It annihilates the potential for their emergence.(44)

More than half the countries of the world have, in law or practice, abolished the death penalty against anyone. Among the diminishing number that retain it, almost all have abolished its use against children, reflecting the commonly held belief that children - due to their immaturity, impulsiveness, vulnerability to peer pressure, and capacity for rehabilitation - should never be put ''beyond the pale''. Texas law remains in the dark ages on this issue, and still allows a capital jury to write off a child's life.

Based on false testimony? The finding of future dangerousness

''I was told by the [prosecutor] to say everything in a way that would make Napoleon look as bad as it could in front of the jury''. Cedric Coleman, affidavit, July 2001

Before they could pass a death sentence, Napoleon Beazley's jurors had to reach a unanimous finding that there was ''a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society'' - so called ''future dangerousness'' - and that there was insufficient mitigating evidence to warrant a life sentence.

Napoleon Beazley's case was unusual in that it did not involve mitigating evidence of deprivation, abuse or mental impairment that characterizes many cases of death row prisoners in the USA, and the majority of condemned child offenders.(45)

Instead, trial counsel only presented strong evidence depicting a good child who grew up in a good household with attentive, caring parents. The child became an adolescent who excelled in sports and was so popular that he was elected student government president and was runner-up for the honor of most-popular boy in his high school. The youth had no criminal history whatsoever, and was not known to be assaultive or even physically aggressive. Then, over the course of a year or so prior to the offense, the young man apparently fell into a secret world of smalltime drug-dealing, he began to take some dangerous risks, and his very-promising future crashed in the solitary flashes of a pistol on a night in April 1994.(46)

A stream of mitigation witnesses described a respectful, decent, helpful teenager, whose involvement in the Luttig murder appeared to be aberrational behaviour given the absence of evidence of prior violence or threat of violence attributable to him. Among the witnesses who testified to Napoleon Beazley's good character and potential for rehabilitation were the head teacher of his high school, numerous other teachers, a Lieutenant in the Smith County Sheriff's Department, the District Attorney of Napoleon Beazley's home county (who has also appealed for clemency, see appendix), fellow school pupils, and other members of the community.

For their part, the prosecutors sought to ensure that the jury would reject the character evidence presented by the defence. Indeed, they encouraged the jurors to view it as aggravating rather than mitigating evidence. One of the prosecutors argued:

Where is the mitigation in his background with his family? He comes from a good family. He has no reason to go get a Mercedes Benz. Has all the social skills in the world. Popular guy. Popular guy. What reason does that give to mitigate this crime? That makes his crime all the more horrible. Just think, he didn't have organic brain damage. He didn't have some kind of a head injury.(47) Doesn't have any kind of a mitigating circumstance. He wasn't intoxicated at the time of this offense. It's just a coldblooded killer who goes 80 miles and kills John Luttig.

The second prosecutor reinforced this line of attack on the defence evidence:

Tell me where there's a shred of mitigating evidence in this case that reduces this defendant's moral blameworthiness for what he did in that driveway. It's not there. It's not there. He made conscious, individual choices out of a good home life to become an armed predator and a killer rather that what he could have been. And it's no one's fault but his. And it's not your responsibility. It's no one's responsibility but his.(48)

In addition, in order to ensure that the jury could find that the defendant was a future danger, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of Napoleon Beazley's co-defendants to paint a picture of a dangerous, remorseless, crack cocaine-dealing individual, obsessed with death and gang culture, who was bent on committing a carjacking and unrepentant about it afterwards.(49)

The Coleman's testimony gave Napoleon Beazley's jury essentially the only evidence it would hear about his state of mind immediately before, during, and after the shooting of John Luttig, and his attitude to the crime. Donald Coleman claimed that Beazley had said ''I'm going back into Tyler to get me a car. I want to see what it feels like to see somebody die''. He asserted that Beazley had said after the shooting that ''if anybody said anything that he would kill them''. He described Beazley as watching gang-related films like ''Boyz in the Hood'' and ''Menace to Society'' and one called ''Faces of Death'', a video of people dying. He said that Beazley had put a message on his answering machine after a line from ''Boyz in the Hood'' ''This is Napoleon Beazley's Mortuary, we stab'em, we bag 'em''. Donald Coleman said that after Beazley watched the films, he would act out of character. Likewise Cedric Coleman said that Napoleon Beazley had said that he wanted ''to see what it's like to kill somebody'' shortly before the crime, and that Beazley had threatened him and his brother if they said anything about the murder to anyone. He recounted an alleged conversation with Napoleon Beazley in which the latter had said that he took his girlfriend to the hospital where he saw a doctor who asked what he, Beazley, was doing with a white girlfriend. According to Coleman, Beazley had said that the doctor ''reminded him of the man that he had killed in Tyler and he said that he wanted to kill the doctor too''. Cedric Coleman also said that Beazley had never indicated to him ''that he was sorry about what happened to Mr Luttig''.

The prosecution's expert psychological witnesses proceeded to put a stamp of authority on the state's assertion of Napoleon Beazley's ''future dangerousness'', but in doing so relied largely upon the testimony of the Coleman brothers. In finding that Beazley represented a future risk to society, one of these experts spoke of ''an incredible level of coldness, remorselessness, senselessness'' and found that there was not ''one shred of remorse''. He admitted, however, that if the accuracy of the Coleman's testimony were called into question, his opinion would be affected and that if the jury did not accept the Coleman testimony, that ''would weaken the value of [his] testimony to the jury''. Another of the prosecution's experts said that he ''substantially'' believed the Coleman's statements.

Throughout the proceedings, the state claimed that no sentencing deals had been made with Cedric or Donald Coleman in return for their testimony. The brothers themselves denied that any deals had been struck. Then, in 1998, both Colemans signed affidavits that the state had agreed not to seek the death penalty against either of them if they testified against Napoleon Beazley and that this had been finalized at the time of the Beazley trial. Napoleon Beazley's trial lawyer recalls:

During Mr Beazley's trial, there was testimony from Mr Beazley's co-defendants, Donald and Cedric Coleman. Although both co-defendants denied there was any type of 'implied deal' in return for their testimony, I did not believe that then, nor do I believe it now. If there was an implied deal for the Coleman brothers' testimony, that would have been very important for the jury to know. The only 'real evidence' of future dangerousness came from the Coleman brothers' testimony regarding statements allegedly made by Mr Beazley prior to and subsequent to the killing of John Luttig. Had the jury been in a position to view the Coleman's testimony in light of a deal, the outcome may have been different, especially in view of Dr Allen's testimony that his opinion would be different if the testimony of the Colemans was inaccurate.(50)

Indeed, the Coleman's affidavits suggest that the jury (and the experts) did not hear an accurate portrayal of Napoleon Beazley's state of mind on which to base its finding of future dangerousness. In particular, the affidavits point to a teenager who was in fact remorseful. This is a critical point, given that research indicates that a defendant's perceived lack of remorse is a highly aggravating factor in the sentencing decisions of capital jurors.(51) Cedric Coleman stated (corrected spelling):

Also after my federal trial a group of Federal agents came in and questioned me over my testimony that I would give in Napoleon's trial. They would ask me questions and when I would respond to the questions, if I gave an answer that they didn't like they would say ''that's not what we want you to say'' or ''we're not going to ask you that''. For instance when I was asked if Napoleon meant to shoot anyone and I said ''no because he told me he didn't'' they said we're not going to ask you that. I feel that he didn't mean to shoot him, and after he told me that he didn't mean to kill the man he began saying that he was going to kill himself. After I talked him out of that he cried all the way home.

Similarly, Donald Coleman's affidavit claims: Napoleon didn't mean to shoot Mr Luttig. He cried all the way home. He was still crying when he came over to see my brother the next day. That night I believe that Napoleon would have killed himself if my brother didn't get the gun from him. Mr Luttig rushed at Napoleon and the gun went off. Everything got out of hand after that. The FBI agents later told me not to say anything about Napoleon crying and that he didn't mean to shoot Mr Luttig. I went along with them.

In July 2001, the two brothers signed additional affidavits. They asserted that various parts of their trial testimony had been ''false''. Cedric Coleman stated:

...I was told by the [prosecutor] to say everything in a way that would make Napoleon look as bad as it could in front of the jury. I told [him] the truth about how things really happened. Depending on what we were talking about [he] would either say that he didn't want the jury to know that information about Napoleon or he would make me change the way I said something so Napoleon looked worse... [The prosecutor] actually threatened me by telling if I didn't testify the way he wanted he would make sure my brother got the death penalty. I [testified] that Napoleon told me that he wanted to kill the doctor... This was false... The truth is that Napoleon told me the doctor reminded him of Mr Luttig and that seeing the doctor made him visualize that night. Napoleon was very upset when he was telling me this. Napoleon was saying he felt bad about what happened. I told [the prosecutor] this but he didn't want me to testify about it. My...testimony that, prior to killing Mr Luttig, Napoleon said he ''wanted to feel what it was like to kill someone'' was false. The way Napoleon's comment about ''killing someone'' really came out was when I was talking to Napoleon two or three days after we got back to Grapeland. We were at his mom's house. Napoleon was saying things about how he had made a big mistake shooting Mr Luttig and that he was going to kill himself. Napoleon was saying this in a depressing way. I was asking him what he was thinking about when he ran up to the house and Mr Luttig got shot. It was like he couldn't really explain it even to himself. That's when he said ''I guess I was just tripping and wanted to see what it was like to shoot somebody''. [The prosecutor] wanted me to change when Napoleon said that and [he] wanted me to testify like Napoleon was angry when he said it. [The prosecutor] and I both know that the way I testified would have given the wrong impression about what was really said by Napoleon and when. ...you could tell Napoleon was sorry for what he did... [The District Attorney] told me that wasn't what he wanted the jury to hear and [he] made it clear to me that if I testified differently at Napoleon's trial that he would not give Donald and me the deal.

For his part, Donald Coleman's 2001 affidavit says: What I said...about Napoleon saying, when we went back to Tyler before the offense, that he wanted to hurt someone or see what it was like for someone to die is completely false. I never have heard Napoleon say anything like this. However, I knew that if I did not go along with Napoleon saying something like this, [the prosecutor] could say that I went back on our agreement and I might face the death penalty.

The jury's finding of future dangerousness has also been called into question by the fact that Napoleon Beazley has been a model prisoner. Before death row was recently moved from Ellis Unit in Huntsville to its new location in Terrell Unit, Livingston, and all prisoners were confined to their cells for 23 hours a day, Napoleon Beazley was one of a few prisoners assigned to jobs within the prison. At the trial the state's experts had testified that Beazley would pose a threat of violence in prison. It seems they were wrong.

Conclusion - Time for clemency

''America's continued practice of executing juvenile offenders has alarming implications for our society's visions of morality, crime and punishment, conformance to international law and indeed childhood itself. When we execute juvenile offenders, we ignore what we know about the ways in which children and adolescents are different from adults''(52)

The murder for which Napoleon Beazley is scheduled to die was a terrible act of violence with tragic consequences. Those who have suffered as a result deserve compassion, respect and justice. These objectives cannot be furthered by killing Napoleon Beazley. No insight will be gained into juvenile violence. Another grieving family will be created, this time by the state.

The planned killing of Napoleon Beazley is illegal under international law. The USA maintains that it has reserved the right to ignore this ban. In so doing it has sabotaged its own claims to be a progressive force for human rights. While rest of the world has agreed that rehabilitation must win out over punishment as the overriding objective in responding to the crimes of children, Texas is set to execute a young offender whose rehabilitative potential was testified to by a stream of trial witnesses. His record in prison would appear to justify the confidence they placed in him.

Beyond the illegality of the execution, and the fact that it flies in the face of conventional wisdom relating to the treatment of young offenders, the case of Napoleon Beazley raises the sort of issues which continue to generate substantial domestic concern about the fairness and reliability of the US capital justice system.

Was the state's decision to seek the death penalty in any way influenced by the identity and status of the victim? Did private vengeance steal into the proceedings against Napoleon Beazley? Did prejudice taint the decision by 12 white jurors to vote to execute an African American teenager accused of the high-profile murder of a senior member of the local white community? Did the state's aggravating evidence represent a true picture of the defendant, or an embellished portrait painted by co-defendants out to save themselves from execution?

Whether or not the scales of justice were tipped against Napoleon Beazley from the start, his execution does not have to be a foregone conclusion. The courts may have ruled in the state's favour all the way through the process, including in their rejection of the international prohibition on the execution, but the power of executive clemency exists precisely to compensate for the rigidities of the judicial system. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles should recommend to Governor Perry that he commute Napoleon Beazley's death sentence on humanitarian grounds and in the interests of justice, decency and the reputation of the State of Texas and the USA as a whole. If no such recommendation is forthcoming, the governor should grant a reprieve and call upon the Board to reconsider. Prosecutors and legislators in Texas, as well as the federal administration, should support this outcome.

Appendix 1. Extracts from an interview with Rena Beazley(53)

I had never really thought about the death penalty... I know that's the case [with other people]. Now that they know us - the local people know us and they knew Napoleon - it's changed them, it's got a lot of people thinking. When this happened, people were coming from every direction saying ''that could have been my child'', you know, ''that could have been me''.

Until then, I'd never thought I'd visit a prison, let alone death row... Napoleon helps me to handle it... I feel as though, if he sees me falling apart... I'm not going to allow that... I have to be strong for him. As long as he's OK, I'm OK... One day at a time. And that's the way we are. One day at a time.

Jamal [Napoleon's younger brother], he's seventeen now, he can go a while without seeing Napoleon, whereas I can't. I missed last week's visit [to death row] and Napoleon was like ''I knew you'd be here'' - I saw him yesterday - ''I know you can't stay away from me that long''. I'm like, ''You sure think highly of yourself!'' But it's true. Two weeks is the most. I'm irritable if I can't see him. And I don't know why, once I'm there and I see him I'm fine. And I can turn and come back home. You know, I just need to see him.... If he's killed..... I don't want to focus on that. I'm trying to hold on to the hope, because he's still here and anything can happen, anything can happen.

I've had people ask me if I would attend the execution if it gets to that. Well, yes, I have to, that choice was made for me. I didn't make it, it was made for me. How can I not go? The way I see it is if the closest person to you is in hospital dying with cancer, and the doctors call you and say you need to get here, you do it, you go. I don't have a choice. I wish I did, but I don't. I was there when he got here, and I'll be there... if that's the case, I'll be there. If Napoleon says when the time comes that he doesn't want it, then I'll be outside, as close as I can get.

Napoleon doesn't deserve to die. I know there's got to be punishment, but death for a 17-year-old? People change. I've changed. If you do a list today and five years from now you go back and look at that sheet of your thoughts, your whatever, you will even wonder if that was you that put that on that paper. People change. To take a child, to take somebody's life at 17, you can't hold a 17-year-old by the same standards as you do me or you. I've made poor decisions, everybody does. But experience, you know, life - life is a teacher. And I know even today Napoleon is much better now than he was then.

What happened that night, I don't know what happened, I'm not sure Napoleon knows what happened. He got caught up in this. I don't know whether it was peer pressure, but he just got caught up in it. And it happened. And it's sad that it happened. But I don't think he should be put to death for it. I don't feel that if he's put to death, it's going to - the [Luttig] family say it's going to bring closure, but in reality, in reality....

I think it's sad that there's so much hatred here in the United States.. I'm thinking that hopefully that other countries will maybe force the United States to change its ways. I feel as though one day it will change - it might be too late for us, I pray that it isn't - but I feel that one day it's going to change, it's going to change. I just feel it will change.

Appendix 2. Text of clemency letter from Houston County District Attorney

Members of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
8610 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78757 July 20, 2001

Attn: Executive Clemency Section

Dear Members,

I am writing in support of commutation of Napoleon Beazley's death sentence to life in prison.

I have been a strong advocate for the death penalty my entire adult life and have made decisions regarding the death penalty during my tenure as District Attorney. Based on my knowledge of Napoleon Beazley as a person, as well as my knowledge of the facts of his criminal offense, I would not have sought the death penalty had this case been filed in Houston County. Although it is not my habit to testify on behalf of defendants during a criminal trial, I did so during Mr Beazley's trial. My reasons for testifying are the same as my reasons for corresponding with you today.

I have know Napoleon Beazley for over ten (10) years as I have lived in the small community where he was raised and have known his family my entire life. This young man was raised with a focus on honesty, respect, hard work and being a contributing member of society. He was a good son and loved by his family who had high hopes for his future. He was respected by his teachers and fellow students and had plans to enter the United States Armed Forces when he graduated from High School. There is no reasonable explanation for what Mr Beazley did in Smith County, Texas. I was shocked when I learned the facts of the case. I do not condone what he did and believe he should be punished, but I do not believe he should suffer the ultimate punishment as his prior record is without blemish and there is no indication he would be a continuing threat to society.

I am further concerned the decision to seek the death penalty in this case was based, in part, on the fact the victim's son was a federal judge. Certainly, if my own father was murdered I would want everyone involved to be executed – that is a decision based on emotion, not legal precedence, and I'm sure the victim's son took every opportunity to encourage the prosecutor to seek the death penalty. I do not believe death is the correct sentence in this case as Mr Beazley had no prior record nor did he exhibit behavior indicating he would be a continuing threat to society.

Bottom line, Mr Beazley is a young, black man from a small community who could have done great things in his life because he was charming, smart, respectful and a genuinely good kid. He was a fool to be influenced by his co-defendants and a fool to act like a common street thug in this one instance. He made a terrible mistake this one time, but I hope you will consider his background, his remorse for the sorrow he has brought to the victim's family as well as his own and the fact this is an isolated incident and commute his sentence to life in prison.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Sincerely,
Cindy Maria Garner, District Attorney

Appendix 4. International ban on execution of child offenders - selected chronology

1949 - Fourth Geneva Convention adopted. Article 68.4 states that ''the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen of age at the time of the offence.''

1955 - USA ratifies the Fourth Geneva Convention without reservation to article 68.4, thereby agreeing that in the event of war or other armed conflict in which the US may become involved, it will protect all civilian children in occupied countries from the death penalty.

1977 - the USA signs the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), thereby binding itself in good faith not to do anything which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaties, pending a decision on whether to ratify them (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1979), article 18a). Both the ICCPR and the ACHR forbid the use of the death penalty against those under 18 at the time of the crime (ICCPR, article 6.5; ACHR, article 4.5).

1984 - UN adopts, by consensus, the Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of those Facing the Death Penalty. Safeguard 6 states that ''persons below 18 at the time of the commission of the crime shall not be sentenced to death...''.

1987 - the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights declares that the USA violated Article 1 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man when Texas executed James Terry Roach and Jay Pinkerton in 1986 for crimes committed when they were 17 years old. The Commission referred to the ''emerging'' principle of customary international law prohibiting the execution of child offenders.

1989 - the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is adopted by the UN General Assembly. Article 37 reiterates the ban on the execution of people who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime.

1992 - the USA ratifies the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) with a reservation purporting to exempt it from article 6(5)'s prohibition on the use of the death penalty against under18-year-olds. Yet Article 4 of the ICCPR states that there can be no derogation from article 6, even in times of emergency. Eleven countries formally object to the US reservation.

1994 - Yemen, one of only six countries known to have executed a child offender in the 1990s, abolishes the death penalty for those under 18 at the time of the crime.

1995 - Napoleon Beazley sentenced to death in Texas.

1995 - the UN Human Rights Committee, the expert body which monitors countries' compliance with the ICCPR, rules that the US reservation violates the object and purpose of the treaty and should be withdrawn. The Committee ''deplores'' the USA's continuing use of the death penalty against child offenders.

1995 - the USA signs the Convention on the Rights of the Child, thereby binding itself to respect its terms in good faith.

1997 - China abolishes the death penalty for those under 18 at the time of the crime, to be in compliance with its obligations under the CRC, which it ratified in 1992.

1998 - UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in the report of his 1997 mission to the USA, reiterates that the US reservation to the ICCPR should be considered void and that the use of the death penalty against child offenders violates international law.

1999 - 10th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The treaty has been ratified by 191 countries, all but the USA and the collapsed state of Somalia.

1999 - Montana becomes the 15th retentionist US state to forbid the use of the death penalty against those who were under 18 at the time of the crime. Given that 12 states forbid the death penalty altogether, this means that 27 US states, more than half, are now in compliance with the global ban. Children are also ineligible for the death penalty under US federal and military capital statutes.

1999 - the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights ''condemns unequivocally the imposition and execution of the death penalty on those aged under 18 at the time of the commission of the offence'' and calls on countries which still allow such use of capital punishment to stop.

1999 - The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights appeals to the US Government and Virginia state authorities to prevent the scheduled execution of Douglas Christopher Thomas and to ''reaffirm the customary international law ban on the use of the death penalty on juvenile offenders''.

1999 - the US Government files a brief in the US Supreme Court urging the Court not to consider the claim of Nevada inmate Michael Domingues, sentenced to death for a crime committed when he was 16, that his sentence violates international law. The Court subsequently refuses to consider the Domingues appeal.

2000 - Pakistan's Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, signed by the country's President on 1 July, abolishes the death penalty for people under 18 at the time of the crime. Pakistan is one of five countries reported to have executed a child offender since 1994.

2000 - In June, Gary Graham becomes the fourth child offender executed in the USA in six months. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expresses ''deep regret'' at the execution. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions said that the execution was ''evidence of disregard for the growing international movement for abolition of the death penalty''.

2000 - the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights affirms that ''the imposition of the death penalty on those aged under 18 at the time of the commission of the offence is contrary to customary international law''. The Sub-Commission repeats its unequivocal condemnation of such use of the death penalty and calls upon countries that retain the death penalty for child offenders to abolish it as soon as possible and, ''in the meantime, to remind their judges that the imposition of the death penalty against such offenders is in violation of international law.

2001 - The UN Commission on Human Rights calls upon all retentionist states to comply fully with their obligations under the ICCPR and the CRC, including not to impose the death penalty for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age. It calls on countries to withdraw any reservations they have lodged to article 6 of the ICCPR given that this article ''enshrines the minimum rules for the protection of the right to life and the generally accepted standards in this area''. The Commission also welcomes the Sub-Commission's resolution of 2000, above.

NOTES - In 1994 Yemen abolished the death penalty for people under 18 at the time of the crime. - In July 2000 in Pakistan, the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance was promulgated, banning the death penalty for anyone under 18 at the time of the crime. However, around 50 such individuals are believed to remain on death row. - In 2001 in Democratic Republic of Congo, the death sentences of five children were commuted. - Saudi Arabia became a State Party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1996. In January 2001, the Committee of the Rights of the Child noted that the definition of the child is unclear under Saudi law and that the age of majority is not defined. The Committee expressed its serious concern that ''there is a possibility that the death penalty may be imposed for offences committed by persons who were under 18 years at the time the offence was committed''.(54) Amnesty International received a report of a 16-year-old who was sentenced to death in 1996, but was saved from execution because his mother paid blood money to the relatives of the murder victim. The organization does not know of any executions of child offenders that have taken place since Saudi Arabia ratified the CRC. - In 2000, at the 52nd Session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Nigeria denied that Chidiebere Onuoha (sic), executed in 1997, had been under 18 at the time of the offence. The delegate stated that in cases where juveniles had been convicted of capital offences, the death sentences had been commuted to terms of imprisonment.(55) **** (1) Speaking to Amnesty International delegate in Grapeland, Texas, 4 May 2001 (see appendix 1). (2) History shows that countries have not waited for public opinion to show majority support for abolition before taking that step, but have relied on leadership. On 9 July 2001, President Vladimir Putin spoke out in favour of abolition in the Russian Federation where there is currently a moratorium on executions. He said that he was aware that public opinion favoured the death penalty, but stressed that state-sponsored cruelty did nothing to fight crime and only engendered further violence. See Amnesty International welcomes President Putin's commitment to abolish the death penalty (EUR 46/017/2001, 10 July). (3) The House of Representatives passed House Bill 2048. The bill was subsequently due to be voted on in the Senate as an amendment to a juvenile justice bill. The governor's office reportedly threatened to veto any bill with HB 2048 attached. The juvenile justice bill passed the Senate without an amendment, and HB 2048 died without a Senate vote. Governor Perry subsequently vetoed a bill prohibiting the use of the death penalty against defendants with mental retardation. The bill had passed both houses. (4) Letter to George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, 25 June 1998. (5) Ernest Paul McCarver v State of North Carolina. Brief of Amici Curiae. Diplomats Morton Abramowitz, Stephen W. Bosworth, Stuart E. Eizenstat, John C. Kornblum, Phyllis E. Oakley, Thomas R. Pickering, Felix G. Rohatyn, J. Stapleton Roy, and Frank G Wisner in support of Petitioner. (6) Rethinking justice. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 24 July 2001. (7) Gregg v Georgia (1976). See: USA: Still a lethal lottery - The death penalty 25 years after Gregg v Georgia (AMR 51/096/2001, 25 June 2001). (8) Speech to Minnesota Women Lawyers, Minneapolis, 2 July 2001. (9) Statement on the fairness of the administration of the death penalty, Senator Feingold, 10 July 2001. The Court's 5-4 decision finding that the execution of 16- and 17-year-old offenders was constitutional was Stanford v Kentucky in 1989. In 1988, in Thompson v Oklahoma, the Court voted 5-4 that the execution of someone who was 15 at the time of the crime was unconstitutional. Only four of the judges found that such an execution would be cruel and unusual in all cases. The fifth, Justice O'Connor, agreed with the decision to overturn Thompson's death sentence, but only because Oklahoma's death penalty statute set no minimum age limit at which the death penalty could be imposed. She found that the sentencing of a 15-year-old to death under this type of statute failed to meet the standard for special care and deliberation required in all cases. (10) Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no system of government - unitary, decentralized or federal - can be used to justify a country's failure to fulfill its international obligations. On 11 May 2000 in Geneva, US Assistant Secretary of State Harold Koh affirmed to the UN Committee Against Torture that "[w]e entirely agree with the Committee's restatement of this principle of treaty law". (11) Federal appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig never looked favorably upon death row appeals. But since his father was brutally murdered in a carjacking, does the issue now hit too close to home? Richmond Times-Dispatch, 20 February 2000. (12) Let's not forget the victims. Tyler Morning Telegraph, 29 June 2001. Responding to international appeals, a Smith County Assistant District Attorney reportedly said that he found it "particularly odious that a German should write that we shouldn't execute a child. I don't recall them apologising for Dachau and Auschwitz and all those other places". Such insults betray not only ignorance, but an implicit acknowledgement that his state is engaged in a shameful human rights violation. (13) In General Comment 24 issued in 1994, the Committee wrote - "...provisions in the Covenant that represent customary international law (and a fortiori when they have the character of peremptory norms) may not be the subject of reservations. Accordingly, a State may not reserve the right to engage in slavery, to torture, to subject persons to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to arbitrarily deprive persons of their lives, to arbitrarily arrest and detain persons, to deny freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to presume a person guilty unless he proves his innocence, to execute pregnant women or children...." (14) For example, 62 of the 724 prisoners executed between 1977 and 11 July 2001 were prosecuted in a single county – Harris County, Texas. In Texas, Bowie, Potter and Smith counties have higher per capita death sentencing rates than Harris. (15) In the 1995 abolitionist decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa (see below), Justice Ackermann said: "Where the arbitrary and unequal infliction of punishment occurs at the level of a punishment so unique as the death penalty, it strikes me as being cruel and inhuman. For one person to receive the death sentence, where a similarly placed person does not, is, in my assessment of values, cruel to the person receiving it. To allow chance, in this way, to determine the life or death of a person, is to reduce the person to a cypher in a sophisticated judicial lottery. This is to treat the sentenced person as inhuman." (16) Burk Foster, University of Louisiana-Lafayette, quoted in Capital punishment deeply rooted in the South. Houston Chronicle, 5 February 2001. (17) From death, spirit to right young lives. Refusing to withdraw into bitterness, Coteras and Shaws work against juvenile violence. Austin American-Statesman, 7 June 1998. (18) Between life and death. Borderline capital cases raise questions of justice. Houston Chronicle, 5 February 2001. (19) See USA: Failing the future - Death penalty developments, March 1998 - March 2000. AI Index: AMR 51/03/2000, April 2000, page 44. (20) Berger, Vivian. Payne and suffering - a personal reflection and a victim-centered critique; 20 Florida State University Law Review 21 (1992). (21) The US Supreme Court ruled that such testimony was constitutional in 1991 (Payne v Tennessee) only four years after ruling the opposite (Booth v Maryland). In Booth, the Court had ruled that "such information is irrelevant to a capital sentencing decision, and its admission creates a constitutionally unacceptable risk that the jury may impose the death penalty in an arbitrary and capricious manner". Amnesty International is concerned that the introduction of such testimony since 1991 is another source of arbitrariness and unfairness in the US capital justice system and can serve as a "superaggravator". For example, see Old habits die hard: The death penalty in Oklahoma (AMR 51/055/2001, April 2001), pages 81-84. (22) Richmond Times-Dispatch, 20 February 2000, op. cit. Among his former posts, Judge Luttig, who was born in Tyler, was Assistant Counsel at the White House, 1981-1982; law clerk to US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia from 1982 to 1983, when Justice Scalia was a federal appellate judge; and special assistant to US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1983-1984. (23) Affidavit of Jeff L. Haas. 30 September 1998. (24) Beazley v Director, TDCJ-ID, 30 September 1999. (25) Jury selection in a capital case. Memorandum written by Dallas County Assistant District Attorney Jon Sparling. The memorandum was incorporated into a training manual distributed to all Dallas County District Attorney's Office personnel. "Throughout the 1970s, this manual was used in a training program that became progressively more popular, eventually drawing prosecutors from as many as 220 different Texas counties." A state of denial. Texas justice and the death penalty. Texas Defender Service, 2000. (26) The State v T Makwanyane and M Mchunu. The case was heard from 15 to 17 February 1995 and the decision issued on 6 June 1995. Jury selection for Napoleon Beazley's trial took place from 30 January to 20 February and the trial itself began on 27 February and the teenager was sentenced on 17 March. (27) Callins v Collins, 1994, Justice Blackmun, dissenting. (28) E/CN.4/1998/68/Add.3, para 148. (29) E/CN.4/2000/16 (30) In 1998, there were 148 District Attorneys in Texas: 137 (93 per cent) where white and 11 were Latino. None was African American. The death penalty in black and white: Who lives, who dies, who decides. Death Penalty Information Center, June 1998. See: www.deathpenaltyinfo.org (31) See Killing with prejudice: Race and the death penalty in the USA (AMR 51/52/99, May 1999); Memorandum to President Clinton: An appeal for human rights leadership as the first federal execution looms (AMR 51/158/00, November 2000); and Open letter to the US Attorney General concerning the imminent execution of Juan Raul Garza (AMR 51/088/2001, 15 June 2001). (32) Death Penalty Sentencing: Research Indicates Pattern of Racial Disparities, United States General Accounting Office, Report to Senate and House Committees of the Judiciary, 26 February 1990. (33) Homicide trends in the US. Trends by race. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Of the 492,852 murders in the USA between 1976 and 1999, 252,342 were of whites, 229,829 were of blacks, and 10,681 were of "other". (34) Death Row USA, Spring 2001. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (35) A state of denial, op.cit., page 51. (36) For example, "....blacks who kill whites are sentenced to death at nearly 22 times the rate of blacks who kill blacks, and more than 7 times the rate of whites who kill blacks. In addition, prosecutors seek the death penalty for 70% of black defendants with white victims, but for only 15% of black defendants with black victims, and only 19% of white defendants with black victims." McCleskey v Kemp, US Supreme Court (1987), citing study of Georgia's capital sentencing by Professor David Baldus. (37) Victor Streib. Death penalty for juveniles. Indiana University Press 1987. (38) Capital punishment deeply rooted in the South. Houston Chronicle, 5 February 2001. (39) Jones v State, 113 Nev. 454; 937 P.2d 55. (1997). (40) White v State, Nevada Supreme Court, 1996, Justice Rose dissenting. See USA: Nevada's planned killing of Thomas Nevius, AMR 51/001/2001, March 2001. (41) Statement by Attorney General John Cornyn, 9 June 2000. (42) Turner v Murray, US Supreme Court, 1986. The court held that a capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled to have prospective jurors in formed of the race of the victim and questioned on the issue of racial bias. In the same decision, Justice Brennan wrote: "The reality of race relations in this country is such that we simply may not presume impartiality, and the risk of bias runs especially high when members of a community serving on a jury are to be confronted with disturbing evidence of criminal conduct that is often terrifying and abhorrent". The history of race relations in Smith County, Texas, includes a number of lawsuits brought against a local company, Tyler Pipe Industries, by African American employees alleging racially discriminatory practices. It may be noted that three of the jurors at Napoleon Beazley's trial were associated with this company; one was married to a Tyler Pipe maintenance mechanic, another was one of the company's managers; a third was a former inventory control analyst with it. (43) Initial Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, September 2000. Page 2. (44) State v Makwanyane. Op. cit, J. Mohamed. (45) For example, see, USA: The death penalty and juvenile offenders (AMR 51/23/91, October 1991); On the wrong side of history: Children and the death penalty in the USA (AMR 51/58/98, October 1998); USA: Killing hope - The Imminent execution of Sean Sellers (AMR 51/108/98, December 1998); USA: Shame in the 21st century - Three child offenders scheduled for execution in January 2000 (AMR 51/189/99, December 1999); USA: Crying out for clemency - The case of Alexander Williams, mentally ill child offender facing execution (AMR 51/139/00, September 2000). (46) Beazley v Johnson. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. In the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 1998. (47) The prosecutor's implied respect for mental impairment as a mitigating factor is somewhat ironic given the number of mentally impaired defendants who have been sentenced to death in Texas. In some cases, the mental disability was explicitly argued as aggravating by prosecutors. For example, at Oliver Cruz's 1988 Bexar County trial for the murder of Kelly Donovan, white, his lawyer argued that the defendant's mental retardation should mitigate against a death sentence. The prosecutor argued that the fact that Cruz "may not be very smart" made him more dangerous and therefore deserving of execution. Oliver Cruz, Latino, was executed on 9 August 2000. Cruz's white co-defendant, charged with the same crime, pleaded guilty and testified against Cruz. In return, he avoided the death penalty and received a life sentence. (48) Perhaps this reference to "responsibility" was in response to the testimony of one of the Grapeland High School teachers who testified on behalf of Napoleon Beazley. She had spoken of her sense that the wider community must accept some responsibility in the crime of a child: "No child is raised alone. I don't believe any child is raised strictly by their parents. They're raised by a community." Another teacher said: "Realistically I know how a very good - a young person can get involved with the wrong crowd and get into stuff that - before they really knew what was going on". Two of the state's expert witnesses testified that one of the indicators of the teenager's future dangerousness was his possession of firearms. If Napoleon Beazley is executed on 15 August, he will become the ninth person executed in the USA since April 1998 for a crime committed when they were under 18 years old. In every case, the murder victim was shot dead. Given that the death penalty assumes absolute culpability on the part of the defendant, should society not ask itself if it should bear any responsibility for the apparent ease with which these teenagers obtained guns? In Cedric Coleman's July 2001 affidavit, he recalls: "We all had guns back then because the kids our age in Crockett had guns. Crockett is a small town but it is still bigger than Grapeland. The guys from Grapeland would go over to Crockett to see the girls there. Sometimes we ran into the guys from Crockett who would threaten us with their guns and we'd show them our guns. That was it. Nobody I knew ever shot anybody else. It was like showing off your car or something". (49) As two Texas professors have written: "The successful application of the label "dangerous" serves to set the defendant aside... Jurors caught up in a situation akin to a moral panic have little choice but to protect society by incapacitating these "dangerous sociopaths". Ambivalence is easily overcome, thus justifying the state's ultimate form of social control - the death penalty". Jon Sorensen and James Marquart, Future dangerousness and incapacitation. In, America's experiment with capital punishment, James Acker et al (ed). Carolina Academic Press, 1998. (50) Affidavit of Jeff Haas, 30 September 1998. (51) Stephen P. Garvey, Aggravation and Mitigation in Capital Cases: What do Jurors Think?, 98 Colum. L. Rev. 1538, 1563 (1998). (52) Old enough to kill, old enough to die. By Steven A. Drizen and Stephen K. Harper. San Francisco Chronicle, 16 April 2000. (53) An AI delegate met with Rena Beazley, Napoleon's mother, in Grapeland, Texas, on 4 May 2001. (54) CRC/C/15/Add.148 (55) E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/SR.6