12/6 *** DEBATE *** Death Penalty & Stan Tookie Williams - For or Against?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND APPELLATE REVIEW
To date, Stanley Williams’ case has received extensive legal scrutiny in both state and federal court. Since his conviction in 1981, Williams has pursued multiple appeals and habeas corpus petitions. In each and every instance, in both state and federal court, his conviction has been affirmed as appropriate and just.

• On April 18, 1980, the trial court granted Williams’ motion to substitute his hand-picked attorney, Joseph Ingber, as attorney of record in place of Gerald Lenoir.
• On January 21, 1981, the jury trial commenced and on March 13, 1981, the jury returned guilty verdicts of four counts of first degree murder and two counts of robbery. The jury also found the special circumstance allegations of robbery-murder and multiple murder to be true. Lastly, the jury found true the special allegations that defendant Williams personally used a shotgun and that a principal was armed with a firearm.
• On March 17, 1981, both parties having rested without presenting evidence at the penalty phase, argument was presented on behalf of the People and defendant Williams as to whether the penalty should be death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Following arguments and instructions of law by the Court on this issue, the jury, on March 18, 1981, returned a verdict of death as to each of the charged first-degree murders.
• On April 15, 1981, defendant Williams’ motions for a new trial and for modification of the verdict and findings imposing the death penalty were heard by the Court and denied. The trial court then sentenced Williams to death on counts 1, 2, 3 and 7.
• On April 11, 1988, on automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court, in the cases of People v. Stanley Williams, Crim. No. 21977, and In re Stanley Williams, Crim. No. 23806, consolidated under Case No. S004365, and published at (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1127, the imposition of the death penalty was affirmed and defendant Williams’ first habeas petition was denied following an evidentiary hearing.
• On January 18, 1989, the California Supreme Court denied defendant Williams’ second state habeas petition in Case No. S008526.
• On that same date, January 18, 1988, defendant Williams filed his first federal habeas petition in the United States District Court in Case No. CV89-00327SVW. The district court held that petition in abeyance while defendant Williams returned to the California Supreme Court with his unexhausted claims.
• On April 11, 1994, following another evidentiary hearing, the California Supreme Court denied defendant Williams’ third state habeas petition in Case No. S011868, published at (1994) 7 Cal.4th 572.
• On June 21, 1995, the California Supreme Court denied defendant Williams’ fourth state habeas petition in Case No. S039285.
• On December 21, 1988, defendant Williams returned to federal court and, following an evidentiary hearing, the United States District Court denied defendant Williams’ amended habeas petition in Case No. CV89-00327-SVW, and published its order at (1998) 41 F.Supp.2d 1043.
• On December 17, 1999, defendant Williams’ subsequent Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the judgment was denied, and the order was published at (1999) 1999 WL 1320903.
• On September 10, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied defendant Williams’ direct appeal and Rule 6 (b) motion in Case Nos. 99-99018 and 00-99001, published at (2002)306 F.3d 665.
• On September 9, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals amended the opinion and denied defendant Williams’ petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, published at (2004) 384 F.3d 567.
• On February 2, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendant Williams’ subsequent petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, published at (2005) 396 F.3d 1059.
• Finally, on October 11, 2005, the United States Supreme Court denied defendant Williams’ petition for writ of certiorari in Case No. 04-10500. As this historical accounting proves, Williams has benefited from a detailed and exhaustive review of all of his legal claims and each court has affirmed the guilty verdicts and affirmed the death sentence. In doing so, our courts, both state and federal, have given appropriate and serious consideration to Williams, consideration which Williams so violently denied each of his victims.

http://www.lacountyda.org/pdf/swilliams.pdf

December 2, 2005

As We See It: Williams: His life, his victims

On March 11, 1979, Stanley "Tookie" Williams broke down a door of the Brookhaven Motel in Los Angeles — according to a jury — and shot hotel owners Yen-I Yang and wife Ysai-Shai, and their daughter, Yee-Chen Lin, who was visiting from Taiwan.

A jury also convicted Williams of murdering Albert Owens in a Whittier 7-Eleven around the same time.

Williams is scheduled to die by lethal injection on Dec. 13, unless his life is spared by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

A variety of death penalty opponents as well as political activists and a number of entertainers have come forward to call on Schwarzenegger to spare Williams' life. They argue that Williams is a changed man — and one who can teach even from a prison cell that young people should avoid the gang life and the world of violence.

Bruce Gordon, president and chief executive officer of the NAACP, has appealed to Schwarzenegger, saying the following in a written statement: "I am convinced that our community is best served if Stan is alive and contributing to the guidance of our youth. He is a one-of-a-kind human asset who needs to exercise his unique ability to touch the lives of young people."

Of course, Gordon did not bring up the names of his victims, nor did he discuss what contributions any of them could have made.

Is Williams a changed man? Does it matter even if he is?

Some question whether Williams has truly expressed remorse. Rather, he holds to his innocence, even while he authors children's books encouraging alternatives to a life of violence.

However, the evidence against him is overwhelming. The evidence included his own words following the slayings, as well as physical evidence of a shotgun — and eyewitness accounts. Defense claims have included a charge that African Americans were left off the jury — despite the reality that there was an African American man on the panel that ruled unanimously as to his guilt.

Whether he has expressed remorse or whether he is a changed man really shouldn't figure into Schwarzenegger's decision. The death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent, and if it's used, it should be applied as a penalty for actions taken. Williams' remorse or his children's books don't bring his victims back to life. They don't change his actions and the duty of society to punish him appropriately.

A separate question is whether the death penalty is appropriate at all. We have long felt that the death penalty ought to be part of society's arsenal in its efforts to defend peace and order. But recent disclosures of erroneous convictions have made us wonder whether our society can be certain that only guilty people have been put to death.

That's a separate issue. Perhaps state law should change with regard to the death penalty.

But capital punishment remains the law of the land, and the overwhelming evidence is that Williams murdered innocent victims in a way that's consistent with the law calling for punishment by death. Unless Schwarzenegger vows to put an end to all death penalty cases, we see no logical reason for him to spare Williams' life.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/December/02/edit/stories/01edit.htm

Crips founder Williams deserves death sentence

Last Updated: November 28, 2005, 07:50:00 AM PST

As the Dec. 13 execution date for Stanley "Tookie" Williams approaches, opponents of the death penalty have begun organizing high-profile protests to save the life of the co-founder of the Crips street gang. Little concern has been expressed for the four people Williams was convicted of killing in 1979.
Williams, 51, continues to deny his guilt despite overwhelming evidence, including testimony from his accomplices. His defenders say he has redeemed himself by turning his life around in prison and being active in anti-gang efforts. While his recent work is admirable, it doesn't come close to balancing out the violent deaths of a 7-Eleven clerk and three members of a family that ran a motel in Los Angeles.

Williams has had his conviction reconsidered in a lengthy appeals process, and the results have never changed: He is still convicted of killing four people in two separate robberies with a shotgun that he had purchased.

There is a movement under way to create an image of Williams that is at odds with the facts. For starters, he has not been a model citizen, according to authorities who have kept records on him since the awful murders.

Williams tried to escape prior to his trial in 1981. Then he threatened the jury that convicted him. He was involved in a violent fight with another inmate at San Quentin two months after his arrival. He threatened correctional officers and twice threw chemical substances at his guards.

To this day, Williams refuses to be debriefed by prison authorities about the actual activities of his gang. He says that would make him a "snitch." Does that suggest Williams wants to make up for his gang activity? Sounds like he's still a gang member.

In a written statement, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley says Williams' recent turnaround must be weighed against the gang that he helped create. The Crips are violent and predatory, and chapters are now active across the nation and in several other countries.

While many reasonable and sincere people oppose the death penalty, California voters have repeatedly supported its use. Tookie Williams was fairly tried and convicted, and he should get the punishment that our state's court system says he deserves — death by legal injection.

http://www.modbee.com/opinion/story/11529891p-12266430c.html

Our real heroes don't kill black kids

Celebrities and community activists are dishonestly painting romanticized portraits of men such as Stanley Williams.

December 4, 2005 latimes.com

By Joe R. Hicks, Joe R. Hicks is a social critic, commentator and vice president of Community Advocate Inc. He formerly directed the activities of the Los Angeles Human Relations Commission and Southern Christian Lead

LURKING BEHIND the question of "Should Tookie die?" being pondered by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are the troubling attempts by some of Stanley Tookie Williams' supporters to present the Crips' purported co-founder as a role model for inner-city youth.

The effort is molded after the campaign to turn Mumia Abu-Jamal, a convicted cop-killer, into a political prisoner. Abu-Jamal now sits on Pennsylvania's death row with his case grinding its way through various levels of appeals. Two decades ago, Abu-Jamal was involved in a confrontation that resulted in the point-blank execution of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. With eyewitnesses and the murder weapon on hand (Abu-Jamal's own gun), the prosecutor called it "the strongest homicide case I ever tried." A jury of two blacks and 10 whites took just six hours to render a guilty verdict.

The mists of political mythology (the bullet that killed the officer was a different caliber than Abu-Jamal's gun; someone else shot Faulkner; the police framed Abu-Jamal, etc.) now obscure a case that over the years has become a prime cause for the nation's leftist activists, including, of course, the Hollywood Left.

The list of celebrities advocating on behalf of Abu-Jamal includes Maya Angelou, Martin Sheen, Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee, Paul Newman, Tim Robbins and Oliver Stone. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been contributed to the legal defense of Abu-Jamal — whom novelist Alice Walker bizarrely likened to Nelson Mandela.

Mythology and misguided celebrities also surround Williams, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the killing in February 1979 of Albert Owens, a clerk at a 7-Eleven store in Whittier, and for the murder one month later of Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, Yen-I Yang and Yu-Chin Yang Lin at their family-run motel in Los Angeles.

The facts are as clear as Williams' crimes were senseless and gory. The sawed-off shotgun used in the murders belonged to Williams. Others involved in the crimes fingered him as the shooter. Several witnesses testified that he bragged about the killings in gruesome detail. The jury that convicted Williams was racially mixed, and nothing indicates that his defense team was less than excellent.

Williams' appeals have been denied by the California Supreme Court, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (the most liberal appeals court in the nation) and the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week, the state Supreme Court heard a last-ditch appeal from Williams' attorneys and again rejected it.

The strongest case for clemency is made by Williams' activities in recent years while on death row. His supporters say that no matter what he may have done in earlier years, his later actions indicate that he has redeemed himself. This view was expressed in a slanted made-for-television movie "Redemption," in which Jamie Foxx portrayed Williams as an innocent man.

This is an argument that his own defense team wisely avoids making in its clemency petition to the governor — choosing to base its arguments not on evidence so many have already found conclusive, but on Williams being a changed man.

I applaud Williams' efforts, while incarcerated, to steer youngsters from the ruthless gang life. But the people who dishonestly paint folk hero portraits of men such as Abu-Jamal and Williams (and even of 50 Cent, the thug and drug dealer-turned-rapper whose chief claim to fame is surviving being shot nine times by a rival) would do far more good by hitting young people with another message: that personal responsibility and accountability must be a part of civilized society.

In 2003, when L.A. experienced a 23% drop in homicides, 39% of the city's 505 murder victims were black and 36% of the homicide suspects were black, though only 11% of the city's population is black. For five straight years, about 40% of L.A.'s homicide victims have been black. If the celebrities and community activists supporting Williams began lifting up real community heroes — such as teachers, police officers, members of the clergy, hardworking parents or veterans of the Iraq war — maybe we could begin to change the dynamics of neighborhoods suffering from the predatory effects of Tookie wannabes.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-tookie4dec04,0,2958733.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

Who doesn't have a Nobel Prize nomination?

By Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh is a professor of law at UCLA Law School.

MANY advocates of clemency for Stanley Tookie Williams note that he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize in literature for his anti-gang work, which includes writing children's books. How could a convicted murderer and co-founder of the Crips be nominated for such prizes?

According to Nobel Prize nominating rules, any "professor of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology" and any judge or national legislator in any country, among others, can nominate anyone for a Nobel Peace Prize. Past nominees include Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini and Fidel Castro. Any "professor of literature of linguistics," among others, can nominate anyone for a Nobel Prize in literature.

Naturally, many nominees have real merit. But being nominated by one or a few of the hundreds of thousands of eligible nominators is little evidence of such merit. This is especially so when the nominee is a source of controversy, and when it may seem that nominating him may prevent his execution.

It would surely be helpful to readers if news stories mentioning Williams' nominations — or, for that matter, any Nobel peace or literature prize nominations — stressed how unselective the nomination process is.

We're used to prize nominations signifying relatively broad acclaim, as for an Oscar. When a nomination means nothing other than a recommendation from a professor (or even a few professors and a legislator), that should to be made clear.

Besides, a convicted murderer's nominations for Nobel prizes shed little light on the complex question of whether he is sincerely contrite, whether he has done good deeds and whether his life should be spared.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-tookienobel4dec04,0,5637705.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

Death Penalty Outlawed

Andorra (1990)
Angola (1992)
Armenia (2003)
Australia (1984)
Austria (1950)
Azerbaijan (1998)
Belgium (1996)
Bermuda (1999)
Bhutan (2004)
Bosnia-Herzegovina (1997)
Bulgaria (1998)
Cambodia (1989)
Canada (1976)
Cape Verde (1981)
Colombia (1910)
Costa Rica (1877)
Côte d'Ivoire (2000)
Croatia (1990)
Cyprus (1983)
Czech Republic (1990)
Denmark (1933)
Djibouti (1995)
Dominican Republic (1966)
East Timor (1999)
Ecuador (1906)
Estonia (1998)
Finland (1949)
France (1981)
Georgia (1997)
Germany (1987)
Greece (1993)
Guinea-Bissau (1993)
Haiti (1987)
Honduras (1956)
Hungary (1990)
Iceland (1928)
Ireland (1990)
Italy (1947)
Kiribati (1979)
Liechtenstein (1987)
Lithuania (1998)
Luxembourg (1979)
Macedonia (1991)
Malta (1971)
Marshall Islands (1986)
Mauritius (1995)
Mexico (2005)
Micronesia (1986)
Moldova (1995)
Monaco (1962)
Mozambique (1990)
Namibia (1990)
Nepal (1990)
Netherlands (1870)
New Zealand (1961)
Nicaragua (1979)
Niue (n.a.)
Norway (1905)
Palau (n.a.)
Panama (1903)
Paraguay (1992)
Poland (1997)
Portugal (1867)
Romania (1989)
Samoa (2004)
San Marino (1848)
São Tomé and Príncipe (1990)
Senegal (2004)
Serbia and Montenegro (2002)
Seychelles (1993)
Slovak Republic (1990)
Slovenia (1989)
Solomon Islands (1966)
South Africa (1995)
Spain (1978)
Sweden (1921)
Switzerland (1942)
Turkey (2002)
Turkmenistan (1999)
Tuvalu (1978)
Ukraine (1999)
United Kingdom (1973)
Uruguay (1907)
Vanuatu (1980)
Vatican City (1969)
Venezuela (1863)


Death Penalty Outlawed for Ordinary Crimes
Albania (2000)
Argentina (1984)
Bolivia (1997)
Brazil (1979)
Chile (2001)
Cook Islands (n.a.)
El Salvador (1983)
Fiji (1979)
Israel (1954)
Latvia (1999)
Peru (1979)


De Facto Ban on Death Penalty

Algeria (1993)
Benin (1987)
Brunei Darussalam (1957)
Burkina Faso (1988)
Central African Republic (1981)
Congo (Republic) (1982)
Gambia (1981)
Grenada (1978)
Kenya (n.a.)
Madagascar (1958)
Maldives (1952)
Mali (1980)
Mauritania (1987)
Morocco (1993)
Myanmar (1993)
Nauru (1968)
Niger (1976)
Papua New Guinea (1950)
Russia (1999)
Sri Lanka (1976)
Suriname (1982)
Togo (n.a.)
Tonga (1982)
Tunisia (1990)


Death Penalty Permitted

Afghanistan
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
China (People's Republic)
Comoros
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Cuba
Dominica
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Malawi
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Philippines
Qatar
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe



Blue: Abolished for all crimes

Green: Abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war)

Orange: Abolished in practice

Red: Legal form of punishment