Va. Man Executed in '92 Slaying

Bobby Lee Ramdass was executed by injection last night for the 1992 slaying of a Fairfax County 7-Eleven clerk after Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III declined to intervene.

Four jurors had asked Gilmore (R) to spare Ramdass's life, saying they would not have sentenced him to death for shooting Mohammed Z. Kayani had they known Ramdass would never get out of prison.

But Gilmore, in a statement last night denying clemency, cited evidence that Ramdass, after shooting Kayani, tried to shoot customers in the store who were lying on the floor during the robbery, but his gun wouldn't fire.

Ramdass, 28, who was pronounced dead at 9:06 p.m., was convicted in three separate trials of two unrelated robberies and killing Kayani. Under a three-strikes law then in effect, he would have been required to serve life in prison. But the state Supreme Court ruled that Ramdass was eligible for parole when his jury considered the death penalty because a judge had not formally entered one of the robbery convictions into the record.

The U.S. Supreme Court stopped Ramdass's execution last year to consider the issue, but ruled against the inmate 5 to 4 in June. The high court also rejected a request for a rehearing.

Ramdass's lead attorney, F. Nash Bilisoly, who sat with his client in the hours before the execution, said: "We are naturally disappointed in the governor's decision. . . . We do believe, however, that the governor gave the issue his full consideration."

Ramdass spent yesterday at Greensville Correctional Center in Jarrat, visiting with his mother and sister-in-law and talking on the phone with his younger brother, Mark, who is in federal prison.

Last night's execution coincided with an annual protest by Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, which urged opponents of capital punishment to attend a vigil nearby.

Ramdass was the seventh man executed in Virginia this year. Last year's total of 14 made Virginia second only to Texas in executions.

Abused by his mother's boyfriend as a child, Ramdass grew up in the Alexandria section of Fairfax and, by his own account, spent most of his adult life in prison or selling drugs. In addition to the robbery spree that put him on death row, Ramdass also robbed and killed a drug dealer and seriously wounded a cabdriver during yet another robbery.

Kayani, 34, was a recent immigrant from Pakistan who lived in Springfield and was working two jobs to save the money to bring his wife and two children to this country. Ramdass killed Kayani because the clerk was unable to open the timed safe at a Springfield convenience store.

Ramdass "was an outrageous man who committed an outrageous crime," Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. said. "Kayani was such a decent man, scrambling to make a living. He couldn't do what Ramdass ordered him to do. That's why he died."

While on death row, Ramdass built a close relationship with Bilisoly, his court-appointed appeals attorney.

The inmate listed Bilisoly as his next of kin, asking prison officials to release his body to his attorney.

In a recent interview, Ramdass said he did not fault the jurors who voted to put him to death. "The jury was [thinking], 'Damn, we don't want him to get out again.' They were scared and they thought they had no choice," he said.

                Wednesday, Oct.  11, 2000 - Copyright 2000 Associated Press.

  Killer of convenience store clerk is put to death

                JARRATT, Va. (AP) - Eight years after killing a clerk in a
                Fairfax County convenience store, Bobby Lee Ramdass was
                executed Tuesday night about an hour after Gov. Jim Gilmore
                denied a request for clemency.

                Ramdass, 29, had no remaining court appeals. He was put to
                death by injection at the Greensville Correctional Center. He
                was pronounced dead at 9:06 p.m.

                Ramdass, asked for a final statement, said: "Redskins are
                going to the Super Bowl," and then laughed.

                About 100 death penalty opponents staged a candlelight vigil
                Tuesday night in a field near the prison's entrance. "We're
                here to show our displeasure with the state's seventh
                execution of the year," said Tim Stanton of Virginians for
                Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

                Ramdass was condemned to die for killing Mohammad
                Kayani in a Sept. 2, 1992, robbery. According to testimony at
                his trial, Ramdass screamed at Kayani to open the store's
                safe "or I'll blow your ... head off." He then shot Kayani
                through the head and laughed as he stood over the body.

                Ramdass was visited Tuesday by his mother, sister-in-law,
                nephew and wife, whom he married last Thursday on his last
                day on death row at Sussex I state prison. He was
                transferred to Greensville, where the state's death chamber is
                located, on Friday.

                In Ramdass' clemency request, four of the jurors who
                recommended the death penalty said they would have called
                for life in prison had they known Ramdass could not be
                paroled.

                One unidentified juror wrote Gilmore, "as you might already
                know, the jury was not told, even upon request, that life
                without parole was an option that could be considered."

                But Gilmore, in a statement denying clemency, noted
                evidence that Ramdass, after shooting Kayani, even tried to
                shoot customers in the store who were lying on the floor
                during the robbery, but his gun wouldn't fire.

                Ramdass was three hours from execution on Nov. 23, 1999,
                when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay to hear his
                appeal. The appeal contended the trial judge should have
                informed the jury that Ramdass would never be eligible for
                parole if sentenced to life in prison.

                On June 12, the high court rejected the appeal, ruling that
                Ramdass' parole status was unclear when he was sentenced
                and the judge had acted properly.

                Eleven days later, Fairfax County Circuit Judge Robert W.
                Woolridge Jr. set a new execution date of Aug. 17. But
                Ramdass' lawyers objected, arguing that the earlier stay was
                still in effect because Ramdass had filed a new appeal.

                On July 12, the Supreme Court said the stay remained in
                effect until Ramdass' rehearing request was decided. A week
                later, the Supreme Court denied Ramdass' request for a new
                hearing, and Woolridge set the execution for Tuesday.

                The execution was the 80th in Virginia since the state
                resumed capital punishment in 1982.

"What do you think, am I going to see a light?" Bobby asked his lawyer, F. Nash Bilisoly, while having his last meal. They were sitting in the room adjacent to the one with the gurney for lethal injection, waiting to hear from the Supreme Court on August 17, 2000. Less than three hours before the slated execution the call came and a stay was granted. Now that a new execution date has been set for October 10th, Bobby and his lawyer, who fought the state at every turn, know what is coming next. They have been through most of it before.

Bobby  was sentenced to death for the robbery and murder of a 7-Eleven store clerk. He was 19 years-old at the time of the crime, Sept. 2, 1992.  Bilisoly argues that Bobby has been denied a fair trial because of errors which his original trial lawyer, Leonard Piotrowski, made. He failed for example to consult ballistics experts who might have been able to show that the gun went off accidentally and he advised his client not to take the stand.

Furthermore, he did not object to a court-appointed psychologist who was biased. Bilisoly noted that "anybody with any resources would have gotten a counter-mental health expert" to explain the effects of Bobby's poverty-stricken childhood and the abuse he suffered by his mother's boyfriend "...but he didn't have any resources."

In addition, Bobby's jury should have been told that if they would have imposed a life sentence instead of death he never would have been eligible for parole. The jury, when putting  this question to the judge was told that they "are not to concern themselves with what may happen afterwards." As Justice Stevens stated in his dissenting opinion when this issue came before court and was rejected 5 to 4: "...we know this jury would have recommended life instead of death if it had known that
Ramdass was parole ineligible and we know the jury did not get a clear answer to its question. ...Why does the Court insist that the Constitution permits the wool to be pulled over their eyes?"

                             Please Contact:

                    Governor James Gilmore, III
                         Office of the Governor
                        State Capitol, 3rd Floor
                           Richmond, VA 23219
                          phone: (804) 786-2211
                           fax: (804) 371-6351
                www.state.va.us/governor/govmail.htm

                          Virginia Parole Board
                      c/o Department of Corrections
                             P.O. Box 26963
                           Richmond, VA 23261
                          phone: (804) 674-3081
                      vaparolebd@vadoc.state.va.us
                      www.vadoc.state.va.us/parole/

                         Richmond Times-Dispatch
                             P.O. Box 85333
                           Richmond, VA 23293
                             (804) 649-6000
                           fax: (804) 775-8059
                         news@timesdispatch.com
                            www.gatewayva.com

                           The Virginian-Pilot
                              P.O. Box 449
                            Norfolk, VA 23501
                          phone: (757) 446-2314
                           fax: (757) 446-2414
                           www.pilotonline.com

                          For More Information:

            Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty
                                P.O. Box 4804
                        Charlottesville, VA 22938
                          phone: (804) 263-8148
                           fax: (804) 263-4431
                             henry@vadp.org
                              www.vadp.org 

                 Bobby Lee Ramdass - October 10 - Greensville - "Fill the Field"
     Everyone is urged to go to Greensville for this public witness against the death
     penalty.

                                        The service begins at 8:15 PM.

            Carpools from  Richmond leave Azelea Garden Center, Westminster
                                            and Brook Rds, at 6:30 PM.

                              FROM THE NEWS :

                                    From CNN.com

Before the end of this year's term, the U.S.Supreme Court will decide the fate of Bobby Lee Ramdass, who in all likelihood sits on death row because the jury that condemned him never received a straight answer to a simple question.
Ramdass' case might seem one of a kind. In fact, it represents one example of how a jury's                  misconceptions about parole eligibility often lead to a sentence of death.
 
                                               The Ramdass case
 Ramdass was sentenced to death after he was convicted of murdering a store clerk during the
robbery of a Virginia 7-11. At the end of the murder trial, the jury -- after agreeing that Ramdass was guilty of murder -- had to choose between a sentence of life imprisonment and a sentence of death by lethal injection.
                  Worried that a sentence of "life imprisonment" might actually mean that Ramdass would someday be paroled, the jury asked the judge, "[I]f the defendant is given life, is there a possibility of
 parole at some time before his natural death?" The  judge should have told them "no."
                  At the time of Ramdass' sentencing hearing, he had two convictions: one for the murder of the  store clerk and one for a prior armed robbery. Under Virginia's "three strikes" law, these two "strikes" meant that one more and Ramdass would spend the rest of his life in prison without possibility of parole. And Ramdass did have another strike: he had already been found guilty of a second armed robbery that preceded the murder.
 
                  A "no" answer would have quieted the jury's fear that Ramdass, a three-time
                  criminal, would someday be back on the streets. However, instead of explaining
                  that Ramdass would never be released from prison if sentenced to life, the judge
                  told the jury, "[You] are not to concern yourselves with what may happen [after
                  you impose the sentence you think is just]."
 
                                   Answer based on a technicality
                  That wasn't much of an answer. For one thing, it didn't address the jury's
                  obvious concern. For another, it was based on a technicality. At the time the jury
                  was deliberating on the sentence he should receive for the murder, Ramdass'
                  third strike for the second armed robbery had not yet been formally entered.
                  Thus, Ramdass technically had only two "strikes" against him, not three.
                  Officially, therefore, Virginia's "three strikes" law did not yet apply.
                  Nevertheless, in reality, there was no question that the third and final conviction
                  would be entered in a few weeks (in a ministerial, rubber-stamp procedure),
                  which would trigger the "three strikes" law and make Ramdass ineligible for
                  parole for life.
                  On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, Ramdass argued that the trial judge's actions
                  violated his right to due process. In Simmons v. South Carolina, decided in 1994,
                  a plurality of the Supreme Court held "that where [a] defendant's future
                  dangerousness is at issue, and state law prohibits [his] release on parole, due
                  process requires that the sentencing jury be informed that the defendant is parole
                  ineligible."

                                                    Fourth Circuit ruling
                  According to Ramdass, the trial judge's reply to the jury's inquiry violated his
                  rights under Simmons. The Fourth Circuit disagreed. Reading Simmons
                  narrowly, the panel emphasized that at the time Ramdass was sentenced to
                  death, Virginia law did not -- strictly speaking -- "prohibit [his] release on
                  parole."
                  The case is now pending in the Supreme Court, which could follow the Fourth
                  Circuit and affirm Ramdass' death sentence. It could read Simmons narrowly,
                  such that a jury will be told the facts about a capital defendant's parole eligibility
                  only under limited circumstances.
                  For example, the court might say due process requires an instruction to the jury
                  about a defendant's parole ineligibility only if, as in Ramdass' case, a prior
                  conviction has been formalized; or only if the period of ineligibility is life (and
                  nothing less); or only if the state makes the defendant's future dangerousness an
                  issue at trial. Any of these limitations is possible.
                  But the court should impose none of these limitations. A capital defendant should
                  have an unfettered right to inform the jury about his ineligibility for parole. The
                  court must recognize that Ramdass' case is but one manifestation of a larger,
                  more widespread, and worrisome problem.
                  Because of the Capital Jury Project, a nationwide research effort to examine the
                  decision making process of capital jurors, we now know that the decision
                  between life and death often turns on what jurors think about a defendant's
                  eligibility for parole. The Capital Jury Project's research, incorporating
                  sophisticated statistical models, has shown that fear of future dangerousness
                  dominates juror deliberations in capital cases -- and weighs heavily in favor of
                  death.

                                                    Misplaced worries
                  Accordingly, capital jurors naturally worry that if they don't impose a death
                  sentence, the defendant will be released on parole, only to repeat his crime. But
                  these worries are often misplaced and even more often exaggerated.
                  Most jurors believe that life imprisonment really means eventual parole. Yet when
                  three strikes or similar laws are on the books, as is the case in Ramdass, that
                  perception is wrong. Life imprisonment means death in prison. Moreover, even
                  when parole is possible, jurors dramatically underestimate the amount of time the
                  defendant will serve before he becomes eligible for parole. The less time a juror
                  thinks the defendant will spend in prison before he might be released, the more
                  likely the juror is to vote for death.
                  So what should the court do in Ramdass? It should give capital defendants the
                  right---with no limitations---to tell the jury how long they will spend in prison if
                  not sentenced to death. Otherwise, a jury's decision to sentence a defendant to
                  death will not represent a judgment that death is the punishment he truly
                  deserves. It will instead represent the jury's often-erroneous belief that death was
                  the only way to keep the defendant from doing future harm.
                  Bobby Lee Ramdass may very well deserve the death penalty for his crimes. Yet
                  the jury that condemned him never made that decision. It decided merely that, so
                  far as its members knew, death was the only way to guarantee he would never
                  be released from prison. But in reality death was not the only way. The court
                  should remand the case so that a new jury---with the knowledge that Ramdass
                  will never be paroled---can decide his fate fully informed of all the facts.
                  Stephen Garvey, a professor of law at Cornell Law School, is the author or co-author of
                  several articles on the South Carolina segment of the Capital Jury Project. Garvey is also a
                  FindLaw contributor.
 

               The CCADP offers free webpages to over 500 Death Row Prisoners
                                             Contact us for more information.
                                                info@ccadp.org