| Return to Charles Nealy 's Homepage |
Dear Friends,
I'm expecting a ruling on my appeal any day now, and I have put together a little something until I'm able to divulge more intricate matters. Please understand that all of the opinions in this report are my own, and if someone else's opinions are used, then I have stated so. Views, some stats, and different perspectives may have come from sources such as USA Today, law books, and personal knowledge.
What I had planned was
to give you a closer look at what capital punishment is, a few laws surrounding
capital punishment, and how politics is directly involved with capital punishment.
Issues that also demand extensive debates such as religion, race, and the
millions of dollars spent on capital cases were purposely left out, though
I do intend to raise these issues at a later time. Because I have a
habit of not making too much sense whenever I attempt to write so much, I
have done my best to keep things clear and understandable enough, so everyone
interested can easily understand.
The media has time after
time reported that the majority of Americans (and specifically Texans) is
in favor of capital punishment. The percentage was as high as 80%.
Then it was reported to be 60%. Since then, the percentage has dropped
even more significantly. My question is: If 80% represented a majority,
my way of thinking tells me that this means that 3 out of 5 Americans say
"yes" to capital punishment. I challenge you to call all of your friends
and neighbors, and ask if they have ever been asked their opinion on the death
penalty.
The results shouldn't surprise
you at all. So what percentage do the people against capital punishment
make up?
It is very clear that public opinion determines whether the death penalty is abolished or not. George Bush (Texas governor and presidential candidate) has said so many times, "It's what the people of Texas want." It's his favorite line, and he stands by these words. I perceive that statement to be a lie, and I'm basing that perception on facts.
When you consider the numbers associated with the death penalty as a whole, the numbers clearly show that the majority is made up of people against the death penalty. Consider this… In every state in America, there are coalitions to abolish the death penalty (there are also other groups that are less known). There is the Catholic Church (the Pope's stance is clearly anti-capital punishment). Then, there are the right-to-life organizations and the Baptists (and several other Christian denominations, which are principally opposed to taking another person's life). The list does get longer.
The point is that these institutions are made up of people, and once you think in terms of support from a particular institution, such as the Catholic population, then you must think in terms of high numbers, numbers that go well into and beyond thousands. So when you think of a mass movement, please think in terms of millions.
These are numbers that can actually be seen (the kind of evidence scientists love), but our government can't see them. It's because they don't want to see them. We cannot trust our United States Supreme Court to make rulings based on what's right and wrong because they have shown us that political life means more than anything. This is evidenced by the executions of retarded people, etc. in Texas, when one mitigating issue can't be found to spare one life (out of over 140 executed people). This should be shocking to anyone!
When President Clinton was in the midst of trouble, all of the Democratic representatives walked out of the House in support of him… not because of issues of right and wrong, but because he was a Democrat who happened to be President (and yes, it would have been the same had it been a Republican President). These are the same people that I can't even get to respond to my letters regarding human lives… yet they could shut down the government because they didn't know that oral sex meant having "sexual relations."
Death row abolition supporters outside of the United States have been so diligent in their efforts. They are the truly civilized people. Did you know that, amongst most Americans, it is not general knowledge that there are other countries opposed to capital punishment in the United States, and that these countries have been vocal and very supportive in more ways than are known? Governments have protested to our country's leaders about its use of death as a penalty for any crime. England, the country from which our laws were derived, is leading the fight. This is the same country that used to execute queens before they realized the act was barbaric and stopped the killings.
In America, the Rack and the Thumbscrew have been recognized as cruel and unusual punishments, and have been erased from the books. But not the death penalty. Something is terribly wrong.
There are experts in every
field structured by our society, but they lack the experience. I'm
black, I'm poor, I'm the expert! I'm the person who can tell a Congressional
committee what's wrong with our judicial system, why the courts fail… because
I do know exactly what's wrong. I have the experience, and I would
be very grateful for the opportunity to go before any committee that is willing
and truly committed to finding solutions to the problems
that have plagued this beautiful
country internally.
Will you please help me to make a difference? I challenge you!
Sincerely,
Charles Nealy #999289
Terrell Unit – 1200 S. FM
350
Livingston, Texas 77351
"In politics, nothing
happens by accident; if it happens, it was planned that way."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt,
former, late President of the United States of America
To help you better understand this report, I start with Supreme Court rulings on capital punishment in the past, on up to the present. Please keep in mind that aside from United States Constitutional amendments and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, the laws that are cited are the laws of the state of Texas. Each state within the United States does interpret and apply the laws differently.
In this report, you will find information on the appointment of counsel (lawyers) for indigent defendants prior to capital trails, the Board of Pardons and Paroles and its powers, and information on who is allowed to attend an execution. The topics in this report will be in sections, and will include brief commentary. The purpose is to supply the necessary information, and then let you reach your own conclusions based on what you've read.
In the United States,
you are either Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, the majority or the
minority, religious or not. Hopefully, your conclusions can be reached
objectively. Before you begin, I ask these simple questions: Are you
for or against capital punishment? Regardless of your answer, why?
Are your reasons based on what you know or what you've heard? Has anyone
ever asked you if you were for or against capital punishment?
There are issues concerning
the death penalty that go beyond morality, beyond justice. Just because
the popular opinion suggests that capital punishment be allowed, does that
make it right?
Hopefully, this report will be of some help to you in these areas of interest. I bid you well.
Charles A. Nealy
1972 Furman vs. State of Georgia – All death penalty statues are nullified. The Supreme Court decides, 5—4, that procedures in place are too arbitrary and irrational to give defendants due process of law.
1976 Gregg vs. State of Georgia – The death penalty is not unconstitutional in all cases. Court's 7—2 decision allows states to reinstate the death penalty under new procedural guidelines.
1977 Coker vs. State of Georgia – Death is an excessive penalty for the crime of rape. Court rules 7—2, that only those convicted of first-degree murder can be put to death.
1986 Ford vs. Wainwright – The Constitution forbids the execution of someone who is insane. The 5—4 decision states that a defendant must be able to comprehend his or her punishment.
1987 McCleskey vs. Kemp – Statistics showing that blacks are more likely to be sentenced to death than whites are insufficient to overturn a particular death sentence, the Court rules, 5—4.
2000 Capital punishment
death row appeals, Williams vs. Taylor, 5—4, and Weeks vs. Angelone, 5—4
February 8, 1924. The electric chair was first used in the state of
Texas, and the executions were carried out at what was originally called
the Huntsville Unit, also known
today as the Walls Unit.
Before the Supreme Court halted executions in 1972, the
electric chair had been
responsible for 365 deaths, with 20 being the highest number of
yearly executions in 1935.
When executions were reinstated
in the U.S. in 1976, Texas carried out executions by use
of a new method, known as
the lethal injection. Since lethal injection began being used,
more than 600 executions
nationwide have been carried out, with over 140 of these
executions occurring under
George W. Bush's governorship in Texas.
In 1995, 56 inmates were
put to death nationwide. In 1996, there were 45. In 1997, there
were 74, and in 1998, there
were 56. Executions for 1999 were off the scale, as are those
for 2000 thus far.
The numbers speak for themselves. In this instance, George W. Bush
has signed death warrants
for over 140 inmates killed by lethal injection in the state of
Texas.
In August of 2000, Texas
reached the point at which two executions were carried out in
the same day.
Capital Murder
There is a mass movement in progress to force politicians to put an end to the death penalty in the United States. Many abolition supporters are against capital punishment simply because securing someone to a gurney and then shooting them up with poison is murder. Some feel that, because of religious convictions, capital punishment goes against everything in the New Testament. The reasons are various among death penalty opponents. The more reasons, the better!
But do you have any idea
as to what constitutes capital murder? In Texas, the list of crimes
that constitute capital murder is long. The recent execution of Gary
Graham (aka Shaka Sankofa) should have caused capital murder laws to be
wiped from law books, and judges who allowed those convictions should have
been disbarred.
The crime for which Gary
Graham was convicted, murder during the course of robbery, was far from being
justified. One witness claimed he shot the man, and the district attorneys
(the State) claimed he robbed the man.
Together, these two crimes
constituted a capital crime. What the jury did not know at the trial,
though, was that $6,000 was recovered on the man Gary Graham was accused
of killing. This information was purposefully withheld in order to
"get a conviction." Even if we assume that the State was correct in
their assumption that Gary Graham shot the man, he didn't take the man's
money. Without taking his money, he had no business on death row (To
be convicted of a capital crime, in which the death penalty is an option,
the murder must have occurred in the course of another crime). A good,
experienced investigator could have found this out 20 years
ago, had the court-appointed
lawyer been qualified.
Again, these laws are the laws of the state of Texas. However, they do not differ too much from other states.
I sincerely hope that
this information is of some use to you in your efforts to understand some
of the issues concerning the death penalty.
Penal Code 19.03, Capital
Murder in the State of Texas
A person commits an offense if he commits murder as defined under this section 19.02 B: murder, and:
1. The person murders
a peace officer or fireman who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official
duty, and who the person knows is a peace officer or fireman.
2. The person intentionally
commits the murder in the course of committing, or attempting to commit,
kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, or obstruction
or retaliation.
3. The person commits the
murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration, or employs another
to commit the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration.
4. The person commits the
murder while escaping or attempting to escape from a penal institution.
5. The person, while incarcerated
in a penal institution, murders another:
a. who is employed in the
operation of the penal institution, or
b. with the intent to establish,
maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination.
6. The person:
a. while incarcerated for
an offense under this section or section 19.02 (murder), murders another,
or
b. while serving a sentence
of life imprisonment or a term of 99 years for an offense under section
20.04
(kidnapping), 22.021 (sexual
assault), or 29.03 (aggravated robbery), murders another.
7. The person murders more
than one person:
a. during the same criminal
transaction, or
b. during different criminal
transactions, but the murders are committed pursuant to the scheme or course
of
conduct.
8. The person murders an
individual under six years of age.
a. An offense under this
section is a capital felony.
b. If the jury or, when
authorized by law, the judge does not find beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant is guilty of an offense under this section, he may be convicted
of murder or any other lesser included offense.
* types of criminal homicide:
murder, capital murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide
Race, Justice, and Death Row
There are more than 3,690 inmates on death rows in the United States. Texas has roughly 500 on death row and a long list of those waiting to be transferred to death row from the many county jails in Texas.
Blacks account for 26% of all juvenile arrests, but they account for 44% of juveniles who are detained, 46% of those who go to an adult court, and 58% of those who end up in an adult prison. The rates for whites are reversed: 71% of all juvenile arrests are white, but they account for only 53% of those detained, 50% of those going to adult courts, and 25% of those who go to adult prisons.
In 1995, 1/3 of all black males in their 20s and early 30s were in prison, jail, on probation, or on parole. In some states, 25% of all black men cannot vote because of felony convictions. In capital cases, death sentences are more likely if the defendant is black and the victim was white than the opposite. Clearly, racial stereotyping is a major factor.
These statistics were
produced 5 ½ years ago to show how biased the judicial system is at
dealing with fairness and justice. For capital punishment, though,
statistics are not needed. In every phase of a capital case, starting
with the arrest, it has been proven that the whole process is unfair.
Depending on how much money you have and the color of your skin, your fate
may be sealed. Those are the main factors that determine if you will
actually
be charged with a capital
crime, and if you will be able to retain qualified legal representation.
The following shows how an attorney is supposed to be appointed, and by
what standards, in a capital case, when the State is seeking the death penalty,
and the defendant is indigent. According to the law:
Texas Criminal Laws: Code
of Criminal Procedure
Article 26.052: Appointment
of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases
Reimbursement of Investigative
Expenses
A. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this chapter, this article establishes procedures in death penalty
cases for appointment and payment of counsel to represent indigent defendants
at trial and on direct appeal, and to apply for writ of certiorari in the
United States Supreme Court
B. If a county is served
by a public defender's office, trial counsel and counsel for direct appeal,
or to apply for a writ of certiorari, may be appointed as provided by the
guidelines established by the public defender's office. In all other
cases in which the death penalty is sought, Counsel shall be appointed as
provided by this article.
C. A local selection committee
is created in each administrative judicial region created under section 74.042,
Government Code. The administrative judge of the judicial region shall
appoint the members of the committee. A committee shall have not less
than four members, including: (1) the administrative judge of the judicial
region, (2) at least one district judge, (3) a representative from the local
bar association, and (4) at least one practitioner who
is board certified by the
State Bar of Texas in Criminal Law.
D. The committee shall adopt
standards for the qualification of attorneys for appointment to death penalty
cases. The committee shall prominently post the standards in each district
clerk's office in the region with a list of attorneys qualified for appointment.
E. The presiding judge of
the district court in which a capital felony case is filed shall appoint
counsel to represent an indigent defendant as soon as practicable after chargers
are filed, if the death penalty is sought in the case. The judge shall
appoint lead trial counsel from the list of attorneys qualified for appointment.
The judge shall appoint a second counsel to assist in the defense of the defendant,
unless reasons against the appointment of two counsel are stated in the record.
F. Appointed counsel may
file with the trial court a pretrial ex-parte confidential request for advance
payment of expenses to investigate potential defenses. The request for
expenses must state: (1) the type of investigation to be conducted, (2) specific
facts that suggest the investigation will result in admissible evidence, and
(3) an itemized list of anticipated expenses for each investigation.
G. The Court shall grant
the request for advance payment of expenses in whole or in part if the request
is reasonable. If the Court denies in whole or in part the request for
expenses, the Court shall: (1) state the reason for the denial in writing,
(2) attach the denial to the confidential request, and (3) submit the request
and denial as a sealed exhibit to the record.
H. Counsel may incur expenses
without prior approval of the Court. On presentation of a claim for
reimbursement, the Court shall order reimbursement of Counsel for the expenses,
if the expenses are reasonably necessary and reasonably incurred.
I. If the indigent defendant
is convicted of a capital felony and sentenced to death, the defendant is
entitled to be represented by competent counsel on appeal, and to apply for
a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
J. As soon as practicable
after a death sentence is imposed in a capital felony case, the presiding
judge of the convicting court shall appoint counsel to represent an indigent
defendant on appeal, and to apply for a writ of certiorari, if appropriate.
K. The Court may not appoint
an attorney as counsel on appeal if the attorney represented the defendant
at trial, unless: (1) the defendant and the attorney request the appointment
on the record, and (2) the Court finds good cause to make the appointment.
L. An attorney appointed
under this article to represent a defendant at trial or on direct appeal
is compensated as provided by Article 26.05, from county funds.
This is Texas law! Yet the law is being violated continuously, and the courts refuse to acknowledge the violations.
For instance, this is
also an issue raised in my direct appeal and my state writ of habeas corpus.
My lead attorney was not board certified, and the convicting court that
also appointed the attorney refused to hold a hearing on the claims.
So that's two claims in one! Clearly, the issue of poor representation
was first established when the Court, fully aware of the procedure for appointments
of counsel, ignored the law it was supposed to uphold.
Fairness was never a factor,
from the beginning.
So, as you can see, these are only some of the many problems that are present in capital cases. What do you think?
Statements
I'm going to give you
a hypothetical situation regarding statements. Let's say you are walking
into your home late one night, and from downstairs, you can hear your spouse,
child, etc., screaming, "No, don't hurt me!" You grab the nearest thing,
a metal lamp or a bat from the corner of a room. As you ease into the
room where the scream came from, you see your spouse or child tied up.
A stranger, who obviously forced his way into your home, is crouched over
your screaming loved one. You run up behind the stranger, hit him over
the head. He
reaches for you, so you
hit him again. He runs past you, opens the front door, steps onto the
porch, collapses, and dies. Cause of death: heart attack. You
call the police, and they ask you to come downtown to give a statement.
You do. The police now have a statement from you, detailing how you
killed the stranger by beating the hell out of him. In Texas, to avoid murder
charges, you would have to prove that your life was in danger, and that you
had no chance to call for help. You are charged with murder.
You lose your home, job, friends, everything.
Ten years later, you find out that you actually didn't kill the stranger, and that the police, district attorneys, even the medical examiner knew about the heart attack, but never made it known to your attorneys.
Now, how easy should it be to get your conviction overturned? Keep in mind that no one in the judicial system will admit to any wrongdoing.
Hard to imagine? Sure, but it happens like this all the time in the United States. People just can't believe that our public officials would abuse our rights. The truth is worse than the thought: The police will lie about a traffic ticket.
This brings me to statements and the famous Miranda warning: "You have the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning," etc. All of this is thrown out the window when a case is being eagerly pursued.
Our Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, offered personal knowledge about what can happen while in police custody: "The atmosphere in station house interrogations exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty, and trades on the weakness of individuals." He added, "The Miranda was rooted so deeply in to our Constitution, that Congress cannot even change it." The Miranda, though, is constantly disregarded by every state in America.
Just because nothing of this sort has happened to you doesn't mean it can't. So many things are taken for granted by so many people. What would you do if you were lied about and lied to, all by public officials? As an American citizen, you are supposed to be guarded by Constitution, established as law by our country's founders.
Texas Criminal Law: Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 38.21: Statement
A statement of an accused
may be used in evidence against him if it appears that the same was freely
and voluntarily made without compulsion or persuasion, under the rules hereafter
prescribed.
Article 38.22: When Statements
May Be Used
Sec.1
In this article, a written
statement of an accused means a statement signed by the accused or a statement
made by the accused in his own handwriting, or, if the accused is unable
to write, a statement bearing his mark, when the mark has been witnessed
by a person other than a peace officer.
Sec. 2
No written statement made
by an accused as a result of custodial interrogation is admissible as evidence
against him in any criminal proceeding unless it is shown on the face of the
statement that:
A. The accused, prior to
making the statement, either received from a magistrate the warning provided
in Article 15.17 of this code or received from the person to whom the statement
is made a warning that:
1. He has the right to remain
silent and not make any statements at all, and that any statement he makes
may be used against him at his trial
2. Any statement he makes
may be used as evidence against him in court
3. He has the right to have
a lawyer present to advise him prior to and during any questioning
4. If he is unable to employ
a lawyer, he has the right to have a lawyer appointed to advise him prior
to and during any questioning, and
5. He has the right to terminate
the interview at any time.
Sec. 6
In all cases where a question
is raised as to the voluntariness of a statement of an accused, the Court
must make an independent finding in the absence of the jury as to whether
the statement was made under voluntary conditions. If the statement
has been found to have been voluntarily made and held admissible as a matter
of law and fact by the Court in a hearing in the absence of the jury, the
Court must enter an order stating its conclusion as to whether or not the
statement was voluntarily made, along with specific findings of facts upon
which the
conclusion was based, which
order shall be filed among the papers of the cause. Such order shall
not be exhibited to the jury, nor the finding thereof made known to the jury
in any manner. Upon the finding by the judge as a matter of law and
fact that the statement was voluntarily made, evidence pertaining to such
matter may be submitted to the jury, and it shall be instructed that unless
the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntarily
made, the jury shall not consider such statement for any purpose, nor any
evidence
obtained as a result thereof.
In any case where a motion to suppress the statement has been filed, and evidence
has been submitted to the Court on this issue, the Court within its discretion
may reconsider such evidence in his finding that the statement was voluntarily
made, and the same evidence submitted to the Court at the hearing on the
motion to suppress shall be made a part of the record, the same as if it
were being presented at the time of trial. However, the State or the
defendant shall be entitled to present any new evidence on the issue of the
voluntariness of the statement
prior to the Court's final ruling and order stating its findings.
Article 38.17: Two Witnesses
Required
In all cases where, by law,
two witnesses, or one with corroborating circumstances, are required to authorize
a conviction, if the requirement be not fulfilled, the Court shall instruct
the jury to render a verdict of acquittal, and they are bound by the instruction.
This final issue was another
issue in Gary Graham's case, where a single witness was used to convict.
This is also an issue in my case (More issues pertaining to my case will
be posted at a later date). You can see here that Texas law concerning
witnesses is often ignored!
United States Constitutional
Amendments Most Commonly Used as Claims of Violations by Death Row Appeal
Attorneys
5th Amendment
No person shall be held
to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment
or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation.
6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial
jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with
the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses
in favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for this defense.
7th Amendment
Trial by Jury
8th Amendment
Excessive bail shall not
be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment
inflicted
9th Amendment
The enumeration, in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the People.
14th Amendment
All persons born or naturalized
in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
When raising Constitutional
issues, you must be able to show that:
1. Your rights, according
to the Constitution, have been violated,
2. Harm was caused by the
right(s) being violated, and
3. You must devise an argument
that's never been used before!
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Popular Justice: democratic
justice which is usually considered less than fully fair and proper, even
though it satisfies prevailing public opinion in a particular case, cf.
social justice
-- Blacks Law Dictionary,
2000, 7th edition
Please know that the reason this section on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was added is to show that, as a whole, the United States has violated the very rights that had been instituted and implemented by countries that make up the United Nations. As a world leader, the United States is extremely wretched internally, and should be held accountable for its record on human rights. The Declaration is clear, concise, and should be adhered to vehemently. Executing human beings is the worst crime that could be committed by any civilized nation… the right to be civilized is lost.
So, I ask you, do you
want to be looked at as a damn barbarian? Well, the outside world holds
this view! So what do you think of the Declaration? Most people
don't even know it exists…
On December 10, 1948, the
General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the full text of which appears in the following
pages. Following this historic act, the Assembly called upon all member
countries to publicize the text of the Declaration, and "to cause it to be
disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other
educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status
of countries or territories."
Preamble
Whereas recognition of the
inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of
the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world,
whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous
acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world
in which human beings shall
enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been
proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, whereas it is essential,
if man is not to be compelled to have recourse as a last resort to rebellion
against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by
the rule of law, whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly
relations between nations, whereas the peoples of the United Nations have
in the charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental
human rights, in the dignity
and worth of the human person, and in the equal rights of men and women, and
have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in
larger freedom, whereas member states have pledged themselves to achieve,
in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect
for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, whereas a common
understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for
the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore, the General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for those rights and freedoms, and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of member states themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1
All human beings are born
free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience, and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to
all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction
of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political,
jurisdictional, or international status of the country or territory to which
a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing,
or under any other limitation
of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to
life, liberty, and security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in
slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in
all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected
to torture, or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to
recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the
law, and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the
law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination
in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to
an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating
the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subject
to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in
full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations, and of any
criminal charge against him.
Article 11
A. Everyone charged with
a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees
necessary for his defense.
B. No one shall be held
guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not
constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time
when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than
the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected
to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence,
nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right
to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
A. Everyone has the right
to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
B. Everyone has the right
to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his own country.
Article 14
A. Everyone has the right
to seek and to enjoy in other countries, asylum from persecution.
B. This right may not be
invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from nonpolitical crimes
or from acts contrary to the purpose and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
A. Everyone has the right
to a nationality.
B. No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16
A. Men and women of full
age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the
right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights
as to marriage, during marriage, and at its dissolution.
B. Marriage shall be entered
into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
C. The family is the natural
and fundamental group unit of society, and is entitled to protection by society
and the State.
Article 17
A. Everyone has the right
to own property along, as well as in association with others.
B. No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his property.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to
freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom
to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community
with others, and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief
in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20
A. Everyone has the right
to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
B. No one may be compelled
to belong to an association.
Article 21
A. Everyone has the right
to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely
chosen representatives.
B. Everyone has the right
to equal access to public service in his country.
C. The will of the people
shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed
in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal
suffrage, and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of
society, has the right to social security, and is entitled to realization,
through national effort and international cooperation, and in accordance
with the organization and resources of each state, of the economic, social,
and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development
of his personality.
Article 23
A. Everyone has the right
to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions
of work, and to protection against unemployment.
B. Everyone, without any
discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
C. Everyone who works has
the right to just and favourable remuneration, ensuring for himself and his
family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary,
by other means of social protection.
D. Everyone has the right
to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24
Everyone has the right to
rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic
holidays with pay.
Article 25
A. Everyone has the right
to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself
and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment,
sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in
circumstances beyond his control.
B. Motherhood and childhood
are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether
born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26
A. Everyone has the right
to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary
and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory.
Technical and professional education shall be made generally available,
and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
B. Education shall be directed
to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening
of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance, and friendship among all nations, racial or religious
groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance
of peace.
C. Parents have a prior
right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27
A. Everyone has the right
freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the
arts, and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
B. Everyone has the right
to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from scientific,
literary, or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28
Everyone is entitled to
a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth
in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29
A. Everyone has duties to
the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality,
is possible.
B. In the exercise of his
rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as
are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition
and respect for the rights and freedoms of others, and of meeting the just
requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic
society.
C. These rights and freedoms
may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the
United Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration
may be interpreted as implying for any state, group, or person, any right
to engage in any activity, or to perform any act aimed at the destruction
of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Politics
Politics is part of the
whole Texas judicial system, and if you are familiar with the workings of
the political parties, then you also know of the philosophies they adhere
to that apply to the different branches of government: federal, state,
and local. The average American citizen learns very early in life
that Democrats are for the poor, and Republicans are for the rich.
What the general population does not know is that Democratic and Republican
issues go back, well before
the Dark Ages. The basic principles that each party was established
upon are still alive; the only difference between then and now is technology.
When dealing with the judicial system, we assume that this institution deals only with right and wrong, legal and illegal, leaving out anything else, including politics. When a death penalty case is being challenged through the courts, issues such as due process really mean, "leaving point A, reaching point C." If you like legal theories, I have one…
Did you know that if a prosecutor gets into a jam in Texas, all he / she has to do is pick up the phone, and call the State Attorney General? The State Attorney General, in turn, has the U.S. Attorney General for backup, and on up to the Justice Department.
I'll give a description
of the situation as it is in my case, from my perspective, and I'll end
it with a few questions, as usual. It's going to blow your mind, so
hold on tight to your hat, and try to control your blood pressure…
things that make you say
"hmm!"
From a political standpoint,
this is what I am up against in my efforts to obtain fairness and eventual
freedom…
1. District Court Where
Convicted
Judge (Republican
and former prosecutor)
Charles A. Nealy and Appeal
Attorney (Democrat) 3 prosecutors and Texas Attorney General
2. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Chief Justice, Michael
L. McCormick (Republican and former prosecutor)
L. Meyers (Republican and
former prosecutor)
S. Mansfield (Republican)
S. Keller (Republican and
former prosecutor)
T. Price (Republican)
S. Holland (Republican and
former prosecutor)
P. Womack (Republican and
former prosecutor)
C. Johnson
M. Keasler (Republican and
former prosecutor)
3. Texas Supreme Court
Chief Justice, T. Phillips
(Republican)
N. Hecht (Republican)
C. Enoch (Republican)
P. Owens (Republican)
J. Baker (Republican)
G. Abbott (Republican)
D. Hankinson (Republican)
H. O'Neill (Republican)
A. Gonzales (Republican)
4. United States Supreme Court
Chief Justice, W. Rehnquist
(Republican)
J. Stevens (Republican
S. O'Connor (Republican)
A. Scalia (Republican)
A. Kennedy (Republican)
C. Thomas (Republican)
R. Ginsburg (Democrat, usually
votes against capital punishment)
D. Souter (Republican)
S. Breyer (Democrat, usually
votes against capital punishment)
** Don't forget! Also, George W. Bush hand-picked 19 Texas parole board members. All are Republican.
** Note: I have not even
mentioned the U.S. District Court (federal). I make my point without
even bringing in this 5th Circuit federal court at all.
This is just a glimpse of
what I face. The details go deeper, but this should give you a good
idea of the task.
So I ask you, "What are
the odds of me receiving fairness?" With almost all Republicans at
every step of the way, favoring the death penalty and a record "tough on
crime," over 140 executions have taken place in Texas.
The numbers say that the
laws are being ignored by the people who are supposed to uphold them.
How in the hell can 140 people have their cases go through each of these
courts, with nothing found worthy of at least a new trial, new appeals, anything?!?!
People usually say only that the deck is stacked because district courts favor prosecutors, but the tables on the previous page show the real stacked deck!
Following is a full-page advertisement in USA Today on Monday, August 14, 2000 (page 15A).
Do Democrats Want to Destroy the Second Amendment?
It's a fair question.
Honest gunmakers are being sued out of business by the Clinton—Gore administration and twenty-six, big-city mayors, who are all, but three, Democrats. Their trial lawyers are almost all Democrats. The anti-gun lobbies are composed of almost all Democrats. Their big donors are almost all Democrats. The gun-hating celebrities who want their bodyguards armed, but not you, are almost all Democrats. From anti-gun mayors and march organizers, to a gun-hating Hollywood and White House, they're almost all Democrats.
Why are there so few Democrats who rise in defense of Constitutional freedom?
By Charlton Heston, President
/ Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President
National Rifle Association
(aka N.R.A.)
second amendment: right to bear arms
Their point should be considered very seriously, and aside from their point, the important element is the same basic element associated with our judicial system. Because of politics, our rights are being abused and ignored.
This report was put together before this advertisement was printed. If there is no credibility in what they're saying, my report is pure fiction. My report demands careful examination.
Don't wait until something
happens to you directly, or even indirectly, to determine if you should
get involved!
Remember: You are affected
whether you are aware of it or not. Your Constitutional rights were
not meant to be compromised, and neither were mine!
The N.R.A. says that the Democrats are the core of their problem… I say that the Republicans are the core of mine…
Following is a copy of my letter to Mr. Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President for the National Rifle Association, in response to their advertisement.
Dear Mr. Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association:
This letter is in regards to the advertisement placed in the USA Today, 8-14-2000, "Do Democrats want to destroy the second amendment?"
Yes they do, although
the Democrats are not alone in their efforts to destroy the second amendment.
As a matter of fact, American citizens are slowly being drained of rights
guaranteed by the United States Constitution, daily it seems. And
the reason is because the public simply does not know what's going on in
Washington, DC. Once elected, the "Of, by, and for the people…" creed
is thrown out the window by the Democrats and Republicans.
Then, while in office, everything
is done based on a buddy system. It's not about doing what's right in
American politics; it's about money, and that's the bottom line. Those
Democrats that do want to destroy the second amendment should have their
homes, offices, cars, etc., checked for weapons. I bet 3 out of 5 will
be in possession of a firearm, and 1 out of 3 will be in illegal possession
of a firearm. No, I can't prove my theory, but it can't be disproved
either. My point is that when oral sex is defined as having sexual
relations, then and only then
will it be understood that
guns don't kill people. I'm not taking any political party side, just
calling it as I see it. It started with tobacco, then guns, and so the
list might as well include schools, hospitals, automakers, Catholics, Baptists,
Protestant, Islam, and the Mormons. In Washington, money means everything,
especially to those who have motives that preclude what's right and wrong,
and when any amendment of the United States Constitution
is compromised by greedy
politicians, then it's time to say enough is enough with big money politics
over the rights of American citizens. I believe your ad makes a clear
point, and again, I say, yes, they want to destroy the second amendment.
Respectfully,
Charles Nealy, 999289
Terrell Unit
1200 S. FM 350
Livingston, Texas 77351
Texas Parole Board
The parole board is extremely
suspect because, I personally contend, the decisions that are made by this
board are not based on any legal issues, issues that may require sympathy,
or requests from death penalty opponents.
I also contend that parole
board decisions are purely political, and though, on this point, I could
include extensive written material, I'll keep it down to these few points.
The members are hand-picked by the governor (for now, Republican George W. Bush).
There are 18 members.
When you look at the number of executions (over 140 since 1995), there have
been 140 clemency requests of some kind. What are the odds of 18, independently-thinking
individuals denying 140 requests? The obvious reason this happens is
because the actual decisions are made by Governor Bush, and the parole board
is a smoke screen. Common sense tells me that instead of the board making
recommendations to the
governor, the governor tells
the board what to do and when to do it. I'm far from stupid… When 18
people decide to ignore laws – and even divine intervention – believe me:
it's politics! Now ask yourself this question: "Of the 140 dead people
that were denied reviews, how many of them do you think were amongst the following:
(a) innocent, (b) retarded, (c) Christians, foreigners not told of their
right to contact their national consul?"
The numbers say it all. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, more than 600 people have been executed. In Illinois, 13 condemned inmates were exonerated before Governor Ryan set a moratorium! Since 1995, there have been over 140 executions in Texas… Why haven't there been any exonerations in Texas? Common sense tells me that (a) anything that gives the slightest hint toward exoneration is totally ignored, and (b) nobody working within the system is willing to turn on it. Why? Politics.
Following are laws on
the parole board. Note: The Board is allowed to accept gifts!
What is implied here?!?!
Article 48.01: Governor
May Pardon In all criminal cases, except treason and impeachment, the Governor
shall have power, after conviction, on the written, signed recommendation
and advice of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, or a majority thereof, to
grant
reprieves and commutations
of punishments and pardons; and upon the written recommendation and advice
of a majority of the Board of pardons and Paroles, he shall have the power
to remit fines and forfeitures. The governor shall have the power
to grant one reprieve in any capital case for a period not to exceed 30 days;
and he shall have power to revoke conditional pardons. With the advice
and consent of the Legislature, the governor
may grant reprieves, commutations
of punishment, and pardons in cases of treason.
Gov. Code Section 508.031:
Composition of Board (of Pardons and Paroles)
a. The board consists of
18 members appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate.
b. Appointments to the board
must be made without regard to the race, color, disability, sex, religion,
age, or national origin of the appointed members.
Section 508.0361: Policy
Board:
The Policy Board is subject
to the open meeting law, chapter 551, and the administrative procedure law,
chapter 2001, as if it were, respectively, a governmental body or a state
agency under those laws.
Section 508.047: Meetings
a. The members of the Policy
Board shall meet at least once in each quarter of the calendar year at a site
determined by the presiding officer.
b. The members of the board
are not required to meet as a body to perform the members' duties in clemency
matters.
c. A majority of each parole
panel (3 members) constitutes a quorum for the transaction of the panel's
business.
A panel's decision must
be by majority vote. * 3 members vote on parole for offenders in general
population *
d. The members of a parole
panel are not required to meet as a body to perform the members' duties,
except to conduct a hearing under section 508.281.
Section 508.043: Gifts
and Grants
The Board may apply for
and accept gifts from any public or private source for use in any lawful
purpose of the Board.
Article 43.20 (Code of
Criminal Procedure): Present at Execution
The following persons may
be present at the execution: the executioner, and such persons as may be necessary
to assist him in conducting the execution, the Board of Directors of the
Department of Corrections, two physicians, including the prison physician,
the spiritual advisor of the condemned, the chaplains of the Department of
Corrections, the county judge and sheriff of the county in which the Department
of Corrections is situated, and any of the relatives or friends of the condemned
person that he may request, not exceeding five in number, shall be admitted.
No convict shall be permitted by the prison authorities to witness the execution.
I added this final article on witnesses to executions to show that executions, as they are currently carried out, constitute public execution, based on the number of people allowed to be present during an execution, and the fact that not one person among them is actually connected to the case in any way. I'll provide more on what the late Justice Thurgood Marshall said about public executions later.
Executioner (1 plus 2
more to assist) = 3
Board of Directors (3 plus
officers) = 6
Physicians (2, including
the prison doctor) = 2
Spiritual Advisors (1 plus
prison chaplains) = 3
County Judge (1 plus staff)
= 3
Sheriff (1 plus deputy)
= 2
Family or Friends (only
5) = 5
24
This doesn't even include
the media personnel that are invited by the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice.
Whether these people actually
show up is not the issue. The law suggests that they can if they want
to.
An Open Letter to Whom it
May Concern:
Somewhere, American justice lost its way. Punishments became a means to something that has no end. Justice isn't about fair treatment, what's right or wrong, etc. It's based on hidden agendas and a disregard for the two most precious things known to mankind: life and freedom.
In America, we have prosecutors offering freedom to snitches, who will say whatever needs to be said to obtain that freedom, even at the cost of someone's life. It gets worse than the average citizen is aware of, the deeper into the framework you go, and so it continues to happen.
More victims are created when there's an execution. The anger and hostile feelings held by the families, friends, and other people close to the victim are shared by those close to the condemned. None of their anger is misplaced one bit. Any loss of life in any situation is a tragedy, and my heart goes out to the families, friends, and others close to any of these cases.
I must ask, though, "Is it right for those close to the victim to want others to feel their pain, or suffer because they are angry?" As a human being, I know that healing can only begin once you come to terms with reality, focus on what's positive, and not strive for revenge. Revenge is a monster that takes control of you.
When there's a crime for
which prosecutors seek the death penalty, chances are zero that the victim's
family and friends are told that prosecutors won't seek the death penalty
if they don't want them to. Family and friends are usually convinced
that the death penalty is the proper punishment, so it shouldn't be surprising
to see prosecutors literally dragging the victim's family and friends before
the media, constantly reminding them (and the public) of the crime.
The way justice is supposed to work suggests that what prosecutors are doing
– when
dragging loved ones before
the media – is cruel and unusual punishment itself. Prosecutors care
not about those family and friends, but only about getting the conviction.
I mean no disrespect,
but again, I must ask: "When a victim's loved ones agree to the prosecution
seeking the death penalty, would they also agree to lying, hiding of evidence,
perjured testimony from experts, etc.?" I ask because these issues
usually play a part in getting death penalty convictions. Clearly,
prosecutors are well aware of these things. How would these loved ones
feel if they had been asked, instead, if prosecutors could seek the
death penalty using every
trick and lie in the book to get a conviction? Would they still agree
to seeking the death penalty? How would they feel if an innocent person
was put to death because prosecutors lied to them in an effort to build their
reputations as "tough on crime"?
In the death penalty business, there are no winners. After a case is over, it is forgotten. Prosecutors are on to another case.
If I have offended anyone, I'm very sorry. I want to live! That's my excuse!
I promised to keep things short, so for now, good-bye and God bless…
Charles Anthony Nealy
| Return to Charles Nealy 's Homepage |
