| Return to Dawud Abdullah Muhammad's Homepage |
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT :
David Junior Brown (also known as
Dawud Abdullah Mohammed) (EX 100/98 issued December
15, 1998 and re-issued January 18, 1999 and October 29,
1999). David Junior Brown was executed by lethal injection
shortly after 2am local time on 19 November 1999, in Central
Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina. He had been sentenced to
death in 1980 for the murder of Diane Chalfinch and her
nine-year-old daughter. The US Supreme Court rejected David
Brown's final appeal on the afternoon of 18 November.
Governor Hunt denied clemency at about 10.30pm. His office
reportedly received around 600 telephone calls during the day,
split fairly evenly for and against the execution. Governor Hunt
has never granted clemency to a condemned prisoner. In a
recent interview, David Junior Brown said: "It is my belief, a
very grounded belief, that whatever takes place Friday
is what is meant to be. My soul was prepared a long
time ago. I have put this in God's hands and Governor
Hunt's hands. That is all I can do. All I can say to the
family is that I am sorry for your loss. But I did not do
this... I did not kill Diane or her daughter... I don't think
the people of North Carolina would want that on their
consciences, to kill an innocent man...." As he was
wheeled into the execution chamber, he is reported to have
again professed his innocence, and to have condemned the
injustice being carried out against him. Several relatives of
Diane Chalfinch, who were vocal in their support of the
execution, are believed to have witnessed it.
USA (NORTH CAROLINA)
David Junior BROWN
(also known as Dawud Abdullah MUHAMMAD)
David Junior Brown,
black, is scheduled to be executed by the state of
North Carolina
on 22 January 1999. He was sentenced to death in 1980 for
the murder of Diane
Chalflinch, white, and her nine-year-old daughter.
Amnesty International
is not in a position to know whether Brown (who has
no previous record
of violent behavior is innocent or guilty of the
murders. However,
the police investigation appears to have been conducted
solely on the basis
that Brown was guilty and to have ignored all other
possible suspects,
including David Ray Martin (see below). While there is
other evidence
against Brown, most of it appears to be circumstantial and
could be plausibly explained
in other ways.
The trial was moved from
the county where the crime took place because of
inflammatory media coverage
of the crime and public outrage at the brutal
murders. Prior to the
start of the trial, the defense attorneys requested funds
to hire an investigator,
and a delay in the start of the trial to allow them more
time to prepare. The
trial judge denied both requests. The trial took place before
an all white jury.
Brown's defense lawyers
requested to inspect the crime scene on four
separate occasions before
and during the trial but were denied access.
The time frame that Brown
had to commit the murders appears totally
unrealistic. The prosecution
contended that Brown committed the murders on
Monday 25 August 1980,
sometime between 3 am, after he was observed in a
hotel lobby, and 6 am,
when he was recorded at his place of work.
At all other times, Brown
was in the company of witnesses who could provide
him with an alibi. However,
the prosecution withheld evidence that a witness
spoke to both the victims
at 4:45am on the day of their murders, six miles from the
crime scene. This would
have left Brown with a mere one hour 'window' in which
to commit the crime,
clean himself of the victims' blood (the victims were
stabbed over 100
times) and get to his place of work.
At trial, the defense
presented evidence from two witnesses who at 11 pm on
the Monday night
drove near to the apartment building where the murders
occurred (the bodies
were discovered on the Tuesday morning). Both
testified that
they heard 'hollering' from the apartments, and one also
heard a young girl's
voice say 'leave her alone'. Shortly after, one of
the witnesses saw
a white male with shoulder length blond hair jump from
the balcony adjacent
to the Chalflinch apartment. Both witnesses reported
this testimony
to the police upon hearing of the murders.
The District Attorney
(DA) prosecuting the case appears to have obstructed
the defense attorneys
finding any evidence that could have exonerated
their client both
before and during the trial. The trial judge found 'as a
fact' that the
DA instructed law enforcement investigators not to discuss
evidence with the
defense attorneys.
Another witness
stated he had seen Diane Chalflinch park her car near her
apartment at 11
pm on the Sunday. When he went to work at 5:15am the
following day he
noticed the car had been moved. The DA instructed the
witness not to
discuss this observation with the defense attorneys. The DA
acknowledged during
the trial that he repeatedly moved this witness to
different hotels
for the purpose of hiding the witness from defense counsel.
After the trial,
defense lawyers located David Ray Martin, who admitted
that he had arranged
to go out with Diane Chalflinch on the weekend she
was killed, but
that she 'stood him up' and that he left a 'terse note' on
her door. Martin,
white, further acknowledged that he had shoulder length
blond hair at that
time. Martin has subsequently been convicted of another
murder.
Successive appeal
courts have refused to grant legal relief to David Brown, while continually
acknowledging the faults
in his trial. The Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit found that
the DA's denial of pre-trial access to the crime scene and to witnesses
was an error of a constitutional nature, but determined the error was 'harmless'.
A judge for the District Court concluded that the conduct of the DA was
'inexcusable', 'based on personal animosity' (towards the defense attorney)
and that the DA's gamesmanship was 'especially abhorrent when a person's
life is at stake', but that it was also harmless (in that it would not
have affected the outcome of the trial).
Amnesty International
is alarmed at the attitudes of the appeal courts. To acknowledge that there
was misconduct by the prosecuting authorities but that this somehow was
'harmless' is an absurd and deeply flawed judgment. It allows the prosecutor
to 'win' the case by breaking the legal rules (thereby setting a dangerous
precedent) and begs the question whether other prosecutorial misconduct
went undiscovered.
The execution of David
Brown would clearly be in contravention of numerous
international laws and
standards, including Article 4 of the United Nations Safeguards Guaranteeing
Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, which states:
'Capital punishment may be imposed only when the guilt of the person charged
is based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative
explanation of the facts.'
In North Carolina the
governor has sole authority to grant clemency.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send telegrams/faxes/ letters to:
1. expressing concern
that David Junior Brown is scheduled to be executed
on 22 January 1999 despite
serious doubts about his guilt for the crime
for which he was sentenced
to death;
2. pointing out that the
courts have found the prosecuting authorities to
be in violation of various
rules of law but have allowed those violations
to go unaddressed;
3. requesting Governor Hunt to prevent the execution of a possibly innocent man by commuting the death sentence of David Junior Brown.
APPEALS TO:
The Honorable James B. Hunt, Jr.
Office of the Governor of North Carolina
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: 1 919 733 4240
Fax: 1 919 733 4729
COPIES TO:
The Letters Editor
News and Observer
Box 191, 215 S. McDowell St.
Raleigh, NC 27602
Fax: 1 919 829 4872
- Please take action as soon
as you can (hopefully when you receive this
Urgent Action appeal). Carefully read
the recommended action and send a
telegram, fax or airmail letter immediately
to one or more of the addresses given.
- With Urgent Action appeals, A.I. has
to act rapidly to prevent a serious
human rights abuse. An appeal is issued
when the organization believes it
has received reliable and accurate
information in such cases. It is not always possible to verify all details
independently and in some instances the situation outlined in the appeal
may change. Urgent Action participants are always notified of any significant
new information.
- Send your appeals in English unless
you are fluent with the language of
the target country.
- Information about the alleged connection of any person with an organization which is banned in their country is provided for information only and should not be included in appeals.
- Your letters should be brief, polite, nonpartisan and to-the- point.
- Copies of any replies from government authorities should be sent immediately to the Colorado office. If appropriate, thank the official who has replied and ask to be kept informed about the case.
- Postage costs: airmail letters to most countries which include an envelope and a one page letter cost 60 cents; to Mexico - 40 cents. Aerogrammes and postcards are 50 cents each.
- The name of Amnesty International
may be used although letters written
in a private or professional capacity
are often more effective.
18 January 1999
Death penalty / Legal concern
USA (NORTH CAROLINA)
David Junior BROWN (also know as Dawud
Abdullah Muhammad) David Junior Brown, black, has received a new execution
date of 19 November 1999. He was sentenced to death in 1980 for the murder
of Diane Chalflinch, white, and her nine-year-old daughter.
The new execution date follows the denial of Brown's last appeal in state court. Brown has now fully completed the appeal process. Under the terms of the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, the federal courts will now only give Brown's case further examination if his lawyers can convince a three judge panel there is 'clear and convincing' evidence of his actual innocence - an almost impossible standard to meet.
The appeal courts have continued to fail to address many of the deeply disturbing issues in Brown's case. In the rejection of the last appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court cited the 'overwhelming' evidence against Brown, including: the discovery of his ring on the victim's body, his bloody palm print on the wall over the girl's body, and the bloody footprints from the victim's apartment to his (they lived in the same building).
Amnesty International believes the evidence against Brown is far from conclusive. The ring did belong to Brown and is undoubtedly a powerful piece of evidence against him. He claims he lost the ring after taking it off at a party where he was playing records the night before the crime.
However, other evidence is much weaker than it first appears. The testimony at trial was consistent with the palm print having been placed on the wall weeks or months before the murders. Apparently, it was not possible to tell whether the print was made by a bloody hand or the blood had splashed over it. Brown had been in the victim's apartment prior to the crime helping her move furniture. No other finger prints belonging to Brown were found at the scene. Thirty three other prints that did not match either victim were found but not identified.
The police appear to have ignored the
two other possible suspects for the
crime, one of whom was positively identified
by two witnesses as jumping
from the balcony of the apartment block
around the time of the murders.
According to press reports, when the
witnesses reported what they had seen, the police officers investigating
the case told them, 'We got our man' and 'Y'all aren't doing but one thing,
helping a murderer get set free'.
The 'trail of blood', as it is so often referred to in the media or by prosecutors, was in fact not visible to the naked eye. It was only discovered by highly sensitive forensic tests that were incapable of identifying the source of the blood. The authorities have failed to explain how a highly intoxicated individual, who would have been covered in blood after such a brutal crime, was able to clean himself and dispose of his clothing without leaving any trace of blood in his apartment, including in his drains, in such a short space of time.
Successive appeal courts have refused to grant legal relief to David Brown, while continually acknowledging the faults in his trial. The Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit found that the District Attorney's denial of pre-trial access to the crime scene and to witnesses was an error of a constitutional nature, but determined the error was 'harmless'. A judge for the District Court concluded that the conduct of the DA was 'inexcusable', 'based on personal animosity' (towards the defense attorney), that the DA's gamesmanship was 'especially abhorrent when a person's life is at stake', but that it was also harmless (in that it would not have affected the outcome of the trial).
Amnesty International is appalled that
the latest and probably last round
of Brown's legal appeals have
once again failed to adequately address the
apparent numerous violations of the
US Constitution and international
standards governing the death penalty.
For the diminishing list of countries which still resort to the death penalty,
international human rights standards require the very highest level of
fairness in capital cases, given the irreversible nature of the penalty.
Amnesty International is not in a position to know whether Brown is guilty
or innocent of these murders. However, the case has many of the troubling
aspects that have been present in the cases of the 82 people released from
death row after being exonerated in the USA since 1973.
The execution of David Brown would clearly
be in contravention of numerous
international laws and standards, including
Article 4 of the United Nations Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the
Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, which states: 'Capital punishment
may be imposed only when the guilt of the person charged is based upon
clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation
of the facts.' Brown's only remaining option is to seek clemency from the
governor. In North Carolina, Governor Jim Hunt has sole authority to grant
clemency. Hunt has never commuted a death sentence in his seven
years in office (nor in the eight years he previously served). No other
North Carolina governor has held office for so long without granting clemency
to a condemned prisoner.
FURTHER RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Please send telegrams/faxes/express/airmail letters:
- expressing concern that David
Junior Brown is scheduled to be executed
on 19 November 1999 despite serious
doubts about his guilt for the crime
for which he was sentenced to death;
- pointing out that for the diminishing
list of countries which still resort to the death penalty, international
human rights standards require the very highest level of fairness in capital
cases, given the irreversible nature of the penalty; - pointing out that
the courts have found the prosecuting authorities to be in violation of
various rules of law but have allowed those violations
to go unaddressed;
- pointing out that the jury which convicted
and sentenced David Brown to
death were prevented by the prosecution
and judge from reviewing all the
evidence in the case;
- requesting Governor Hunt to prevent
the execution of a possibly innocent
man by commuting the death sentence
of David Junior Brown.
APPEALS TO:
The Honorable James
B. Hunt, Jr.
Office of the Governor
of North Carolina
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone:
1 919 733 4240
Faxes: 1 919
733 4729
Salutation:
Dear Governor
PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY.
David Stamps
2249 Roy Street
Eau Claire, WI
54701
Tel: 715-832-3346 Fax:
773-928-7018 Cell: 612-670-4671
Dawud
Abdullah Muhammad
( David
Junior Brown )
#0048990,
EU205
1300
Western Boulevard
Raleigh,
NC 27606
| Return to Dawud Abdullah Muhammad's Homepage |
