| Return to Robert Coulson's Homepage |
BY FAX: 512-463-1849
June 19, 2002
The Honorable Rick Perry
Governor of the State of Texas
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, TX 78711-2428
Re: Bob Coulson
Dear Governor Perry:
On behalf of the American Civil Liberties
Union, we strongly urge you to
stay the execution of Bob Coulson,
now scheduled for June 25, 2002.
Three compelling reasons underlie this
request for clemency: conflicting
statements by the State’s key witness,
the lack of forensic evidence
linking Mr. Coulson to the crimes,
and evidence that the State presented
manufactured evidence to the jury.
We have grave concerns that a
potentially innocent man will be put
to death unless the execution is
stayed.
First, Mr. Coulson’s conviction rests
almost entirely on the confession
and eyewitness testimony of Jared Althaus,
an alleged accomplice who
received a generous plea bargain in
exchange for his cooperation with
police. Serious questions as to Mr.
Althaus’s credibility existed from
the beginning. During interviews with
police Mr. Althaus gave several
conflicting statements. More troubling
is the fact that Mr. Althaus
failed a polygraph exam when questioned
about the story eventually used
against Mr. Coulson at trial. In fact,
much of Mr. Althaus’s testimony
at the trial did not match other known
facts of the crime. Doubts as to
Mr. Althaus’s credibility continued
to mount. The testimony he provided
in a later wrongful death action against
Mr. Coulson was largely
inconsistent with his prior testimony
during Mr. Coulson’s criminal
trial.
Throughout much of the country, the
testimony of eyewitnesses is being
called into question. In Illinois,
for example, a commission recently
issued a report that, among other things,
recommends prohibiting the
death penalty in cases when a conviction
rests on the testimony of a
single eyewitness. Here the conviction
not only rested on the testimony
of a single eyewitness, but that eyewitness
repeatedly contradicted
himself and had a powerful incentive
to incriminate Mr. Coulson.
Second, no forensic evidence links Mr.
Coulson to the murders. In fact,
none of the articles allegedly used
to commit the murders could be
forensically tied to Mr. Coulson, to
the crime, or to any of the
victims. When Mr. Coulson spoke with
police the day after the murders,
officers did not observe any physical
markings on him; the type of
physical evidence one would expect
to find on someone who had committed
the crimes for which Mr. Coulson was
convicted. No eyewitness, other
than Mr. Althaus could place Mr. Coulson
at the murder scene or
neighborhood that night. Sadly, once
Mr. Coulson became the prime
suspect, all forensic investigation
was geared toward connecting Mr.
Coulson, physically, to the crimes.
When investigators were unable to do
this, they simply stopped looking,
thereby preventing the discovery and
preservation of physical evidence that
could link someone else to these
crimes.
Third, the only piece of evidence linking
Mr. Coulson to the crime scene
is an envelope that contained notations
about a prior business deal
between Mr. Coulson and his father.
At trial the State introduced two
photographs showing the envelope lying
on top of a desk and apart from
any other items. The prosecution stressed
that the location of the
envelope tended to show that Mr. Coulson’s
father expected Mr. Coulson
to be at the house to discuss a business
deal around the time of the
crimes. However, on appeal a federal
district court found that the
envelope was not on the desk on the
night of the crimes, but rather had
been placed there by police the following
day. Proof that the State
manufactured critical evidence calls
the fairness of Mr. Coulson’s trial
into serious question, yet the courts
have been unwilling to grant Mr.
Coulson a new trial. Mr. Coulson has
exhausted all legal remedies.
The fact that Mr. Coulson’s conviction
and sentence were upheld in legal
proceedings does not diminish your
power or responsibility to consider a
grant of clemency. In exercising your
power, you should also consider
that Mr. Coulson has no prior criminal
record, and during sentencing
several individuals came forward to
confirm Mr. Coulson was of high
character and incapable of committing
the crimes for which he was
convicted. Under Texas law, the death
penalty should only be exacted if
it is reasonably certain that public
safety will be imperiled if the
offender is not put to death. Mr. Coulson’s
exemplary record of behavior
while on death row demonstrates that
he is not the continuing threat the
jury feared he would be.
This case presents precisely the kind
of extreme, exceptional, and
unusual miscarriage of justice that
only the executive can address or
remedy. Texas now has the opportunity,
in an act of mercy and grace, to
demonstrate that before enforcing this
ultimate punishment, it has done
everything possible to adequately safeguard
the rights of those
sentenced to death. We respectfully
urge you to grant clemency in this
case.
Sincerely,
Diann Rust-Tierney
William Harrell
ACLU Capital Punishment Project
ACLU of Texas
Jeremy W. Dutra*
Summer Associate
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
* As supervised by James V. Dick, a
member of the District of Columbia bar.
| Return to Robert Coulson's Homepage |
