| Return to Toronto Patterson's Homepage |
JUVENILE OFFENDER -- TORONTO PATTERSON FACING EXECUTION IN TEXAS, AUGUST
28, 2002
Toronto Patterson -- who had no criminal record and who was just 17
years
old at the time of his offense -- is now scheduled for execution in
Texas
on August 28, 2002. He was sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of
three of his cousins in Dallas, Texas. Because he was a juvenile at
the
time of his crime, Toronto's execution would be contrary to American
standards of justice, fairness, and decency as well as international
law.
This is a call for his sentence to be commuted to life in prison. In
appealing for clemency on behalf of Toronto, we do not, in any way,
seek
either to excuse the crime or to minimize the pain and suffering it
caused the family and friends of the victims.
I. CASE SUMMARY
On June 6, 1995, Valarie Brewer discovered the body of her sister,
Kimberly, in a recliner in front of the television set. In a bedroom
of
the house, the bodies of Kimberly's daughters, six-year-old Jennifer
Brewer, and three-year-old Ollie Brown were discovered. There were
no
valuables taken from the house. Upon searching the garage, three of
the
four wheels on the BMW automobile belonging to Valarie's brother were
found missing. It was apparent someone had tried, unsuccessfully, to
remove the 4th wheel.
Aware her cousin, Toronto Patterson, recently had his own wheels stolen,
Valarie immediately thought of him as a suspect and informed the police.
Patterson told police that two Jamaican men had threatened him and
his
girlfriend, forcing him at gunpoint, to assist one of the men in removing
the wheels from the BMW, while the other man distracted Kimberly. Toronto
continues to maintain this account of events, asserting that he was
not
the person responsible for the murders. The identity of the killer
was a
hotly contested issue at the trial.
II. TORONTO PATTERSON
With the support of his grandmother, Toronto Patterson was raised by
his
teenage mother. He proved to be a promising student when he was in
grade
school. However, his home-life became increasingly erratic. Toronto
Patterson took the brunt of his mother's frustration in the form of
whippings. Drug and alcohol abuse were pervasive within Toronto's
world--it was an accepted way of life. Even though drugs and gangs
surrounded Toronto, he never became a gang member or used drugs. When
Toronto was 9 years of age, his baby sister, Kenisha, was born. She
suffered from a serious brain defect. Toronto was left to care for
her
and became increasingly fond of his sister who died just before the
age
of 2. Kenisha's death deeply impacted Toronto.
Despite, his troubled home-life, Toronto still achieved in school,
receiving grades that placed him on the honor roll. However, in order
to
provide even the most basic of necessities Toronto began to sell drugs
for his cousin. The selling increased and his school attendance fell,
until he dropped out of the school system. In spite of the profound
neglect and abuse, many positive aspects of Toronto Patterson's
personality were preserved. An examination of his social history and
background would have revealed a more human face, but regrettably,
the
jury was never given the opportunity to know and maybe to understand
the
real Toronto Patterson.
III. PATTERSON'S CONFESSION WAS EXTRACTED BY QUESTIONABLE INTERROGATION TACTICS THAT WERE WITHHELD FROM THE JURY
Toronto Patterson was taken into custody, placed in a small interrogation
room and left to wait for half an hour. When the detective first entered
the room, he was friendly and Toronto testified that he felt he could
trust him. He admitted to being scared because he had never before
been
interrogated by a police officer. Toronto gave the detective a statement
in which he admitted his presence at the crime scene, but not to the
murders themselves. Shortly thereafter, the detective re-entered the
room
after consulting with another officer and began to shout. Forcing Toronto
to sit in the corner of the room, the detective spat in his face and
accused him of lying in his first statement. He falsely told Toronto
that
he had recovered the murder weapon and the Dayton wheels.
The detective then described the murder scene to Toronto, which he states
was the 1st time he had heard details of the shootings. The detective
accused Patterson of killing his three cousins and then punched and
pushed him with his finger in various places to illustrate where the
victims had been shot. These accusations persisted for half an hour.
At
one point, the detective's beeper went off and after looking at the
display, he again misleadingly informed Toronto that his fingerprints
had
been found on the murder weapon. Toronto was held incommunicado for
over
four hours, scared and confused. Toronto Patterson signed a statement
in
which he admitted to shooting his cousin, Kimberly, and then shooting
into her children's room with his eyes closed. The detective denied
punching Toronto in the head and forcing him into a corner of the room
during the interrogation. He did admit that he had been trained to
make a
suspect uncomfortable during an interrogation.
The homicide detective who interrogated Toronto has a history of using
questionable tactics to extract confessions in high profile crimes.
One
month after Patterson's interrogation, but before the trial, the
detective was involved in the interrogation of another capital murder
investigation, that of Michael Martinez. After taking Martinez's initial
statement, the detective obtained two subsequent statements. Between
statements, the detective confronted Martinez with "new facts" and
told
him, "We know you are lying." He threatened to charge Martinez'
girlfriend unless he signed the subsequent statements. Another individual
was ultimately charged with the capital murder to which the detective
had
compelled Martinez to confess. The evidence of the detective's coercive
interrogation tactics in the Martinez case was excluded at Toronto's
trial.
IV. THE SENTENCING JURY NEVER HEARD EVIDENCE ON THE MITIGATING FACTORS OF CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENCE AND HOW THEY PERTAINED TO TORONTO
17-year-olds are still developing cognitive abilities, judgment and
character. They are less mature than adults in their identity
development, moral judgment, assessment of risk and consequence,
understanding of emotions and in their abilities to control impulses
and
regulate behavior. Each of these factors can substantially affect how
an
adolescent thinks, appears and behaves; these are powerful mitigating
factors in a death penalty case. Normally, defense lawyers retain experts
to evaluate an adolescent defendant and to present and explain this
information to sentencing juries. No experts were retained by the
defense, and none of this mitigating evidence was ever presented or
argued to the jury.
The defense failed to investigate, present and argue the mitigating
factors of Toronto's youth and adolescence. 5 witnesses (4 of them
members of his family) were called to very briefly testify simply that
he
was loving, obedient, and kind in their presence. A subsequent, and
only
preliminary, evaluation by a forensic psychologist revealed that Toronto
came from an unstable, neglectful and abusive home environment. The
evaluation concluded that critical systemic intervention never occurred
in Toronto's life.
According to the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, these kinds
of untreated abuse, neglect and abandonment "further exacerbate the
existing vulnerabilities of youth." Through no fault of its own, the
sentencing jury was not adequately and fully informed as to many of
the
powerful mitigating factors in Toronto's life which it should have
had
the opportunity to consider. This constitutes ineffective assistance
of
counsel.
V. THE "BUILT IN" SAFEGUARDS OF THE CAPITAL JUSTICE SYSTEM BROKE DOWN
COMPLETELY IN TORONTO'S CASE
Not only were Toronto's trial counsels ineffective, but the lawyer that
was supposed to investigate and raise this issue with the courts was
also
ineffective. In capital punishment cases there are supposed to be
numerous layers of legal protection to ensure that a person receives
full
and adequate representation before being subject to execution. One
of the
most critical areas is for a "post conviction" attorney to reinvestigate
the case and review the performance of trial counsel. The purpose is
to
ensure that a defendant received his constitutionally entitled "effective
assistance of counsel" at trial.
Toronto's post conviction counsel also failed to review, reinvestigate
and raise the issues regarding the ineffectiveness of Toronto's trial
counsel. In an affidavit, his post conviction counsel acknowledged
that
this was his first capital post-conviction habeas case, and that he
conducted no meaningful investigation into possible deficiencies of
trial
counsel at the punishment phase of Toronto's trial. Under the strict
rules of death penalty law, Toronto is now legally and procedurally
barred from having a court consider these critical issues. Moreover,
there may well be much more mitigating evidence pertaining to Toronto
that will never be uncovered or presented to decision-makers. Now,
only
the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles can consider and rectify this
mater.
VI. TORONTO HAD NO PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY, HAS NOT BEEN VIOLENT SINCE
BEING IMPRISONED AND WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH BASED ON INHERENTLY
UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT HE POSED A CONTINUING DANGER TO SOCIETY
Under Texas law, the most critical factor that a jury must consider
in
imposing a sentence of death is "whether there is a probability that
the
defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute
a
continuing threat to society" -- otherwise known as future dangerousness.
Texas juries are permitted to consider this factor notwithstanding
scientific and medical proof that "future dangerousness" is impossible
to
predict on an individual basis. Given this inexact and speculative
task,
experts most often rely on prior criminal history and subsequent
behavior. While Toronto had been involved in selling drugs and had
sometimes carried a weapon, he had never been convicted (or adjudicated
a
delinquent) and had no meaningful history of violence. Most importantly,
in the seven years since his arrest Toronto has never been involved
in
any violent act in the jail or prison systems. Even the prosecution
presented no expert testimony at trial that Toronto would commit more
criminal acts of violence.
VII. EXECUTING JUVENILE OFFENDERS RUNS COUNTER TO BASIC AMERICAN
STANDARDS OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
The execution of a juvenile offender is contrary to fundamental
principles of American justice which punishes according to the degree
of
culpability and reserves the death penalty for the "worst of the worst"
offenders. By their very nature, teenagers are less mature and,
therefore, less culpable than adults who commit similar acts but have
no
such explanation for their conduct. Adolescence is a transitional period
of life when cognitive abilities, emotions, judgment, impulse control,
identity -- even the brain -- are still developing. Indeed, immaturity
is
the reason we do not allow those under 18 to assume the major
responsibilities of adulthood such as military combat service, voting,
entering into contracts, drinking alcohol or making medical decisions.
This is not to say that juvenile offenders do not know right from wrong
and should not be punished, but that we as a society and a legal system
have deemed that juveniles are simply different from adults and should
not be subject to the ultimate adult punishment.
A number of organizations such as the American Bar Association, The
American Psychiatric Association, the Child Welfare League of America,
the Children's Defense Fund, the Youth Law Center, the Juvenile Law
Center, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, the American Society for
Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy for Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, the National Mental Health Association, and the Constitution
Project have come to oppose executions for crimes committed by offenders
under the age of 18. Similarly, the United Nations High Commission
for
Human Rights, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Vatican
and
Nobel Peace Prize recipients such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the
Dalai Lama have expressed their strongest opposition to the execution
of
juvenile offenders.
VIII. A MAJORITY OF STATES HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT SUBJECTING ADOLESCENTS
AND TO THE DEATH PENALTY IS CONTRARY TO BASIC AND EVOLVING STANDARDS
OF DECENCY
Of the 38 states that permit the death penalty, only 22 permit the
execution of persons who were under the age of 18 at the time of their
crimes. Among these 22 states, only 15 have juvenile offenders on their
death rows, while only 7 have carried out actual executions of juveniles
since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. In 2002, Indiana
abolished the juvenile death penalty while Florida came extremely close
(a bill passed the Senate unanimously but died in the House, which
had
passed a bill the previous year, only because it ran out of time).
In
1999, the State of Montana abolished the juvenile death penalty while
the
Florida Supreme Court raised the age of eligibility from 16 to 17.
A
growing number of states are considering such legislation. States
considering this issue in 2001 and 2002 include: Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. Indeed, in the Texas 2001
legislative session, a bill to eliminate the death penalty for offenders
under 18 passed the House and gained significant support in the Senate
before it was procedurally barred from reaching a vote on the Senate
floor. Moreover, a 2001 national poll conducted by the Houston Chronicle
indicated that solid support for the capital punishment of juvenile
offenders has fallen to only 26%. A May 14, 2002 Gallup Poll found
the
exact same figure.
IX. EXECUTING JUVENILE OFFENDERS IS CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW AND
FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS
In continuing to execute juvenile offenders, the United States acts
in
defiance of international law and global consensus. Indeed, such
executions have all but ended around the world, except in the United
States. The death penalty for juvenile offenders is expressly prohibited
by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
the
American Convention on Human Rights and the U.N. Convention on the
Rights
of the Child (CRC). The United States and Somalia (which has no
recognizable government) are the only two countries that have failed
to
ratify the CRC -- 191 nations have adopted the fundamental standards
articulated in this treaty.
Since 1990, only seven countries have reportedly executed juveniles:
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC),
Yemen, Pakistan and the United States. In the last three years this
small
number of nations known to have executed child offenders has further
declined to only three: the DRC, Iran and the United States. In
1994,Yemen changed its law to prohibit the execution of juveniles.
The
Nigerian government has asserted to the UN Sub-Commission that the
execution, which took place in 1997 was not of a juvenile and Saudi
Arabia emphatically denies the 1992 execution of a juvenile. In July
2000, Pakistan moved to outlaw such executions under the Juvenile Justice
System Ordinance signed on 1 July 2000. However, it has been reported
that Pakistan executed Ali Sher on 3 November 2001 for a crime he
committed at the age of 13. Since that time, President Musharrah of
Pakistan has commuted the death sentences of approximately 100 young
offenders to imprisonment.
In December 1999, the DRC called for a moratorium on all executions.
However, in January 2000, a 14 year-old child soldier was executed
in the
DRC. Since that time, 4 juvenile offenders sentenced to death in the
DRC
in a military court were granted stays and the sentences were commuted
following an appeal from the international community. Of the six
countries, other than the US, that have reportedly executed juvenile
offenders, all have either changed their laws or the governments have
denied that the executions took place.
On June 10, 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR),
the monitoring body of the Organization of American States (OAS) which
is
responsible for furthering and ensuring observation of the inter-American
human rights system, issued precautionary measures in the case of Toronto
Patterson. In granting precautionary measures, the IACHR requested
that
the United States preserve Toronto's life pending investigation of
the
allegations raised in his petition. The United States is one of the
35
members of the OAS, a regional agency created by North and South American
States to implement Article 52 of the United Nations Charter.
The execution of Toronto Patterson would further alienate the United
States from the international community, thus damaging our legitimacy
as
a leader on the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly
the rights of children.
| Return to Toronto Patterson's Homepage |
