Information
from: Focus
on Capital Punishent - American University, Washington College of Law
Toronto Patterson
- Juvenile Offender Facing Execution in Texas
Execution Date: August 28, 2002.
The debate in the US regarding the general application of the death
penalty continues, but the issues surrounding the execution of juveniles
(those persons below the age of 18 at the time of the crime) attract
intense debate. As of December 2001, approximately 82 juveniles sit on
death rows around the United States (US). Toronto Patterson, who was
just 17 years of age at the time of his offense, may soon face execution
in Texas. The execution of Toronto would be contrary to not only
American standards of justice, fairness, and decency, but also would be
in contravention of international law and fundamental standards of human
rights.
CASE TALKING POINTS
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 fourth 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.
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 nine 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 two. 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.
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 first 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.
Executing Juvenile Offenders Runs Counter to Basic American
Standards of Decency 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 only for the most serious
offenders. By their very nature, teenagers are
less mature, and therefore less culpable than
adults. Adolescence is a transitional period of
life when cognitive abilities, emotions,
judgment, impulse control, and identity are
still developing. Indeed, immaturity is the
reason we do not allow those under eighteen
to assume the major responsibilities of
adulthood such as military combat service, voting, entering into contracts,
drinking alcohol or making medical decisions. A number of organizations
including, the American Bar Association, the Child Welfare League of
America, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Mental Heath
Association urge that the execution for a crime committed while a juvenile
is simply unacceptable in a civilized society.
Executing Juvenile Offenders is Contrary to International Law
The execution of child offenders is not only contrary to principles of
American justice, but is also in contravention of international law and
fundamental standards of human rights. The ultimate goal of the
international community is to abolish the death penalty under all
circumstances, however, until that time there are restrictions on the
categories of persons who can be executed, juveniles being one of the
restricted categories. The prohibition of the execution of juveniles is
referenced in a number of international treaties, declarations, and
statements by international bodies, in addition to the laws of the majority
of nations. The execution of juveniles is expressly forbidden in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 6(5),
the American Convention on Human Rights, Chapter 2, Article 4, Section
5, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons
in
Time of War, Article 68 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child (CRC), Article 37.
In continuing to execute juveniles, the United States acts in defiance
of
substantial international consensus and law. Indeed, the US stands
virtually alone in this practice. 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 the 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 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, and 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, according to OMCT-World Organization Against
Torture, four 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.
It is unmistakable that beyond the borders of the United States, the
application of the death penalty for child offenders is rapidly advancing
towards total abolition. 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.
Case Timeline
Toronto Patterson was convicted of capital murder in Dallas in November
of 1995. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in January of 1999.
The following month, in February of 1999, the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals also denied Toronto relief in his state post-conviction application
for writ of habeas corpus. In October of 1999, the United States
Supreme
Court denied a petition for certiorari following Patterson's direct appeal.
The convicting court immediately set an execution date for February 24,
2000. However, on December 16, 1999, the federal district court in
Dallas
stayed Patterson's execution pending litigation of his federal petition
for
writ of habeas corpus.
Patterson filed his federal petition on October 4, 1999. In August of 2001,
however, the federal district court denied relief, and, in September, denied
Patterson's application for certificate of appealability. Patterson
filed an
application for certificate of appealability and brief in support in the
United
States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in November of 2001. The Attorney
General was recently granted an extension of time to respond to
Patterson's appellate brief until January 11, 2002.
Information from: Focus
on Capital Punishent - American University, Washington College of Law
The CCADP offers free webpages to over 300 Death Row Inmates
Contact us for more information.
"The Eyes Of The World Are Watching Now"
This page was
last updated June 3, 2002
Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty
This page is maintained and
updated by Dave Parkinson and Tracy Lamourie in Toronto, Canada