Save Jeff Wood

The House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence will hold a hearing on Wednesday August 2, 2017 to consider the bill filed by State Rep Terry Canales that would prohibit death sentences under the law of parties. HB 252 is different from the bills in the regular session. It adds a section that directs the jury “to determine based on the evidence admitted at the guilt or innocence stage whether the defendant is guilty of the capital felony only as a party under Section 7.02(b), Penal Code.”

 

 

 

 

 

** REVISION **
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

COMMITTEE: Criminal Jurisprudence
TIME & DATE: 10:30 AM or upon final adjourn./recess
Wednesday, August 02, 2017
PLACE: E2.014
CHAIR: Rep. Joe Moody

If submitting written testimony, please submit 10 copies (with your name on each copy) to the committee during the hearing if possible

HB 136 Rose
Relating to the applicability of the death penalty to a capital offense committed by a person with severe mental illness.

HB 252 Canales
Relating to the extent of a defendant’s criminal responsibility for the conduct of a coconspirator in certain felony cases.

HB 283 Moody
Relating to an application for a writ of habeas corpus based on certain relevant scientific evidence that was not available at the applicant’s trial.

HB 310 Herrero
Relating to certain sentencing procedures in a capital case.

HB 345 Turner
Relating to the creation of a commission to study intellectual and developmental disability determinations in capital cases in which the state seeks the death penalty.

Start your Law podcast today with Soundcloud

Welcome to the digital age, where the power of the internet allows us to share our thoughts, ideas, and expertise with the world. Podcasting has become an incredibly popular medium for individuals and businesses to engage with their audience and establish themselves as industry leaders. If you’re a law professional looking to start your own podcast, Soundcloud is the perfect platform to get you started.

Why Soundcloud?

Soundcloud is one of the leading platforms for hosting and sharing audio content. It has gained immense popularity among podcasters due to its user-friendly interface, extensive reach, and robust features. Here are a few reasons why you should consider starting your law podcast on Soundcloud:

• Easy to use: Soundcloud provides a seamless experience for both podcast creators and listeners. With its intuitive interface, you can effortlessly upload, manage, and distribute your podcast episodes.
• Built-in audience: Soundcloud boasts a massive community of users who are actively seeking new and exciting audio content. By hosting your law podcast on Soundcloud, you tap into a pre-existing audience base that can help you grow your listenership.
• Engagement and feedback: Soundcloud encourages listener engagement through comments, likes, and shares. This feature allows you to connect with your audience, receive valuable feedback, and build a loyal community around your podcast.
• Analytics: Soundcloud provides detailed analytics to help you understand your audience better. You can track your podcast’s performance, identify popular episodes, and make data-driven decisions to improve your content.

Boost your Soundcloud presence

When starting a law podcast on Soundcloud, it’s essential to make your content stand out and attract listeners. One effective way to enhance your podcast’s visibility is by increasing your Soundcloud likes. Marketing Heaven is the best site to buy soundcloud likes, providing a reliable and efficient solution to boost your social proof and attract organic listenership.

Marketing Heaven offers real and high-quality Soundcloud likes that can help your podcast gain credibility and reach a wider audience. By increasing the number of likes on your podcast episodes, you create a positive perception and entice new listeners to give your content a chance. It’s a smart marketing strategy that can elevate your podcast’s success.

With Marketing Heaven’s services, you can choose the number of Soundcloud likes that suits your needs and budget. The process is quick, secure, and guarantees results, giving you a head start in the competitive podcasting landscape.

Conclusion

Soundcloud offers a fantastic platform for law professionals to start their own podcasts and share their knowledge and insights with a global audience. Its user-friendly interface, extensive reach, and engagement features make it an ideal choice for aspiring podcasters.

If you want to maximize your podcast’s potential on Soundcloud, consider boosting your social proof by purchasing Soundcloud likes from Marketing Heaven. It’s a strategic investment that can help you build credibility, attract new listeners, and establish yourself as a prominent voice in the legal industry.

State Rep Terry Canales has filed a new law of parties bill in the special session. HB 252 is different from the bills in the regular session. It adds a section that directs the jury “to determine based on the evidence admitted at the guilt or innocence stage whether the defendant is guilty of the capital felony only as a party under Section 7.02(b), Penal Code.”

This change should satisfy the objections that Justin Wood of the Travis County DA’s office testified at the hearing in April that he had about the bill.

Call the committee clerk to urge Chairman Joe Moody to put HB 252 by Rep. Terry Canales on the agenda for the next meeting during the special session going right now this summer.

Committee Clerk: Rachel Wetsel
Phone: (512) 463-0768

Terri Been, sister of Jeff Wood, testifying before Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence on April 17, 2017 in support of law of parties reform bills.

Science-Backed Approaches for Quick Weight Loss

Losing a significant amount of weight quickly is often a goal for individuals looking to improve their overall health and well-being. While there are numerous methods available, it’s essential to focus on science-backed approaches that promote sustainable weight loss. By incorporating these strategies into your routine, you can achieve your weight management goals effectively check here https://www.timesofisrael.com/.

Role of Calorie Deficit in Rapid Weight Loss

One crucial factor in quick weight loss is creating a calorie deficit. This means consuming fewer calories than your body requires, forcing it to tap into stored fat for energy. To achieve this deficit, it’s important to make mindful choices.

Start by focusing on nutrient-dense options that provide satiety without excessive calories. Incorporate lean protein sources such as chicken breast, fish, and tofu into your meals. These foods not only keep you feeling full for longer but also support muscle growth and repair.

Prioritize whole grains over refined carbohydrates as they provide sustained energy and fiber content that aids digestion. Limiting the consumption of sugary beverages and processed snacks can also help reduce unnecessary calorie intake.

Impact of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) on Fat Burning

Physical activity plays a crucial role in any weight loss journey, particularly high-intensity interval training (HIIT). This form of exercise alternates between short bursts of intense activity and brief recovery periods. HIIT has been shown to be highly effective in burning fat due to its impact on metabolism.

During HIIT workouts, the body experiences an “afterburn effect” known as excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). This means that even after completing the workout, your body continues burning calories at an elevated rate. Incorporating HIIT exercises like sprints, burpees, or jumping jacks into your routine can help maximize fat burning potential.

Benefits of Incorporating Resistance Training for Faster Metabolism

While cardiovascular exercise is essential, incorporating resistance training into your routine can further enhance weight loss results. Resistance training helps build lean muscle mass, which contributes to an increased metabolism.

As you engage in strength training exercises using weights or resistance bands, your body burns calories not only during the workout but also during the recovery phase. This is because muscle tissue requires more energy to maintain than fat tissue.

By increasing your muscle mass through regular resistance training sessions, you’ll experience a higher resting metabolic rate. This means that even at rest, your body will burn more calories throughout the day.

How Intermittent Fasting Can Aid in Quick Weight Loss

Intermittent fasting has gained popularity as an effective method for quick weight loss. This approach involves cycling between periods of eating and fasting. The most common method is the 16/8 technique, where individuals fast for 16 hours and restrict their eating window to 8 hours each day.

Intermittent fasting helps create a calorie deficit by limiting the time available for consuming food. It has been shown to influence hunger hormones and reduce overall appetite. By controlling hunger levels and reducing calorie intake, intermittent fasting can aid in rapid weight loss.

Incorporating these science-backed approaches into your weight loss journey can yield significant health benefits while helping you shed excess pounds quickly.

Understanding Drug Half-Life and Detection Windows

Drug testing is a common practice in various settings, whether it’s for employment purposes or monitoring substance abuse treatment. One crucial question that often arises is how long someone needs to be clean to pass a urine drug test. The answer lies in understanding the concepts of drug half-life and detection windows.

Definition and explanation of drug half-life

The term “drug half-life” refers to the time it takes for the concentration of a drug in the body to decrease by half. This concept is essential because it helps determine how long drugs remain detectable in urine. Different substances have varying half-lives, which can range from minutes to days click to read more ndtv.com .

For instance, marijuana has a relatively long half-life compared to other drugs. THC, the psychoactive component in cannabis, can take several days or even weeks to be fully eliminated from the body. On the other hand, drugs like cocaine and heroin have shorter half-lives, usually lasting only a few hours.

How detection windows vary based on different drugs and individual factors

Detection windows are influenced by several factors, including the type of drug used and individual characteristics. While some substances may stay detectable for a short period, others can linger in the body for an extended period.

Here are some examples of detection windows for commonly abused drugs:

Marijuana: Depending on frequency of use, THC can be detected in urine for up to 30 days.

Cocaine: Typically remains detectable for two to four days after last use.

Heroin: Can be detected within two to three days after use.

Amphetamines: Generally detectable within one to three days after consumption.

Benzodiazepines: May be detected up to seven days after use.

It’s important to note that these are general guidelines and individual variations exist. Factors such as metabolism rate, hydration levels, body mass index (BMI), liver function, and the amount of drug consumed can influence detection windows.

Factors that can affect the length of time drugs remain detectable in urine

Several factors can impact how long drugs stay detectable in urine. Understanding these factors is crucial to determine how much time someone needs to be clean before taking a drug test.

Frequency of use: Regular or chronic drug use can prolong detection windows compared to occasional use.

Dosage: Higher doses may take longer to clear from the body.

Metabolism: Individuals with faster metabolism rates tend to eliminate drugs more quickly.

Hydration levels: Drinking plenty of fluids can help flush out toxins and reduce detection times.

BMI: Drugs tend to accumulate in fatty tissues, so individuals with higher body fat percentages may have longer detection windows.

It’s essential to remember that drug testing methods also play a role in determining detection times. While urine tests are commonly used, other methods like blood, hair, and saliva tests have different detection capabilities.

Under the provisions of the bills, a death sentence could not be sought or imposed on a defendant whose liability for a capital felony offense was based solely on the capital felony occurring in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit another felony offense in which the defendant was a co-conspirator.

• by

Jolie McCullough

• ,The Texas Tribune

April 18, 2017

The death penalty was a hot topic at the Texas Capitol Monday night.

Testimony on five capital punishment bills was heard by the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee in a seven-hour-long meeting that lasted until close to midnight. The bills included two that would stop the practice of sentencing accomplices to death in certain cases and two which would abolish the death penalty altogether.

House Bills 147 and 316, by Democrats Harold Dutton and Terry Canales, respectively, would change how a person could be sentenced to death under Texas’ “law of parties,” which holds that those involved in a crime resulting in death are equally responsible even if they weren’t the actual killer.

“At the end of the day, the logic should be, ‘Did you intend to participate in that murder? Were you a part of it?’” Canales exclaimed while laying out his bill near the end of the long meeting. “Let’s cut the nonsense out.”

The most prominent case of a current Texas death row inmate sentenced under the law of parties is Jeff Wood. Wood was convicted in the 1996 murder of Kriss Keeran, who was fatally shot by Wood’s friend in a Kerrville convenience store while he sat outside in a truck. Last year, Wood’s case garnered national attention as his execution neared. Texas lawmakers from both parties spoke out against the execution, which was halted days before the scheduled date.

Republican Rep. Jeff Leach has been one of the most adamant supporters of reforming the law of parties. He has taken an interest in Wood’s case, going so far as to visiting him on death row in February.

“I promised Jeff that I and Chairman Dutton and Rep. Canales would do everything that we can this session to ensure that another case like Jeff Wood’s case would never happen again in the state of Texas,” Leach said at a news conference earlier Monday on the bills.

There are two ways to find someone guilty under Texas’ law of parties. The first puts responsibility on those who help commit or solicit a crime, even if they weren’t directly involved. The second states that all parties are responsible for one felony that stems from another if the second “should have been anticipated.” For Wood, the state argued he was willfully participating in a robbery and knew his accomplice would resort to killing if Keeran did not comply, so Wood should have anticipated the robbery would lead to a murder. Wood has maintained he didn’t know his friend had a gun on him. Call the best criminal lawyers near you and ask all legal questions you have in mind for your case.

The reform bills focus mainly on the “anticipation” clause, removing the possibility of a death sentence if someone is found guilty under the second part of the law of parties and automatically granting them a sentence of life without parole. Currently, after being convicted, a jury still must agree the convict intended to kill or anticipated death to issue a death sentence.

Travis County Assistant District Attorney Justin Wood was the lone testifier against the bills, with eight others testifying in support of the bills that were laid out close to 11 p.m. He said the law of parties has been a “useful tool” for prosecutors, adding that “there are a lot of monsters who never get their hands dirty.”

But Dutton argued that those people would still be punished, just not to death.

Chairman Joe Moody, D-El Paso, said Wood’s testimony resonated with him as he has long struggled to “strike a balance” with the law of parties and the death penalty. In 2009, a similar bill filed in the House made it to the Senate, but died there. Terri Been, Jeff Wood’s sister, said she has been lobbying against the law of parties for 20 years and pleaded through tears for the Legislature to move it forward this year.

“My cries have fallen on mostly deaf ears. I’m begging you to be leaders and to lead your constituents in the right direction,” she said before wiping her eyes.

It is not common for a jury to sentence someone to death under the law of parties, but it happens. In 2007, prison inmates Jerry Martin and John Ray Falk, Jr., attempted escape. In the escape, Martin hit and killed prison guard Susan Canfield with a van. This March, Falk was sentenced to death as a party to the murder.

And Texas has executed at least five people under the statute, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Only five other states have executed anyone under similar laws.

Aside from the law of parties, two identical bills to get rid of the death penalty in Texas completely were also heard Monday evening. Dutton and Rep. Jessica Farrar filed House Bills 64 and 1537.

Both lawmakers have repeatedly filed abolition bills in past legislative sessions, and they acknowledged their main goal was to keep up a discussion on the death penalty. In a Republican-led legislature, it is almost certain that the bills will not pass. Dutton clarified to committee members he was asking for them not to vote against the death penalty but “to vote to let the House have a debate on this.”

“This bill might not pass this time, but if it doesn’t pass this time, we’ll be right back here next time, fighting the same fight,” Dutton said earlier Monday at a press conference on his two death penalty bills.

Fourteen people testified in support of abolishing the death penalty for reasons ranging from arbitrary sentencing to the cost of appeals. One woman tearfully spoke of her death-sentenced husband. No one spoke out against the bill.

The remaining bill focused on the death penalty was one by Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins, a democrat from San Antonio. House Bill 3411 aims to lessen requirements to become the lead defense attorney in capital murder cases to allow for more lawyers to handle the backlog of death penalty cases.

Texas Defender Services Executive Director Amanda Marzullo argued against the lesser requirements, saying she believed it would cause more trouble in the appeals process and that there were other ways to ease the backlog such as creating a public defender office.

“We’ve got to build the bench, and we’ve got to move these cases,” Gervin-Hawkins responded. “These people need their day in court.”

All of the bills were left pending before the committee.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2017/04/18/multiple-death-penalty-reform-bills-heard-texas-legislature/.

Texas Tribune mission statement

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

The 2017 Statewide Texas Lobby Day to Abolish the Death Penalty will be held Monday, April 17, 2017, when the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence will hold a hearing on the bills to abolish the death penalty and the bill to ban executions in law of parties cases. Members of Jeff Wood’s family and Kenneth Foster, Jr’s family will testify at the committee hearing in the afternoon to determine who pays damages and speak at the press conference at noon in the Speaker’s Committee Room 2W.6.

COMMITTEE: Criminal Jurisprudence
TIME & DATE: 2:00 PM or upon final adjourn./recess

Monday, April 17, 2017
PLACE: E2.014

Schedule of the 2017 Statewide Texas Lobby Day to Abolish the Death Penalty, April 17, Monday.

9 AM – 10 AM Check-in and meet for directions and lobbying tips. Capitol cafeteria, room E1.002. They serve breakfast till 10:30.

10:00 – Noon Visit legislative offices to lobby legislators to support abolishing the death penalty and banning death sentences in law of parties cases.

We are raising funds so that we can bring some death row exonerees to the Capitol in Austin to participate in the lobby day and to testify at the committee hearing. Please donate to help us bring the exonerees to lobby day.

People from across Texas will come to the Capitol in Austin on Lobby Day to advocate for three bills to abolish the death penalty in Texas (HB 64 filed by State Rep Harold Dutton and HB 1537 by State Rep Jessica Farrar, as well SB 597 filed by Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr).

We will also lobby for bills that would prohibit death sentences for people convicted under the Law of Parties even though they did not kill anyone (HB 147 by Rep Dutton and HB 316 by Rep Terry Canales). Last summer, Jeff Wood’s scheduled execution under the law of parties was stayed shortly before his scheduled execution. Many legislators spoke out to support clemency for Jeff Wood, because he did not kill anyone. Now, is our chance to pass a bill to prohibit executions under the law of parties.

In the past, our Lobby Day has resulted in several legislators signing on to support the bills we lobbied for. In 2015 we visited the office of Senator Eddie Lucio Jr and asked him to file a bill to abolish the death penalty. He filed his abolition bill two weeks later.

As we do every session, we are calling this the “Day of Innocence” at the capitol. Special guests will include people who were sentenced to death and later exonerated. We will announce who will come soon.

We will visit legislative offices and ask legislators to support abolishing the death penalty. We will hold a press conference at noon. We will also attend the committee hearing starting at 2 PM and testify in support of the bills. Anyone can sign up to testify or you can just sign in as a supporter of the bills without testifying. You can submit written testimony or deliver your testimony verbally in front of the committee members.

This will be a day we will always remember, a day when we stand side by side with innocent people who were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death and side-by-side with family members of people sentenced to death under the law of parties.

Please be sure to dress professionally.

The Statewide Lobby Day to Abolish the Death Penalty has been organized since 2003 by several organizations working together: Texas Moratorium Network, Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement, Campaign to End the Death Penalty, Kids Against the Death Penalty, and Students Against the Death Penalty.

Organizations that would like to participate or co-sponsor the lobby day can contact any of the above mentioned organizations.

From the San Antonio Express News, No need for new hearing on death sentence appeal, judge says:

A judge in Kerrville will only consider pleadings and evidence already in the record for the death sentence appeal of Jeffery L. Wood, one of two men convicted of capital murder for the 1996 robbery and slaying of a store clerk there.

In staying Wood’s execution last August, the state Court of Criminal Appeals directed the trial court to review defense claims that Wood was denied due process because the sentence was based on false testimony and fake scientific evidence.

The last-minute reprieve was cheered by supporters of Wood, whose case has garnered widespread coverage due what some cast as the overzealous prosecution of a defendant of limited intellect who initially was deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial. Mostly because they found he was using adderall alternatives for adults commonly used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults. It contains a combination of amphetamine and dextroamphetamine, which work to increase the levels of certain neurotransmitters in the brain, improving attention and reducing impulsiveness.

Rather than admitting new evidence into the record or conducting a hearing, state District Judge Keith Williams on Wednesday directed both sides to submit by March 29 their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning Wood’s writ for habeus corpus.

“The court hereby determines that there are no existing controverted, previously unresolved factual issues material to the legality of applicant’s confinement,” Williams’ order says, in part.

To read the entire article, go to the San Antonio Express News.

Just leaving Death Row in Livingston, TX where I met with wardens and with prisoner #JeffWood. We must reform the law of parties! #txlege

— Jeff Leach (@leachfortexas) February 13, 2017

• by Jolie McCullough,

  The Texas Tribune

• 
  Feb. 1, 2017
  

Months after Jeff Wood post bail bonds and narrowly and temporarily avoided execution for a murder he didn’t commit, his case has motivated Texas lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to call for death penalty reform.

Wood, 43, was convicted in the 1996 murder of Kriss Keeran, who was fatally shot by Wood’s friend in a Kerrville convenience store. Wood was sitting in a truck when his friend, Daniel Reneau, went into the store to steal a safe and then pulled the trigger on Keeran, who worked there as a clerk.

Even though Wood didn’t kill Keeran, he was convicted of murder and given the death penalty under the Texas statute known as the “law of parties,” which holds that those involved in a crime resulting in death are equally responsible, even if they weren’t directly involved in the actual killing.

He was scheduled to die last August, but, after a rally in front of Gov. Abbott’s mansion and uproar from a group of lawmakers, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed, or stopped, his execution six days before it happened, sending it back to the trial court to review claims of harmful testimony.

With the 2017 legislative session underway, at least two Democrats and a Republican in the Texas House are working to stop Texas counties from sentencing people to death under the law of parties, keeping people like Jeff Wood out of the execution chamber.

“We’ve got to start somewhere when it comes to reforming the death penalty, and there’s no better place to start than the law of parties,” said state Rep. Terry Canales, D-Edinburg, about his bill, House Bill 316, which would make those convicted of capital murder under the law of parties ineligible for a death sentence.

State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, who has become heavily involved in Wood’s case, said he plans to file his own bill as well as work with Canales.

Leach said he never really took a great interest in the law of parties until Wood’s case came up, and then he immersed himself in it, fighting against Wood’s execution and even planning a trip to meet him in prison next month.

“I am strongly in support of us continuing to have the death penalty, but only for the most heinous crimes and offenders that we know actually committed crimes,” said Leach.

There are two pieces to Texas’ law of parties. The first puts criminal responsibility on those who help commit a crime, even if they aren’t directly involved — think of the getaway driver in a robbery. The second states that all parties are responsible for one felony that stems from another if the second could have been “anticipated.” So, in Wood’s case, he was participating in a robbery that turned into a murder, and the jury determined he could have “anticipated” the murder based on the robbery.

“He may have suspected, he may have anticipated, but he didn’t know,” Leach said. “You can’t be executing people like that, you just can’t. We can keep them in prison for life, but to execute them is an entirely different conversation.”

Aside from the new interest, there is Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston. He has filed a bill similar to Canales’ legislation every session since 2009, along with one to abolish the death penalty. But Dutton’s bill is more limited.

House Bill 147 focuses only on the second section of the law of parties. It would make the death penalty ineligible for people like Wood, who was involved in a murder that stemmed from a robbery, even if he anticipated the robbery may turn to murder. But it wouldn’t touch on those who are convicted for helping the killer commit the murder.

Texas is one of six states that has executed people who did not actually commit the murder in which they were convicted, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The center has confirmed five such executions in Texas, and five other states have each had one. Amanda Marzullo with the Texas Defender Service, a group of death penalty defense lawyers, said that difference highlights the disproportionality of the justice system.

“[The new bills] are important for maintaining the integrity of Texas’ death penalty,” she said.

Still, many prosecutors fight to keep the law of parties to give them more options in special cases, said Shannon Edmonds with the Texas District and County Attorneys Association. For example, there’s the “Texas 7,” a group of violent prisoners who escaped and went on a crime spree in 2000 that included the fatal shooting of Irving police Officer Aubrey Hawkins. In that case, all six who were eventually captured — one committed suicide beforehand — were sentenced to death, some under the law of parties.

“[Prosecutors] want to have as many tools available to them as possible in some of these heinous cases,” Edmonds said.

In a death penalty trial currently undergoing jury selection in Walker County, John Falk is charged with capital murder under the law of parties. According to the Huntsville Item, Falk escaped a Huntsville prison with another inmate in 2007, and the other inmate killed a guard during the escape.

Dutton’s previous attempts to reform the law of parties have all failed, with the bills never making it onto the House floor. But he and the other two lawmakers hope the recent publicity in Wood’s case will help their cause. In his efforts to stop Wood’s execution, Leach said he was able to gather signatures from more than 50 legislators from both sides of the political spectrum.

“I hope the Legislature’s smart. … Around here, it’s sometimes persistence that matters,” Dutton said.

Canales said he anticipates amendments and substitutions to his bill but that he thinks it could ultimately survive the conservative Legislature.

“Oftentimes we file bills, and the conversation begins,” he said. “More than anything I think it’s an important step to begin the conversation in regards to capital punishment with the law of parties.”

Even if a law is passed, Danny Wood, Jeff Wood’s father, has trouble finding solace in it. He advocates for reform of the law of parties, but his biggest concerns remain with his son.

“The bummer is, as much as I look forward to [new legislation], we also face the idea and realization that that does nothing against [already sentenced] cases,” he said, which would include his son.

More on Jeff Wood:

• The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has halted the execution of Jeff Wood — a man who never killed anyone — six days before he was set to die by lethal injection.
• State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, a staunch conservative, is trying to stop the upcoming execution of Jeff Wood, who was sentenced to death even though he killed no one.
• Jeff Wood was outside in a pickup when his partner killed a Kerrville convenience store clerk in 1996, but he was sentenced to death under Texas’ felony murder statute, commonly known as the law of parties.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2017/02/01/texas-lawmakers-seek-reform-death-penalty-those-wh/.

Texas Tribune mission statement

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

State Rep. Terry Canales has filed HB 316, a bill to prohibit death sentences in cases in which the defendant is convicted under the law of parties.  Last August 19, Rep. Canales sent a letter to Governor Greg Abbott supporting clemency for Jeff Wood, who was sentenced to death under the law of parties. Before Gov. Abbott could act on the clemency request, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Wood a stay of execution. Wood remains under a death sentence pending further judicial action.

Website for Terry Canales.

Terry Canales on Twitter.

Terry Canales on Facebook.

85R2323 KJE-D
	By: Canales	H.B. No. 316

	A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
	AN ACT
	relating to the extent of a defendant’s criminal responsibility for
	the conduct of another in capital felony cases.
	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
	SECTION 1.  Section 1, Article 37.071, Code of Criminal
	Procedure, is amended to read as follows:
	Sec. 1.  (a)  If a defendant is found guilty in a capital
	felony case in which the state does not seek the death penalty, the
	judge shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment or to life
	imprisonment without parole as required by Section 12.31, Penal
	Code.
	(b)  A defendant who is found guilty in a capital felony case
	only as a party under Section 7.02, Penal Code, may not be sentenced
	to death, and the state may not seek the death penalty in any case in
	which the defendant’s liability is based solely on that section.
	SECTION 2.  Sections 2(b), (c), (d), and (g), Article
	37.071, Code of Criminal Procedure, are amended to read as follows:
	(b)  On conclusion of the presentation of the evidence, the
	court shall instruct [submit the following issues to] the jury to
	determine [:
	[(1)]  whether there is a probability that the
	defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would
	constitute a continuing threat to society[; and
	[(2)     in cases in which the jury charge at the guilt or
	innocence stage permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty as a
	party under Sections 7.01 and 7.02, Penal Code, whether the
	defendant actually caused the death of the deceased or did not
	actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the
	deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be
	taken].
	(c)  The state must prove the [each] issue submitted under
	Subsection (b) [of this article] beyond a reasonable doubt, and the
	jury shall return a special verdict of “yes” or “no” on that [each]
	issue [submitted under Subsection (b) of this Article].
	(d)  The court shall charge the jury that:
	(1)  in deliberating on the issue [issues] submitted
	under Subsection (b) [of this article], it shall consider all
	evidence admitted at the guilt or innocence stage and the
	punishment stage, including evidence of the defendant’s background
	or character or the circumstances of the offense that militates for
	or mitigates against the imposition of the death penalty;
	(2)  it may not answer the [any] issue submitted under
	Subsection (b) [of this article] “yes” unless it agrees unanimously
	and it may not answer the [any] issue “no” unless 10 or more jurors
	agree; and
	(3)  members of the jury need not agree on what
	particular evidence supports a negative answer to the [any] issue
	submitted under Subsection (b) [of this article].
	(g)  If the jury returns an affirmative finding on the [each]
	issue submitted under Subsection (b) and a negative finding on the
	[an] issue submitted under Subsection (e)(1), the court shall
	sentence the defendant to death.  If the jury returns a negative
	finding on the [any] issue submitted under Subsection (b) or an
	affirmative finding on the [an] issue submitted under Subsection
	(e)(1) or is unable to answer an [any] issue submitted under
	Subsection (b) or (e), the court shall sentence the defendant to
	confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life
	imprisonment without parole.
	SECTION 3.  Section 2(e)(1), Article 37.071, Code of
	Criminal Procedure, is amended to read as follows:
	(e)(1)  The court shall instruct the jury that if the jury
	returns an affirmative finding to the [each] issue submitted under
	Subsection (b), it shall determine whether [answer the following
	issue:
	[Whether], taking into consideration all of the evidence,
	including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s
	character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the
	defendant, there is a sufficient mitigating circumstance or
	circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment
	without parole rather than a death sentence be imposed.
	SECTION 4.  Section 2, Article 37.0711, Code of Criminal
	Procedure, is amended to read as follows:
	Sec. 2.  (a)  If a defendant is found guilty in a case in
	which the state does not seek the death penalty, the judge shall
	sentence the defendant to life imprisonment.
	(b)  A defendant who is found guilty in a capital felony case
	only as a party under Section 7.02, Penal Code, may not be sentenced
	to death, and the state may not seek the death penalty in any case in
	which the defendant’s liability is based solely on that section.
	SECTION 5.  The change in law made by this Act applies to a
	criminal proceeding that commences on or after the effective date
	of this Act. A criminal proceeding that commences before the
	effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect when the
	proceeding commenced, and the former law is continued in effect for
	that purpose.
	SECTION 6.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2017.

Joseph Trigilio and Tracy Casadio, both Deputy Federal Public Defenders in California wrote the following article, “Executing Those Who Do Not Kill.”

The authors argue that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tison v. Arizona (1987) should be overturned. Tison allows the death penalty for certain non-triggermen if the defendant was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with a reckless disregard for human life. According to the law review, the analysis in Tison has been overturned in other cases, “Tison leads a trilogy of cases, including Stanford v. Kentucky and Penry v. Lynaugh, that represent a sharp break from a tradition of careful scrutiny on proportionality that considers both objective and subjective criteria in determining whether a certain category of defendants is constitutionally eligible for a death sentence.” Both Stanford and Penry have been overturned, and the authors maintain that, “under the proportionality analysis articulated in Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons, and Kennedy v. Louisiana, the contemporary ‘standards of decency’ require a further narrowing of death penalty eligibility for those who do not kill nor intend to kill.” The article concludes, “In 2009, the Court cemented the new proportionality paradigm in Kennedy, expressly basing its analysis on the framework of Roper, Atkins, Coker, and Enmund. In so doing, the Court abandoned Tison’s analytical framework as no longer authoritative. The time has come to overturn Tison and to bar the execution of felony-murder accomplices who neither kill nor intend to kill.”

Executing Those Who Do Not Kill