The Injustice of the Texas Law of Parties

INTRODUCTION

This packet has been put together through the consolidated work of several individualsactivists, lawyers, and death row inmates. The following is a legal analysis of the Texas Law of Parties, specifically in relation to capital murder cases. In the wake of all the media attention geared towards DNA and mental competency issues, inmates with other legitimate innocence claims are being unjustly sentenced and forgotten about. People sentenced under the Law of Parties are among such claims. This analysis will outline the unconstitutional and unjust methods that the Texas Law of Parties incorporates.

We send this packet to you not only because we want to bring awareness, but because we feel you care about social justice issues and can help make a difference in this matter. We thank you in advance for taking the time to read and consider these contents.



LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE LAW OF PARTIES

THE STATUATORY BASIS OF THE LAW OF PARTIES

Section 7.02 of the Texas Penal Code outlines the following:

A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense he solicits, encourages, directs, aids or attempts to aid the other persons to commit the offense or If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.

Article 37.071(b)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedures permits the infliction of the death penalty only if the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be taken.

PARTIES AND THE US SUPREME COURT

The US Supreme Court held that imposition of the death penalty on a person who aids and abets a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill violates the 8th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. (Edmund v. Florida 458 US 782, 1982)

Five years after the Edmund decision the Supreme Court created an exception to this general rule for those guilty of a murder that occurs in the commission of a felony who do not kill or intend to kill, but who have major personal involvement in the felony and display a reckless indifference to human life. (Tison v. Arizona, 481 US 137, 1987)

THE STANDARD NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE

The Delaware Superior Court observed:

Major participation and reckless indifference to human life are more likely to be found where an accomplice defendant is present at and before a killing which involved considerable deliberation and the killing is preceded by physical or psychological abuse of the victim, including assault, torture or other acts of cruelty. Such a finding is less likely where the killing is sudden or impulsive and it is unclear that the defendant actually caused the victims death.

The application of Texas Penal Code 7.02, in combination with Texas Code of Criminal Procedures Article 37.071(b)(2), is unjust and unconstitutional because it permits the death penalty to be imposed for complicity in a capital crime without requiring a finding that the person intended to kill or that he was a major participant in a crime where he showed reckless disregard for human life. In other words, neglecting to anticipate another actors commission of murder in the course of a felony is all that is required to make a Texas defendant death-eligible, thus immensely lowering the standard the US Supreme Court has set. This is allowing the death penalty to be applied in a most immoral and liberal way.

THE LAW OF PARTIES IN THE CASE OF KENNETH FOSTER, JR.

The State of Texas use of the conspiracy statute offends the 8th Amendment in the following ways:

A) It permits the imposition of the death penalty for a mental status no greater than negligence

B) The use of the substantive penal offense of conspiracy fails to meet the requirements of death eligibility under Enmund and Tison

C) It violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment by permitting one to be convicted under a conspiracy statute never alleged to have been proved.