|
These cases
just keep coming. Thomas Miller-El got his case before the public
on the internet and found legal counsel prepared to fight for
him. Otherwise he would be just another statistic in George Dubya
Bush's murderous legacy as governor of that state.
A few of the
sites which have highlighted this shameful case: from Denmark | France | ACLU | Johnny
Penry
| Bernard
Baran
It is clear
that the public support gained from a public, aggressive delivering
of the facts to the public can actually save a life.
Thomas Miller-El
- High court,
5th Circuit battling over death row
- Cases can bounce back and
forth as judges butt heads
By PATTY REINERT, Houston
Chronicle Washington Bureau, Dec. 5, 2004
RESOURCES
DEATH ROW PANELS
The U.S. 5th Circuit Court
of Appeals most often decides cases in three-judge panels. Here
are the panels for Texas death row rulings that conflicted with
the Supreme Court's approach: (see sidebar)
WASHINGTON - Eight of the nine
U.S. Supreme Court justices decided last year that death row
inmate Thomas Miller-El, a black man from Dallas, showed ample
evidence that prosecutors deliberately excluded blacks from his
1986 jury.
The high court, annoyed that
the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans had ignored
the evidence, sent the case back with orders to take a second
look. The lower court did. But it didn't change its mind.
So on Monday, in what has become
a pattern of repeat trips to the Supreme Court for Texas death
cases, lawyers for Miller-El will ask the justices to decide
a different fundamental question: Is the 5th Circuit so blatantly
disobedient that it must be reined in - again?
Whether the New Orleans-based
federal appeals court is scorning Supreme Court guidance or has
a genuine philosophical disagreement, it's clear the lower court
is butting heads with the high court, Houston lawyer and former
Supreme Court clerk Brett Busby said.
"The majority of the Supreme
Court seems to be increasingly trying to send them a message
that the law is contrary to the way they are portraying it,"
he said.
The 5th Circuit is composed
of 14 lifetime appointees of Republican presidents Reagan, George
H.W. Bush and the George W. Bush and six appointees of Democratic
presidents Clinton and Carter. It is widely considered one of
the two most conservative circuit courts in the nation and is
known for its reluctance to side with criminal defendants, death
row inmates in particular.
The Supreme Court has indicated
the 5th Circuit has gone too far, denying defendants' constitutional
rights. Although the high court accepts and decides only a tiny
fraction of the cases that are filed each term, it nevertheless
has taken three Texas death penalty cases at least twice. In
each, the high court repeatedly has warned the 5th Circuit about
failing to comply with its rulings.
Tennard's case
In the case of Robert Tennard,
a Houston man who killed a neighbor, a six-justice majority of
the Supreme Court heaped shame on the 5th Circuit in June. The
court wrote that the 5th Circuit's test for deciding cases in
which the defendant has a low IQ has "no foundation in the
decisions of this court."
Last month, the court
delivered the same message directly to the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, which used the same test to deny the appeal of Dallas
killer LaRoyce Smith without waiting for the high court's ruling
in the Tennard case.
In Smith's case, the Supreme
Court justices, without scheduling arguments, issued a 7-2 unsigned
opinion urging the state court to pay attention and stop relying
on "a test we never countenanced and now have unequivocally
rejected."
The same day, the justices
overturned, without comment, the death sentence of Ted Calvin
Cole, also known as Jalil Abdul-Kabir. It returned his case to
the 5th Circuit with instructions to reread the Tennard decision
and reconsider Cole's appeal.
Penry's case
Even before Tennard's case,
Texas death row inmate Johnny Paul Penry's case had been to the
Supreme Court and back to the 5th Circuit several times because
of what the high court saw as the lower court's faulty system
of reviewing the evidence on defendants' low IQ and mental retardation.
Death penalty
system
The high court has since accepted
several other Texas death penalty appeals and has summarily thrown
out lower-court decisions and sent the cases back for more work.
"What is really happening
is the death penalty system in Texas is close to breaking, because
the Supreme Court simply does not have the resources to police
every single death penalty case that comes up from Texas,"
said David Dow, a professor at the University of Houston Law
Center who represents death row inmates.
"They have to be able
to count on the 5th Circuit and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
to do their jobs," he added. "So far, they haven't
been able to do that."
Texas Attorney General Greg
Abbott, whose staff represents the state in death penalty appeals,
declined through a spokesman to comment on the Miller-El case
or on the conflict between the Supreme Court and lower appeals
courts.
And, like most federal judges,
those on the 5th Circuit do not discuss their decisions with
the media.
But Rob Kepple, executive director
of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association in Austin,
defended the judges, saying Supreme Court decisions "are
very good at telling you you did it wrong" but are "notoriously
void of guidance on telling you how to do it right."
"It shouldn't be surprising
to anybody that the courts are going to go back and forth as
(they) try to guess what the Supreme Court wants them to do,"
he said.
Miller-El's
case
In Miller-El's case, Jim Marcus
of the Houston-based Texas Defender Service and former Solicitor
General Seth Waxman of Washington complained in court briefs
that despite "overwhelming evidence of racial discrimination"
and "strong indications that the state courts mishandled
that evidence," the 5th Circuit twice came to the identical
conclusion against their client.
"It did so largely by
ignoring this court's direction," the lawyers wrote, adding
that the Supreme Court should send a clear message that this
will not be tolerated.
Miller-El's evidence included
the fact that prosecutors asked different questions of potential
jurors based on their race, eliminated blacks who gave similar
answers or had similar backgrounds as whites who were seated
on the jury, and exercised their option to shuffle the seating
order of the jury pool when the front seats were occupied by
blacks.
Perhaps most damning, though,
was evidence of a history of discrimination against minority
potential jurors by the Dallas County District Attorney's Office.
Miller-El's lawyers produced the office's training manuals on
jury selection that in the 1960s read: "Do not take Jews,
Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans or a member of any minority race on
a jury, no matter how rich or how well educated." Later
versions advised avoiding such jurors because "minorities
usually empathize with the accused."
Prosecutors in Miller-El's
case used their jury pool strikes to eliminate 10 of the 11 blacks.
The jury that convicted Miller-El and sent him to death row for
the 1985 shooting murder of Irving Holiday Inn clerk Doug Walker
included an African-American, a Hispanic and an Asian-American.
The nine other jurors were white.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony
Kennedy, writing for the majority last year, said Miller-El's
evidence revealed a culture in the district attorney's office
that was "suffused with bias against African-Americans in
jury selection."
The lone dissenter
The 5th Circuit said it was
merely deferring to the state trial court's decision that Miller-El
had not proved the bias. But Kennedy wrote that showing deference
"does not imply abandonment or abdication of judicial review."
His opinion laid out in detail the evidence the justices found
to be obvious.
Rather than following the majority's
opinion, however, the 5th Circuit relied on the reasoning of
Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court's only black member,
who was the lone dissenter in the case. It lifted several passages
from his opinion, without attributing the wording to him, in
its latest decision in the case.
Texas Assistant Attorney General
Gena Bunn wrote in her brief to the Supreme Court that the 5th
Circuit did follow the high court's lead in re-evaluating that
evidence. It simply came to the same conclusion as before, that
Miller-El failed to show that prosecutors struck the black potential
jurors because of their race rather than their views, she said.
The case is to be decided by
next summer.
Courts Wrong
to Deny Inmate Hearing on Bias, Justices Say
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2003 -
The Supreme Court said today that a Texas death row inmate who
came within a week of being put to death had unfairly been denied
a chance to present federal courts with evidence of racial bias
in the jury selection for his trial.
The court ruled, 8 to 1, that
lower courts should at least have granted the inmate, Thomas
Miller-El, a threshold opportunity to bring a federal court challenge
to his 1986 conviction for murdering a hotel clerk during a robbery
the year before.
The court did not rule on the
merits of the defendant's case, although it said the Dallas County
prosecutor's office had clearly been "suffused with bias"
against black jurors in the past. Mr. Miller-El is black. Nor
did the court say that the defendant should ultimately be allowed
to have a full review of his case in the federal courts.
But the justices did say that
Mr. Miller-El should have been granted an initial opportunity
to at least apply for a writ of habeas corpus, which is a challenge
to the constitutionality of a prisoner's conviction or sentence.
The ruling may encourage other
death row inmates whose fates may rest on their chances of gaining
access to the federal courts once their state appeals are exhausted,
especially since the High Court admonished the federal appellate
courts not to abdicate their responsibility to examine state
criminal proceedings for constitutional error.
"We conclude, on our review
of the record at this stage, that the district court did not
give full consideration to the substantial evidence petitioner
put forth," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.
And while the court emphasized
it was not ruling on the merits of Mr. Miller-El's case, it noted
that an overwhelming majority of the Dallas County prosecutor's
challenges to prospective jurors were used to exclude blacks
from the panel.
"Happenstance is unlikely
to produce this disparity," Justice Kennedy wrote. Citing
a 1963 instruction sheet in which the district attorney's office
told prosecutors in stark language to get rid of minority jurors
"no matter how rich or how well educated," Justice
Kennedy said it was clear that "the culture of the district
attorney's office in the past was suffused with bias against
African-Americans in jury selection."
"Even if we presume at
this stage that the prosecutors in Miller-El's case were not
part of this culture of discrimination, the evidence suggests
they were likely not ignorant of it," Justice Kennedy continued.
The decision today overturned
a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, in New Orleans, which held in 2001 that the defendant's
petition for a writ of habeas corpus did not even qualify for
a hearing. The lower courts had come to that conclusion earlier.
The lone dissenter today was
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote that the defense's evidence
of historical bias was "entirely circumstantial" and
did not constitute "anything remotely resembling `clear
and convincing' evidence of purposeful discrimination."
Justice Antonin Scalia, who
joined in the majority, also wrote a somewhat grudging concurring
opinion in which he called the case "very close" in
favor of the defendant. The opinions in the case, Miller-El v.
Cockrell, No. 01-7662, can be read on the Supreme Court's Web
site, www.supremecourtus.gov.
Mr. Miller-El was approaching
his execution, scheduled for Feb. 15, 2002, when the Supreme
Court granted a stay and agreed to hear his case. The court appointed
Seth Waxman, a former solicitor general now in private practice,
to represent him.
When the justices heard the
case last Oct. 16, Mr. Waxman told them it was "surpassingly
important" that they use Mr. Miller-El's case to clarify
how the "abstract rules" for detecting unconstitutional
racial bias in picking a jury ought to work in actual practice.
Habeas corpus petitions are
the principal means by which state inmates can obtain federal
court review of their convictions or sentences, and they have
been responsible for overturning a significant number of death
sentences in recent years.
But they have also been criticized
on grounds that they unduly prolong death row appeals. As a result,
Congress passed a law in 1996 to limit the federal courts' ability
to overturn state court results.
Under that law's provisions,
a defendant has to be granted a "certificate of appealability"
by a lower court to apply for a habeas corpus writ once his standard
appeals are exhausted. Cases raising questions about prisoners'
rights to bring habeas corpus proceedings are likely to come
before the high court again, given that in some cases they are
issues of life or death for the defendants.
Competent to Stand Trial??
A Bad Joke - At the Best!
From Mr.
Miller-El's website
On November 15th, 1985, Holiday
Inn in Irving, Texas was robbed. During the course of the robbery,
one of the clerks, the 25-years old Mr. Douglas Walker was fatally
shot. His fellow clerk, Mr. Donald Ray Hall, (29) survived the
shooting, but he ended up paralyzed from the chest down.
Six days later on November
21st, 1985, Thomas was seriously wounded after he was shot in
the back and left flank by the Houston SWAT team during arrest.
While slipping in and out of consciousness, Thomas heard one
of the police officers say: "Is the nigger dead? If he ain't
dead, then kill him"!
Thomas Miller-El was close
to death because the bullet tore up his intestines and the post-operative
diagnosis was:
"gunshot wound to the
left flank with injuries to the jejenum, stomach, liver, pancreas,
small bowel mesentery, abdominal wall, diaphragm and colon."
After a lengthy fifty-two days
of inpatient treatment in a Houston hospital, including two surgeries,
Thomas was transferred to the Dallas County Jail and tried nineteen
days later.He was in a critical condition and continued to experience
severe complications before, during, and after his trial. During
Thomas' trial in 1986, he remained in the Dallas County infirmary
during the course of trial. When he was discharged from the hospital
in Houston, his medical condition was critial, because of a double-barreled
colostomy and metallic bullet fragments were scattered throughout
his abdomen. Thomas Miller-El arrived at the Dallas County Jail
in a weakened, anemic state, susceptible to recurrent infections.
Although his medical condition
required several hospitalizations during his trial, and prompted
multiple requests for medical evaluations from the trial court,
Thomas' trial proceeded without pause. He kept suffering constantly
from numerous infections and complications with the colostomy
and infections in the gunshot wound. He was also suffering greatly
during trial because of pneumonia. The medical staff of the Dallas
County Jail, when responding to Thomas' needs, generally did
so only after substantial delays. The treatment was frequently
denied or delayed, which resulted in prolonged bouts of pain
and illness.
By December 20, 1985, one month
after Thomas was shot, he weighed 153 pounds. Thomas is six feet,
five inches tall and had weighed 235 pounds before his arrest.
Thomas had lost eighty-two pounds, in four weeks. Therefore the
doctor had ordered double diets for him. The double diets were
never followed up.
Some days during the trial
he was brought to the court in a wheelchair. Other days he would
fall asleep in the court exhausted by the severe pain which he
was suffering from 24 hours a day. In addition to these problems,
he was suffering from constant lack of sleep.
He was ordered up around 1
a.m., and brought to a cold waiting cell. He was trafficated
from one cold holding cell like cattle, along with hundreds of
other prisoners who were appearing in the various other Dallas
Courtrooms. All of this occurred before the court proceedings
started about 9 a.m., and wasn't brought back to the prison before
5 p.m. Sometimes not before 8 p.m. During the these eight weeks
of this trafficing back and forth to the Courtroom daily in his
seriously ill condition, he was never given a hot meal, only
a pork sandwich, a peanut sandwich and a cookie if he was lucky.
Thomas is a Muslim and doesn't eat pork. Needless to say, the
lack of food in such a condition had it's impact on his serious
health condition.
Stephen Bowers who was the
Medical Director for the Dallas County Jail System, had no knowledge
of any of the information regarding the nature and extent of
Thomas' injuries when he offered his opinion in the State habeas
proceeding. Moreover, the first notation in the Dallas County
Jail records made by a medical doctor appears on February 17,
1986, one month after Thomas' arrival at the jail, two weeks
after the commencement of jury selection, and one week after
Judge McDowell ordered Thomas to be evaluated.
When Thomas arrived in Dallas
County Jail on January 16, 1986, he was substantially underweight
with obvious traumatic injuries and a double-barreled colostomy.
The Ben Taub Hospital records did not follow up. The medical
staff at Dallas County Jail were aware of that Thomas had been
shot and given a double-barreled colostomy, and the medical staff
that were responsible for his care for over five months had no
knowledge of the nature and extent of Thomas' internal injuries.
On February 10, 1986, Judge
McDowell ordered Thomas sent to Parkland Medical Hospital for
an evaluation. Thomas had chills and fever. He was diagnosed
with pneumonia, and was prescribed Darvocet N-100 and Erythromycin
500 mg. Although the trial court had ordered Thomas to the hospital
the day before, and he was taking the maximum available dosage
of a narcotic medication, Thomas' jury selection resumed on February
11, 1986.
Throughout the following week,
jail medical staff costantly failed to give Thomas his antibiotics
and pain medication on schedule. In an affidavit submitted during
state habeas corpus proceedings, Thomas averred:
"I would be given my pain
medication at the time they came to take me to the court, because
they said they couldn't bring it over to me in the court. I could
not get my pain medication four times a day. The medical personnel
would only give me two pills each morning, before I left for
court. One of the dozes was for 8:00 a.m., and the other was
for 12:00 noon. However, having to wait in freezing cold holdover
cells, I always stayed sick, and hurting more throughout the
day. Sometimes I'd have to take the first doze of my pain medication
at 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m., so that I could have some sort of
physical relief. Then, I would take my remaining pill about 8:00
a.m., in the court holdover cell, a few minutes before being
called into court. That way I wouldn't be having too much pain
in the morning as I endured the long voir dire of the individual
jurors. But I did not receive any medication at 4:00 p.m. and
8:00 p.m. because I would still be in court or in the court holdover
waiting to go back to the infirmary. I'd either be in court or
in the court holdover cell when it came time for me to take the
4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. dosages.Therefore, I'd never get to take
them and my pain would become a torture."
On one morning, Thomas kept
his medication, so he could take it in the Courtroom. The Court
bailiff (officer), searched Thomas' pockets, found the medication
and told the Judge that Thomas was trying to smuggle drugs into
the Courtroom. The Judge called the prison doctor and asked him
if Thomas needed that medication, to which the doctor said "No"
and that Thomas didn't need any pain medication.
On February 19, 1986, for the
second time, the trial court expressed its concern about the
effect of Thomas' medical condition regarding his ability to
stand trial. Dr. Collyns received a note:
"Ms. Stacy wants you to
check this inmate in regards to his need of more pain medic.
He ran out of his medic. today. The Judge also wants to know
if it is important for his well being. The man is on trial for
att/cap/murder." First on February 24, 1986, dr. Collyns
sent a note to Court that Thomas didn't need more pain medication
and the court again failed to convene a hearing regarding Thomas'
competency to stand trial.
Thomas had not been examined
by a doctor since the morning of February 20, 1986. On this morning
Thomas received Darvocet for his pain before Dr. Collyns had
examined him. On February 24, 1986, after they had stopped the
administration of Darvocet in the morning, no doctor had examined
Thomas, and on this day Dr. Collyns sent his opinion to the Court
that Thomas didn't need more pain medication.
However, on February 25, 1986 Thomas' trial counsel had an extensive
colloquy about his need for medication. Thomas was in an obvious
weakened condition, kept having severe pain, and was only able
to whisper when he was asked by the Judge what kind of medication
he was receiving. The defense counsel's request for an evaluation
because of their doubts regarding Thomas' medical fitness to
attend court, was denied and based on outdated and inaccurate
information.(Dr. Collyn's examination of Thomas on February 20,
1986)
E. Brice Cunningham, one of
Thomas' attorneys wrote in an affidavit:
" I remember another occasion,
during the trial, that Mr. Miller-El leaned over to me .....
and said, "there is something wrong with me".........
I asked the court to allow us to approach the bench. At this
time I adviced the court of what I observed and believed was
the serious medical condition of Mr. Miller-El at that time .........
Each time we brought Mr. Miller-El's poor medical condition to
the attention of the court, Judge McDowell responded by making
Mr. West and Affiant responsible for obtaining medical supplies
or proper medical attention, although I believe that was the
responsibility of ( 1 ) the Trial Court; ( 2 ) the medical doctor
assigned to the Dallas County Jail; and ( 3 ) any other medical
personel such as nurse, who were on duty."
Thomas continued to experience
"constant" chest pains and was also experiencing fever
and chills, but the court proceedings continued. On March 4,
1986, Thomas was sent to Pakland Hospital for incision and drainage
treatment of a chest abscess. Again, on March 10, 1986, Thomas
received emergency surgical treatment at Parkland Hospital for
an infected cyst.
Thomas was being treated with
Motrin and Cloxacillin, an antibiotic. There is no indication
in the record that Thomas received his medication on schedule,
if at all, during court proceedings. In the evening of March
20, 1986, Thomas requested to see a doctor. He had not seen a
doctor since March 10th when he was at Parkland Hospital and
Dr. Collyns had not examined him since March 4th. On March 21,
1986, Thomas was in court when Dr. Collyns came, and the examination
was "rescheduled." According to Dallas County Prosecutor
Norman Kinne, Thomas, who had been complaining of pain the night
before, was sleeping in court. And the court proceedings continued.
On March 24, 1986, Thomas had
still not received any medical attention after his request about
this on March 20th. Two seperate notations indicate that Thomas
was in court when someone came by to evaluate him. On this day,
March 24th, Thomas was only able to respond to the leading questions
of the court and attorneys with "yes" and "no"
answers because of the horrible psysical condition he was in.
Both the court and defense
counsel made self-serving assertions that Thomas seems competent,
even though they had all earlier on that day, requested evaluations
of Thomas' medical condition and the trial court would do so
again only hours later. First during the preparations of Thomas'
Writ of Habeas Corpus, his trial-counsel stated in an Affidavit
that:
"I was never advised as
to the severity of Mr. Miller-El's medical condition, by the
persons who had this medical information, viz., the doctor assigned
to the jail, nurses, and etc .......... Affiant was aware of
the fact that Mr. Miller-El was having medical problems, evidenced
by the colostomy bag that Mr. Miller-El was required to wear,
and was in pain, because Mr. Miller-El told me so. However, Counsel
for Mr. Miller-El were never made aware, and did not learn the
full gravity of Mr. Miller-El's condition, until being advised
by Mr. Miller-El's attorneys appointed to represent him on the
filing of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. After learning more about
what the attorneys representing Mr. Miller-El on his Writ of
Habeas Corpus, conserning the alleged medical conditions of Mr.
Miller-El, at the time of his trial, Trial Counsel would have
brought the matter of Mr. Miller-El's medical condition to the
court's attention, requested a Hearing to determine this fact,
and would have done what ever was possible to assure Mr. Miller-El
was receiving the best medical attention, either in the Dallas
County Jail, Parkland Memorial Hospital, or some other medical
facility that had dealt with his problem."
Exhibit 28 ( Affidavit of E.
Brice Cunningham ) at 5-6 On March 24, 1986, the jury returned
a verdict of guilty at 3.22 p.m. A note written at 7:15 p.m.,
by a jail staff person stated JudgeMcDowell's bailiff requested
Mr. Miller-El undergo a medical evaluation to determine his ability
to stand trial. Thomas was experiencing "nausea, pain, stopped
up colostomy, backache."
Thomas Received his Guilty
Verdict in this condition. Still - the State claims Thomas was
competent to Stand Trial
After he received his quilty
verdict, Thomas Miller-El was admitted to the Parkland Medical
Hospital Emergency Room at 7:39 p.m., and treated for a small
bowel obstruction. On March 25, 1986, he returned to the Dallas
County Jail, with instructions to return if increased abdominal
pain and vomiting. This same morning Thomas was discharged from
the Parkland Medical Hospital Emergency Room, the punishment
phase resumed at 10:00 a.m.
After Thomas' medical problems
had been ignored for four days and spending the previous night
in Parkland Hospital, Thomas testified during a motion to suppress.
His brief testimony consisted of only very short answers to leading
questions from his defense counsel. Thomas was clearly having
difficulty speaking in an audible voice and experienced some
confusion during the short exchange with his lawyer.
On March 26, 1986, Thomas was
experiencing back pain and his colostomy was not working. The
proceednings resumed at 9:15 a.m. and Thomas was sentenced to
death at 2:30 p.m. On March 28, 1986, for the first time since
March 4th, Dr. Collyns examined Thomas and prescribed antibiotics.
On April 1, 1986, Thomas was exeperiencing chest, back and abdominal
pain, but he was not given any medication. Almost one week later,
still untreated, Thomas sent a note that he needed a doctor because
he has severe pains in his side, stomach and sometimes his back.
There is no indication Dr. Collyns treated Thomas, although he
noted that Thomas experienced:
constant pain in his upper
abdomen or chest on April 9, 1986, when he came to examine Thomas.
The nurse's note on the same day: "Shaking, lips dry, cracked,
Greenish, odorish drainage to open chest wound. He had high temperature,
fast pulse and low blood pressure." Thomas was then sent
to Parkland Hospital again.He received emergency treatment for
infection in the gunshot wounds in his chest. On April 25th,
when he again was sent to Parkland Hospital, his weight was 165.5
pounds, just twelve-and-a-half more pounds more than he did five
months before.
On June 26, 1986, Thomas was
transferred to the Ellis One Unit of Texas Department of Corrections
still having complications with the colostomy.
The medical expert Ari Kiev,
concludes in the end of his Affidavit that:" It is also
my opinion, in terms of reasonable medical certainty, that any
man in the physical and mental condition reflected by Mr. Miller-El's
medical records, evidencing this level of depression, pain, injury,
and resulting complications, would not be capable of withstanding
any stressful event, must less a trial for life. I would not
recommend that any patient of mine go anywhere under the circumstances
reflected by these records, much less to court every day as a
defendant in a capital murder trial."
In spite of all the above-mentioned
which clearly describes the debilitated condition Thomas was
in during the whole trial, The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court denied
Thomas' request for a COA. ( Certificate of Appealability.)
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell