Executed, January 31, 2002

January 25, 2002

The Honorable Frank Keating
Office of the Governor
Room 212
State Capitol Building
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Re: David Woodruff

Dear Governor Keating:

The American Civil Liberties Union urges you to grant a 30-day stay of execution for David Woodruff and insist that The Board of Pardon and Parole conduct a full and proper review of his appeal for clemency. Our request is founded on our desire that appropriate standards for the implementation of the death penalty be maintained and on the grave likelihood that innocence is being overlooked.

Mr. Woodruff has been linked to the crime for which he is to be put to death by no more than conjecture and speculation. This seemingly excessive claim is demonstrated unequivocally by the facts of the case. In addition, though guilt itself is in question, there were potentially important mitigating circumstances, which were never presented in support of sparing Mr. Woodruff's life.

However, the standard of "Moral Certainty," which you clearly articulated in a speech to the national Press Club, is that which is in the most jeopardy in this case.

The Principle of Moral Certainty

You have expressed the view that a standard of Moral Certainty is necessary, without exception, for a death sentence to be carried out. In the case of Mr. Woodruff that standard is not achieved. The Oklahoma Board of Pardons and Appeals, from which you require a recommendation in order to grant clemency, voted equally in favor of and against granting Mr. Woodruff his appeal. The 2-2 tie of this board clearly denotes grave ambiguity into any absolute decision on clemency. This outcome strongly suggests to us that the board should be asked to conduct further inquiry and reconsider its decision on clemency, which would dictate a further review of such an unclear position, this result is automatically considered a recommendation against clemency.

Serious Potential of Innocence

It is undisputed that in the case of the murder of Roger Joel Sarfaty, for which Mr. Woodruff has been condemned, there are no eyewitnesses and no physical or forensic evidence of any kind to support the involvement of Mr. Woodruff.

The state argues that Mr. Woodruff conspired John Romano to murder Joel Sarfaty. Yet the only circumstance on which the state relied to link Mr. Romano and Mr. Woodruff, with respect to the killing of Mr. Sarfaty, was the fact that they were arrested together for public intoxication on October 12, 1985 - four days before the discovery of the body. There were lay witnesses to this arrest who described the existence of small stains on Mr. Woodruff's pants, which they attributed to blood. These witnesses also stated that the men had a large number of quarters. This was used to point to reports that the victim also collected large amounts of quarters. Both of these observations, however, were disputed, in court, by more involved and aware mall security personnel, who physically took the two into custody.

The remaining pieces of circumstantial evidence presented were that Mr. Woodruff had diamond certificates near his car at the mall on October 12th and jewelry and a length of rope with loops at either end at his home after the 16th. The possession of the jewelry and certificates are easily explained by the fact that Mr. Woodruff is also employed in the jewelry business. Further, none of the jewelry could be linked to Mr. Sarfaty or to the robbery and murder. The rope, while appearing suspect in light of the fact that Mr. Sarfaty was strangled as well as stabbed, does not stand rational scrutiny. The wounds on the neck of the victim were cut into the skin yet no trace of physical evidence was found on the length of rope in Mr. Woodruff's possession despite the sensitivity of forensic tests.

None of the above evidence has any relevance to the case against Mr. Woodruff, or helps in any way to establish his guilt or connection to the murder if the crime was committed after his arrest with Mr. Romano on October 12th. They cannot be evidence of a crime that has not yet occurred.

Forensic science practiced with accurate crime scene conditions indicates that the murder occurred after Mr. Woodruff was supposed to have participated in it, that is on the 13th rather than the 12th. However, there is yet more convincing evidence that the victim was alive beyond when the haphazard evidence suggests Mr. Woodruff could have committed the crime. Mr. Sarfaty was seen alive, on the 13th of October, by his neighbor, a man in good position to recognize him.

In addition, the medical examiner charged with determining the time of death originally indicated to the counsel for Mr. Romano that the victim was alive on the 12th. Dr. Choi altered this statement after being familiarized with the states theory to be consistent with death before the early afternoon of the 12th. Moreover, Dr. Choi was never informed that the temperature of the room in which the body was found was significantly higher than what she had originally believed. This difference in temperature is critical to an accurate determination of when the time of death occurred because the temperature affects the rate of decomposition, which in turn determines the time of death.

It is clear that Mr. Woodruff has steadfastly maintained his innocence based on more than self-preservation. The facts strongly support his claim. Please consider them as evidence that a true innocent is potentially at stake ad should be given review free of uncertainties.

Sentencing Errors

While the principles and facts outlined in our appeal are compelling, Mr. Woodruff has also been disadvantaged at sentencing. First and foremost, the jury was not offered the alternative of life without the possibility of parole, as that sentence was not yet in place at the time of trial. It is likely that this option would have been favored, had it existed, in light of Mr. Woodruff's life history.

Second, significant mitigating factors should be given more weight. Both his natural mother and an initial alternative caregiver abandoned Mr. Woodruff at an early age. There is evidence from Mr. Woodruff's behavior and mental state, as well as testimony from his biological brother, that Mr. Woodruff was severely abused. This abuse, in addition to likely mentally impaired by fetal alcohol syndrome and organic brain damage, has to led to the reality that Mr. Woodruff can only reason at the level of a 14 year old.

This evidence can be presented in great detail and should be reconsidered fully by the Board of Pardons and Paroles, as it was never considered by or even presented to the sentencing jury.

Conclusion

You have acknowledged that the death penalty tests the limits of human fallibility demanding extra caution on the part of those who would exact the most severe of punishments. The facts of this case make a compelling argument that the standard of moral certainty that you require for the imposition of the death penalty has not been met.

We urge you to grant a 30-day stay for David Woodruff and resubmit his appeal to the Board of Pardons and Appeals.

Sincerely,

Diann Rust-Tierney
ACLU Capital Punishment Project

Joann Bell
ACLU of Oklahoma