EXECUTED MAY 2002

Mr. Gerald Garrett, Chairman
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
Price Daniel, Sr. Building
209 W. 14th Street, Suite 500
Austin, Texas 78701 

Re: Napolean Beazley

Dear Mr. Garrett:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, we urge you to stay the execution of Napolean Beazley, which is currently scheduled for August 15, 2001. Mr. Beazley's status as a juvenile at the time of the crime and very serious questions as to whether he received a fair trial by an impartial jury merit this extraordinary relief.

While the Supreme Court has not ruled that imposing the death penalty on a seventeen year-old is unconstitutional, it has expressed the view that youth, like mental retardation, can reduce a person's criminal culpability. Youth is, therefore, an important mitigating factor in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty. Popular support for the imposition of the death penalty on juveniles is declining. The Texas House of Representatives recently passed a bill that would have raised eligibility for the death penalty to age 18, and a February 2001 poll demonstrated that a majority of Texans do not support the death penalty for juveniles.

Moreover, imposition of the death penalty on juveniles is strongly opposed internationally. At least 72 countries that retain the death penalty as a form of punishment restrict its application to people over the age of 18. The International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights bars the death sentence for juveniles, recognizing child offenders' immaturity, impulsiveness, and capacity for change.

Napolean Beazley was 17 years old at the time of the crime and had no criminal record prior to the offense. Napolean's codefendants were both over the age of 18 when the crime was committed, and ironically it was the juvenile Napolean who received a sentenced of death. Napolean has been a model prisoner and was one of the few people on death row selected to hold a 'trustee' position in the prison. Although a jury found Napolean Beazley capable of "future dangerousness," his behavior in prison exhibits the capacity for change envisioned by the international community. Furthermore, his conduct demonstrates his ability to set a good example for other prisoners.

There also remain serious concerns whether Napolean Beazley was afforded a fair and impartial jury. Napolean Beazley, an African-American, was tried before an all-white jury, even though the trial took place in Smith County, whose population is 20% African-American. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied Napolean Beazley's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment challenges to the exclusion of black jurors. Evidence later emerged, however, that at least one juror harbored severe racial bias against blacks. The juror told an investigator, "[T]he state said that we don't have to say noth'n to nobody." As he was closing the door, he was heard to say, "[T]he nigger got what he deserved." Furthermore, the juror's wife stated in an affidavit: "My husband . . . is racially prejudiced," and "I would find it difficult to believe that [he] could have set his prejudice aside and not let it influence him to some degree [at the trial]." It was later discovered that another member of the jury had been a long-time employee of one of the victim's business partners. These facts cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury.

Prosecutorial conduct at Napolean Beazley's trial also warrants reconsideration of his sentence. One prosecutor repeatedly referred to Napolean Beazley as an "animal." There is reason to believe, moreover, that the prosecutors knew of one juror's association with the victim's business partner, yet knowingly kept that juror on the jury. Further, in arguing that Napolean Beazley was capable of "future dangerousness," Texas relied on the testimony of two co-defendants. These co-defendants later admitted they gave their testimony in exchange for a promise by the prosecution not to seek the death penalty against them. This conduct, taken in conjunction with Napolean Bezley's young age and potentially biased jurors, further questions whether Napolean Beazley received a fair trial and whether he deserves the most severe form of punishment.

The ACLU opposes capital punishment in all cases as a barbarous anachronism and in violation of the Constitution. While Texas has demonstrated its support for the death penalty, that support is not unqualified. A key to public support is that the system operates fairly and justly. For the reasons described above, this case is not deserving of the death penalty. Texas now has the opportunity, in an act of mercy and grace, to demonstrate that before enforcing this ultimate punishment, it has done everything possible to adequately safeguard the rights of those sentenced to death.

Sincerely,

Diann Rust-Tierney
ACLU Capital Punishment Project

William Harrell
ACLU of Texas

Ashley M. Bell
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.