UPDATE (7/2/04): GOVERNOR GRANTED CLEMENCY COMMUTING WILLIAMS' S SENTENCE TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE ON JULY 2ND AFTER INDIANA'S PAROLE BOARD RULED UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF CLEMENCY FOR DARNELL WILLIAMS, IN A 5-0 VOTE. WILLIAMS IS NOW AWAITING GOVERNER KERNAN'S APPROVAL.

Send Governor Kernan a letter thanking him for making the right decision and commuting Darnell Williams's death sentence.

ACLU Clemency Letter

The Hon. Joseph E. Kernan
Governor
Office of the Governor
State House Room 206
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2797 

Dear Governor Kernan:

We write to urge you to grant clemency or a sentence of life in prison to Darnell Williams.  Mr. Williams is scheduled to be executed on July 9, 2004, despite compelling evidence that he was not the person who fired the gun that killed Henrietta and John Rease.  In fact, the evidence is so compelling that the trial prosecutor, Thomas Vanes, a law enforcement officer who investigated the case, at least five jurors who voted for the death penalty, and the post-conviction judge who rejected Williams' post-conviction challenges to his death penalty, are all urging the governor and courts to stop the execution.

Three young men and a woman were charged with the murder of the Reases. Of those, Williams is the only defendant who faces execution. One of the defendants was acquitted; the charges were dropped against another who testified for the state. Mr. Williams' co-defendant, Gregory Rouster's death sentence has been commuted to life, because he has mental retardation and cannot legally be punished with death. However, Mr. Williams' IQ has been determined to be just a few points higher than Mr. Rouster's, who all involved agree was supremely culpable in the killings.  Neither the judge who previously affirmed Mr. Williams' death sentence or the trial prosecutor support Mr. Williams' execution in the face of Mr. Rouster's lighter sentence.

The State's case for executing Mr. Williams is based on the argument that he was the person who shot the Reases because blood was found on his pants. Mr. Williams' original trial lawyer, however, was unprepared to defend against this argument and evidence, because he failed to notice this information during his investigation of the case.

The lawyer's defense strategy at trial was based on his belief that no blood was found on Mr. Williams' shorts.  But a state serologist had found three blood spots on Mr. Williams' shorts that were consistent with that of the murder victims, Gregory Rouster, and 45 per cent of the population. Although the serologist's report had been given to defense counsel before the trial, he overlooked the expert's findings.

When the prosecutor argued midway through the trial that blood on Mr. Williams' shorts was key evidence pointing to his participation in the murders, Mr. Williams' defense lawyer was taken by surprise. Because the defense lawyers had not hired their own experts, they were limited in what they could effectively present to the jury to undermine the importance that the state placed on the blood evidence.  

In addition to missing key forensic evidence, Mr. Williams' lawyers failed to review and present to the jury, the statement of a witness who says Mr. Williams was seen outside the victim's house at the time the fatal shots were fired. Moreover, Williams' attorney failed to investigate and present important mitigating evidence in his case, including the fact that he suffered brain damage at birth and his need for special education services, his violent and abusive father and his chaotic and impoverished upbringing.

Last summer in response to calls for further DNA testing, the late Governor of Indiana, Frank O'Bannon, granted Mr. Williams a stay of execution in order for modern DNA testing to be carried out.  The DNA testing excluded Henrietta Rease as the source of the two testable blood spots and excluded her husband as the source of one of the spots.  The data produced on the second spot was insufficient to conclude whether John Rease could be excluded as its source.  The modern DNA test findings and an affidavit signed by a law enforcement official who processed the crime scene stating that he and another officer did not find any blood on Mr. William's clothing during their careful inspection, cast serious doubt on the prosecution's key argument that Mr. Williams was the shooter because the victim's blood was found on his clothing.

In addition to the modern DNA findings since Mr. Williams received a stay last summer, one of the prosecution's key witnesses has recanted his testimony and post-conviction evidence has been discovered that undermines the credibility of another key prosecution witness.  Edwin Taylor, a prosecution witness who implicated Mr. Williams at trial, recanted his testimony on June 6, 2004.  Taylor now states that he provided inaccurate trial testimony concerning Mr. Williams because as a youth he was scared.  Last week, two witnesses reportedly confirmed Taylor's recantation.  The witnesses stated that on the night of the crime Taylor came to their home in a panic reporting that Gregory Rouster, not Darnell Williams, had shot the Reases.

The credibility of Derrick Bryant, another key prosecution witness who implicated Mr. Williams at trial, has recently been called into question.  Newly discovered evidence in the form of psychiatric records and testimony from his relatives shows Mr. Bryant suffers from mental illness, has a reputation for untruthfulness, and gave conflicting statements regarding the incident.  Records now show that on the same day Mr. Bryant implicated Mr. Williams in the crime, Mr. Bryant also told psychiatrists at a mental hospital that he saw his friend Edwin Taylor commit the murders.  As the information undermining Mr. Bryant's testimony has only recently been discovered, the jury was forced to sentence Mr. Williams without the knowledge of Mr. Bryant's damaged credibility. 

As a result of the newly discovered evidence, five of the trial jurors now support clemency for Mr. Williams.  One juror wrote, ""It is apparent our decision to convict was based on bad information.  Mr. Williams deserves a new trial.""  Another juror has stated, ""In the light of the new developments, I believe that the state would be carrying to too far if Darnell would be executed and that this would be an affront to our cherished ideas of democracy.""  Additionally, a third juror stated, ""Had I known of these facts at the time of the trial, I would not have voted to impose a death sentence on Darnell Williams.""  

Although the ACLU opposes capital punishment in all cases as a barbarous anachronism and a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, we are ever more convinced that the sentence in this case is unfair and urge you to grant clemency or a sentence of life in prison for a defendant who was convicted on inaccurate testimony and evidence.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Rachel King                                                  Fran Quigley
State Campaign Coordinator                         Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union                       Indiana Civil Liberties Union