« "Strict Liability's Criminogenic Effect" | Main | "Reducing Violent Crime in American Cities: An Opportunity to Lead" »

January 27, 2017

Texas completes its second execution of 2017

As reported in this AP piece, a "man convicted of a fatal robbery at a Dallas-area Subway shop just weeks after he was fired from his job there was executed Thursday night." Here are a few more details:

Terry Edwards, 43, received lethal injection for the $3,000 holdup at a Subway restaurant where two employees were shot to death in 2002. Asked by a warden if he had a final statement, Edwards replied: "I'm at peace with God. I hope y'all find peace in this." As the lethal dose of pentobarbital was administered, he began snoring quickly. Within about 30 seconds, all movement stopped.

He was pronounced dead at 10:17 p.m. CST, 23 minutes after the sedative began flowing into his arms. Edwards never looked at five relatives of the two murder victims who stood a few feet from him, looking through a window.

Edwards' execution, the second this year in Texas and the third nationally, was delayed about four hours until the U.S. Supreme Court rejected multiple last-day appeals that sought to halt his punishment. Lawyers for Edwards wanted to reopen his case to investigate claims that a court-appointed lawyer earlier in the appeals process provided deficient help by abandoning him. Attorneys also contended Dallas County prosecutors at his trial incorrectly portrayed Edwards as the shooter, that he was innocent of the shootings, that prosecutors manipulated evidence and testimony at his trial and improperly excluded black people from the jury. Edwards was black....

Mickell Goodwin, 26, and Tommy Walker, 34, were each shot in the head in the holdup. Walker, the store manager, had seven children and stepchildren. Goodwin was mother of two daughters. No one else was inside the store. "Tonight is a time for us to remember Mickey and Tommy," their families said in a statement following the execution. "Though this chapter of our journey is now over, we will always feel the loss of them in our lives."...

Edwards was on parole at the time of the shootings. He'd been released in October 1999 after prison time for car theft and possession with intent to deliver cocaine. The second man involved, Edwards' cousin, Kirk Edwards, turned himself in to police a day after the shootings. He had a previous criminal record for burglary and theft and now is serving 25 years for aggravated robbery for the sandwich shop case.

January 27, 2017 at 12:01 AM | Permalink

Comments

The condemned and his accomplice should have been executed many years before they murdered two victims with great family responsibilities. The deaths of those victims are 100% the fault of the lawyer profession. It protected, privileged, and empowered their murderers, from childhood. Because these murders had 100% foreseeability, those lawyers should compensate the estates of the victims for their wrongful deaths. Instead they have dealt themselves absolute immunities.

If liability is a substitute for retaliatory violence, then absolute immunity absolutely justifies violence in formal logic.

Posted by: David Behar | Jan 27, 2017 12:28:58 AM

The corruption of due process made the final outcome both unsafe and contrary to the Constitution which charges all involved to ensure equal justice under the law. The multiple contraventions of that process, which led to the taking of a human life, reduces the death penalty to no more than an exercise of "an eye for an eye". A sophisticated 21 century, civilized society, is better than that. You have such a long way to go.

Posted by: peter | Jan 27, 2017 4:54:23 AM

Peter, Amen

Mr Behar, you really are Supremacy Clause unmasked.

Bruce Cunningham

Posted by: Bruce Cunningham | Jan 27, 2017 8:53:28 AM

Good riddance.

Posted by: federalist | Jan 27, 2017 9:30:04 AM

The two thugs' attacks stopped by THEIR ☠DEATH☠ BEFORE ...
they harmed others is far preferable than their later execution AFTER their murders.

DJB aka Kind Soul 😇👀

Posted by: Docile Jim Brady | Jan 27, 2017 9:41:25 AM

Enjoy, DAB.

Posted by: anon | Jan 27, 2017 11:33:54 AM

For those of you sniveling the death penalty is uncivilized, and it is better to jail these people for life instead, obviously you are being your typical liberal self. These murderers know full well they will never be getting out, so if the death penalty is eliminated, and these people know there is nothing more that can be done to them, then what stops these psychopaths from carrying out murder against the people who hold them in custody, or other inmates? Take off the "rose colored glasses" and wake up!

Posted by: Liberals don't have a clue | Jan 27, 2017 2:36:12 PM

Liberals. One of the people you describe tried to rape a female guard. She resisted, and he murdered her inside the prison. The Supervisor reacted angrily, "Now, he has done it. He is definitely losing his cafeteria privileges."

Posted by: David Behar | Jan 27, 2017 6:03:10 PM

Doug

It makes me sad that your blog is again being taken over by commenters who do not make a helpful contribution to the serious work you do.

Bruce

Posted by: Bruce Cunningham | Jan 27, 2017 6:26:19 PM

Just because we don't agree with you, and make valid points, you don't feel our contribution is valid??? Once again, if you don't agree with EVERYTHING a far left Liberal says, you are automatically dismissed, given no consideration, and thought of as lower than Plankton, why am I not surprised.

Posted by: Liberals don't have a clue | Jan 27, 2017 7:25:53 PM

This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. I admired greatly justice scalia, His opinions in Crawford and Blakely are masterpieces.

I appreciate how hard Doug works to assist legal practitioners and the presence of commenters who keep recycling the same irrelevant opinions hinders learning

Dougs blog is not Hyde Park corner

Posted by: Bruce Cunningham | Jan 27, 2017 8:46:54 PM

Liberals. Even Prof. Berman was too young to remember the 1980's. An explosion of violent crime and murder made the cities nearly unlivable. These murders were carried out by what are, today, called non-violent drug offenders. The public was furious. It was about to do damage to the lawyer profession because lawyers on the bench were coddling criminals for the previous 20 years. This lawyer coddling and procedural games exploded the crime rate.

In a brilliant survival tactic, the lawyer profession came up with mandatory sentencing guideline. These were to rein in the judges coddling the criminals.Within 5 years, the usual time it takes for a law to have an effect, crime dropped 40% across the board. That is the greatest achievement of the lawyer profession of the Twentieth Century. That drop in crime was a factor in the economic boom, the gentrification of cities. These guidelines saved the lives of thousands of young black males who were not murdered.

So what could possibly be the problem? Everyone greatly profited, except for one small group, lawyers. Unemployment of lawyers became a huge problem. You may get an idea from this blog, with twice the views as this one.

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/

So, Scalia, a lawyer before being anything else, such as conservative, led the long campaign against mandatory sentencing guidelines. In a series of devastating decisions, the Supreme Court dismantled the mandatory guidelines in the federal and in the state courts. Crime has soared from the millions, now, into the billions a year. The murder rate is increasing 10% year over year in 20 big cities.

Scalia was a lawyer rent seeker. He lived in Washington and assimilated into its Babylonian, rent seeking culture. When he visited a school, I was not allowed to interview him, nor were my questions submitted to him. I considered Scalia an implacable foe of crime and murder victims.

Blakely, a career violent offender, beat his wife, duct taped her, put her in a box. He forced the 13 year old son to drive a car following his truck to the location she was to be murdered and dumped. The son took off and called the authorities. Blakely had a three day sentencing hearing, and was not deprived of any right to due process. As data piled on about him, it earned him an enhanced sentence due to the glaring cruelty and lack of human consideration. Scalia berated the prosecutor during the argument for responding to the lack of humanity or of remorse. Meanwhile, Blakely solicited a fellow prisoner to murder his wife and daughter. So Scalia protected, privileged, and empowered a dangerous criminal, and berated the lawyer trying to protect the public. Blakely had also filed 80 civil lawsuits. Blakely was an excellent source of lawyer employment and was protected.

Posted by: David Behar | Jan 27, 2017 10:19:17 PM

So what is it then, Haight-Ashbury, with your supercilious, hostile toward a dead man that isn't here to defend himself, it is quite easy to make vitriolic comments, but I met Judge Scalia, and completely disagree with your assessment of a decent and good man. This site is a complete waste of time, once again, either blame someone that is dead, or make excuses, the problem with the system in this country begins and ends with Liberals, ending with Barrack Hussein Obama, commuting the sentence of a traitor to the United States of America, Chelsea Manning, along with as many other dangerous criminals, the only thing I am surprised about is that Obama didn't pardon Sheikh Khalid Mohammed.

Posted by: Liberals don't have a clue | Jan 28, 2017 12:16:10 AM

"Scalia berated the prosecutor during the argument in Blakely ". ??

I was there. Scalia was brilliant and funny. His best statement was to the Washington attorney general. "It seems to me the question presented is whether the Washington state sentencing system , or the Sixth Amendment, is unconstitutional "

The audience cracked up.

Posted by: Bruce Cunningham | Jan 28, 2017 11:07:05 AM

Bruce. Judicial review is prohibited by Article I Section 1, however entertained by Scalia, or gratified by his providing job security. Scalia forgot, the States are the parent, the federal government is the child. The states boss the federal government, not the other way around.

Do you live in the DC area? If you do, you will have no idea what I am saying, thinking yourself to be central to the function of the nation. Instead DC people are really toxic impediments to every thing ever achieved by the nation, including the criminal law.

I hold Scalia responsible for the foreseeable mass murders of the hundreds of excess murder victims since the guidelines were made discretionary. The foreseeability was in the same class as planetary orbits, as in the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Almost all have been black. Criminals are, once again, totally coddled. Today, the coddling of criminals is enhanced by the lawyer view they are really victims.

Posted by: David Behar | Jan 28, 2017 1:00:29 PM

Then put the blame where it belongs, incompetent, greed filled attorney's, Liberal lobbying of equally corrupt members of congress, and those of you that seem to play the violin, and make it sound like one man, Judge Scalia, caused all of this. I am of Hispanic descent, and I am deeply insulted by your insinuation that because of one's race, they are treated worse than another, I have never been arrested, profiled, or treated with anything but respect by law enforcement, so that leads me to ask the question, what is it you really are trying to achieve here??

Posted by: Liberals don't have a clue | Jan 28, 2017 1:24:05 PM

Mr. Behar, one final word, does it really matter in the end if "the state is the parent, and the federal government is the child?" The Supreme Court of The United States of America has the final say in all matters that are appealed up the chain, is this not a correct statement, if not, please explain, I am not trying to be flippant, or cavalier, I would just like clarification, thank you sir.

Posted by: Liberals don't have a clue | Jan 28, 2017 1:49:21 PM

Libs. My purpose is to help the lawyer profession. Their failure is 100 times worse than any civilian has any idea.

You are not a lawyer. I have no dispute with you. I respect your opinion.

Posted by: David Behar | Jan 28, 2017 1:51:56 PM

Thank you sir, true, 100%, I am not an attorney, however two of my first cousins are, as is my best friend, he would like you, he even mentioned from time to time going to a type of resort he refers to as a Lawyers college, and gains much insight. There is right and wrong on both sides of the criminal justice system, I just wish it would be resolved fairly. Just like I have heard many law enforcement members state while investigating many crimes, most of the time the truth ends up being somewhere in the middle. Thank you again sir.

Posted by: Liberals don't have a clue | Jan 28, 2017 2:12:33 PM

Libs. Just to re-assure you about your cousins and friends, I love the lawyer, the rule of law, and the purposes of the law. I am putting in a lot of effort to improve it. If the lawyer would ever listen, make a small self sacrifice for the sake of its future, it would soar, in effectiveness, wealth, and public esteem.

Posted by: David Behar | Jan 28, 2017 8:15:10 PM

Thank you for your efforts Mr. Behar, hopefully the profession will wake up and listen to you!

Posted by: Liberals don't have a clue | Jan 28, 2017 8:49:35 PM

Tweedle De? Is that you, Tweedle Dum?

Posted by: MarK M. | Jan 29, 2017 11:59:53 PM

No but you are a vitriolic, arrogant, myopic punk Mark M., I suppose the M stands for Moron, get over yourself, I have a degree in business, you think you are better than the rest of us, you aren't, just a pompous ass, making a fool out of himself. Grow up.

Posted by: Liberals don't have a clue | Jan 30, 2017 1:43:56 AM

"I have a degree in business" and I suppose that means your qualified to do brain surgery also. What a hoot.

Posted by: Pat | Jan 30, 2017 6:54:29 PM

Pat, you must have a degree in being a Proctologist since you are so analytical ,and perhaps you are one of those wonderful ambulance chasers we so often hear about, if you are even any type of professional. "What a hoot." you must be older than dirt, that is an ancient cliché, have a nice day rear admiral Pat.

Posted by: Liberals don't have a clue | Jan 30, 2017 8:40:18 PM

No wonder in an article a few weeks ago in our local newspaper, a poll taken of many thousands of American's regarding the most disliked, and distrusted professions in America, Politicians were number one (most of them are attorney's) followed second by Attorney's, bankers were third, insurance salesmen were fourth, and used car salesmen were fifth. I thought it quite humorous that even used car salesmen were more trusted than attorney's, I can certainly see why.

Posted by: Liberals don't have a clue | Jan 30, 2017 8:50:56 PM

Haha. Direct hit. I have been mildly amused. Thanks!

Posted by: MarK M. | Jan 31, 2017 12:22:04 AM

Pat and Mark. You are mocking one of the owners of the law. He is entirely proper in complaining about the utter failure of your self -regulation. The idea of self regulation by any human enterprise is ridiculous. You need to take it easy.

I refer you to the Preamble [6] of the Model Rules of Conduct.

[6] As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession. As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law and work to strengthen legal education. In addition, a lawyer should further the public's understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority. A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the administration of justice and of the fact that the poor, and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford adequate legal assistance. Therefore, all lawyers should devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel. A lawyer should aid the legal profession in pursuing these objectives and should help the bar regulate itself in the public interest.

Posted by: David Behar | Jan 31, 2017 5:00:53 AM

Thank you Mr. Behar, however these people are like petulant children, if you don't play the game my way, I'm taking my marbles and going home.

Posted by: Liberals don't have a clue | Jan 31, 2017 7:27:39 AM

Libs. It is worse. It is rent seeking. They cost us $trillion, and return nothing of value back. It is the greatest criminal enterprise in all human history.

Posted by: David Behar | Jan 31, 2017 9:39:04 AM

True that Mr. Behar.

Posted by: Liberals don't have a clue | Jan 31, 2017 6:57:36 PM

Love you two guys. Wouldn't be surprised to find out that you rehearse in front of a mirror prior to posting to each other.

Posted by: Pat | Feb 2, 2017 7:35:50 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB