Published by The Daily Texan
Imagine that an 11-year-old girl who has no violent history gets arrested, charged with capital murder and is hidden from her parents for four days. During that period, the interrogators question her for hours without break and with no lawyer present until she finally signs a false statement that she can not even read. Later she is found guilty of negligent homicide and injury to a child, and finally gets sentenced to 25 years without any evidence or witnesses.
Unbelievable, right? Who is the prosecutor who committed such an awful act? The answer is our own Assistant District Attorneys Rosemary Lehmberg and Gary Cobb.
According to a series of investigative reports by Jordan Smith of the Austin Chronicle, on May 24, 1996, Derrick Shaw brought his girlfriend Judy Belton's 2-year-old daughter Jayla to the Murray home for daycare, even though he was told not to bring her there that day because Shirley Murray, the primary caregiver, was out of town. According to the Murrays and other persons in the home that day, Jayla spent the entire day sleeping, vomiting and sweating profusely. At 5:30 p.m., 11-year-old Lacresha Murray noticed that Jayla was "shaking," grabbed her and took her to her grandfather, R.L. Murray. They took Jayla to Brackenridge Hospital, where she was pronounced dead shortly after their arrival.
Lacresha was charged with capital murder for death of Jayla Belton. This all happened during the re-election campaign of District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who decided against protecting Lacresha's identity as a juvenile suspect and the presumption of her innocence by giving her name and photo to the press, which put her name and picture into national media as if she were a monster. Lacresha went to trial with her court-appointed attorney, Kameron Johnson, a public defender who did not do any investigation, probably because he had been given a budget of only $300 from the State of Texas to defend her. The problem was that there was no evidence against her. No witnesses, no forensic evidence, and not even a drop of body fluid or blood. According to New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, Lacresha could not even understand the type written statement she signed. "'What's that word? Home-a-seed?"' she asked investigators. After they told her that the word was "homicide," she asked, "What's that?" No one answered her. Lacresha spent three excruciating years in prison and went through with two trials until the 3rd Court of Appeals reversed her conviction.
Today Travis County residents will vote for a new district attorney in a run-off election between Rosemary Lehmberg and Mindy Montford. Lehmberg caused irreparable damage to Lacresha Murray and her family. She has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing or misjudgment in that case. Montford, who has been endorsed by the University Democrats, has been an outspoken critic of the office and the way it has handled many cases. We should give her a chance to prove her fairness and competence in the Travis County's District Attorney office.
Hooman is a government junior and president of Students Against the Death Penalty.
Showing posts with label Gary Cobb. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gary Cobb. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
ROSEMARY LEHMBERG - A TALE OF TWO CHILDREN
ROSEMARY LEHMBERG - A TALE OF TWO CHILDREN
by Barbara A. Taft, President
People of the Heart
Gary Cobb, one of the perpetrators of the travesty launched against an innocent child, LaCresha Murray, in 1996, has been eliminated from the race for District Attorney. Rosemary Lehmberg, however, still holds a smoking gun. In the interest of changing the guard and securing perhaps a more just, merciful and law-abiding person in the office of Travis County District Attorney, I offer the following.
In 1996, Rosemary Lehmberg and Gary Cobb filed capital murder charges against an 11-year-old, with no physical, eye witness or forensic evidence physically linking either the home or anyone there with the numerous injuries suffered by a deceased two and a half year old. Lehmberg, Cobb and/or their subordinates assisted three seasoned APD detectives assigned to the case by advising them in circumventing the Magistrate Law, which demands that a child in police custody, before a statement is taken, be presented to a judge, who explains the ramifications of talking to the police and generally assigns an attorney. Based on advice received from the D.A.'s office, the detectives arranged for Child Protective Service (CPS) to leave this child alone in an empty building on CPS' campus to be "found" by the detectives, thereby eliminating any charge that she was in police custody and, in effect, waiving her rights under the Magistrate law.
No evidence, no confession, no case. Desperate, the detectives interrogated the 11-year-old for three hours, continually suggesting a scenario to explain the baby's injuries, badgering and bullying her, pounding on the table, threatening her grandparents, threatening her with incarceration, a child without an attorney, parent or advocate of any kind, a child who hadn't spoken with a family member for five days. 39 times Murray denied any knowledge of the baby's injuries. They frightened her into signing a statement manufactured and typed on site by the detectives, a statement that failed to explain the injuries; that she couldn't read, that she was "forced" to sign.
Because they used an illegally obtained statement from a child, because the circumstances indicated it may have been coerced, the conviction was reversed for the second time by the 3rd Court of Appeals. In using that statement, Cobb and Lehmberg knowingly sanctioned breaking the law and exploiting the ignorance, fear and youth of a child in lieu of real evidence in order to get their indictment, a conviction and a sentence of 25 years; however, like so many lawbreakers, they left behind evidence of their crime – the interrogation tape, memoranda from the D.A.'s office regarding the question of police custody and the courtroom testimony of the homicide detectives, more than willing to pass the buck for illegally obtaining a statement to the district attorneys on the case.
Further, Lehmberg and Cobb failed to pursue the truth of what happened to Baby Jayla. Available evidence indicated she had been injured 12 to 14 hours before her death, but neither the D.A. nor APD ever went to the baby's home to investigate. They ignored apparent old injuries and that Baby Jayla was "off the charts" in size and weight; but a child abuse case would not have garnered the state and nationwide headlines Earle secured with a child-killer case during a hotly contested re-election campaign.
How many other children have been wrongfully imprisoned, children who didn't happen to have a champion as did Murray, a champion who, thanks to the grace of God, got the attention of the New York Times and 60 Minutes? Two months after 60 Minutes aired "Juvenile Injustice?" Murray was home and the Texas legislature had moved to close the loophole Cobb and Lehmberg used to incarcerate an innocent child, a loophole which for Murray resulted in three excruciating, damaging years in prison and two more years threatened with prosecution and hounded by the press.
If we cannot depend on our prosecutors to exercise some caution, perhaps a little mercy before consigning a child to the justice system, to wrongful prosecution; if we cannot depend on them to pursue the real perpetrators and not the expedient or convenient scapegoat, what kind of society are we preparing for other children as they reach adulthood? Rosemary Lehmberg failed to exercise due diligence, acted to circumvent Texas law and in so doing caused irreparable damage to a very young child and her family. At the very least, she should not be District Attorney.
For more information on this case, including a transcript of the Interrogation of LaCresha Murray, see www.peopleoftheheart.org.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Rick Reed best choice for district attorney
Published by The Daily Texan
By Hooman Hedayati
On March 4, Travis County residents will vote for a new district attorney. Ronnie Earle, the current district attorney, announced last year that he is planning to retire after more than 30 years in office. Four of Earle's assistant district attorneys, Rosemary Lehmberg, Rick Reed, Gary Cobb and Mindy Montford, are running to replace him. This race is probably the most important local race and is being watched nationally. The Travis County DA is a unique position because it has the special privilege of investigating and prosecuting public officials through the Public Integrity Unit, and for the first time, there is a chance that Travis County might take the death penalty off the table. Last year, when Texas Monthly's Paul Burka announced Earl's plan to retire, he said that "a DA is supposed to be the conscience of the community." This brings up the issue of how the next district attorney should handle death penalty cases in a county where a big majority believes that the death penalty system in Texas is broken. Each candidate is running in the upcoming Democratic primary without a Republican challenger, so whichever one wins the Democratic primary will be the next DA.
All four candidates have years of experience working as prosecutors. Lehmberg, Ronnie Earle's choice to replace him, has headed many divisions in the DA's office, from chief of the Trial Division to director of the Public Integrity Unit. Montford is the only candidate who has legislative experience. She worked as general counsel to Texas Sen. Eddie Lucio and helped write the life-without-parole legislation. Cobb is the only black prosecutor in the race and has the endorsement of the Austin Police Officers Association. Reed has prosecuted the most cases out of any of the candidates, and has taken the most progressive stances on the issues.
But three of the candidates remain pro-death penalty. Lehmberg is the status-quo candidate who promises to continue with the current system, and Montford has also said that she would continue to use the death penalty. Cobb has made the strongest pro-death penalty statements, having said that "some people didn't deserve to keep living."
Cobb also came under fire when he used a coerced confession to convict Lacresha Murray, an 11-year-old girl charged with capital murder in 1996. Cobb was the lead prosecutor in her case, which was later thrown out by a Republican appeals court after receiving national coverage on "60 Minutes" questioning the reasoning for charging someone so young with a capital crime.
The only candidate who has come out against the death penalty is Reed, and his adamant anti-death penalty platform would bring fundamental change from the status quo, pro-death penalty campaigns of the other three candidates. Reed is by far the most progressive candidate in this race.
Reed's view on the death penalty is not the only thing that sets him apart. He supports expanding the use of drug courts to divert more people charged with drug possession into treatment, freeing up more prosecutors for other crimes. He has promised to work closely with the Innocence Project to investigate cases of possible wrongful convictions, as has been done recently by the Dallas County DA. Reed wants to decentralize decision-making in the office, giving front-line prosecutors more discretion over their cases. Most importantly, he spearheaded the money-laundering case against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and he told the Texas Observer that he was the only person within the DA's office pushing for an indictment against Delay, while Lehmberg opposed prosecuting the powerful politician.
A large number of voters believe that the death penalty system in Texas is broken and should not be used until steps are taken to address the problems, and many oppose the death penalty altogether based on principle. Either way, there is likely to be a large amount of support in Austin for candidates who take stands against the death penalty, especially in a race in which the winner has the power to unilaterally end the use of the death penalty within Travis County. It is not too late for the other candidates to take a position on the death penalty that reflects the values and priorities of the progressive community from which they seek votes. All the candidates for Travis County DA should follow Reed's example and say that they will not support the death penalty.
Hedayati is a government junior, Students Against the Death Penalty President and a Campus Progress at the Center for American Progress advisory board member.
By Hooman Hedayati
On March 4, Travis County residents will vote for a new district attorney. Ronnie Earle, the current district attorney, announced last year that he is planning to retire after more than 30 years in office. Four of Earle's assistant district attorneys, Rosemary Lehmberg, Rick Reed, Gary Cobb and Mindy Montford, are running to replace him. This race is probably the most important local race and is being watched nationally. The Travis County DA is a unique position because it has the special privilege of investigating and prosecuting public officials through the Public Integrity Unit, and for the first time, there is a chance that Travis County might take the death penalty off the table. Last year, when Texas Monthly's Paul Burka announced Earl's plan to retire, he said that "a DA is supposed to be the conscience of the community." This brings up the issue of how the next district attorney should handle death penalty cases in a county where a big majority believes that the death penalty system in Texas is broken. Each candidate is running in the upcoming Democratic primary without a Republican challenger, so whichever one wins the Democratic primary will be the next DA.
All four candidates have years of experience working as prosecutors. Lehmberg, Ronnie Earle's choice to replace him, has headed many divisions in the DA's office, from chief of the Trial Division to director of the Public Integrity Unit. Montford is the only candidate who has legislative experience. She worked as general counsel to Texas Sen. Eddie Lucio and helped write the life-without-parole legislation. Cobb is the only black prosecutor in the race and has the endorsement of the Austin Police Officers Association. Reed has prosecuted the most cases out of any of the candidates, and has taken the most progressive stances on the issues.
But three of the candidates remain pro-death penalty. Lehmberg is the status-quo candidate who promises to continue with the current system, and Montford has also said that she would continue to use the death penalty. Cobb has made the strongest pro-death penalty statements, having said that "some people didn't deserve to keep living."
Cobb also came under fire when he used a coerced confession to convict Lacresha Murray, an 11-year-old girl charged with capital murder in 1996. Cobb was the lead prosecutor in her case, which was later thrown out by a Republican appeals court after receiving national coverage on "60 Minutes" questioning the reasoning for charging someone so young with a capital crime.
The only candidate who has come out against the death penalty is Reed, and his adamant anti-death penalty platform would bring fundamental change from the status quo, pro-death penalty campaigns of the other three candidates. Reed is by far the most progressive candidate in this race.
Reed's view on the death penalty is not the only thing that sets him apart. He supports expanding the use of drug courts to divert more people charged with drug possession into treatment, freeing up more prosecutors for other crimes. He has promised to work closely with the Innocence Project to investigate cases of possible wrongful convictions, as has been done recently by the Dallas County DA. Reed wants to decentralize decision-making in the office, giving front-line prosecutors more discretion over their cases. Most importantly, he spearheaded the money-laundering case against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and he told the Texas Observer that he was the only person within the DA's office pushing for an indictment against Delay, while Lehmberg opposed prosecuting the powerful politician.
A large number of voters believe that the death penalty system in Texas is broken and should not be used until steps are taken to address the problems, and many oppose the death penalty altogether based on principle. Either way, there is likely to be a large amount of support in Austin for candidates who take stands against the death penalty, especially in a race in which the winner has the power to unilaterally end the use of the death penalty within Travis County. It is not too late for the other candidates to take a position on the death penalty that reflects the values and priorities of the progressive community from which they seek votes. All the candidates for Travis County DA should follow Reed's example and say that they will not support the death penalty.
Hedayati is a government junior, Students Against the Death Penalty President and a Campus Progress at the Center for American Progress advisory board member.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
DA Race: Contenders weigh in on death penalty
2:50 PM | News 8 Austin |
DA Race: Contenders weigh in on death penalty
By: Paul Brown
Q: In the past, Travis County has been reluctant to pursue the death penalty
in capital cases. Under your leadership, how will the DA's office approach the
death penalty?
Rosemary Lehmberg: We seldom seek the death penalty in Travis County and I
will continue that practice. We now have life without parole. It's still the
law and if there is a situation in which I believe that a Travis County jury
should have the option of seeking the death penalty, I will do it. I have been
reluctant to call for an all out moratorium. Right now, I believe we need to
oppose any executions until the United States Supreme Court has had time to
determine whether our Texas procedure is Constitutionally sound.
Mindy Montford: Well, you've got to look a number of factors. You know, you
have to look at what the community wants and values. You've got to consult
with the victims, their families. You've got to consult with other prosecutors
within your office and community leaders to really find out what the pulse is
and if seeking the death penalty would be prudent in that particular case. It
is a very serious matter. You've got to take into account all factors. At the
end of the day, though, it is the District Attorney's decision.
Rick Reed: Under my leadership as District Attorney, the Travis County
District Attorney's office will not seek the death penalty in any case. The
Legislature has changed the law. We now have what's called life without parole
as an option in capital murder cases and it's my belief that seeking the death
penalty and expending the resources that are necessary to seek the death
penalty is essentially a waste of resources that could otherwise be better
used to prosecute other murder cases, other capital murder cases and other
cases involving violent offenders. There is, in my judgment, simply no
justification now that that exists to spend those resources seeking the death
penalty. And so we will not seek the death penalty.
Gary Cobb: I don't know that we've been necessarily reluctant, but I think
that we recognize that the death penalty should be reserved only for the most
egregious cases for the defendants who represent a great threat to society and
that they represent a continuing threat where they might harm another person
in society, even if it's in prison society.
DA Race: Contenders weigh in on death penalty
By: Paul Brown
Q: In the past, Travis County has been reluctant to pursue the death penalty
in capital cases. Under your leadership, how will the DA's office approach the
death penalty?
Rosemary Lehmberg: We seldom seek the death penalty in Travis County and I
will continue that practice. We now have life without parole. It's still the
law and if there is a situation in which I believe that a Travis County jury
should have the option of seeking the death penalty, I will do it. I have been
reluctant to call for an all out moratorium. Right now, I believe we need to
oppose any executions until the United States Supreme Court has had time to
determine whether our Texas procedure is Constitutionally sound.
Mindy Montford: Well, you've got to look a number of factors. You know, you
have to look at what the community wants and values. You've got to consult
with the victims, their families. You've got to consult with other prosecutors
within your office and community leaders to really find out what the pulse is
and if seeking the death penalty would be prudent in that particular case. It
is a very serious matter. You've got to take into account all factors. At the
end of the day, though, it is the District Attorney's decision.
Rick Reed: Under my leadership as District Attorney, the Travis County
District Attorney's office will not seek the death penalty in any case. The
Legislature has changed the law. We now have what's called life without parole
as an option in capital murder cases and it's my belief that seeking the death
penalty and expending the resources that are necessary to seek the death
penalty is essentially a waste of resources that could otherwise be better
used to prosecute other murder cases, other capital murder cases and other
cases involving violent offenders. There is, in my judgment, simply no
justification now that that exists to spend those resources seeking the death
penalty. And so we will not seek the death penalty.
Gary Cobb: I don't know that we've been necessarily reluctant, but I think
that we recognize that the death penalty should be reserved only for the most
egregious cases for the defendants who represent a great threat to society and
that they represent a continuing threat where they might harm another person
in society, even if it's in prison society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)