Response in Opposition to the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Both the decedent's spouse and several jurors from Mr. Williams' trial have expressed theiropposition to his execution. The case has garnered extensive attention, with all three majorPennsylvania newspapers weighing in against the execution. Moreover, several organizations havebeen joined by hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania, national and international voices opposedto Mr. Williams' execution.The Decedent's Spouse: The views of the decedent's spouse in this case are relevant toanalysis of the public interest. Mamie Norwood, the decedent's wife, does not wish to see TerryWilliams executed, and has filed a declaration stating so. See Declaration of Mamie Norwood, App.24 to Petition. Mrs. Norwood also wrote personal letters to Governor Corbett and the PennsylvaniaBoard of Pardons requesting that Mr. Williams' life be spared and that his sentence be commutedto life without the possibility of parole.The Jurors: The views of original jurors in this case are relevant to an analysis of the publicinterest. Jurors from Mr. Williams' trial and capital sentencing have provided sworn statementsindicating that they would not have sentenced Mr. Williams to die had they known the informationthat has now come to light. Like the decedent's spouse, the original trial jurors do not want Mr.Williams to be executed. See Declarations of Debra L. Pagano, Diane M. Brown, Hasan S. Moss,Thomas Sturgis and Welton Maisenhelder, Apps. 19-23 to Petition. 9The General Assembly: In December 2011, the General Assembly passed Senate Resolution6, "Directing the Joint State Government Commission to establish a bipartisan task force and anadvisory committee to conduct a study of capital punishment in this Commonwealth and to report9See also www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2012/09/24/carroll-pa-clemency-case.cnn ("Ifeel betrayed ... we weren't given everything we needed to know").38
their findings and recommendations.,,10On September 13,2012, members of the bipartisan Pennsylvania Task Force and AdvisoryCommittee on Capital Pnnishment called on Governor Tom Corbett to postpone all upcomingexecutions until it completes its study of the death penalty and issues its findings in December 2013.Two of the four task force members, Senators Stewart Greenleaf(R) and Daylin Leach (D), and adozen members of the advisory committee signed the letter to the Governor. As they wrote, "[We 1do believe that carrying out an execution before our work is completed over the next fifteen monthswould greatly undermine the legislative intent of Senate Resolution 6 - a comprehensive study ofthe effectiveness of capital punishment in Pennsylvania, as it pertains to cost, fairness,proportionality, impact, and many other factors."The Press: In recent editorials addressing Mr. Williams' case, all three major Pennsylvanianews periodicals and a leading national publication have weighed in against his execution. SeePhiladelphia Inquirer, Editorial, "Justice Doesn't Require Death," Aug. 15, 2012; PhiladelphiaInquirer, Editorial, "Executing Terrance Williams won't bring victim back," Sept. 12, 2012;Philadelphia Inquirer, Editorial, "Execution isn't appropriate," Sept. 12,2012; New York Times,Editorial, "Pennsylvania's Broken Machinery of Death," Sept. 13,2012; Patriot-News, Editorial,"Fatal flaw: Pardons board needs to make change on death penalty cases," Sept. 23, 2012; PittsburghPost-Gazette, Editorial, "Abused to death? A killer who was molested should not be executed," Sept.23,2012; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Editorial, "A killer who says he was raped deserves clemency,"Sept. 27, 2012; Patriot-News, "Pennsylvania's big question:To kill or not to kill TerranceWilliams," Sept. 27, 2012; Philadelphia Inquirer, Editorial, "Time to call off Terrance Williams'10 Available at http://www.govtrack.us/states/palbills/2011-2012/sr6.39
Page 1: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANI
Page 4 and 5: testimony, the parties' written sub
Page 6 and 7: alia, the original trial and capita
Page 8 and 9: inappropriate in any case, but it i
Page 10 and 11: that Mr. Draper told the prosecutin
Page 12 and 13: The Commonwealth, citing Commonweal
Page 14 and 15: 1. Government interference.Mr. Will
Page 16 and 17: knowledge ofMr. Draper's statements
Page 18 and 19: of assault with intent to murder, a
Page 20: As a prosecution witness ... , [Dra
Page 23 and 24: Judge Sarmina appropriately found t
Page 25 and 26: Norwood files Ms. Foulkes stated, "
Page 27 and 28: A. Yes.Q. How Mr. Norwood was kille
Page 29 and 30: There was additional undisclosed ev
Page 31 and 32: connect all of the dots." NT 9/2811
Page 33 and 34: e afforded relief as to the penalty
Page 35 and 36: himself would necessarily know that
Page 37: One, that all the requirements of t
Page 41 and 42: Sexual Assault Resource and Counsel
Page 43 and 44: CONCLUSIONThe Commonwealth's motion
Page 45 and 46: ATTACHMENT A
Page 47 and 48: ATTACHMENT B
Page 49 and 50: 3. Chief Justice Castille was the D
Page 51 and 52: INQUIRER (Oct. 21, 1993) (available
Page 53 and 54: allegation"); Beasley. 937 A.2d at
Page 55 and 56: was the District Attorney responsib
Page 57 and 58: Ripe for Disqualification. 52 Ariz.
Page 59 and 60: 1130,1134 (6th Cir.1969) (applying
Page 61 and 62: objective standards that govern rec
Page 63: Court's adoption of the following "

Response in Opposition to the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?