In Oklahoma, the state with the best execution fee within the nation, it’s exceedingly uncommon for an individual on dying row to obtain clemency. For the reason that dying penalty was reinstated in 1976, simply six individuals within the state have had their dying sentences commuted. The final two, Julius Jones in 2021 and Tremane Wooden final month, have been represented by the identical authorized group: federal public defender Amanda Bass Castro Alves and investigators Lamont Williams and Rebecca Postyeni, from the Arizona Federal Defender’s Capital Habeas Unit.
Jones and Wooden are each Black males who have been sentenced to dying in circumstances involving white victims, by almost all-white juries throughout the peak of dying penalty prosecutions in Oklahoma. (Black individuals are disproportionately sentenced to death, and a 2020 study discovered that defendants convicted of killing white individuals have been executed at a fee of 17 occasions larger than these convicted of killing Black individuals.) Each males have been represented at trial by court-appointed attorneys who would later admit to doing a poor job defending their purchasers.
Jones was convicted of the 1999 homicide of Paul Howell, a criminal offense he has at all times stated he didn’t commit. Nobody on his authorized group had ever labored a dying penalty case, and his lead lawyer later said he was “terrified” due to his “inexperience.” As soon as Jones’ case reached Bass Castro Alves’ group, they found that jurors by no means heard from Jones’ household, who may have supplied an alibi, or from a person who stated that Jones’ codefendant admitted to the killing. Additionally they tracked down a juror who recalled one other juror calling Jones the N-word throughout deliberations and saying the trial was a waste of time.
These revelations weren’t sufficient to get Jones a brand new trial — however they did assist spur a nationwide stress marketing campaign calling for mercy. Finally, Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) granted Jones clemency within the hours earlier than his scheduled execution.
A couple of years after Jones’ arrest, prosecutors sought dying sentences towards Wooden and his older brother for the killing of Ronnie Wipf throughout a botched theft. Beneath the state’s felony homicide statute, prosecutors didn’t should show who really killed Wipf with a view to safe convictions — solely that they every participated within the theft that led to his dying.
Wooden denied killing Wipf, however was represented by a lawyer who did nearly no work on the case. He was sentenced to dying. His older brother, who testified at Wooden’s trial that he was the killer, had an skilled capital protection group. He obtained a life sentence, however died by suicide shortly after his brother grew to become eligible for execution.
Once more, Bass Castro Alves’ group discovered a litany of issues in Wood’s case. There was proof that his trial lawyer used medicine and alcohol earlier than going to work whereas representing Wooden. The one Black juror on the case would later say she felt pressured into voting for dying. Prosecutors lied about incentives offered to witnesses in change for his or her testimony, and one of many judges overseeing Wooden’s attraction appeared to be friends with the prosecutor Wood was accusing of misconduct. Within the closing weeks forward of Wooden’s execution date, the state’s attorney general secretly sought help from another judge to make sure the killing would go ahead.
Inside the Oklahoma dying penalty abolition neighborhood, Bass Castro Alves and her group are considered miracle employees. “God has used them earlier than. God can use them once more,” Rev. Keith Jossell, Jones’ religious adviser, stated at a prayer vigil in Oklahoma Metropolis the evening earlier than Wooden’s execution date.
Throughout a authorized go to simply forward of Jones’ scheduled execution in 2021, Wooden inspired their shared authorized group not to surrender hope. 4 years later, it was Jones’ flip to wish for Wooden. “You guys have been right here earlier than,” Jones informed the authorized group. “If anyone can do it, you guys can do it.”
On Nov. 13, minutes earlier than Wooden’s killing was scheduled to start, Stitt granted his clemency request.
HuffPost spoke with the group about how they strategy investigation, litigation, neighborhood organizing and the growing stage of opposition to the dying penalty in bright-red Oklahoma.
This dialog has been edited and condensed.
Courtesy of the authorized group that represented Julius Jones and Tremane Wooden
By the point a case makes its option to your workplace, it’s been by way of a number of unsuccessful rounds of state direct attraction and post-conviction evaluation, which limits the scope of what you’ll be able to litigate. Are you able to describe a few of these limitations?
Amanda Bass Castro Alves: In federal courtroom, we’re restricted by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which requires federal courts to present excessive deference to the choices of the state courts that got here earlier than. Oftentimes, in federal habeas, we’re not arguing about whether or not an individual’s constitutional rights have been violated — we’re as a substitute having to argue on the threshold about whether or not or not the state courtroom’s willpower that this particular person’s federal rights weren’t violated was affordable or unreasonable for functions of overcoming the stringent procedural bar below the Antiterrorism and Efficient Loss of life Penalty Act.
That basically limits what we’re capable of do, as a result of we’re depending on what the prior attorneys raised in state courtroom on behalf of a consumer. Oftentimes, if claims get missed or they weren’t raised correctly, we’ve got to undergo a lot of hurdles to attempt to resurrect these claims in federal courtroom.
Even while you’re making an attempt to get again into courtroom on new proof, we’ve got to beat stringent state procedural bars. There’s a strict 60-day statute of limitations — when you don’t get again into courtroom inside 60 days of discovering new proof, you’re barred in a dying penalty case. And also you even have to indicate that this new proof rises to such a stage that it could have proven, by clear and convincing proof, that this particular person wouldn’t have been convicted or sentenced to dying however for this problem affecting their case. So that could be a very troublesome bar to beat simply to get a listening to in Oklahoma state courtroom on a brand new proof problem. And there are further hurdles to getting reduction on the idea of these new points.
It doesn’t cease us from investigating, it doesn’t cease us from making an attempt to get again into courtroom — but it surely does clarify why, in each Julius’ and Tremane’s circumstances, they each reached the brink of execution earlier than they have been spared, as a result of usually reduction isn’t doable by way of the courtroom.
In Tremane’s case, when he first raised ineffective help of counsel claims, it was like, “Oh, you don’t have sufficient proof that your trial lawyer was impaired on the time that he represented you.” And then you definately guys exit and get all these affidavits from individuals who say they’ve identified [his lawyer] Johnny Albert your entire time he was representing Tremane, and noticed him doing medicine and consuming alcohol earlier than work throughout that point. However while you current this proof, the choose says, “Effectively, you need to have discovered this earlier, so now I can’t think about it.”
ABCA: Precisely. And that’s the catch-22 that the procedural guidelines usually put dying sentence prisoners like Tremane in after they’re making an attempt to train their proper to discovery and an evidentiary listening to at their earliest obtainable alternative — which Tremane did, and the courtroom didn’t give him a listening to or the chance to conduct discovery that may have allowed him to show that Johnny Albert was drug-impaired on the time he was representing him. After which fast-forward to when Rebecca and Lamont do the diligent, pounding-the-pavement investigative work and discover that proof, and we current that proof inside 60 days, and the courtroom says, “Effectively, too late, you need to have really uncovered this proof once we first prevented you from uncovering the proof.”
Lamont Williams: To find that an lawyer was consuming and abusing medicine throughout a dying penalty trial is surprising. These are the sorts of conditions that you simply examine, however to really have it happen on a case that you simply’re engaged on, and to get a number of affidavits and a lot extra proof to show that this was really occurring throughout the trial — you simply suppose to your self, “These are the sorts of issues that the courts ought to think about and other people needs to be alarmed about and that present when a capital trial goes incorrect. That is clear and convincing proof.”
However then to be shot down by a courtroom so simply due to one thing just like the timing or the procedural bars — it’s sort of a shame to the system.
Rebecca Postyeni: And the [financial] assets are backward. We’re uncovering this fashion in spite of everything these procedural bars enable it [to be raised in court], however this might have been uncovered immediately had the assets been flipped round.
Proper. You don’t get this sort of sturdy group with a number of investigators till it’s too late to boost what you discover in courtroom. Given all of those limitations, it’s a must to discover inventive methods to litigate and to even get into courtroom. What does that course of seem like? What do you do when a case first hits your desk?
LW: As an investigator, we’re in search of new data and new proof that wasn’t offered at trial, but additionally simply studying the case. As a place to begin, you need to evaluation all the pieces that occurred at trial and previous trial by way of courtroom data and transcripts, but additionally, we got down to interview the relations and witnesses and kind of simply retrace the crime investigation. Actually simply studying as a lot as we will concerning the case, concerning the witnesses, and naturally, about our consumer.
That kind of lays the groundwork for the work that we in the end find yourself doing, which is figuring out points that we predict deserve consideration from the courts.
RP: Simply to piggyback on that, I deal with a brand new case like a pretrial case. After I was doing trial work, I simply begin on the backside and re-look at all the pieces, learn all the pieces, re-investigate all the pieces. As a result of in some circumstances, like Julius’ and Tremane’s circumstances, even the essential work of assembly with a consumer to construct a relationship, to get data — each of these circumstances have issues that we discovered that might have been developed simply by assembly with the consumer and speaking to them, which is simply so fundamental, but it surely wasn’t accomplished.
So simply beginning over and dealing it out from the underside — and never interested by the procedural bars which are probably going to shoot down these points, as a result of Amanda has a option to get inventive.
Amanda, are you able to speak about what it’s like for you?
ABCA: You begin studying the document and actually realizing the info in your consumer’s case and making an attempt to essentially perceive all the pieces that occurred earlier than, whereas additionally constructing that relationship of belief along with your consumer and getting their perspective. Determining what’s corroborated by different stuff within the document, versus what can we not have proof for. Then we have to go and attempt to discover proof to show how this occurred or to indicate this or that. Actually making the consumer the middle of their very own illustration.
There’s a variety of deliberation and group dialogue round what we’re discovering, questions we’ve got, what ought to we then look to analyze, and based mostly on what Rebecca and Lamont examine and develop factual help for, how can we then flip that into litigation?
That’s how the method unfolded in each Julius’ and Tremane’s circumstances, which allowed us to pursue some wealthy litigation — and though it wasn’t profitable by way of the courts, it was actually essential to the general effort to indicate why clemency was actually wanted. As a result of the courts should not backstops.
Courtesy of the authorized group that represented Julius Jones and Tremane Wooden
You sort of alluded to this, however lots of your purchasers, together with Julius and Tremane, had destructive experiences with their trial attorneys. In Tremane’s case, his lawyer by no means visited him in jail, billed simply two hours of labor exterior of courtroom and later quickly misplaced his regulation license after admitting to consumer neglect related together with his dependancy struggles. I’d think about that may make it troublesome to earn the belief of your purchasers and their households. How do you overcome that?
LW: We spend a lot time with our purchasers, studying from them and listening to about their expertise and the info of their case. We are able to’t merely depend on the document. We even have to speculate the time and vitality in getting out and speaking to individuals, whether or not it’s our consumer, whether or not it’s different witnesses that have been concerned within the crime, or traditionally, the household witnesses. It’s an enormous endeavor of spending time with these individuals, face-to-face time. Actually listening to their tales and respecting their experiences in order that they do really feel comfy sharing with you.
I discovered a lot simply from working with this specific group. We do convey separate units of abilities to our group, and it’s been actually invaluable to place our heads collectively and determine issues out. As difficult as issues have been, and at occasions, actually feeling not possible, we’re capable of lean on one another, hear from one another, help each other, and actually make it by way of to the opposite aspect.
RP: A technique that stands proud in my thoughts about incomes belief of purchasers at this stage is simply actually listening and following by way of with what they stated. Like, really going out and doing the work after we mentioned a specific problem. Even when it may be foolish or we predict it’s not going to show something groundbreaking.
Illustration: HuffPost; Photographs: Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board
I used to be struck by Tremane’s household’s willingness to debate with me — and even contribute to the courtroom document — issues about his childhood which are painful or unflattering to a number of the individuals offering that data. However as soon as I spotted how lengthy you had been constructing these relationships, it was clear that they have been keen to try this as a result of they belief you and the group.
In Tremane’s case, your group offered a lot of proof of collusion and conflicts of curiosity between a number of judges and prosecutors concerned in his late-stage appeals. However the Supreme Courtroom in the end declined to intervene to cease his execution. Given the unreliability of the courts in rectifying miscarriages of justice in capital circumstances, your group concurrently does a variety of political and neighborhood organizing work whereas pushing for clemency. Are you able to speak about what that appears like?
ABCA: Each in Julius’ and Tremane’s circumstances, we noticed the ability of neighborhood in rising as much as additionally help mercy for each of them. The neighborhood that developed round Julius’ case was actually the results of “The Last Defense,” which was produced in 2018 by Viola Davis and her husband Julius Tennon’s firm at ABC, that basically spotlighted for people the injustice in Julius’ case. And that was a choice that we as a group actually talked at size about, whether or not we might interact in that very kind of public effort to raise Julius’ story. We additionally talked at size with Julius about that call.
We noticed the truth that individuals have been mobilized when that aired in 2018 and other people grew to become conscious of simply what number of systemic breakdowns existed in Julius’ case that led somebody who’s harmless to the brink of being executed; it mobilized them to motion. We noticed individuals in Oklahoma and across the nation rising up, creating petitions and writing letters to the governor and organizing public occasions — actually doing so in inventive ways in which we didn’t management or dictate.
Equally, in Tremane’s case, the neighborhood that rose up round him was actually a operate of some actually unbelievable advocates and neighborhood leaders, together with Brett Farley on the Catholic Convention of Oklahoma, Demetrius Minor at Conservatives Involved Concerning the Loss of life Penalty, Joia Thornton, the director of the Religion Leaders of Shade Coalition, Mrs. Cindy Birdwell, Tremane’s sixth-grade instructor. It was only a actually fantastic course of by way of which we discovered lots from these neighborhood leaders and advocates about what they believed the general public and Oklahoma decision-makers wanted to know with a view to make the best and simply and truthful resolution in his case.
LW: We discovered a lot from Julius’ case — the way in which issues after “The Final Protection” simply took off — it grew to become out of our arms, and it grew to become extra of a neighborhood effort, but additionally working along with our group to struggle for Julius.
Amanda talks about motion lawyering and the way essential that’s. To have the ability to expertise that was large. To have the ability to be taught what we did and take that to Tremane’s case in Oklahoma was massively useful, though we took a really completely different strategy. It was a way more intimate strategy. Each are such nice examples of how individuals do get invested and get and get outraged and bothered and anxious about all of those points when it impacts individuals in their very own communities.
RP: Julius has an institute now, he has a complete group. And so does Tremane. It went past them getting clemency.
Courtesy of the authorized group that represented Julius Jones and Tremane Wooden
Forward of Julius’ case, there was this great public, nationwide stress in help of clemency. Kim Kardashian was involved, there have been professional athletes calling for clemency, students walkouts, a lot on Instagram educating individuals concerning the case. His clemency push was in 2021, the yr after the George Floyd protests, when there was extra public consideration to the methods the felony justice system disproportionately punishes Black individuals. It was a really completely different panorama by the point Tremane requested clemency — and in some methods, his case was much less simple because it wasn’t an innocence case. How do you suppose clemency nonetheless got here collectively?
ABCA: It’s a tough query. A lot work has been accomplished in Oklahoma by individuals in Oklahoma across the dying penalty course of, and the methods by which there are systemic flaws, that ought to give leaders pause in terms of signing off on an execution or a dying sentence. I’m pondering of the 2017 report of the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission, which was groundbreaking. A bipartisan group of Oklahomans took the time to check Oklahoma’s dying penalty course of and issued a strong report with suggestions for reform to essentially goal points that have been points in each Julius’ and Tremane’s circumstances.
I believe that report and the work of the parents on that fee along with the individuals on the bottom in Oklahoma who litigate these points day in and time out — of us on the Oklahoma Capital Habeas Unit, who’re actually within the trenches and who’ve, in partnership with individuals locally, been doing the work to to coach leaders, to push for legislative reform. Between Julius’ and Tremane’s circumstances, there was a moratorium bill that was being pushed inside the legislature. There was additionally a felony murder interim study that we have been grateful to be a part of, the place we have been capable of speak about Tremane’s case and the injustice of his dying sentence for a felony homicide conviction — that was in entrance of Rep. J.J. Humphrey’s committee.
So I believe though, in Tremane’s case, there was not the identical kind of nationwide and worldwide push for mercy for him, a lot of the pedagogical work and the day-to-day grassroots work to focus on after which attempt to rectify and educate state leaders on the problems in Oklahoma’s dying penalty course of actually got here to assist Tremane. As a result of by the point we have been going earlier than the clemency board and earlier than Gov. Stitt, they’d a very deep understanding of a few of these systemic flaws that we have been then capable of illustrate how these flaws performed out in Tremane’s case to present rise to an unjust dying sentence.
LW: With Julius’ case, it was perhaps a neater factor for individuals to get on board with questions of innocence. And Tremane’s case was very completely different in that he was a participant within the crime. But additionally, there have been these profound points all through the lifetime of his case, whether or not we’re speaking concerning the lack of lawyer illustration, the felony homicide side of it. That the prosecution stated that Tremane was the killer, but additionally that [his brother] Jake was the killer. With Tremane being such a younger man and having the historical past that he had within the juvenile system and foster care system and his dwelling atmosphere — the actually traumatic historical past that he’s had — it was essential for individuals to find out about that. To essentially find out about his expertise as an individual — to not use the “abuse excuse,” as individuals check with it, however to indicate that it is a human being who’s been by way of a particular expertise. And part of that have is having actual remorse and regret about what occurred. Though he wasn’t harmless, he was adamant that nobody was purported to die that day.
I’m additionally interested by the profound grace that the victims in Tremane’s crime confirmed — each the surviving sufferer of the theft and the mom of Ronnie Wipf, who was killed. I think about that was very impactful.
Illustration: HuffPost; Photographs: Jessica Schulberg
Are you able to share how Tremane is doing now?
LW: Tremane is simply grateful to be alive. Grateful that the clemency board gave the advice to the governor, and that in the end the governor granted clemency. He’s been speaking about this second probability at life — he referred to as it being a rebirth in a variety of methods. He’s simply actually grateful for everybody’s involvement. Us as a group, but additionally individuals such as you, who’ve been overlaying his case so intently, and the advocates which have been working so arduous during the last couple of years. He’s simply tremendous grateful and is aware of that it took a dedication from individuals in a variety of alternative ways. He’s very appreciative of that and simply actually wanting ahead to creating one of the best of this second probability at life that he has.
