TEXAS 
Charles Daniel Thacker 
November 9, 2005 

Charles Daniel Thacker, a white man, faces execution in Texas for the April 7, 1993 death of Karen G. Crawford, a white woman. Crawford was strangled during an attempted rape in a common area of her apartment complex. Several witnesses identified Thacker as the man they saw fleeing the scene.

A number of factors call into question the constitutionality of Thacker’s conviction. Most notably, the jury’s confusion as to whether intent is necessary for a capital murder conviction in Texas is clear. The majority opinion of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledges that Thacker’s “concern [about the jury’s confusion] is not unfounded.” The jury actually sent a note out during deliberations asking if “the defendant had to have the intent to cause her death to be convicted of capital murder.” To which the court replied “refer to the charge and continue deliberating.” The jury returned fifteen minutes later with a guilty verdict on the charge of capital murder.

Clearly the jury was confused as to the effect intent should have on a capital murder conviction. This confusion is particularly significant to Thacker’s case not only because the jury did not understand the level of intent necessary in a capital conviction, but also because the issue of intent was one of the most important aspects of this case. The prosecuting attorney, during a hearing outside the jury’s presence, stated that “The State does not have evidence on the issue of [Thacker’s] intent to kill.” If Thacker did not intend to kill Karen G. Crawford, and the prosecution admits that they can not prove intent, perhaps Thacker should not have been convicted of capital murder.

The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because Thacker did not object to the court’s response to the jury’s note and did not object at the time of jury instruction on the issue of intent in a capital case, the issue cannot be raised at the federal appeals level. According to Federal law all issues must be exhausted at the state level before appeal to federal court. No new evidence or claims are procedurally permissible at the federal level. In response to Thacker’s argument that ineffective counsel accounts for the failure to object at the time of the court’s response to the jury’s note and at the time of the jury instruction regarding intent, the United States Fifth Circuit Court held that under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) the reviewing federal court must find that the lower court’s decision is “not only erroneous, but objectively unreasonable.” The reviewing federal court must prove not only that the instruction error existed, and that Thacker’s counsel, by not objecting, was in error, but also that the error was serious enough to be unreasonable. In order to rule in Thacker’s favor the federal court would have to find the lower court both erroneous and unreasonable. This is a significant burden on the defendant.

The jury in Thacker’s trial was also not informed of the mandatory time that Thacker would serve before parole. If sentenced to life in prison Thacker would be in his mid 60s before he had his first chance at parole. Perhaps if the jury had been aware of this they would have ruled that Thacker be sentenced to life in prison and not death. Again the United States Fifth Circuit Court found that, under the AEDPA, the reviewing federal court must defer to the state courts decision. Because of this rule of deference, the Fifth Circuit Court could not rule that the state court was wrong to not provide the jury with an explanation of what exactly a life sentence for Thacker would mean.

The jury did not understand how intent should weigh into their capital murder decision; they also were not informed of what exactly Thacker’s life sentence meant. The jury was essentially uninformed about some aspect of both of the penalties that they were evaluating. How could they be expected to make a reasonable and legally sound decision?

Clearly there were significant constitutional errors in Thacker’s case. If such errors are not cleared in Thacker’s case, how can we know that these same errors will not lead to the execution of an innocent person in the future? Under no circumstance can we allow execution without a fair trial by an impartial jury who understands the laws and sentences on which they are ruling.

Please write Gov. Rick Perry requesting that he stop the execution of Charles Daniel Thacker.