Tony Egbuna Ford faces execution on Dec. 7, 2005 for the death of Armando, a Hispanic teenage boy, and the attempted murders of his mother and his two adult sisters Myra and Lisa, all three Hispanic women. Two young black men entered the family’s home in El Paso demanding money and then car keys. One of the men shot each family member upon receiving the car keys. The three women survived to identify Ford as the shooter.
The only evidence in the case is the two witnesses and a coat, similar to the one the shooter was wearing, that Ford was wearing when arrested. This is a weak case for the death penalty. Eye witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate. Generally witnesses are too scared and under to much stress to get a good look at a perpetrator and often unable to accurately remember what they saw.
This case is an excellent example of the problems with eye witness identification. Myra admitted during trial that she recognized Van Nash Belton, one of the men who broke in to the house. Because she did not want him to recognize her she kept her head down while the men were in the house. She also consistently described the shooter as having a clear complexion, while Ford’s face is, in fact, “marred by seven scars.” Myra viewed the shooter for a short period of time, under high stress, while trying not to be recognized herself. The room for error is too much for a death sentence. Furthermore, Lisa’s testimony is also questionable. Lisa did not see the actual shooting take place because her face was buried in a pillow. She only heard the shots. Additionally, immediately after the incident Lisa was unable to describe the shooter to police. How could she be expected to accurately identify him later if she couldn’t describe him immediately after seeing him? Clearly the eye witness testimony in this case exemplifies the problems with eyewitness testimony and leaves too much doubt for a death penalty conviction.
Moreover, Ford maintains that, although he did drive to the home in question on the night of the incident, he was not the shooter. He said that he rode to the house with Van Nash Belton and Van Nash’s brother Victor Belton. According to Ford he never entered the house; only the Belton brothers entered the home. Both Victor Belton and Ford are similar in age, height and build. Ford maintains that he lent Victor his coat to conceal a gun. Although there may be enough evidence to convict Ford for aiding an armed robbery, there is not enough evidence for a capital murder conviction.
Finally it is also important to note that Ford was denied the funds to obtain an expert witness on eyewitness identification problems. During the second hearing on this request the judge told the prosecuting attorney to bring him proof that the defendant did not have a right to such an expert witness and told the defense that it should re-argue the motion for an eyewitness expert if the prosecution did not supply the requested proof. There is no record of the prosecution supplying proof or of the defense re-arguing the motion. Clearly this demonstrates ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Eyewitness testimony was not only the most important aspect of the prosecutions case; the entire case was based on eyewitness testimony. An expert witness who could have explained the trouble with eyewitness testimony to the jury could have had a significant impact on Ford’s case. Therefore trial counsel was not merely ineffective, but so ineffective as to have possibly negatively affected the outcome of Ford’s case.
Indeed, during federal court review of Tony’s case, he was provided funding for an eyewitness identification expert (Roy Malpass, from the University of Texas-El Paso). With that funding, Tony was able to show how an expert like Dr. Malpass would have helped explain to the jury the great risk of erroneous eyewitness identification. Unfortunately, by this time in the appeals process the burden of proof had shifted from the prosecution to Ford and he was unable to overcome such a substantial burden.
The Houston Chronicle recently published an investigative series that strongly suggested Texas executed an innocent person when Ruben Cantu was put to death in 1993. The Ford case represents another serious potential miscarriage of justice. There are too many questions and too much uncertainty for this execution to proceed.
Please write to Gov. Rick Perry requesting Ford's sentence be commuted.
