TEXAS

December 1, 2004

The state of Texas is scheduled to execute Frances Newton on Dec. 1 for the April 1987 murders of her husband, Adrian Newton and children Alton and Farah Newton in Harris County. If executed, Newton would be the first African-American woman Texas has put to death since the state resumed executions in 1982.

Newton's case embodies the core problems with the death penalty in the United States in general and in Texas in particular. Her trial counsel was egregiously incompetent, she has a strong innocence claim and her conviction rested in large part on the results of ballistics testing conducted by the now-discredited Houston Police Department's crime lab.

Furthermore, Newton has been denied effective representation at every stage of her appeal and consequently, her case has never been thoroughly or independently investigated. In fact, on the very day her trial began, her attorney, Ron Mock, admitted that he could not provide the name of a single witness with whom he had spoken. Mock is well known in Texas death penalty circles; he has had more clients sent to death row than any other lawyer. Many of his former clients already have been executed and he is no longer assigned death penalty cases because of his astonishingly abysmal record as an attorney.

Newton, who was 21 at the time of the crime, took out a life insurance policy on her husband, herself, and her daughter less than a month before the crimes were committed. This action led many to believe she killed the victims in order to collect life insurance benefits. Newton also was reportedly having marital problems with her husband which the state further concluded to be evidence against her. However, as Newton's current attorneys have pointed out, there is a complex and overwhelming array of facts and circumstances that call into question the integrity and accuracy of her conviction.

First, Newton was convicted of killing her seven-year old son Alton Newton although he was not covered by a life insurance policy. The state was not able to provide a viable motive for his death. She also allegedly killed her 20-month old daughter for an additional $50,000 in insurance benefits. While a problematic marital situation may serve as motive for Newton's husband's murder, the killing of her two children is still speculative and largely unexplained by the state.

Second, the Houston Police Department's crime lab, which conducted ballistics testing on the weapon the state believes was used in the murder, is now widely regarded as extraordinarily unreliable. Without the crime lab's ballistics report, it is extremely doubtful that Newton's case would even have gone to trial, much less resulted in a capital murder conviction and death sentence.

Third, the state presented conflicting evidence regarding the timing of the murders and the likelihood Newton was home at the time they took place. Based on what the state presented, it is highly possible that another individual could have been at the residence at the time of the shooting. The state's evidence does not exclude this possibility in any way.

Fourth, the state has not investigated the possibility that another suspect or suspects may have been involved in the murders. Police were in possession of information that Adrian Newton was known to be a drug dealer and was in debt to a supplier. Despite this information, apparently police never investigated the possibility that the deaths were drug-related.

Fifth, the only other physical evidence in the case was the presence of nitrates found on the lower part of the dress Newton was wearing. However, while the state argued that the presence of nitrates indicated gun powder residue, other possible sources include fertilizer and cosmetics. It has been established that Newton's toddler was exposed to fertilizer earlier that day. Furthermore, Newton's hands were tested for gunpowder residue the evening of the murders; none was found, despite the fact that gunpowder residue cannot be washed away or quickly removed from skin after a gun has been fired.

Newton's clemency team is taking the unusual step of not asking the Board of Pardons and Paroles to recommend clemency in Newton's case, but rather to recommend to Gov. Perry a 120-day reprieve so that more investigation can be conducted.

To say that the evidence in her case is lacking and her prior representation shoddy would consist of understatement. Francis Newton needs more time for additional ballistics testing to be conducted this time, by credible authorities.

Please take a moment to write the Governor Perry and request that he agree to the 120-day reprieve that the Board of Pardons and Paroles has recomended.  This would allow her counsel to conduct a proper investigation. 

UPDATE:  The Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended that Newton receive a 120-day reprieve.  Gov. Perry granted her a reprieve on Dec. 1.

Read the story here

Thank Gov. Perry for granting reprieve here.