Clinton Young, a death row inmate in Texas, is scheduled to be executed in 9 short days. His attorneys have filed an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus in an attempt to halt this execution. Amongst bombshell evidence that clearly points to another person as the killer, his post conviction counsel has also pointed out serious errors with both prosecution and defense counsel in his original trial. The errors made by both clearly point to, at the very least, the need for a retrial. Combined with new evidence and new testimony, there is now a much clearer picture of what happened to the victims. It is also becoming more and more obvious who the guilty party is.
The prosecution is facing accusations of clear cut Brady violations in this case. They failed to maintain evidence that could be exculpatory in nature. Further, they failed to maintain this evidence after specifically being requested to do so. In some instances, Mr. Young’s counsel puts forth that evidence that was clearly exculpatory in nature was deliberately destroyed. This is a clear and unquestionable violation of Clinton Young’s constitutional rights. Among items listed by Young’s attorneys are Doyle Douglas’ car, and trace evidence collected from that car, items collected from Samuel Petrey’s truck, and a gas station surveillance tape.
Attorneys for Clinton Young have also discovered that the state offered enticements for testimony regarding their client’s guilt. This alone calls the testimony of these individuals into serious question. Further, there are assertions of threats made in the event a person wavered about testifying. One witness was told that his time in prison could be made “hard” if he didn’t do as they asked in regard to his testimony. Offers of less time, and incarceration closer to family were listed in the Application. To add insult to injury, it has been discovered that the state was not honest about this when questioned. They did, in fact, deny that they had made any offers or enticements to secure testimony when questioned in a court of law. It paints a picture of investigators and prosecutors that were seeking a conviction, as opposed to seeking actual justice.
Misconduct by the prosecution was not the only issue raised, however. As expected, they also detail ineffectiveness of trial counsel as well. Young’s trial counsel failed to dispute ballistics evidence, or offer a reasonable inculpatory reason for bullets found inside Douglas’ car. They failed to have the gloves, purchased and worn by Page, tested for gunshot residue, DNA, or wear patterns. This could have refuted Page’s claim that the gloves were his “gardening gloves.”
They also failed to show that the other co-defendants Page, Ray and McCoy had communicated prior to trial. Had they done so, they would have been able to show proof that they were getting their stories straight to cover each other while pushing all guilt onto Young. What is now clear is that even this attempt to cover each other eventually failed, and Page did in fact also implicate Ray in order to divert attention from himself. Trial counsel also failed to introduce evidence of Young’s troubled, abusive childhood.
All this just scratches the surface. The Habeas petition also covers problems with Young’s original post conviction counsel as well. The case of Clinton Young has been rife with misconduct and poor defense representation from the outset. This unfortunately played a large part in his conviction and subsequent death penalty sentencing. There remains entirely too much doubt in this case to move forward with a sentence of death. It is clear that the lawyers on both sides have failed Clint Young. Will the public allow them to kill him as well?
More on Clinton Young Legal Efforts here at BTR:
Show Comments (1)