|
Post by ichy on Aug 15, 2012 6:13:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by ichy on Aug 24, 2012 14:30:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 24, 2012 20:42:55 GMT -6
The Supreme Court rejected John Balentine's appeal last year (or thereabouts) and they stayed his execution pending a decision on his pending writ. One of the problems is that even appeals that have no merit have to move through the system. A month or a week before the date, the attorneys will file something in state or federal court and if it hasn't been rejected at all levels by the time the date arrives, they guy will get a say and the process has to start all over again when a new date is set.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 24, 2012 21:19:07 GMT -6
After reading the two articles, I did a little research because Williams' latest claims are that Amos Norwood, the victim, had sexually abused him for years and that was the reason he murdered Mr. Norwood. His co-defendant in that case, Marc Draper, is apparently attempting to recant his testimony to support Williams' claim as to the motive and concurring that it was the Philadelphia PD who told them to say they robbed the man. As it turns out, Amos Norwood was not Williams' only victim, nor was this murder his only crime. At the age of 16, Williams and an accomplice robbed and terrorized an elderly couple in their home. While awaiting trial for those charges, he went on a crime spree. On January 25, 1984, Williams murdered Herbert Hamilton in his home. Williams was engaged in a sexual relationship with Hamilton, who was going to publicize their relationship, so Williams killed him. On July 11, 1984, Williams and Draper robbed and murdered Amos Norwood. And it was robbery, since Williams and Draper took money, Norwood's vehicle and credit and calling cards from Norwood, the use of which is what ended up getting them caught. Williams was eventually convicted of third-degree murder in connection with the Hamilton murder. This is so typical. The media, courtesy of the defense, is making poor Terrance Williams sound like a confused kid who made a minor mistake, when, in fact, at the age of 18, he was a violent felon who had robbed and elderly couple using a shotgun and committed a prior murder within 6 months of the murder for which he received a death sentence. I hope the Commonwealth attorneys will be sure to mention Herbert Hamilton and that prior murder conviction during Williams' next round of appeals. www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/079002p.pdfkma367
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Aug 24, 2012 21:51:12 GMT -6
I think he will make a plea-deal and get LWOP. My reason being:
"Although the state Supreme Court upheld the death sentence, two judges dissented, finding "a fairly stark picture" of ineffective counsel during the penalty-phase — which consisted of brief, fairly banal comments from Williams' mother, the mother of his infant child and a cousin."
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 24, 2012 22:23:21 GMT -6
I disagree, Rayozz. First and foremost, that Williams had been sexually abused by Norwood since the age of 13 was a fact known to Williams and there's no reason for it to not be raised at his trial. Frankly, I think Williams has snowed his current counsel into believing this story, but it's not going to fly. He claimed self-defense in the Hamilton murder, which is probably why he was only convicted of third-degree murder, despite having bludgeoned and stabbed the victim multiple times, including while the victim was trying to call for help. I'm sure the attorneys will claim that trial counsel should have somehow discovered this abuse, but courts generally don't find that killers raising issues that were known to them at the time of trial to be very convincing.
Williams' original trial attorney described him as a very cold and calculating person and that he is now trying to drag his victim's name through the mud proves that assessment to be correct.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by ichy on Aug 25, 2012 15:18:39 GMT -6
I think he will make a plea-deal and get LWOP. My reason being: Heh, you don't make a plea deal more than a quarter century after being convicted.
|
|
|
Post by ichy on Aug 25, 2012 15:20:00 GMT -6
One of the problems is that even appeals that have no merit have to move through the system. Williams's appeals have moved through the system. The US Supreme Court rejected his federal habeas petition which means that in theory he's out of options.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Aug 25, 2012 15:52:58 GMT -6
I guess this is one of the cases that I'll believe it when it actually happens, after all we're talking about Pennsylvania.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 25, 2012 16:39:54 GMT -6
Ichy, Williams' attorneys have raised issues that were not previously raised in his prior appeals, i.e. allegations of sexual abuse by the murder victim, Amos Norwood. Even though those claims lack merit, they will still have to move through the system and be concluded prior to PA executing Williams.
Currently, the claims have been filed in state trial court. An adverse decision there will be appealed at the state appellate level. Williams' attorneys may also attempt to file a successive writ at the federal level, which means adverse decisions will have to be appealed to the 3rd Circuit COA and, likely, the USSC.
Courts cannot sua sponte reject even the most spurious and meritless claims.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by ichy on Sept 7, 2012 12:43:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by ichy on Sept 10, 2012 21:43:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 11, 2012 15:24:45 GMT -6
Why the hell didn't the judge point out that Williams would've known that he had allegedly been sexually abused by Mr. Norwood for years, yet he failed to report it to his trial attorneys, or raise it at trial. He had already gotten away with killing one homosexual lover, so why didn't he use this excuse at trial? Perhaps because he knew that he would be proven to be a liar.
I also think it's criminal that the defense is asking the widow to plead for this scumbag's life before the clemency board, while they're trashing her husband in court.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2012 20:24:17 GMT -6
Pennsylvania's clemency law is unusually difficult. He needs to get a unanimous pardons board and the governor to sign off on clemency. Corbett spent way too much time as Attorney General overseeing Habeas cases getting shot down in the Federal courts to commute this sentence. Terry's only hope lies with the courts, and the judge didn't sound too keen on it. He has a hearing scheduled on Friday in the Philly Court of Common Pleas, and another hearing scheduled on the 21st, it looks like. Probably further briefing and then disposition. www.courts.phila.gov/apps/criminal/namesearch.asp?search=williams%2C+terrance&searchtype=
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2012 21:11:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by ichy on Sept 26, 2012 15:29:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 26, 2012 17:48:09 GMT -6
It's one of those; he have to be dead before you believe it.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Sept 27, 2012 16:28:30 GMT -6
Killer loses bid for clemency
HARRISBURG - Condemned Philadelphia killer Terrance Williams lost his bid for clemency Monday when a divided state Board of Pardons failed to unanimously recommend his case for consideration by Gov. Corbett.
Nevertheless, advocates for Williams - scheduled for execution on Oct. 3 for the 1984 murder of Mount Airy churchman Amos Norwood - cited the fact that three of the five-member board voted to spare Williams' life and some suggested Corbett might still not be barred from commuting his sentence to life in prison without parole.
Monday's session was the first clemency hearing in a death penalty case in 50 years. Pennsylvania voters in 1997 amended the state constitution to require the board's vote for clemency be unanimous instead of a majority. But advocates suggested after the hearing that because the 1997 amendment was spurred by the commutation of a life sentence, the change might not apply to a death-penalty case.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Sept 27, 2012 16:29:51 GMT -6
The grimm reaper is preparing for the death as we speak
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 27, 2012 17:39:27 GMT -6
I don't want to be pessimist but lets not forget this is Pennsylvania.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Sept 28, 2012 9:25:20 GMT -6
I just got this off a Twitter feed ~ Terrance Williams in PA was granted a stay of execution and a new sentencing hearing because prosecutors withheld evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 28, 2012 9:38:46 GMT -6
Does anyone know if her decision can be appealed?
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 28, 2012 10:17:11 GMT -6
www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120928_Stay_issued_for_execution_of_Terrence_Williams.htmlThe decision can be appealed and, hopefully, the appellate court will reverse based on the fact that Williams would have known he was sexually abused by his victim and could have raised the issue, regardless of what the prosecution may or may not have suspected about the victim. Apparently, the clemency board has also decided to rehear Williams' request for clemency, so a reversal on the judge's ruling may become a moot point. kma367
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 28, 2012 11:19:16 GMT -6
www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120928_Stay_issued_for_execution_of_Terrence_Williams.htmlThe decision can be appealed and, hopefully, the appellate court will reverse based on the fact that Williams would have known he was sexually abused by his victim and could have raised the issue, regardless of what the prosecution may or may not have suspected about the victim. Apparently, the clemency board has also decided to rehear Williams' request for clemency, so a reversal on the judge's ruling may become a moot point. kma367 Isn't it the job of the defense to bring up the fact he was sexually abused?
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Sept 29, 2012 14:48:45 GMT -6
I just got this off a Twitter feed ~ Terrance Williams in PA was granted a stay of execution and a new sentencing hearing because prosecutors withheld evidence. That really sucks that we cant kill him now JUSTICE DENIED
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 29, 2012 18:18:37 GMT -6
Stormy, that's one of the reasons I don't understand this judge's ruling. Generally, the prosecution is not found to be in violation of Brady when the claim deals with information that is known to the defendant. Williams had used the "sexual abuse" defense in his prior murder, so there's no reason that he couldn't have raised it in this case as well. Based on that, I think the appellate court will reverse the ruling. The state can apply for an emergency basis, but I don't know that it could possibly be resolved before Wednesday.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Sept 29, 2012 23:04:32 GMT -6
Stormy, that's one of the reasons I don't understand this judge's ruling. Generally, the prosecution is not found to be in violation of Brady when the claim deals with information that is known to the defendant. Williams had used the "sexual abuse" defense in his prior murder, so there's no reason that he couldn't have raised it in this case as well. Based on that, I think the appellate court will reverse the ruling. The state can apply for an emergency basis, but I don't know that it could possibly be resolved before Wednesday. kma367 kma, I'm semi-ignorant of the US electoral system, but with elections coming up in November; could self preservation be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 30, 2012 12:43:01 GMT -6
This judge may be up for re-election, but that may not necessarily be the case. Making bad legal decisions and being constantly reversed is not a way to keep your seat on a state court bench.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Sept 30, 2012 20:32:49 GMT -6
Case history - I think the verdict would have been exactly the same no matter how much "evidence of sexual abuse" was admitted.
Terrance Williams was a local football star, the quarterback of the Germantown High School team that won the Philadelphia Public League championship in 1982. He was presented with the sportsman of the year award by the Philadelphia Board of Sports Officials, and he was recruited by at least eight different collegiate institutions. Nearly all of Williams’ coaches and teachers described him as mild-mannered, law-abiding, and honest. In 1983, Williams graduated from Germantown High and matriculated to Cheney State College in Philadelphia. In the estimation of one of his instructors, Williams was “highly respected and admired by his teachers and all of his classmates.” He was “not only the star of the school’s football team, but was also a classmate and student who showed respect for others and accepted his popularity with modesty.”
But apparently Terrance Williams had a sinister side. In the dead of night on Christmas Eve in 1982, a sixteen-year-old Williams broke into the Philadelphia residence of Don and Hilda Dorfman, aged sixty-nine and sixty-four, respectively. He entered Mrs. Dorfman’s bedroom, wakened her by pressing a .22 caliber Winchester rifle to her neck, and then pulled a bedsheet over her face. When Mrs. Dorfman attempted to remove the sheet, Williams ordered her to stop “or her f***ing head would be blown off.” Williams then fired the rifle three times into the wall to show the victims he was serious. Williams and an accomplice ransacked the home before making off with cash, jewelry, and the Dorfmans’ automobile.
It was not long before Williams was apprehended and criminally charged for robbing and terrorizing the Dorfmans. Although his age placed him under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the Commonwealth moved to certify Williams as an adult. In an attempt to avoid certification, Williams produced no fewer than eight witnesses who attested to his stable home life, loving parents, and supportive extended family. Every character witness interviewed by the Commonwealth believed Williams to be innocent. Even his own attorney would testify years later, “I didn’t feel in my own mind of minds and heart of hearts that he was involved in the matter.” Such was the nature of Williams’ dual existence. In spite of the efforts to avoid it, Williams was certified to stand trial as an adult.
He was released pending trial, however, and in January of 1984, he embarked in earnest on a crime spree that would continue for the better part of six months. Williams’ next victim was a fifty-one-year-old man named Herbert Hamilton, an individual from whom Williams had been receiving money in exchange for sex. This relationship, like much else in Williams’ life, was kept hidden from most who knew him. Hamilton apparently threatened to publicize the secret, so Williams took action. On January 26, 1984, Williams called on Hamilton at his home. The two eventually retired to the bedroom and, as they proceeded toward the bed, Williams withdrew a concealed ten-inch butcher knife and attempted to stab Hamilton. Hamilton fought back, wrestled the knife from Williams, and stabbed Williams in the chest. Hamilton then dropped the knife and ran into the kitchen to telephone for assistance.
Meanwhile, Williams retrieved a nearby baseball bat, chased after Hamilton, and beat him with the bat until Hamilton was bloody and severely wounded. Williams then recovered the butcher knife and stabbed Hamilton approximately twenty times—twice in the head, ten times in the back, once in the neck, four times in the chest, and once each in the abdomen, arm, and thumb. Finally, Williams drove the butcher knife through the back of Hamilton’s neck until it protruded through the other side. He then doused Hamilton’s body with kerosene and unsuccessfully attempted to set fire to it. When police officers later entered the apartment, they found Hamilton’s kerosene-soaked body with the knife jammed through his neck; on the bathroom mirror, the phrase “I loved you” was scrawled in toothpaste. Williams was then seventeen.
The Hamilton murder remained unsolved at the time that Williams went to trial for the Dorfman robbery in February of 1984. Williams maintained his innocence of the robbery throughout trial. He and his counsel mustered at least nine character witnesses who testified that Williams was a peaceful, law-abiding, and honest young man. The jury was not persuaded. They returned a conviction for two counts of robbery as felonies of the first degree, one count of burglary, one count of simple assault, one count of unauthorized use of an automobile, and one count of conspiracy. Williams was nevertheless released pending sentencing.
Tragically, his crime spree continued. On June 11, 1984, Williams and a friend, Marc Draper, were gambling with several others on a street corner in the West Mount Airy neighborhood of Philadelphia. It was not long before both young men lost all of their money. While brainstorming potential means by which to recoup their losses, Williams said that he knew a man who lived nearby from whom they could extort cash.
Approximately one month before this date, Williams and Draper were arrested for the armed robbery of fifty-three-year-old Robert Hill, an acquaintance of the late Herbert Hamilton. The Commonwealth discontinued the prosecution for this offense after Williams was sentenced to death for the Norwood killing.
According to Williams, this individual—fifty-six-year-old Amos Norwood—was a closeted homosexual. With a plan that they would threaten to reveal Norwood’s secret to his wife, Draper and Williams set off for Norwood’s apartment. When they arrived at Norwood’s residence, Williams told Draper to wait outside. Williams emerged with $10 in cash approximately twenty minutes later. Williams and Draper were apparently satisfied with this amount because they returned to the street corner to resume gambling. A short time later, Norwood drove by the corner in his blue Chrysler LeBaron. When he spotted the vehicle, Williams said, “There goes my uncle,” flagged down the car, and entered via the passenger side door. Norwood then drove away.
The blue LeBaron returned to the intersection several minutes later, whereupon Williams exited the vehicle, approached Draper, and said quietly, “Play it off like you going home, like you want a ride home, and we gonna take some money.” Draper understood Williams to be proposing a robbery. The two then got inside Norwood’s automobile and Draper began to provide false directions to his “home.” In reality, Draper’s directions led Norwood to a secluded area adjacent to the Ivy Hill Cemetery. Once there, Draper reached over the backseat, grabbed Norwood from behind and ordered him “to be quiet and get out of the car.” Norwood stopped the vehicle and complied. Williams and Draper then led Norwood into the cemetery and ordered him to lie facedown near a tombstone.
A quick search of Norwood’s person revealed $20 hidden in his sock. At this point, Norwood began to plead for his life. The two assailants responded by removing Norwood’s clothing and tying him up; Norwood’s hands were bound behind his back with his shirt, his legs were bound together with his pants, and his socks were forcefully jammed into his mouth. Once Norwood was bound, Williams said to Draper, “Wait, I’m going to the car. We’re getting ready to do something.” And he walked off. Williams returned with a tire iron and a socket wrench, the latter of which he gave to Draper.
Draper, seemingly having second thoughts, urged Williams to leave. Williams replied, “I know what I’m doin, I know what I’m doin. Don’t worry about it, I know what I’m doin.” He then began battering Norwood’s head with the tire iron. When he noticed that Draper was frozen in place, Williams said, “Man, you with me? We got to do this together.” Draper then sprung into action himself, striking Norwood repeatedly with the socket wrench. This violent scene continued until Norwood lay motionless and dead. Draper later recalled that there was blood everywhere. On the day of his second murder, Williams was four months past his eighteenth birthday.
Williams and Draper soon parted ways. Draper reported to work, while Williams took Norwood’s automobile downtown to meet a friend, Ronald Rucker. Rucker noticed that Williams was “hyper” and asked him if everything was okay. Williams then disclosed that he had just “offed a guy” named Amos. Although Rucker initially did not believe his friend, he began to reconsider after observing blood stains on Williams’ shoes. Later that night, Williams told Rucker he was “going to get some gas from a gas station to go back to the scene of the crime.” Rucker surmised that Williams intended to burn Norwood’s body. That is precisely what Williams did.
Williams and Draper were eventually undone by their use of a credit card and telephone calling card—both in Norwood’s name—that they had taken from Norwood’s automobile. Philadelphia police traced use of the calling card back to Rucker; upon questioning, he implicated Williams and Draper. When his interview with law enforcement concluded, Rucker informed Williams that he had provided police with Williams’ last name. Panicked, Williams boarded a bus bound for San Francisco.
In the meantime, Draper was arrested and promptly confessed. He also told police about the Herbert Hamilton killing. With this information, officers proceeded to obtain a warrant for Williams’ arrest. Approximately halfway through his cross-country bus ride, Williams telephoned his girlfriend, Marlene Rogers. Rogers informed him about the outstanding arrest warrant, and urged her boyfriend to return to Philadelphia so that he could defend the charges against him. Her entreaty was apparently convincing, for Williams promptly boarded an airplane and returned east.
On July 23, 1984, he arranged to be arrested in the Philadelphia office of his attorney, Ronald White. Williams’ mother notified a reporter from the Daily News that her son would surrender to authorities in White’s office. Before his arrest, Williams told the newspaper, “I wanted to come back and clear my name.” The reporter snapped photographs as Williams was led out of White’s office in handcuffs.
Two days later, Williams was sentenced to twelve-and-a-half to twenty years’ imprisonment for his participation in the Dorfman robbery. In February 1985, he was tried and convicted of third degree murder for the Hamilton killing.
Finally, a jury trial for the Norwood murder commenced in January of 1986 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Draper testified for the Commonwealth and detailed the manner in which he and Williams guided Norwood to the Ivy Hill Cemetery, robbed and bound him, and then beat him to death. Williams later took the stand in his own defense and pinned the murder on Draper and another individual, Michael Hopkins. The jury rejected Williams’ testimony and returned a conviction for first degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy.
The trial’s penalty phase began immediately after the jury announced its verdict. The Commonwealth introduced evidence that Williams was recently convicted of armed robbery and third degree murder. Williams, in turn, presented three witnesses in mitigation. His mother, Patricia Kemp, described her son’s athletic success and testified that he was well-liked and respected by those who knew him. She also characterized Williams’ stepfather as a verbally abusive alcoholic who routinely berated her son and once pushed him down a flight of stairs. Ms. Kemp denied participating in any abuse herself. Marlene Rogers, Williams’ girlfriend and the mother of his thirteen-month-old child, said that Williams was a “very supportive father” and had never been violent towards her or anyone she knew. The defendant’s last mitigation witness added little, rambling that “we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God . . . . We all have committed murder. We all have stolen some things that we should not have done. We all have committed adultery. I don’t believe you should kill another person. Blood will be on your hands.”
After witness testimony was complete, Williams’ trial counsel, Nicholas Panarella, closed by emphasizing the defendant’s youth at the time of the murder and by urging the jury to find that age was a mitigating factor in the offense. He then asked that they consider any residual doubt remaining from the guilt phase and argued that a sentence of life imprisonment was sufficiently severe, for it would subject Williams to “all of the brutalities that are associated with prison life.” Panarella concluded by pleading for mercy. His plea was rejected.
The jury found two aggravating circumstances, namely (1) that the murder occurred during commission of a felony (robbery), and (2) that Williams had a significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence. The jury found that there were no mitigating circumstances present in the case. They returned a sentence of death.
UPDATE: Williams received a stay of execution from Philadelphia judge Teresa Sarmina who also granted a new penalty phase in the case, ruling that evidence of alleged sexual abuse was not heard by the jury and might have resulted in a different verdict. Accomplice Marc Draper recanted his trial testimony when made aware of Williams's execution date. He said he had told the prosecutor and detectives about the sexual relationship between Williams and Norwood but "they didn't want to hear it." Draper claims he was promised a chance for parole after 10 or 15 years in return for his testimony against Williams, but he received a life sentence in the crime. The prosecutor said the abuse allegations are hearsay that only came to light a few months ago, 28 years since the murder and represent a "last ditch effort to escape punishment."
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Oct 1, 2012 19:40:52 GMT -6
One of the things that mystifies me about the judge's decision is that she bought the statements given by the co-defendant, Marc Draper, about the motive, and implied that the police/DA concealed evidence about the victim because of "suspicions," even though if Williams was really a sexual abuse victim, he would not need the DA's office to tell him that. It's so ridiculous, it's beginning to infuriate me.
The DA's office has appealed the ruling, but I doubt that the issue can be resolved before Wednesday. If the ruling is reversed, as it should be, a new execution date can be set.
kma367
|
|