one and only said this in post #16 : Well, thanks for all your comments and opinions but I think I'll stick to my own assumptions. Once again God is the final judge. Everyone have a very Merry Christmas. By the way what's so pathetic is all the persons on this site that have actually seen all the evidence against Tookie and have found him guilty. He sure didn't have a jury of his peers now did he???? Ponder that...
----------
I think you need to brush up on good ol' Tookie and the evidence against him...
-------------
History of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams' Appeals
Nov 29 2005
Procedural History and Appellate Review
To date, Stanley 'Tookie' Williams' case has received extensive legal scrutiny in both state and federal court. Since his conviction in 1981, Williams has pursued multiple appeals and habeas corpus petitions.
In each and every instance, in both state and federal court, his conviction has been affirmed as appropriate and just, according to the Los Angeles District Attorney's office.
On April 18, 1980, the trial court granted Williams' motion to substitute his hand-picked attorney, Joseph Ingber, as attorney of record in place of Gerald Lenoir.
On January 21, 1981, the jury trial commenced and on March 13, 1981, the jury returned guilty verdicts of four counts of first-degree murder and two counts of robbery. The jury also found the special circumstance allegations of robberymurder and multiple murder to be true. Lastly, the jury found true the special allegations that defendant Williams personally used a shotgun and that a principal was armed with a firearm.
On March 17, 1981, both parties having rested without presenting evidence at the penalty phase, argument was presented on behalf of the People and defendant Williams as to whether the penalty should be death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Following arguments and instructions of law by the Court on this issue, the jury, on March 18, 1981, returned a verdict of death as to each of the charged first-degree murders.
On April 15, 1981, defendant Williams' motions for a new trial and for modification of the verdict and findings imposing the death penalty were heard by the Court and denied. The trial court then sentenced Williams to death on counts 1, 2, 3 and 7.
On April 11, 1988, on automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court, in the cases of People v. Stanley Williams, Crim. No. 21977, and In re Stanley Williams, Crim. No. 23806, consolidated under Case No. S004365, and published at (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1127, the imposition of the death penalty was affirmed and defendant Williams' first habeas petition was denied following an evidentiary hearing.
On January 18, 1989, the California Supreme Court denied defendant Williams' second state habeas petition in Case No. S008526.
On that same date, January 18, 1988, defendant Williams filed his first federal habeas petition in the United States District Court in Case No. CV89-00327-SVW. The district court held that petition in abeyance while defendant Williams returned to the California Supreme Court with his unexhausted claims.
On April 11, 1994, following another evidentiary hearing, the California Supreme Court denied defendant Williams' third state habeas petition in Case No. S011868, published at (1994) 7 Cal.4th 572.
On June 21, 1995, the California Supreme Court denied defendant Williams' fourth state habeas petition in Case No. S039285.
On December 21, 1988, defendant Williams returned to federal court and, following an evidentiary hearing, the United States District Court denied defendant Williams' amended habeas petition in Case No. CV89-00327-SVW, and published its order at (1998) 41 F.Supp.2d 1043.
On December 17, 1999, defendant Williams' subsequent Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the judgment was denied, and the order was published at (1999) 1999 WL 1320903.
On September 10, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied defendant Williams' direct appeal and Rule 60(b) motion in Case Nos. 99-99018 and 00-99001, published at (2002) 306 F.3d 665.
On September 9, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals amended the opinion and denied defendant Williams' petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, published at (2004) 384 F.3d 567.
On February 2, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendant Williams' subsequent petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, published at (2005) 396 F.3d 1059.
Finally, on October 11, 2005, the United States Supreme Court denied defendant Williams' petition for writ of certiorari in Case No. 04-10500.
As this historical accounting proves, Williams has benefited from a detailed and exhaustive review of all of his legal claims and each court has affirmed the guilty verdicts and affirmed the death sentence. In doing so, our courts, both state and federal, have given appropriate and serious consideration to Williams, consideration which Williams so violently denied each of his victims.
-------
----------------
'I'm Going to Get Each and Every One of You'
In the response to Stanley 'Tookie' Williams' petition for clemency, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a response outlining his behavior during his trial and his threat to the jurors who found him guilty. Here are excerpts from that response.
On January 21, 1980, Stanley Williams, through his attorney Gerry Lenoir, made it clear that he wished to replace Mr. Lenoir with his hand-picked attorney of choice, Joe Ingber. In fact, Williams personally asked the trial judge for a continuance so that he could arrange for the hiring of Mr. Ingber.
Williams, in addressing the court, stated, "Well, see, excuse me, your Honor. I'd like to move for a continuance at this time because the attorney of my choice, he's at this moment downtown fighting a murder trial." (TT A55-A56).
In response, the trial judge indicated that the next court date was months away, and that if Williams wished to employ Mr. Ingber, the court would allow Williams to "change counsel." (TT A56). At the next court appearance, on April 18, 1980, that is exactly what transpired. Stanley Williams asked that Gerry Lenoir be substituted out and that Joe Ingber be substituted in on his behalf.
When the court asked Williams if that was his desire, Williams responded affirmatively. (TT A58). The court then granted Williams' request, and Joe Ingber became the attorney of record. During the subsequent trial, Stanley Williams was represented by both Joe Ingber and his associate, Steven Ehrlich.
On March 13, 1981, the jury reached guilty verdicts on all counts, and found all the special allegations true. After the verdicts were read in open court, Williams spoke out to the jury, calling them "sons of *****es." (TT 2886-U). He was later asked, outside the presence of the jury, if he would like to take advantage of his Constitutional right to testify in his own defense at the penalty phase (a right Williams chose not to take advantage of during the guilt phase). Williams' response to this question was "hell no." (TT 2988).
Moreover, despite the trial judge urging Williams to present mitigating evidence during the penalty phase, Williams indicated he did not want to call any witnesses and did not want to present any evidence in mitigation. (TT 2988-2989, 2996). The following discussion was had among the trial judge, defense counsel, and Stanley Williams (TT 2996-2997):
INGBER: It's the defendant's desire that no one testify in his behalf in this phase; and I acquiesce to the desires of the defendant. So there will be no testimony called in this phase of the trial.
JUDGE: I would strongly urge that if there is any mitigating evidence, and if it can be presented, that you would be inclined to do that. But, of course, I realize the decision is yours. Are we to proceed?
INGBER: Yes, Your Honor.
The court then turned to Williams and urged him to put on whatever mitigating evidence he had.
JUDGE: Well, let me indicate, Mr. Williams, that I would strongly urge that if you have any testimony in mitigation that that be presented at this time. I realize the final decision has to be arrived at with you on the advice of counsel; and I suppose as to those matters counsel has the last word as to whether other mitigating evidence should be presented. So I want you to be aware that I'm recommending that you present any, if you have any. Have you had enough time, Mr. Williams, to discuss this matter with your lawyer?
WILLIAMS: (No response).
JUDGE: The record should reflect that the defendant remained mute in response to that inquiry.
It was subsequently discovered that the defendant threatened the jurors after the guilty verdict was read. Specifically, the defendant looked at the jurors and said he "was going to get all" of them. (TT 3072). After learning of this threat, the trial judge inquired of the jury foreperson.
The foreperson confirmed the defendant mouthed the words "I'm going to get each and every one of you mother f******." (TT 3078). The foreperson further confirmed that this threat did not play any part in the deliberations and was, in fact, not discussed during the penalty phase of the trial. (TT 3078).
Whatever......... we all know that evidence is sometimes planted and people are sometimes framed so really all that evidence stuff means nothing. Everyone have a Merry Christmas.
Yes, his accomplice would say anything to save himself. Anyway, I'm finished debating the Tookie situation, and I still say he should not have been executed.
12-16-2005 11:20 PM
