Executed June 26, 2001

The Honorable Rick Perry
Governor of the State of Texas
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, TX 78711-2428

Re: Miguel A. Richardson 

Dear Governor Perry: 

Miguel A. Richardson is scheduled to be executed on Tuesday, June 26, 2001. On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, we urge you to commute Mr. Richardson's sentence of death to life imprisonment. Such action is amply justified in this case for at least four reasons. 

First, the jury at Mr. Richardson's 1981 trial never heard compelling mitigating evidence that could not be excluded under today's constitutional standards. Texas law in 1981 precluded Mr. Richardson's trial counsel from introducing evidence that Mr. Richardson suffered extreme physical and sexual abuse as a child. He was beaten violently by his father, his mother, and his older siblings on a routine basis for many years, and was subject to sexual abuse by family members as well. In Penry v. Lynaugh, 491 U.S. 302 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 8th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution require that juries in capital cases be permitted to hear and consider such mitigating evidence as a basis for deciding upon a life sentence, rather than death. Mr. Richardson's execution should not go forward where his conviction and sentence resulted even in part from a rule that is now considered unconstitutional. 

Second, the jury at Mr. Richardson's trial also never heard evidence that he suffers from a particularly severe form of bipolar disorder, which is also known as manic depression. This illness almost certainly has affected Mr. Richardson's behavior throughout his life. Indeed, a psychiatrist who examined Mr. Richardson and reviewed his history, concluded that he was likely suffering from a manic episode during the time period of this offense. The jury, however, heard nothing of this illness, because it was only recently diagnosed. This evidence, like that of Mr. Richardson's abusive childhood, could have provided strong mitigating grounds for deciding upon a life sentence, rather than death, and constitutes a further basis for commuting his sentence to life imprisonment now. 

Third, very serious doubts exist as to whether Mr. Richardson is even competent to be executed. Under Texas law, a "defendant is incompetent to be executed" if he "does not understand: (1) that he or she is to be executed and that the execution is imminent; and (2) the reason he or she is being executed." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 46.04(h). In this case, Mr. Richardson's counsel has submitted an affidavit from an examining psychiatrist that, during his manic episodes, Mr. Richardson lacks understanding of the requisite facts. Executing Mr. Richardson when he is in such a condition would not only violate Texas law, but would serve no useful purpose as retribution or deterrence. 

Finally, in the twenty plus years he has been in prison, Mr. Richardson has undergone a genuine spiritual transformation, which has enabled him, between his manic episodes, to provide solace to other death row prisoners, to his wife, to member's of his wife's family, to friends, and even to strangers. Two of the many, many examples of his faith are founding a daily prayer group for death row inmates and organizing a group of inmates to write letters of support to a young woman dying of cancer. 

The ACLU opposes capital punishment in all cases as a barbarous anachronism and in violation of the U.S. Constitution. In Mr. Richardson's case, the additional factors discussed above present an especially compelling basis for commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment. 

Sincerely, 

Diann Rust-Tierney
ACLU Capital Punishment Project 

William Harrell
ACLU of Texas 

James V. Dick
Pro Bono Counsel
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.