In February 1983 as the rural farming community of LaBelle, Florida prepared to celebrate its annual “Swamp Cabbage Festival” the top story around town was that a local 19-year old waitress recently reported missing. Aleisha Bryant was last seen with a man, known only as “Chip”, that past Sunday night at a rowdy bar just outside of town.
Initially the investigation revealed that Chip had come to town under a fictitious name Lawrence Lamberson, and was in fact really Clarence Edward Moore, a 35-year old “career criminal” from Miami with a propensity for violence against women and a known associate of south Florida drug smugglers. Chip could not be located either.
On February 9th, 1983 Chip’s car was located near Tampa being driven by Francis Smith, who when asked about the car told police it belonged to her boyfriend but she couldn’t remember his name. Smith was arrested and the car was impounded. Smith remained in custody for several days and gave numerous conflicting stories before being bonded out. The following week Smith, accompanied by her own lawyer, went to the states attorney’s office to “voluntarily” report a double murder.
Smith told how a few months earlier around Christmas she had abruptly abandoned her three young children and ran away with Mike Lambrix. Traveling together to LaBelle, they took up residence on a ranch in nearby Glades County, where they lived under the name “Townsend” as Lambrix had recently walked away from a minimum security work release center where he was serving a sentence for passing a worthless check – Lambrix’s only prior conviction.
On February 5th Lambrix and Smith went to the “Town Tavern” in LaBelle, where the met Chip and Bryant. The four then traveled together to “Squeaky’s”, where they drank and danced until the bar closed. They all agreed to go back to Lambrix’s place for a late night dinner as Bryant had to be at work in a few hours and Chip was leaving town.
Smith claimed that after arriving at the trailer she began cooking a spaghetti dinner while Lambrix, Chip, and Bryant sat in the adjacent living room. Smith later testified that they were all “laughing, teasing and playing around” when Lambrix and Chip decided to go outside. About 20 minutes later Lambrix returned looking “normal” and told Bryant that Chip wanted her to come outside. Smith stayed in the trailer cooking. About 45 minutes later Lambrix again returned alone – but this time was “covered in blood” and told Smith that “they’re dead.”
According to Smith, she followed Lambrix into the bathroom and as he washed up she asked what happened, Lambrix refused to talk about it. They went to a store to purchase a flashlight and shovel. After returning to the trailer Smith claims Lambrix forced her to help bury the two bodies before fleeing the area together in Chip’s car.
Smith was given a polygraph, which showed “significant signs of deception” yet based exclusively on her account a warrant charging Lambrix with capital premeditated murder was issued and a statewide “manhunt” ensued. Lambrix was apprehended several weeks later in Orlando, Florida.
Lambrix was almost immediately transferred to the small two-cell Glades County Jail in Moore Haven, Florida and a local inexperienced public defender was assigned to represent him. Motions were filed to have the case moved to another county because of graphically sensationalized stories in the local weekly paper; they were summarily denied. By December 1983 the case was brought to trial at the small courthouse in Moore Haven with Judge Adams presiding.
In opening arguments the state prosecutor Randall McGruther conceded that there were no eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidence, and no confessions to support his theory of alleged premeditated murder. The entire case was founded upon Francis Smith’s testimony that after meeting Chip and Bryant, Lambrix invited them back to the trailer, then took Chip out first – returning alone – then took Bryant out again subsequently returning alone, only this time covered in blood. Smith testified that Lambrix told her he hit the man in the head and choked Bryant, and then placed her face down in a pond to ensure she died. The alleged motive was to steal the car.
This otherwise unsupported theory of alleged premeditated murder was corroborated by state witness Deborah Hanzel, (The girlfriend of Smith’s own cousin) who testified that Lambrix also told her that he committed the murders to steal the car, and by Robert Daniels, a local states attorney’s investigator who was responsible for developing the circumstantial evidence used to support Smith’s story.
No defense was presented and Lambrix’s own lawyer compelled the trial judge to prohibit Lambrix from personally testifying even though Lambrix was the only one who could have told the jury what really happened outside.
Instead, Lambrix’s attorney argued that substantial reasonable doubt existed as the states theory of alleged premeditated murder directly conflicted with the evidence. Smith admitted that she never witnessed anything that might have occurred outside. The state’s own medical examiner confirmed that there was no actual evidence that Bryant died of strangulation or drowning – in fact there was no pond on the property.
Further, Chip was the only one who suffered any physical injuries that would have resulted in the loss of blood. Thus Chip had to still be alive when Bryant went outside, so whatever actually transpired outside had to happen spontaneously, without premeditated intent. Additionally, all of Chip’s wounds were to his front forehead so Chip had to be facing his combatant and the absence of any defense wounds strongly suggest Chip had to have been the aggressor.
Both Chip and Bryant each substantially outweighed lambrix, so how could he have simultaneously killed both in two completely different ways? Would a healthy 19-year old woman passively allow herself to be strangled without struggling? Smith admitted Lambrix had no scratches or bruises on him – yet the autopsy on Chip revealed numerous scratches on his abdomen. Fingernail scrapings that might have conclusively identified Bryant’s true assailant conveniently disappeared.
Last, Smith told numerous conflicting accounts before coming up with the one that propitiously exonerated her of all culpability. Collectively, counsel argued substantial reasonable doubt existed precluding a finding of guilt.
Without any local facilities available to sequester the jury the deliberations dragged on over eleven hours into the early morning without food or necessary medicine. Finally, the jury announced it could not agree on any verdict and over Lambrix’s objection a “hung jury” was declared.
After the state announced its intentions to retry the case, Lambrix’s counsel renewed the motions to have the case moved to another county; this was denied. In February 19984 the retrial began after Lambrix refused a second-degree murder plea, which would have resulted in a maximum sentence of 22 to 27 years.
The original was abruptly and inexplicitly replaced by Judge Richard Stanley, a former local prosecutor with a reputation for bias against capital defendants. Ultimately, the jury empanelled to retry the case included the jury foreman (Snyder) who admitted he already believed Lambrix was guilty as well as four other jurors directly related to the local sheriff’s department including the stepfather (Wilburn) of a local sheriff deputy who at the time of trial was under an FBI investigation for physically assaulting Lambrix several months earlier.
As the state presented its same case for the second time, Judge Stanley prohibited Lambrix’s attorneys from cross-examining the key witness Francis Smith about the numerous conflicting stories she had told or the polygraph examination. Judge Stanley felt this might “confuse” the jury. Lambrix was again prohibited from testifying. Once again Deborah Hanzel and investigator Robert Daniels corroborated Smith’s testimony.
Lambrix’s attorney presented no defense beyond arguing reasonable doubt. This time the jury deliberated barely an hour before returning with a verdict of guilty on each count of capital murder. Following a brief sentencing phase, the jury then recommended by a majority vote “death” be imposed on both counts.
On March 22, 1984 Lambrix was formally sentenced to death. Judge Stanley refused to recognize any mitigating circumstances even though the undisputed evidence established that Lambrix was honorably discharged for the Army following a disabling duty related accident, was a former Boy Scout and Catholic alter boy, as well as a father of three young children, with no significant prior criminal history.
Since March 1984 Lambrix has remained in solitary confinement on Florida’s death row, never once wavering in his insistence that the entire case of alleged premeditated murder brought against him was deliberately fabricated.
Although prohibited from testifying at trial, Lambrix’s stead fast claim of what actually took place outside that night is in fact entirely consistent with the evidence. Perhaps the hardest thing to defend against is a deliberately fabricated lie, especially when it is supported by the state.
Lambrix readily admits to meeting Chip and Bryant that night and inviting them back to his home. After arriving at the trailer they continued to drink. Both unquestionably intoxicated, Chip and Lambrix went outside, where, in their drunken stupor they concocted a plan to play a practical joke on the tow women. As Chip hid behind a nearby cattle trough, Lambrix went inside the trailer and told Smith and Bryant they wanted to show them something outside. Smith was still cooking dinner, so only Bryant followed him outside.
As the two approached the feed trough Chip suddenly jumped out successfully startling Bryant as planned…but Bryant unrepentantly responded with anger, verbally confronting Chip. Unaware of Chip’s history of violence against women Lambrix left the two alone to work it out, walking back towards the trailer.
Just as Lambrix reached the trailer he heard a scream and knowing the closes neighbor was some distance away he knew it had to be them. Then came another scream; Lambrix began going back around the trailer towards the pasture. Assuming they must have run into a wild animal or something, Lambrix intuitively grabbed the jack handle from a car as he passed it; the jack was out from work done earlier in the day.
Upon reaching the trough Lambrix realized that Chip and Bryant were not where he had left them, it was a cloudy night with minimal moonlight, which made it difficult to see more than a few feet but he heard something back in the pasture and moved in that direction.
Suddenly Lambrix walked up on them -- Chip had Bryant pinned to the ground on her back with him straddled over her, violently assaulting her. Lambrix ordered Chip to let her go only to be pugnaciously told to mind his own business, Lambrix forcibly pushed Chip off Bryant but as he fell to far side Chip immediately lunged back toward Lambrix and as he did Lambrix instinctively swung the tire iron repeatedly until realizing that Chip was down.
Assuming Bryant was only unconscious, Lambrix attempted to carry her back to the trailer, but she significantly out weighted him, forcing Lambrix to lay her down. At that time Lambrix attempted to resuscitate her – to no avail. Realizing then that she was dead Lambrix returned to Chip but he was beyond help too, as his head was crushed from the blows.
Lambrix returned to the trailer covered in blood and told Smith they were dead, then went to the bathroom and vomited before washing up. Both Lambrix and Smith then went to a store to obtain a flashlight and shovel and in route Lambrix reluctantly told Smith that Chip had “gone nuts” on Bryant and as he tried to stop him, Chip turned on him. Knowing that Lambrix had an arrest warrant for leaving the work release they both agreed they couldn’t go to the sheriff and that they would superficially conceal the two bodies then abandon Chips car near Tampa – which Smith was supposedly doing when she was arrested.
After being sentenced to death Lambrix was assigned a local attorney whop had no experience litigating capital appeals – and made no attempt to even meet with Lambrix. Without addressing the sufficiency of the specious circumstantial evidence, the deprivation of Lambrix’s “fundamental” right to testify. Or the composition of the jury, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously affirmed both the convictions and sentences of death.
In September 1988 a “death warrant” was signed, scheduling Lambrix’s execution for November 30th, 1988. Only then was post conviction counsel assigned – but at the last moment this counsel argued that it was “impossible’ to investigate and present Lambrix’s claims – including actual innocence – because the sate funded agency did not have adequate resources or staff.
In a cursory order the trial court summarily denied the request for any additional time and as Lambrix was measured for the suit they intended to kill him in and ordered his last meal, by a marginal four to three vote the Florida Supreme Court also denied relief. However, the court did grant a 48-hour temporary stay of execution to allow an appeal to the federal court and as Lambrix again came within hours of execution the federal court finally granted a full stay.
In August 1991 the Federal District Court provided an evidentiary hearing on the limited issues that were actually raised in the state courts. At that time both former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Alan Sundberg and nationally renowned criminal defense attorney Ray Black testified in Lambrix’s behalf, that the legal representation Lambrix was provided at both trial and on appeal was pathetically incompetent.
In May 1992 the Federal District Court denied relief in an order that was subsequently affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The United States Supreme Court then granted limited review but by a five to four vote ruled that although Lambrix was unconstitutionally sentenced to death, because his lawyers has failed to properly present the claim, any relief was procedurally barred.
As these federal appeals were pending Lambrix’s lawyers also filed a new appeal in the state courts arguing that Lambrix must be allowed to present his claim of actual innocence, which prior counsel failed to raise as the “fundamental miscarriage of justice” doctrine requires an exemption of statutory procedural bars.
However, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that previously appointed counsels’ failure to timely raise the claims could not establish “cause” for exemption of procedural time limitations as Lambrix had no constitutional right to post conviction counsel so such counsel cannot legally be “ineffective.” The court made no attempt to address Lambrix’s comprehensively pled claim of actual innocence.
In 1996 Lambrix lost both his state and federal appeals – Congress abruptly eliminated the funding for the agency responsible for representing him, so Lambrix suddenly found himself without a lawyer. Once again facing an imminent “death warrant” Lambrix petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for appointment of new counsel, and his case was assigned to a state funded agency chronically plagued by inadequate funding and insufficient staff.
As Lambrix mentally prepared to be moved back to “death watch” new evidence came to light regarding Lambrix’s trial judge in another capital case. In that case, after the court personally came forth hours before Raleigh Porter was to be executed Judge Stanley was compelled to testify that he had become a judge to avenge his colleagues murder, and that if it was up to him, he would have shot capital defendants “dead between the eyes.” Based on this evidence, the Florida Supreme Court threw out Porter’s death sentences because of Judge Stanley’s pervasive bias against capital defendants.
Arguing that Lambrix must be provided similar relief – Lambrix is now the only person still remaining under sentence of death imposed by Judge Stanley – the new lawyers filed an appeal that prevented a new death warrant from being signed.
Lambrix’s lawyers then sought out state witness Deborah Hanzel to clarify an ambiguity in the original trial record. To their surprise Hanzel volunteered that her trial testimony was not true – that Lambrix never did actually tell her that he had killed anyone. Asked why she didn’t come forward with this crucial information earlier, Hanzel replied that she thought Lambrix had been executed.
Almost five years later Lambrix was finally granted an evidentiary hearing on this newly discovered evidence. At that time Hanzel provided more information – that she was deliberately coerced into providing that false testimony by the key witness Francis Smith and an investigator with the States Attorney’s Office. They had known all along that Lambrix has acted in involuntary self-defense.
Several months later another hearing was held and for the first time Lambrix was allowed to testify about what really happened that night. The state did not and could not discredit Lambrix’s claim of “involuntary self-defense.”
The state then called their key witness Francis Smith (now Francis Ottinger) to deny that she coerced Hanzel to provide false testimony. However, Smith was not aware that only days earlier her recently divorced husband has provided Lambrix’s lawyers with starting new information – that while Lambrix was being prosecuted on these capital charges, Smith was having a secret relationship “of a sexual nature” with the State Attorney’s own investigator, Robert Daniels – the very person who has sworn out the affidavit initiating these charges against Lambrix, then was responsible for developing the circumstantial evidence used to corroborate Smith’s story.
As Smith took the stand she predictably denied coercing Hanzel to provide false testimony – then Lambrix’s lawyers asked Smith if it was true that she was having a sexual relationship with investigator Daniels while Lambrix was being prosecuted. At first, perjuring herself she denied any relationship, but then reluctantly admitted it.
Lambrix’s claims of actual innocence have been pending before Judge R. Thomas Corbin of the Lee County Circuit Court in Ft. Myers, Florida for almost nine years now. Although hearings have been sporadically provided each has been deliberately limited to only a small part of the available evidence, which collectively proves Lambrix’s actual innocence. Every element of the states case is now exposed as being deliberately fabricated with an intent to have Lambrix wrongfully convicted, the local court and states attorney’s office have joined forces to obstruct public exposure of this inconceivable injustice by simply not allowing the case to proceed to a finality.
Recently at a July 2006 hearing the state offered to reduce Lambrix’s sentences to “life” if Lambrix would drop these actual innocence appeals – an offer Lambrix “categorically refused.” The case remains pending..
please see www.southerninjustice.net for updates
Monday 16 February 2009
The Greater Evil
Earlier today I had a visit with the lay minister of the local Catholic Church. I enjoy talking to him as with his previous career as a lawyer he easily grasps the legal context of what is going on. Today we had a long debate about Justice Scalia’s recent opinion in Marsh v. Kansas, in which Scalia took the position that the claims of the innocent people being wrongfully condemned to death is overblown – that there are very few truly innocent people convicted as the system works. And that although the system is not perfect, the few mistakes are acceptable in the interest of the greater good.
Yeah __ I’ll bet he’d have a totally different opinion if he was the one wrongfully convicted and had to deal with a court system that increasingly erects procedural rules to prevent the claims of innocence from even being heard.
It is because of people like Justice Scalia that I’ve come to despise the Right Wing Conservative Movement. They live in their own small world where they never have to worry about becoming a victim of the very practices they advocate and then say that those who do fall victim to the system they’ve created are an acceptable collateral consequence for the greater good of accomplishing their own agenda. But just where does one draw the line as to what is considered “acceptable?” How many must be sacrificed before they can find it intolerable?
People like Scalia are so far removed from the reality of the world that they incapable of empathizing with those who do fall victim. To me, that’s the greater evil that exists today – that absence of moral conscience that allows those who do support such a system to see even the few wrongfully convicted as an acceptable sacrifice for their own greater good. And as they dare preach morality, they refuse to see why it’s morally wrong to allow such a system to exist without at least trying to prevent the injustices that do exist.
One must ask, at what point does a presumably civilized society become compromised by the cancer we allow to exist not out of necessity, but out of political will? Sure, there are a relatively small number of monsters out there that perhaps nothing less than killing would protect society from – but those true “monsters” only rarely get the death penalty. The reality of it is that the overwhelming majority of people condemned to death, get death, not because of the particular nature of there crime, but because of their inability to defend against the formidable resources of the state. It’s those unfortunate enough to get represented by incompetent lawyers typically appointed by the court.
Michael Lambrix
Yeah __ I’ll bet he’d have a totally different opinion if he was the one wrongfully convicted and had to deal with a court system that increasingly erects procedural rules to prevent the claims of innocence from even being heard.
It is because of people like Justice Scalia that I’ve come to despise the Right Wing Conservative Movement. They live in their own small world where they never have to worry about becoming a victim of the very practices they advocate and then say that those who do fall victim to the system they’ve created are an acceptable collateral consequence for the greater good of accomplishing their own agenda. But just where does one draw the line as to what is considered “acceptable?” How many must be sacrificed before they can find it intolerable?
People like Scalia are so far removed from the reality of the world that they incapable of empathizing with those who do fall victim. To me, that’s the greater evil that exists today – that absence of moral conscience that allows those who do support such a system to see even the few wrongfully convicted as an acceptable sacrifice for their own greater good. And as they dare preach morality, they refuse to see why it’s morally wrong to allow such a system to exist without at least trying to prevent the injustices that do exist.
One must ask, at what point does a presumably civilized society become compromised by the cancer we allow to exist not out of necessity, but out of political will? Sure, there are a relatively small number of monsters out there that perhaps nothing less than killing would protect society from – but those true “monsters” only rarely get the death penalty. The reality of it is that the overwhelming majority of people condemned to death, get death, not because of the particular nature of there crime, but because of their inability to defend against the formidable resources of the state. It’s those unfortunate enough to get represented by incompetent lawyers typically appointed by the court.
Michael Lambrix
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
Which is the greater injustice? Delaying the execution of a guilty person or delaying the exoneration of an innocent person? Politicians and judges all but openly compete with each other to invent and advocate establishing procedural rules to expedite review of capital cases when the intended objective is to expedite executions – but have you ever heard of a judge or politician advocating expedited review of a capital case for the purpose of determining whether an innocent person might have been wrongfully convicted and condemned to death?
If justice delayed is justice denied, then does it not stand to reason that this arguably self evident truth would apply with substantially greater force when the delays in question serve to, by deliberate design and intent, obstruct and impede the timely review of a substantiated claim of actual innocence?
Why is it that those wrongfully convicted and condemned to death often languish under this most extreme miscarriage of justice for decades before they can have their evidence heard and be judicially exonerated? Often this is because the evidence that does substantiate a claim of actual innocence is deliberately concealed for many years before being fortuitously discovered. But once discovered,
shouldn’t the judicial system adopt a policy and practice of expediting appellate review of that pled claim of actual innocence for the purpose of bringing a timely end to the claimed injustice?
The simple truth is that both the state and the courts want to expedite review when the objective is to speed up executions. Politically, that is a popular thing to do. But it is not in the states or courts interest to expedite review of a claim of actual innocence as the resulting exoneration embarrasses the system and undermines public confidence of the system as a whole. By delaying review and obstructing the ability to develop and present the evidence necessary to substantiate a claim of actual innocence that politically unpopular issue of actual innocence may even be rendered “moot” if the wrongfully condemned man simply dies of “natural causes” before his or her claim can be heard.
Consider the case of Frank Lee Smith, convicted and condemned to death in 1986 for the brutal rape and murder of an eight-year old girl in Broward County, Florida. Frank Smith insisted he was innocent, claiming a case of mistaken identity. In 1992 his lawyers discovered evidence that another man responsible for numerous other similar crimes in that area was also responsible for Smith’s alleged crime. The lawyers petitioned the local court for an order to compel the state to turn over forensic evidence held in their exclusive custody for DNA testing as such testing was not available when Smith was originally tried and convicted.
The Broward County State Attorney’s Office contested this motion and then methodically obstructed disclosure of this forensic evidence. However, Smith’s lawyers persisted and the evidence was finally tested – the DNA results conclusively confirmed that Frank Smith was completely innocent of the rape and murder he was convicted and condemned to death for committing. This exoneration came almost a year too late to help Frank Smith as months before that evidence was finally revealed Frank died of cancer while still on death row.
Frank Lee Smith spent a total of 16 years on death row even though the state had the evidence proving his innocence in their possession all along. Why would the state deliberately obstruct a person’s ability to establish their innocence? Isn’t the long recognized rule that a prosecutors first responsibility is to seek justice --not win at any cost? Smith’s case is not an isolated example of the Broward County State Attorney’s Office refusing to turn over DNA evidence that proved a wrongfully convicted person was innocent. See, Long v. Satz, 181 F. 3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999) (prosecutor given immunity from civil action even though evidence established prosecutordeliberately concealed DNA evidence that would have proven man innocent.)
In March 1984 I was convicted and condemned to death for a double homicide in Glades County, Florida. I pled not guilty and have always and consistently maintained that the entire circumstantial case of alleged premeditated murder brought against me was deliberately fabricated.
By the states own admission the entire case was built upon the testimony of one witness – my ex-girlfriend – who herself readily admitted that she did not actually witness me commit and crime. There were no eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidence. And no confession to support this specious theory of alleged premeditated murder. The case went to trial in the small rural farming community of Glades County. The first trial ended in a “hung jury” but a retrial several months later resulted in a conviction and sentence of death. See, ”Southern Injustice: Condemning an Innocent Man”.
These convictions were affirmed by both the state and federal courts without any court ever addressing the sufficiency of the evidence or my pled claim of actual innocence. In 1988 I had a “death warrant” signed on me and came within hours of being executed before the Federal Court granted a stay of execution; that appeal was subsequently heard by the Supreme Court, but in a 5 to 4 decision, the Court ruled that although I was unquestionably illegally sentenced to death I could not be granted relief because my lawyers failed to properly file the appeals. See, Lambrix v, State, 520 U.S. 518 (1997). See also, "A Parody of Justice", by Martin Dyckman; St. Petersburg Times August 31st, 1997.
As I prepared to move back to “Death Watch” and again face execution a state witness unexpectedly admitted that her trial testimony was not true. Under sworn oath she told of how key witness Francis Smith and the states attorney’s lead investigator coerced her into providing that crucial false testimony. See, "Woman Recants Testimony in Murder Case".
It took almost five years before an evidentiary hearing was finally held. At that time the key witness also testified not surprisingly denying she coerced the witness to falsely testify. But then it was unexpectedly revealed for the first time ever that while I was being prosecuted, this key witness and the state attorney’s own lead investigator (Robert Daniels) – the very person who swore out the warrant for my arrest and was responsible for developing all the circumstantial evidence used to corroborate the key witness’ testimony – was actually having a secret personal relationship “of a sexual nature” with the key witness. See, "Witness Admits Affair With Investigator".
Subsequent to this discovery my state provided lawyers retained numerous independent “experts” in the field of homicide investigation and autopsies to determine whether this investigators relationship with the key witness tainted the development of the circumstantial evidence used to convict and condemn me. Without exception these experts concluded that the evidence was at the very least manipulated to favor the state, and crucial evidence was fabricated.
The presently pending appeal arguing and substantiating my actual innocence was filed in the lower state court in January 1998 – almost 9 years ago – and remains pending. With a copious wealth of evidence now substantiating my claim of innocence, why would the lower court and the state deliberately procrastinate review of my pled claim of actual innocence?
In 1988 when the governor signed my death warrant and formally scheduled my execution a lawyer was assigned to represent me on my first post conviction appeal. It took exactly 32 days for both the lower court and the Florida Supreme Court to completely review and deny that entire original post conviction appeal.
If the state courts can thoroughly review an original post conviction appeal challenging the convictions and death sentences on only 32 days when they intend to execute a person, then why is it taking almost a full decade to provide review of a claim of actual innocence in the same courts?
At the risk of redundancy, I ask again…Which is the greater injustice? Delaying the execution of a guilty person, or delaying the exoneration of an innocent person? If the sate courts can expedite review pf my post conviction appeal when they wanted to execute me, then why can’t they expedite review of my substantiated claim of actual innocence?
Will my fate be similar to that of Frank Lee Smith – will the state deliberately obstruct review until I too die of “natural causes.” Thus, rendering my claim of actual innocence moot? I was 22 years old when charged with this case in early 1983 – I am now 46 years old and have spent most of my life in solitary confinement condemned to death in spite of my innocence.
What is the difference between deliberately executing an innocent man and deliberately procrastinating review of a substantiated claim of innocence until the person dies on death row conveniently rendering the issue moot?
Although I have only a 9th grade formal education and am not formally trained in law, I believe that under both the Florida and U.S. Constitutions I do have a fundamental constitutional right to timely review without unnecessary delay of my pled claim of actual innocence.
Incredibly, the state has advocated and imposed procedural rules that require capital appeals to be filed within specific periods of time. If a death sentenced prisoner fails to meet these strictly enforced time limitations, then he or she is forever “procedurally barred” from pursuing those post conviction claims, even if the evidence proves actual innocence. See, Herrara v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993).
However, there are no rules that prohibit the state from obstructing or procrastinating review of a capital case that argues actual innocence. Why do politicians and judges push for a plethora of procedural rules designed to expedite the review of capital conviction appeals for the purpose of expediting executions -- but not even one rule that requires expedited review of a substantiated claim of innocence?
After too many years of attempting to compel the lower state court to expedite review of my claim of actual innocence I personally initiated a “Petition for Writ of Mandamas, alternatively habeas Corpus’ in the Florida Supreme Court arguing that the lower courts failure to provide “timely” review of my actual innocence appeal effectively deprived me of my state constitutional right to meaningful review “without delay.” See, Florida Constitution, Article I, Sec. 13 (explicitly recognizing that writ of habeas corpus “shall be grantable of right … returnable without delay”); Article I, Sec. 21 (“the courts shall be open to every person … and justice shall be administered without denial or delay”), thus now entitling we to relief from these wrongful convictions.
Being that I am barely able to afford a simple cup of coffee – much less hire a lawyer willing to represent me in this action, I was compelled to file this action with the Florida Supreme Court “pro se,” which means on my own without a lawyer. However, on August 3, 2006 the court summarily dismissed this case upon a finding that it was “an unauthorized pro se filing.” See, Lambrix v. State, Fla S. Ct. Case No. SC06-0038. I immediately filed a “motion for rehearing” arguing that I must be allowed to pursue the case in pro se capacity as I cannot afford a lawyer, nor has a lawyer been appointed to represent me in this matter. This now remains pending.
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied, but without competent legal representation willing to zealously advocate not only my now substantiated claim of actual innocence, but also take the action necessary to expedite review, justice will continue to be denied. I am presently represented by a state funded and statutorily limited state agency (the “Capital Collateral Regional Counsel”) in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida – but this office is chronically under funded and unwilling to publicly advocate my claim of actual innocence. These are competent and committed lawyers, but by deliberate design and intent they are statutorily constrained from publicly advocating a claim of actual innocence or pursuing the necessary action to expedite review.
I remain condemned to a fate worse than death, -- I am condemned to slowly rot away while the state and the lower court procrastinate review until I too perhaps die of “natural causes” and my claim of actual innocence is rendered “moot.”
Michael Lambrix
If justice delayed is justice denied, then does it not stand to reason that this arguably self evident truth would apply with substantially greater force when the delays in question serve to, by deliberate design and intent, obstruct and impede the timely review of a substantiated claim of actual innocence?
Why is it that those wrongfully convicted and condemned to death often languish under this most extreme miscarriage of justice for decades before they can have their evidence heard and be judicially exonerated? Often this is because the evidence that does substantiate a claim of actual innocence is deliberately concealed for many years before being fortuitously discovered. But once discovered,
shouldn’t the judicial system adopt a policy and practice of expediting appellate review of that pled claim of actual innocence for the purpose of bringing a timely end to the claimed injustice?
The simple truth is that both the state and the courts want to expedite review when the objective is to speed up executions. Politically, that is a popular thing to do. But it is not in the states or courts interest to expedite review of a claim of actual innocence as the resulting exoneration embarrasses the system and undermines public confidence of the system as a whole. By delaying review and obstructing the ability to develop and present the evidence necessary to substantiate a claim of actual innocence that politically unpopular issue of actual innocence may even be rendered “moot” if the wrongfully condemned man simply dies of “natural causes” before his or her claim can be heard.
Consider the case of Frank Lee Smith, convicted and condemned to death in 1986 for the brutal rape and murder of an eight-year old girl in Broward County, Florida. Frank Smith insisted he was innocent, claiming a case of mistaken identity. In 1992 his lawyers discovered evidence that another man responsible for numerous other similar crimes in that area was also responsible for Smith’s alleged crime. The lawyers petitioned the local court for an order to compel the state to turn over forensic evidence held in their exclusive custody for DNA testing as such testing was not available when Smith was originally tried and convicted.
The Broward County State Attorney’s Office contested this motion and then methodically obstructed disclosure of this forensic evidence. However, Smith’s lawyers persisted and the evidence was finally tested – the DNA results conclusively confirmed that Frank Smith was completely innocent of the rape and murder he was convicted and condemned to death for committing. This exoneration came almost a year too late to help Frank Smith as months before that evidence was finally revealed Frank died of cancer while still on death row.
Frank Lee Smith spent a total of 16 years on death row even though the state had the evidence proving his innocence in their possession all along. Why would the state deliberately obstruct a person’s ability to establish their innocence? Isn’t the long recognized rule that a prosecutors first responsibility is to seek justice --not win at any cost? Smith’s case is not an isolated example of the Broward County State Attorney’s Office refusing to turn over DNA evidence that proved a wrongfully convicted person was innocent. See, Long v. Satz, 181 F. 3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999) (prosecutor given immunity from civil action even though evidence established prosecutordeliberately concealed DNA evidence that would have proven man innocent.)
In March 1984 I was convicted and condemned to death for a double homicide in Glades County, Florida. I pled not guilty and have always and consistently maintained that the entire circumstantial case of alleged premeditated murder brought against me was deliberately fabricated.
By the states own admission the entire case was built upon the testimony of one witness – my ex-girlfriend – who herself readily admitted that she did not actually witness me commit and crime. There were no eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidence. And no confession to support this specious theory of alleged premeditated murder. The case went to trial in the small rural farming community of Glades County. The first trial ended in a “hung jury” but a retrial several months later resulted in a conviction and sentence of death. See, ”Southern Injustice: Condemning an Innocent Man”.
These convictions were affirmed by both the state and federal courts without any court ever addressing the sufficiency of the evidence or my pled claim of actual innocence. In 1988 I had a “death warrant” signed on me and came within hours of being executed before the Federal Court granted a stay of execution; that appeal was subsequently heard by the Supreme Court, but in a 5 to 4 decision, the Court ruled that although I was unquestionably illegally sentenced to death I could not be granted relief because my lawyers failed to properly file the appeals. See, Lambrix v, State, 520 U.S. 518 (1997). See also, "A Parody of Justice", by Martin Dyckman; St. Petersburg Times August 31st, 1997.
As I prepared to move back to “Death Watch” and again face execution a state witness unexpectedly admitted that her trial testimony was not true. Under sworn oath she told of how key witness Francis Smith and the states attorney’s lead investigator coerced her into providing that crucial false testimony. See, "Woman Recants Testimony in Murder Case".
It took almost five years before an evidentiary hearing was finally held. At that time the key witness also testified not surprisingly denying she coerced the witness to falsely testify. But then it was unexpectedly revealed for the first time ever that while I was being prosecuted, this key witness and the state attorney’s own lead investigator (Robert Daniels) – the very person who swore out the warrant for my arrest and was responsible for developing all the circumstantial evidence used to corroborate the key witness’ testimony – was actually having a secret personal relationship “of a sexual nature” with the key witness. See, "Witness Admits Affair With Investigator".
Subsequent to this discovery my state provided lawyers retained numerous independent “experts” in the field of homicide investigation and autopsies to determine whether this investigators relationship with the key witness tainted the development of the circumstantial evidence used to convict and condemn me. Without exception these experts concluded that the evidence was at the very least manipulated to favor the state, and crucial evidence was fabricated.
The presently pending appeal arguing and substantiating my actual innocence was filed in the lower state court in January 1998 – almost 9 years ago – and remains pending. With a copious wealth of evidence now substantiating my claim of innocence, why would the lower court and the state deliberately procrastinate review of my pled claim of actual innocence?
In 1988 when the governor signed my death warrant and formally scheduled my execution a lawyer was assigned to represent me on my first post conviction appeal. It took exactly 32 days for both the lower court and the Florida Supreme Court to completely review and deny that entire original post conviction appeal.
If the state courts can thoroughly review an original post conviction appeal challenging the convictions and death sentences on only 32 days when they intend to execute a person, then why is it taking almost a full decade to provide review of a claim of actual innocence in the same courts?
At the risk of redundancy, I ask again…Which is the greater injustice? Delaying the execution of a guilty person, or delaying the exoneration of an innocent person? If the sate courts can expedite review pf my post conviction appeal when they wanted to execute me, then why can’t they expedite review of my substantiated claim of actual innocence?
Will my fate be similar to that of Frank Lee Smith – will the state deliberately obstruct review until I too die of “natural causes.” Thus, rendering my claim of actual innocence moot? I was 22 years old when charged with this case in early 1983 – I am now 46 years old and have spent most of my life in solitary confinement condemned to death in spite of my innocence.
What is the difference between deliberately executing an innocent man and deliberately procrastinating review of a substantiated claim of innocence until the person dies on death row conveniently rendering the issue moot?
Although I have only a 9th grade formal education and am not formally trained in law, I believe that under both the Florida and U.S. Constitutions I do have a fundamental constitutional right to timely review without unnecessary delay of my pled claim of actual innocence.
Incredibly, the state has advocated and imposed procedural rules that require capital appeals to be filed within specific periods of time. If a death sentenced prisoner fails to meet these strictly enforced time limitations, then he or she is forever “procedurally barred” from pursuing those post conviction claims, even if the evidence proves actual innocence. See, Herrara v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993).
However, there are no rules that prohibit the state from obstructing or procrastinating review of a capital case that argues actual innocence. Why do politicians and judges push for a plethora of procedural rules designed to expedite the review of capital conviction appeals for the purpose of expediting executions -- but not even one rule that requires expedited review of a substantiated claim of innocence?
After too many years of attempting to compel the lower state court to expedite review of my claim of actual innocence I personally initiated a “Petition for Writ of Mandamas, alternatively habeas Corpus’ in the Florida Supreme Court arguing that the lower courts failure to provide “timely” review of my actual innocence appeal effectively deprived me of my state constitutional right to meaningful review “without delay.” See, Florida Constitution, Article I, Sec. 13 (explicitly recognizing that writ of habeas corpus “shall be grantable of right … returnable without delay”); Article I, Sec. 21 (“the courts shall be open to every person … and justice shall be administered without denial or delay”), thus now entitling we to relief from these wrongful convictions.
Being that I am barely able to afford a simple cup of coffee – much less hire a lawyer willing to represent me in this action, I was compelled to file this action with the Florida Supreme Court “pro se,” which means on my own without a lawyer. However, on August 3, 2006 the court summarily dismissed this case upon a finding that it was “an unauthorized pro se filing.” See, Lambrix v. State, Fla S. Ct. Case No. SC06-0038. I immediately filed a “motion for rehearing” arguing that I must be allowed to pursue the case in pro se capacity as I cannot afford a lawyer, nor has a lawyer been appointed to represent me in this matter. This now remains pending.
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied, but without competent legal representation willing to zealously advocate not only my now substantiated claim of actual innocence, but also take the action necessary to expedite review, justice will continue to be denied. I am presently represented by a state funded and statutorily limited state agency (the “Capital Collateral Regional Counsel”) in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida – but this office is chronically under funded and unwilling to publicly advocate my claim of actual innocence. These are competent and committed lawyers, but by deliberate design and intent they are statutorily constrained from publicly advocating a claim of actual innocence or pursuing the necessary action to expedite review.
I remain condemned to a fate worse than death, -- I am condemned to slowly rot away while the state and the lower court procrastinate review until I too perhaps die of “natural causes” and my claim of actual innocence is rendered “moot.”
Michael Lambrix
Condemned by the Perfect Storm
A few years ago there was a movie called “The Perfect Storm” that told of the tragedy of lives lost in the North Atlantic when several powerful storms systems coincidently came together, resulting in many deaths and many more lives changed forever.
How many of us have watched that movie and thought about events in our own lives that were (and are) an anthology of that event? Can circumstances coincidently come together in our own lives that forever, often tragically, change – or even predestine – our own fate? Can we look back upon this confluence of circumstances and see now that we were helplessly swept along in fates current until finally tossed ashore, our own lives victim of a perfect storm?
I’ve given that a lot of thought as I personally struggle with the “why” of me spending the last 23 years in solitary confinement condemned to death and have concluded that I am not on death row for any crime I allegedly committed but rather that I am condemned by the perfect storm, and that even my innocence simply doesn’t matter. See, “Southern Injustice: Condemning An Innocent Man.” rather, the elements that subsequently led to my present fate formed long before any crime allegedly occurred. When those preexisting elements in my life collided with contemporary circumstances these collective elements formed a perfect storm that sealed my fate and led me to death row.
Each year there are many thousands of murders in America. According to my World Almanac, in 1983 (the year my alleged crime took place) there were 19,310 homicides in the United States, but less than 100 men and women sentenced to death. Why did so few end up on death row -- why me? In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional (illegal) because it was “arbitrary and capricious” and ordered the states to rewrite their statutes to provide better guidance – but has anything really changed?
Simply question… why me? About the same time my capital crime was allegedly committed in rural Glades County, Florida a rich young man about my age was charged with what was called “the worst mass murder in Collier County history.” This man’s guilt (and stupidity) was never a question… he loaded the family vehicle up with explosives, then lured his entire immediate family into the vehicle and blew them up. The motive was clear – he wanted the entire family fortune for himself. Both cases were prosecuted by the same state attorney’s office at the same time. So, why did I get death, and he got life?
Of the thousand of men and women presently on death row there are an equal number of individual paths that brought the condemned here. But there is also an undeniable common journey, consistent contributing factors that have nothing to do with the alleged crime and as you objectively look beneath the surface an undeniable truth becomes self evident – we do not sentence people to death because of the particular nature of their alleged crime… rather, the fact is that we, as a society, decide who will live and who will die based upon who they are and their (in)ability to defend against the infinite resources of the state.
Let me ask you this… where would O.J. Simpson be today if he stood trial for the exact same crime in a small southern county and didn’t have the money to hire his “dream team” defense lawyers? That’s the undeniable truth – almost without exception. Those on death row are not condemned because of the particular crime they stood trial for, but because they were unable to defend against the resources available to the state… it is the lack of capital that makes you eligible for capital punishment.
Without the ability to defend against a capital murder charge, even your innocence becomes irrelevant. Of the approximately 130 men and women who have been legal exonerated and released from death row in past years, not even one of them came from wealth and privilege – and not even one had a “dream team” defense. Coincidence?
Before I came to prison I was completely ignorant of out legal system. To be honest, I never even gave it any thought. If someone had asked me back then if I supported the death penalty I probably would have immediately thought of Ted Bundy, as back then that’s all the news talked about and I would have said “Hell, yes!!” as that is the image I associated the death penalty with… that is the image prosecutors and politicians want all of us to see when we think about the death penalty.
Is Ted Bundy the archetypical image of the condemned man? Is his case emblematic of the average capital case that leads a man to death row? No, it is not! But the politicians and prosecutors do not want you to know that – they do not want you to think about the true portrait of those condemned to die.
Having become familiar with the reality of the system and its inherent prejudices against those least capable of defending against the formidable resources of the state, I now realize and accept that factors that eventually led me to be condemned to death, the elements of the storm that subsequently collided together with force and fury to create that “perfect storm,” began to form long before any alleged crime ever took place. In truth, the capital crime I allegedly committed was one of the least significant factors in determining my fate.
Like most of the others on death row the elements of my own storm began brewing the day I was born…. By being born, I was condemned to die. How’s that for irony? Bt far, the most significant factor that eventually led to me being condemned to death was simply being born into the family fate blessed me with.
Almost without exception (virtually none that I personally know of) those condemned to death share a common background. This will begin by being born into a dysfunctional family environment then being raised in extremely abusive surroundings. As the child of fate grows, this will predictably evolve into truancy, inevitable substance abuse (alcohol/drugs) at an early age and relatively small scrapes with the law.
Before any capital crime is allegedly committed that person is already a candidate to be condemned to death. Consistently my fellow lumpenproletariats (just call me “Lumpy” for short) share common traits… dysfunctional family, abusive childhood, lack of formal education, and serious psychological issues. The truth is, we were born to die.
Then comes the second storm front… the alleged crime. Often this crime will take place in a relatively rural county in the south. The case will be locally sensationalized so that before any jury is ever seated the redneck community has already formed a legally sanctioned lynch mob screaming for vengeance. A local hero will step up to the plate – the local politically ambitious and pathetically overzealous prosecutor – and will promise the good town folk that justice will be done. At that point even innocence becomes irrelevant, see “Southern Injustice: Condemning An Innocent Man” and such novel concepts of truth and justice are quickly forgotten, See, “Prosecutorial Misconduct: Does Immunity Invite Injustice? ”
Last, but by no means least, comes the final element, that fatal front that collides with force and fury against the proceeding two elements and that that perfect storm is formed. This is reflected when a lawyer is assigned to represent that person. While the state will have relatively infinite resources to prosecute the case and the power of the “good government” behind them, the soon to be condemned will be assigned a relatively inexperienced lawyer already out gunned and overwhelmed. Any defense is quickly becomes a pretense and a verdict of guilty is assured. Again, just look at the O.J. Simpson case and so many others like it. In America, the crime you stand accused of is a distant second to your ability to generate resources necessary to defend against it.. Those condemned to die are not condemned to death for the crime they allegedly committed but because of their inability to defend against it.
All of these elements came together in my case. I’ve long ago accepted that my innocence is simply irrelevant as I am condemned to death for who I am, not what I allegedly did. I am condemned by the perfect storm.
Michael Lambrix
How many of us have watched that movie and thought about events in our own lives that were (and are) an anthology of that event? Can circumstances coincidently come together in our own lives that forever, often tragically, change – or even predestine – our own fate? Can we look back upon this confluence of circumstances and see now that we were helplessly swept along in fates current until finally tossed ashore, our own lives victim of a perfect storm?
I’ve given that a lot of thought as I personally struggle with the “why” of me spending the last 23 years in solitary confinement condemned to death and have concluded that I am not on death row for any crime I allegedly committed but rather that I am condemned by the perfect storm, and that even my innocence simply doesn’t matter. See, “Southern Injustice: Condemning An Innocent Man.” rather, the elements that subsequently led to my present fate formed long before any crime allegedly occurred. When those preexisting elements in my life collided with contemporary circumstances these collective elements formed a perfect storm that sealed my fate and led me to death row.
Each year there are many thousands of murders in America. According to my World Almanac, in 1983 (the year my alleged crime took place) there were 19,310 homicides in the United States, but less than 100 men and women sentenced to death. Why did so few end up on death row -- why me? In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional (illegal) because it was “arbitrary and capricious” and ordered the states to rewrite their statutes to provide better guidance – but has anything really changed?
Simply question… why me? About the same time my capital crime was allegedly committed in rural Glades County, Florida a rich young man about my age was charged with what was called “the worst mass murder in Collier County history.” This man’s guilt (and stupidity) was never a question… he loaded the family vehicle up with explosives, then lured his entire immediate family into the vehicle and blew them up. The motive was clear – he wanted the entire family fortune for himself. Both cases were prosecuted by the same state attorney’s office at the same time. So, why did I get death, and he got life?
Of the thousand of men and women presently on death row there are an equal number of individual paths that brought the condemned here. But there is also an undeniable common journey, consistent contributing factors that have nothing to do with the alleged crime and as you objectively look beneath the surface an undeniable truth becomes self evident – we do not sentence people to death because of the particular nature of their alleged crime… rather, the fact is that we, as a society, decide who will live and who will die based upon who they are and their (in)ability to defend against the infinite resources of the state.
Let me ask you this… where would O.J. Simpson be today if he stood trial for the exact same crime in a small southern county and didn’t have the money to hire his “dream team” defense lawyers? That’s the undeniable truth – almost without exception. Those on death row are not condemned because of the particular crime they stood trial for, but because they were unable to defend against the resources available to the state… it is the lack of capital that makes you eligible for capital punishment.
Without the ability to defend against a capital murder charge, even your innocence becomes irrelevant. Of the approximately 130 men and women who have been legal exonerated and released from death row in past years, not even one of them came from wealth and privilege – and not even one had a “dream team” defense. Coincidence?
Before I came to prison I was completely ignorant of out legal system. To be honest, I never even gave it any thought. If someone had asked me back then if I supported the death penalty I probably would have immediately thought of Ted Bundy, as back then that’s all the news talked about and I would have said “Hell, yes!!” as that is the image I associated the death penalty with… that is the image prosecutors and politicians want all of us to see when we think about the death penalty.
Is Ted Bundy the archetypical image of the condemned man? Is his case emblematic of the average capital case that leads a man to death row? No, it is not! But the politicians and prosecutors do not want you to know that – they do not want you to think about the true portrait of those condemned to die.
Having become familiar with the reality of the system and its inherent prejudices against those least capable of defending against the formidable resources of the state, I now realize and accept that factors that eventually led me to be condemned to death, the elements of the storm that subsequently collided together with force and fury to create that “perfect storm,” began to form long before any alleged crime ever took place. In truth, the capital crime I allegedly committed was one of the least significant factors in determining my fate.
Like most of the others on death row the elements of my own storm began brewing the day I was born…. By being born, I was condemned to die. How’s that for irony? Bt far, the most significant factor that eventually led to me being condemned to death was simply being born into the family fate blessed me with.
Almost without exception (virtually none that I personally know of) those condemned to death share a common background. This will begin by being born into a dysfunctional family environment then being raised in extremely abusive surroundings. As the child of fate grows, this will predictably evolve into truancy, inevitable substance abuse (alcohol/drugs) at an early age and relatively small scrapes with the law.
Before any capital crime is allegedly committed that person is already a candidate to be condemned to death. Consistently my fellow lumpenproletariats (just call me “Lumpy” for short) share common traits… dysfunctional family, abusive childhood, lack of formal education, and serious psychological issues. The truth is, we were born to die.
Then comes the second storm front… the alleged crime. Often this crime will take place in a relatively rural county in the south. The case will be locally sensationalized so that before any jury is ever seated the redneck community has already formed a legally sanctioned lynch mob screaming for vengeance. A local hero will step up to the plate – the local politically ambitious and pathetically overzealous prosecutor – and will promise the good town folk that justice will be done. At that point even innocence becomes irrelevant, see “Southern Injustice: Condemning An Innocent Man” and such novel concepts of truth and justice are quickly forgotten, See, “Prosecutorial Misconduct: Does Immunity Invite Injustice? ”
Last, but by no means least, comes the final element, that fatal front that collides with force and fury against the proceeding two elements and that that perfect storm is formed. This is reflected when a lawyer is assigned to represent that person. While the state will have relatively infinite resources to prosecute the case and the power of the “good government” behind them, the soon to be condemned will be assigned a relatively inexperienced lawyer already out gunned and overwhelmed. Any defense is quickly becomes a pretense and a verdict of guilty is assured. Again, just look at the O.J. Simpson case and so many others like it. In America, the crime you stand accused of is a distant second to your ability to generate resources necessary to defend against it.. Those condemned to die are not condemned to death for the crime they allegedly committed but because of their inability to defend against it.
All of these elements came together in my case. I’ve long ago accepted that my innocence is simply irrelevant as I am condemned to death for who I am, not what I allegedly did. I am condemned by the perfect storm.
Michael Lambrix
Death Row Teaparty
It’s Election Day and I’m pissed. For the last couple of months I’ve had to put up with listening to all these political ads on the T.V. and radio. This has been an especially nasty Election Year, as the mudslinging has gotten worse with each election. Today’s politicians don’t campaign on the issues but rather run for office by convincing potential voters that the person running against them is corrupt – but they’re all corrupt.
What really gets me though, is that I’m one of millions of American citizens that are legally prohibited from voting. Think about it for just a minute … the one defining act that led to our so-called Constitutional Democracy, that one act of defiance against the crown that brought our forefathers down the path of independence was the Boston Tea Party.
For those of us who smoked just a little too much dope during our high school years, that’s when a small group of insurgents decided they were tired of the English imposing high taxes on the American Colonies and decided to dress up like “savages” (American Natives) and jump on a ship in the Boston Harbor and destroy the tea shipped from England by dumping it into the salt water.
Today we call them patriots, true revolutionaries, and the forefathers of our freedoms. But in their day the ruling government at the time labeled them “insurgents” and charged them with treason.
That one principle was branded into our history – we are a country conceived upon the principle that “taxation without representation” is intolerable, a Constitutional Democracy that mandates that power of government is given only by majority vote and every person is entitled, as an “inalienable” right to equality as reflected in that vote.
But that entire premise is a work of fiction, a freaking fairytale. The truth is that millions of American citizens are legally prohibited from voting. Today the United States incarcerates more of its citizens in jails and prisons than any other country in the world. Add to that the millions more people convicted of crimes that are not imprisoned and you’re talking about approximately 7.5 million American citizens that are not allowed to vote.
Why would we care about that? I mean, certainly these damned “criminals” brought it upon themselves and their own acts resulted in the forfeiture of their right to vote. That’s what they want you to think. In fact, they don’t want you to think – they want to tell you what to think -- the last thing they want you to actually do is think for yourself.
Me, I actually like to think for myself, sometimes it scares the hell out of me, but I like it. What I’m thinking today is that it’s really pissing me off that I’m not allowed to vote. Although I’m imprisoned I pay my taxes in what I must buy. I’m sure that there are millions of “convicted felons” in the free world today that are paying a lot of taxes --billions per year – yet they are not allowed to vote … “taxation without representation!”
Well. I’ve got an idea, maybe it’s time we stood up as a group and demand our right to vote. These elections affect us too. In fact, electing those into office probably directly affect us even more than the average citizen.
So, here is my idea … from now on when Election Day comes around let’s our voice heard. Not a single voice, but a collective voice. How many are ready to stand up and be heard? Why not organize a “Million Convict March” on the White House every Election Day and as we gather in the National Mall, let each of us throw a single teabag into the reflecting pool as a symbol of protest. Each teabag by itself will be insignificant, just as each voice by itself will never be heard. But a million teabags will stain the water and be noticed. If these politicians want to deny such a huge percentage of American citizens their “inalienable” right to vote, yet continue to tax us, then let’s stand up and be counted.
Today I am ready to be declared an insurgent. Today I’m ready to stand up and be counted – today I begin my protest even if I am in solitary confinement on death row … today – Election Day – I am having a Death Row Tea Party and will now gather what tea I have and will ceremoniously dump them into my toilet and every election day from here on out I will continue to dump teabags into my toilet. Will my voice be heard? No, it won’t. But at least I’ll know I did something -- can the millions of other who are denied the right to vote in elections that will affect their lives say the same?
November 14, 2006
Mike Lambrix
What really gets me though, is that I’m one of millions of American citizens that are legally prohibited from voting. Think about it for just a minute … the one defining act that led to our so-called Constitutional Democracy, that one act of defiance against the crown that brought our forefathers down the path of independence was the Boston Tea Party.
For those of us who smoked just a little too much dope during our high school years, that’s when a small group of insurgents decided they were tired of the English imposing high taxes on the American Colonies and decided to dress up like “savages” (American Natives) and jump on a ship in the Boston Harbor and destroy the tea shipped from England by dumping it into the salt water.
Today we call them patriots, true revolutionaries, and the forefathers of our freedoms. But in their day the ruling government at the time labeled them “insurgents” and charged them with treason.
That one principle was branded into our history – we are a country conceived upon the principle that “taxation without representation” is intolerable, a Constitutional Democracy that mandates that power of government is given only by majority vote and every person is entitled, as an “inalienable” right to equality as reflected in that vote.
But that entire premise is a work of fiction, a freaking fairytale. The truth is that millions of American citizens are legally prohibited from voting. Today the United States incarcerates more of its citizens in jails and prisons than any other country in the world. Add to that the millions more people convicted of crimes that are not imprisoned and you’re talking about approximately 7.5 million American citizens that are not allowed to vote.
Why would we care about that? I mean, certainly these damned “criminals” brought it upon themselves and their own acts resulted in the forfeiture of their right to vote. That’s what they want you to think. In fact, they don’t want you to think – they want to tell you what to think -- the last thing they want you to actually do is think for yourself.
Me, I actually like to think for myself, sometimes it scares the hell out of me, but I like it. What I’m thinking today is that it’s really pissing me off that I’m not allowed to vote. Although I’m imprisoned I pay my taxes in what I must buy. I’m sure that there are millions of “convicted felons” in the free world today that are paying a lot of taxes --billions per year – yet they are not allowed to vote … “taxation without representation!”
Well. I’ve got an idea, maybe it’s time we stood up as a group and demand our right to vote. These elections affect us too. In fact, electing those into office probably directly affect us even more than the average citizen.
So, here is my idea … from now on when Election Day comes around let’s our voice heard. Not a single voice, but a collective voice. How many are ready to stand up and be heard? Why not organize a “Million Convict March” on the White House every Election Day and as we gather in the National Mall, let each of us throw a single teabag into the reflecting pool as a symbol of protest. Each teabag by itself will be insignificant, just as each voice by itself will never be heard. But a million teabags will stain the water and be noticed. If these politicians want to deny such a huge percentage of American citizens their “inalienable” right to vote, yet continue to tax us, then let’s stand up and be counted.
Today I am ready to be declared an insurgent. Today I’m ready to stand up and be counted – today I begin my protest even if I am in solitary confinement on death row … today – Election Day – I am having a Death Row Tea Party and will now gather what tea I have and will ceremoniously dump them into my toilet and every election day from here on out I will continue to dump teabags into my toilet. Will my voice be heard? No, it won’t. But at least I’ll know I did something -- can the millions of other who are denied the right to vote in elections that will affect their lives say the same?
November 14, 2006
Mike Lambrix
Executing a Stranger
The other day I ran into an old friend that I hadn’t seen in at least ten years. Back then he was my cell neighbor for several years here on death row. We are both about the same age and had come to death row about the same time – Class of ’84. After a few moments of bantering back and forth, he commented on how much I had changed since he last saw me … that got me to thinking about just how much I really had changed since I last saw him – how much we all change through the years.
I’ve been on death row 23 years. When I was originally charged in this case I was only 22 years old. Now at the ripe age of 45, I’m a grandfather. It’s been a long journey and like any journey each step – each stumble – has changed me in an infinite number of small ways that add up to completely transforming the person I once was into who I am today.
I’m not the only person who has spent an entire lifetime in solitary confinement condemned to death. Here in Florida I know some who have been living under a sentence of death for 32 years – or better. Most people out there haven’t even given any thought to how death rows across the country have become multi-million dollar geriatric units, indefinitely housing those who slowly grow old while awaiting theor fate. Here in Florida more men on death row die of natural caused than of executions as old age sets in. We the condemned are more likely to die of cancer, heart disease, or other ailments common to aging than we are to die from execution; yet the state still spends millions upon millions of dollars pursuing our deaths.
The question I want to confront today is this … when it takes at least ten years, and often even twenty or thirty years to carry out a court imposed sentence of death, is the person we’re executing really the same person we originally sentenced to death? Or are we executing a stranger?
How many of us can say we are the same person today that we were ten years ago? How about twenty years ago? What about thirty years ago? Many of those sentenced to death committed their alleged crime when they were relatively young and immature. Almost without exception they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol – or both. That single act of violence led to their condemnation. Assuming for the moment that our judicial system is perfect and everyone condemned to death is in fact guilty, can we really say that person we condemned then; is the same person we want to execute today?
The fundamental truth here is that we all change. Most of us become better people as we age – more mature and responsible. I’ve seen men come to death row twenty years ago consumed by hate and anger, only to find faith and hope in the most unexpected environment and become a new person.
Myself, I too was once consumed by anger at being wrongfully convicted and condemned to death for a crime I know I am innocent of. (See, Southern Injustice: Condemning An Innocent Man). In the early years that anger was my strength. I wasn’t just sentenced to die; I was condemned to slowly rot away in solitary confinement one eternal day at a time. (See, A Day in Life Under Death). Believing in my innocence actually mattered, I pushed to expedite review in a desperate attempt to end this nightmare, (see, Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied); only to have my appeals up held out of spite by actions attributable to the state.
Although my impatience at ending the injustice remains, I know I’ve changed. Though I still must deal with frustration, I am no longer consumed by anger. When I came to death row, I had little education or even the will to be educated. Since I’ve been imprisoned I got my G.E.D. and with it a sense of accomplishment. I searched my soul for spiritual meaning and found myself. (See, "To See The Soul -- A Search Of Self"). I began taking correspondence courses and earned a degree in Christian Theology, which gave me even greater confidence in who I was – and who I could yet become.
I have a faded photo of me taken a few weeks before I was arrested on these charges. That photo reminds me of who I was. When I look in the mirror today I see the person I’ve since become. I am not the same person sentenced to death so many years ago.
So, now I ask you this – Are you the same person you were so many years ago? In your younger and more irresponsible days have you ever made a mistake you came to regret? If we all recognize that each of us does change as the years pass, then doesn’t it stand to reason that we also have to admit that the person we seek to execute today, over 20 years or more later, is not the same person we sentenced to death so long ago – that when it comes down to it, aren’t we really executing a stranger?
Michael Lambrix
I’ve been on death row 23 years. When I was originally charged in this case I was only 22 years old. Now at the ripe age of 45, I’m a grandfather. It’s been a long journey and like any journey each step – each stumble – has changed me in an infinite number of small ways that add up to completely transforming the person I once was into who I am today.
I’m not the only person who has spent an entire lifetime in solitary confinement condemned to death. Here in Florida I know some who have been living under a sentence of death for 32 years – or better. Most people out there haven’t even given any thought to how death rows across the country have become multi-million dollar geriatric units, indefinitely housing those who slowly grow old while awaiting theor fate. Here in Florida more men on death row die of natural caused than of executions as old age sets in. We the condemned are more likely to die of cancer, heart disease, or other ailments common to aging than we are to die from execution; yet the state still spends millions upon millions of dollars pursuing our deaths.
The question I want to confront today is this … when it takes at least ten years, and often even twenty or thirty years to carry out a court imposed sentence of death, is the person we’re executing really the same person we originally sentenced to death? Or are we executing a stranger?
How many of us can say we are the same person today that we were ten years ago? How about twenty years ago? What about thirty years ago? Many of those sentenced to death committed their alleged crime when they were relatively young and immature. Almost without exception they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol – or both. That single act of violence led to their condemnation. Assuming for the moment that our judicial system is perfect and everyone condemned to death is in fact guilty, can we really say that person we condemned then; is the same person we want to execute today?
The fundamental truth here is that we all change. Most of us become better people as we age – more mature and responsible. I’ve seen men come to death row twenty years ago consumed by hate and anger, only to find faith and hope in the most unexpected environment and become a new person.
Myself, I too was once consumed by anger at being wrongfully convicted and condemned to death for a crime I know I am innocent of. (See, Southern Injustice: Condemning An Innocent Man). In the early years that anger was my strength. I wasn’t just sentenced to die; I was condemned to slowly rot away in solitary confinement one eternal day at a time. (See, A Day in Life Under Death). Believing in my innocence actually mattered, I pushed to expedite review in a desperate attempt to end this nightmare, (see, Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied); only to have my appeals up held out of spite by actions attributable to the state.
Although my impatience at ending the injustice remains, I know I’ve changed. Though I still must deal with frustration, I am no longer consumed by anger. When I came to death row, I had little education or even the will to be educated. Since I’ve been imprisoned I got my G.E.D. and with it a sense of accomplishment. I searched my soul for spiritual meaning and found myself. (See, "To See The Soul -- A Search Of Self"). I began taking correspondence courses and earned a degree in Christian Theology, which gave me even greater confidence in who I was – and who I could yet become.
I have a faded photo of me taken a few weeks before I was arrested on these charges. That photo reminds me of who I was. When I look in the mirror today I see the person I’ve since become. I am not the same person sentenced to death so many years ago.
So, now I ask you this – Are you the same person you were so many years ago? In your younger and more irresponsible days have you ever made a mistake you came to regret? If we all recognize that each of us does change as the years pass, then doesn’t it stand to reason that we also have to admit that the person we seek to execute today, over 20 years or more later, is not the same person we sentenced to death so long ago – that when it comes down to it, aren’t we really executing a stranger?
Michael Lambrix
Death Row Turkey Seeks Pardon
They did it again – it’s become a Thanksgiving ritual. The media converges upon the White House and with the cameras rolling the President stands before a turkey and formally announces that the turkey has been spared by Presidential Pardon and that because of this act of compassion that turkey will now live out its days on a quiet farm and enjoy a good life.
Every television station in the country will air that piece about the turkey receiving a Presidential Pardon. I’ve watched this ritual myself every year for more years than I can hope to even remember. The truth is that I don’t recall even a single year they didn’t go through this ritual.
But does anyone even stop to think about the pretense of all this? Although that particular turkey is presumably pardoned, tens of millions of others will still meet their fate as Thanksgiving dinner. Although the President pardons this one turkey; his family, their friends, and himself will still gather around the table only hours later and eat the traditional Thanksgiving turkey dinner.
Like those millions of turkeys that meet their fate on Thanksgiving Day, I too am condemned to death. There’s been a few times in my life when I’ve been called a “turkey” as that was common back in the day. Maybe it’s time that I formally declare myself a turkey… maybe then I too will at least have a chance to also be granted a pardon.
What I do know is that my innocence itself certainly isn’t enough. For almost nine years now I’ve had a Substantiated claim of actual innocence before the courts (See, ”Southern Injustice: Condemning An Innocent Man”) but innocence doesn’t matter. When the state can no longer contest your claim of innocence they just stop the case from proceeding any further by deliberately delaying review of that claim. They can drag it out until you eventually die of “natural causes” on death row and then declare the issue moot. (See, ”Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied”)
Here in Florida the equivalent to a Presidential Pardon is the “clemency process.” Like the President, each year Florida’s elected Governor will make a public show of granting clemency to a condemned turkey. That lucky turkey will then live out its days on a nice farm out in the country.
Sadly, not even one condemned person in Florida has received clemency since 1983. I personally have had a clemency petition pending before the Governor since 1998. It hasn’t been formally denied – but I have no doubt that it would never be granted. People simply don’t get clemency in Florida – that discretional privilege is reserved exclusively for turkeys.
The fact is that since 1983 when that last condemned prisoner in Florida was granted clemency over 20 condemned prisoners have been exonerated and released from death row because of innocence… but not even one of these innocent men and women were granted clemency. In every case the state fought tooth and nail to prevent their release, deliberately dragging the case out for many years. Although Florida leads the country in the number of wrongfully convicted people sent to death row, the state has never admitted error in any case… not even when the evidence conclusively proved innocence.
Clearly, legal innocence is not enough for a wrongfully convicted and condemned person to get a pardon. If you really want a pardon, especially from someone whose name is Bush, your only real shot is to be a turkey. In the years that our current President Bush was Governor of Texas, he presided over about 150 executions; he has granted only one pardon to a condemned prisoner – and that was to self confessed serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. In the eight years his little brother Jeb Bush has been Governor of Florida he has not granted even one clemency – except of course to the turkey each year at Thanksgiving.
So, maybe I really do need to declare myself a turkey and only then petition the governor for clemency – maybe then I might even actually have a chance. Perhaps I too can then live out the rest of my days on a quiet farm in the country. Perhaps then too the media will find my story news worthy. I should be so lucky. But then again, I really should have been a turkey.
Michael Lambrix
Every television station in the country will air that piece about the turkey receiving a Presidential Pardon. I’ve watched this ritual myself every year for more years than I can hope to even remember. The truth is that I don’t recall even a single year they didn’t go through this ritual.
But does anyone even stop to think about the pretense of all this? Although that particular turkey is presumably pardoned, tens of millions of others will still meet their fate as Thanksgiving dinner. Although the President pardons this one turkey; his family, their friends, and himself will still gather around the table only hours later and eat the traditional Thanksgiving turkey dinner.
Like those millions of turkeys that meet their fate on Thanksgiving Day, I too am condemned to death. There’s been a few times in my life when I’ve been called a “turkey” as that was common back in the day. Maybe it’s time that I formally declare myself a turkey… maybe then I too will at least have a chance to also be granted a pardon.
What I do know is that my innocence itself certainly isn’t enough. For almost nine years now I’ve had a Substantiated claim of actual innocence before the courts (See, ”Southern Injustice: Condemning An Innocent Man”) but innocence doesn’t matter. When the state can no longer contest your claim of innocence they just stop the case from proceeding any further by deliberately delaying review of that claim. They can drag it out until you eventually die of “natural causes” on death row and then declare the issue moot. (See, ”Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied”)
Here in Florida the equivalent to a Presidential Pardon is the “clemency process.” Like the President, each year Florida’s elected Governor will make a public show of granting clemency to a condemned turkey. That lucky turkey will then live out its days on a nice farm out in the country.
Sadly, not even one condemned person in Florida has received clemency since 1983. I personally have had a clemency petition pending before the Governor since 1998. It hasn’t been formally denied – but I have no doubt that it would never be granted. People simply don’t get clemency in Florida – that discretional privilege is reserved exclusively for turkeys.
The fact is that since 1983 when that last condemned prisoner in Florida was granted clemency over 20 condemned prisoners have been exonerated and released from death row because of innocence… but not even one of these innocent men and women were granted clemency. In every case the state fought tooth and nail to prevent their release, deliberately dragging the case out for many years. Although Florida leads the country in the number of wrongfully convicted people sent to death row, the state has never admitted error in any case… not even when the evidence conclusively proved innocence.
Clearly, legal innocence is not enough for a wrongfully convicted and condemned person to get a pardon. If you really want a pardon, especially from someone whose name is Bush, your only real shot is to be a turkey. In the years that our current President Bush was Governor of Texas, he presided over about 150 executions; he has granted only one pardon to a condemned prisoner – and that was to self confessed serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. In the eight years his little brother Jeb Bush has been Governor of Florida he has not granted even one clemency – except of course to the turkey each year at Thanksgiving.
So, maybe I really do need to declare myself a turkey and only then petition the governor for clemency – maybe then I might even actually have a chance. Perhaps I too can then live out the rest of my days on a quiet farm in the country. Perhaps then too the media will find my story news worthy. I should be so lucky. But then again, I really should have been a turkey.
Michael Lambrix
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
