336
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

A Texas man who said his death sentence was based on false and unscientific expert testimony was executed Thursday evening for killing a man during a robbery decades ago.

Brent Ray Brewer, 53, received a lethal injection at the state penitentiary in Huntsville for the April 1990 death of Robert Laminack. The inmate was pronounced dead at 6:39 p.m. local time, 15 minutes after the chemicals began flowing.

Prosecutors had said Laminack, 66, gave Brewer and his girlfriend a ride to a Salvation Army location in Amarillo when he was stabbed in the neck and robbed of $140.

Brewer’s execution came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to step in over the inmate’s claims that prosecutors had relied on false and discredited expert testimony at his 2009 resentencing trial.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 47 points 1 year ago

Brewer has long expressed remorse for the killing and a desire to apologize to Laminack’s family.

“I will never be able to repay or replace the hurt (and) worry (and) pain I caused you. I come to you in true humility and honest heart and ask for your forgiveness,” Brewer wrote in a letter to Laminack’s family that was included in his clemency application to the parole board.

So did he do it then? Because it sounds like they were trying to get him off on a technicality, rather than because he didn't do it and was falsely accused.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago

You have to show sympathy and remorse to qualify for clemency or parole, so you say you're sorry for the situation and their loss but never that you're at fault.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago

Absolutely, I can understand why he would say he felt sorry for the family. But saying sorry for the pain he caused is an admission of guilt.

I think the timeline went like this:

  • 1990 Brewer (then 19) and his girlfriend attack Laminack, killing him.
  • 1991 Brewer is convicted and sentenced to death.
  • 2007 Supreme Court overturns the decision because of a technicality on the jurors' instructions.
  • 2009 Brewer is re-tried, and again convicted, in part due to expert testimony from Coons.
  • 2010 In another trial, Coons' testimony was ruled as "insufficiently reliable".
  • Brewer's lawyer then raises an appeal in Texas over Coons' testimony in 2009. Appeals court says "you should've said that in 2009".
  • Brewer's lawyers escalate to the Supreme Court, however they decline to hear the case, deferring to the Texas Appeals Court's judgement.

Presumably, Coons' testimony could have been challenged in 2009 in exactly the same way as it was in 2010, but they didn't do this. I'm sure Coons is now seen as an unreliable witness, but he was considered reliable up until 2010.

It was actually the Texas Appeals Court that ruled that Coons was unreliable, however presumably the appeal in which they established that was granted for other reasons than his statement alone. Indeed, this is the 2010 case, there were 25 points in question. While the court ruled that Coons' testimony was unreliable, they still reaffirmed the conviction.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

It's something they must do, read clemency pleas they're basically all the same because boards want to see the same thing. Factually not guilty people have said the same thing in clemency letters.

I dunno who exactly is at fault nor did I read that much into it, what I am saying is don't particularly base anything on clemency or parole letters, they're intentionally flawed so they can be used against the subject later, it's holdover slave shit that persists.

[-] anarchy79@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

American justice in a nutshell.

"I didn't do it!"

"We know, but if you decide to go to trial, chances are you will spend the rest of your natural life in the salt mines. So just sign here and you'll spend only half your life in the salt mines, guaranteed."

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yep iirc is somewhere over 60% of all criminal charges are disposed of by plea I think it's actually 90ish% but I'm not certain.

[-] trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 year ago

It wasn't a question of whether he committed the crime. The appeal concerned sentencing.

The high court found jurors were not allowed to give sufficient weight to factors that might cause them to impose a life sentence rather than death. Brewer was abused as a child and suffered from mental illness, factors jurors were not allowed to consider, his lawyers argued.

Brewer was again sentenced to death during a new punishment trial in 2009.

Brewer’s lawyers allege that at the resentencing trial, Coons lied and declared, without any scientific basis, that Brewer had no conscience and would be a future danger, even though Brewer did not have a history of violence while in prison.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

This is the 2010 trial in which Coons was declared unreliable: https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2010/20229.html

In that appeal, they considered 25 points. While they agreed with points 3 and 4 regarding Coons' testimony, they still upheld the conviction and death sentence. It was the same Texas Court of Appeals that considered that hearing as well as Brewer's request for appeal.

Brewer and his lawyer were trying to get an appeal based on Coons' statement, but this almost certainly wouldn't be enough to change the sentencing, based on their 2010 ruling. I haven't dug up Brewer's appeal to see if there were any other reasons, but the fact that they were focusing on this one suggests that there wasn't much else they could have argued.

[-] EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

No, he was trying to say he would have been sentenced to life instead of death if the jury hadn't heard certain expert testimony.

I would guess the testimony would be along the lines of blood splatter or some other pseudoscientific forensics where the expert might say the crime was particularly vicious.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

That didn't matter in the death sentence appeal where the court ruled the testimony as unreliable: https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2010/20229.html

They ruled that the testimony was unreliable, but still let the sentence stand. If all Brewer was arguing was the testimony, then the court would have reached the same conclusion.

this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
336 points (96.9% liked)

News

23618 readers
3292 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS