By James Milnes Gaskell

I first wrote about Linda Carty two years ago under the title ‘On Death Row in Texas’. That article outlined the part Linda was alleged to have played and was convicted of in a bizarre and fantastic plot. The prosecution case was that Linda wanted a baby so much that she organised the kidnapping of her pregnant neighbour in order to cut the baby out.
 
All that we do know is that three or four men broke into the apartment of Joanna Rodriguez, the no longer pregnant neighbour, beat up her partner Raymundo Cabrera and abducted the baby and his mother Joanna. They tied her up with duct tape, put a plastic bag over her head and stuffed her into the boot of a car then rented by Linda Carty. Joanna suffocated but the baby was found safe on the backseat of another car.

After her trial conviction and sentence to death Linda’s case was taken up by ‘Reprieve’ a British Charity which represents prisoners in many different countries who are subject to the death penalty.  They claim, as I set out broadly in my first article, that the conduct of her case was so saturated with incompetence that it beggars belief.

I ended that article with a series of questions, appeals really. I suggested that our Government should seek to take advantage of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This Article gives rights of consular access to a person detained in a country, not his or her own. Linda, born in St. Kitts in 1958, is our National. The last paragraph was: “So what do the various bodies of influence in our country think of this? The political parties, the churches, the Chamber of Commerce, the Bar Association, the man in the street, my fellow columnists. What do we all think our Ministry of Foreign Affairs is actually for? Should it take up Linda’s case as vigorously as it knows how, or should it just hope for the best? How a community deals with the less fortunate in its midst is a measure of its civilization and decency…”

Until last week, I’ve heard no mention of Linda’s plight by any of the above organisations, although persons in the street have from time to time asked me if there is further information. There has not been until recently. Reprieve, her present lawyers, arranged for Linda to record a message to be broadcast on a loop in Trafalgar Square, London. This took place on September 10th, and was featured by the Leewards Times and SKN Vibes. This was a drastic step, taken to try to raise awareness in Britain since Linda can claim citizenship there through her Dependent Territories passport. She said, “It is everyone’s worst nightmare to be executed for a crime they did not commit. I am living that nightmare…In 2002 I was sentenced to death for a murder I did not commit. My trial was full of terrible mistakes…I am desperate, because the British people may be my last hope. If they ask for my life to be spared, maybe Texas will listen…”

So Texas convicts Linda of a murder. Linda says she did not do it. What we should be interested in is the question: “Did our fellow citizen receive a fair trial both in respect of guilt/innocence and of punishment?” And if we conclude that she did not, then the question is, “What should we do about it?”

We can start with a certain overall scepticism of the nature of justice in the State of Texas. A former District Attorney who had himself prosecuted several death penalty cases said, “The system in Texas is broken. Until it is fixed and we are satisfied that only the guilty can be put to death, there should be no more executions in Texas.”

We are concerned with Linda’s case, and there is space to describe only one wreck in the Texas judicial system, the case of Scott Panetti.

Panetti murdered his wife’s parents. Over a number of years, prior to the murders, Panetti had been involuntarily hospitalised, at least a dozen times in psychiatric institutions. He was classified as a paranoid schizophrenic. To you and me he was bonkers, altogether detached from reality. At trial he appeared in a purple cowboy suit, booted and hatted, sacked his lawyer, and was allowed by the Judge to conduct his own defence. He did not answer to his own name, he said he was someone else. He wanted to subpoena John F. Kennedy, the Pope and Jesus. He could not ask coherent questions or give understandable answers. The doctor who treated him in hospital witnessed the trial and commented later, “Why was the Judge allowing this crazy man to defend himself? How can our legal system allow an insane man to defend himself? How can this be just?” The jury sentenced him to death. In Texas it is up to the jury, not the judge, to pass sentence. His case then went all the way to the US Supreme Court where that Court held that Texas could not execute someone who does not understand the reason for his execution. Note that the Courts to which he had appealed his sentence en route to the Supreme Court had dismissed his applications. It gets harder and harder to persuade Courts on appeal. Appeals are supposed to overturn unsatisfactory convictions. Often they follow narrow procedural regulations and thereby deny genuine justice.

If Reprieve, instructing Houston law firm Baker Botts had not become involved, Linda would by now have passed through the lethal injection chamber. Not many defendants are fortunate enough to have the pro bono services of a major US law firm, and now that they have persuaded the British Government to become involved there is perhaps some slight hope.

On behalf of Linda Carty the UK argues: “In Capital trials counsel has an obligation to conduct a thorough investigation into the accused’s prior life experiences, character and mental state, in order to present compelling evidence in the defence of that individual – both during trial and sentencing.  In the case of a foreign national such investigations are often only possible with the logistical and political support of consular officials. Failure to take advantage of such assistance where available is inconsistent with fundamental principles of effective assistance of counsel.”

Jerry Guerinot was the counsel picked by the Court to defend her. He is not exactly the Dr. Henry Browne of Houston. Guerinot has defended in 39 Capital murder cases, of which:

Prosecution drop charges     3
Pleaded guilty in return for life imprisonment  6
Prosecution did not ask for death penalty   5
Persuaded by Guerinot not to impose death penalty             5
Condemned to death                20
                                                                                               39

Not one of his Capital clients has been found ‘Not guilty’. From what the record shows Guerinot’s preparation of Linda’s case was almost non-existent and certainly defective.

The kidnappers were allowed to plead guilty to lesser crimes and give evidence against Linda. The prosecutor Goodhart said, “I brought you an armed robber, a dope dealer, a drive-by shooter, and another armed robber, a dope head without a doubt.” In Goodhart’s account the witnesses’ very criminality made them more credible! The prosecutor also called Linda’s common law husband who has later said that he would never have given evidence had he been made aware of the ‘spousal privilege’ by which a spouse (legal or common law) cannot be made to testify. Guerinot never interviewed him. Nor did he interview Charlie Mathis, who was her handler at the Drug Enforcement Administration for whom she had worked as an informant for many years. In a later affidavit he states, “Had Linda’s counsel approached me I would have been willing to testify on her behalf…Over the years I got to know her very well…I would have been willing to testify that I do not believe her to be a future danger, that she is not a violent person, let alone a cold blooded murderer. I would not have employed someone like Linda as a confidential informant if I had felt they were capable of intentionally murdering someone.”

Then there were the ‘surgical scissors’ which the prosecution alleged Linda was going to use to cut the baby out of the pregnant Joanna Rodriguez. Those produced were blunt ended bandage scissors, impossible to use to penetrate skin and muscle wall. Guerinot failed to object to their production as relevant evidence.

Convicted on the ‘evidence’ of serious criminals involved as major participants in the murder themselves, partially corroborated by a common law spouse as to peripheral matters, Linda found herself up for sentence by a jury who had been given the impression by the prosecution that she was a layabout and a future danger. This is something Guerinot would have been able to refute if he had been to St. Kitts to find out her background. He obtained the sanction of the Court to fund a visit but then never bothered to go. Linda’s present lawyers visited St. Kitts and obtained seventeen affidavits and statements attesting to her character, many from prominent citizens (including former Prime Minister Kennedy Simmonds) that described her as a courageous, religious, community oriented and highly credible primary school teacher. This evidence established the belief of many of these witnesses that an act such as murder would be completely out of character for Ms. Carty.

Linda remains in extreme peril as the Texas execution train rolls on. What can we do? Our Government can agitate, can’t it? Do we have citizens resident in Texas? We employ Public Relations consultants in the US, don’t we? Has our Government contacted Reprieve? These persons will advise how to keep both the matter and Linda Carty alive.