Category: texas

  • Next month marks the 40th anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring public schools to educate all children, regardless of their immigration status.

    But with the high court potentially overturning decades-old precedent in the Roe v. Wade abortion decision, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sees a potential opening to undo Plyler, which originated in his state.

    Abbott wants the federal government to cover the cost of educating undocumented children in Texas. He argues that the costs imposed on school districts are “extraordinary” and that “times are different than when Plyler v. Doe was issued.” Immigration and civil rights groups across Texas and the nation have dismissed the statement as inflammatory.

    Abbott’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

    Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), spoke with Public Integrity about Abbott’s remarks and the chilling effect they could have on immigrant families, even those with U.S. citizen children.

    MALDEF filed the original case on behalf of four immigrant families whose children were denied a public education in Tyler, Texas. The school district wanted to require undocumented parents to pay as much as $1,000 per child in tuition and fees for their children to attend public schools.

    In his majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan concluded that “education provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all” and that states could not constitutionally deny those opportunities to undocumented children.

    The interview with Saenz has been edited for length and clarity.

    Corey Mitchell: Do Governor Abbott’s remarks about challenging Plyler v. Doe signal the start of an organized effort to chip away protections for undocumented children and children of immigrants?

    Thomas Saenz: [Abbott] is just grasping at different things that fall within a broader theme of being anti-immigrant that he seems to have built his re-election campaign around. Extending to Plyler [probably] wasn’t really where Abbot wanted to go, but he is pursuing an anti-immigrant campaign so this is certainly consistent with that. Targeting kids is never a good strategy. I don’t really think he wants to have thousands of kids not in school because that won’t get him any support.

    Go back to the family separations at the border. This is where Donald Trump had to almost immediately backtrack from his own policies because images of kids engendered sympathy.

    Now that said, if it is a considered decision, it may be because [of] this replacement theory from the racist right. The replacement theory is premised on increasing numbers. So children are in some ways an indication of increasing numbers of adults in the future. So to the extent he thought about it, perhaps it’s consistent with this racist replacement theory that’s caught hold in certain Republican circles.

    What has the Plyler v. Doe decision meant for children and families?

    The Plyler kids, if you will, are the younger version of DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] recipients or what have been called Dreamers. These are those kids in kindergarten through 12th grade. So it has created opportunities, not just for themselves and their family members, but opportunities for their communities and neighborhoods.

    Even though Plyler is 40 years old, there still is a lot of lack of knowledge: [that] this is well-established law, it is constitutional, and that it must be followed so that [people] can overcome the fears that may be engendered by really irresponsible comments like Abbott’s. For some, it may be enough to avoid sending kids to school. And that’s a great harm to everyone.

    MALDEF has warned districts in Arizona about potential Plyler v. Doe violations. Are public schools in some states intentionally making it difficult for undocumented children to enroll in school?

    How prevalent is it? It’s hard to say. We tend to see violations in practice occur more in states and regions that are newer to having significant undocumented populations. So we don’t tend to see practice violations in states like Texas or California. It tends to be in other states that are more unfamiliar with having a significant undocumented population.

    Generally speaking, all it takes is a letter [to resolve the matter]. Usually, the violations are not intended to be violations, so once it’s brought to their attention, schools change them. Indeed, in some cases, it’s just a lower-level employee deciding on their own to demand a Social Security number.

    Ten years ago, the state of Alabama attempted to accomplish the same by collecting data on [the immigration status] of parents and children in public schools. … But it is rare that a school district [or state] … will attempt to begin to obtain data about people’s status. When you do that, it deters enrollment and attendance and so can have the same impact as a ban.

    Early in the Trump administration, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said in a congressional hearing that whether to admit undocumented students was a decision to be made by each district, which is simply false under Plyler. And she had to immediately go back and backtrack, but even that kind of irresponsible comment has an impact.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Cameron Wright, 16, has always seen himself as a “dude.” As a young child, Cameron didn’t have the words to explain the disconnect between how he saw himself and how the world saw him. But he knew that despite being born in a girl’s body, he was meant to be a boy.

    After taking reversible puberty blockers that pause a teenager’s body changes, Cameron considered whether he wanted to begin hormone therapy to physically transition more permanently. He did not take the decision lightly. Cameron said his doctor made him spend almost a year mulling over the question, working with his therapist, and thinking through the life-altering implications before the doctor believed he was ready to start taking the medications in 2020.

    “I thought about if I stayed a girl, life would be so much easier,” said Cameron, who uses the pronouns he and him. “But this is what I want, and I’m not going to let anything stop me from being who I want to be, whether it’s hard or not.”

    Then in November 2021, the GENder Education and Care, Interdisciplinary Support clinic in Dallas, known as Genecis, stopped taking new patients for gender dysphoria hormone treatment because of pressure from Republican activists and politicians. Although doctors can continue to see patients like Cameron whom they were already treating, the clinic was dismantled. Cameron and his family now have concerns about what this means for them.

    The Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, also opened investigations into pharmaceutical companies whose products are used by transgender patients, and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and the state GOP are increasingly focusing legislative and reelection efforts on a record number of bills that target transgender young people, their parents, and their doctors.

    Since then, Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston announced it would stop offering hormone therapy. The Texas Tribune reported that Legacy Community Health, also in Houston, quietly paused hormone therapy for teens as well. And doctors throughout the state are telling patients they will no longer prescribe the medications under pressure from insurance companies.

    Transgender young people and their families across Texas are now scrambling to find providers and maintain access to their medications, with some exploring options outside the state. An estimated 17,000 transgender people ages 13-17 live in Texas, according to Equality Texas, an LGBTQ+ education and advocacy organization.

    For Chloe Ross, 15, who uses the pronouns she and her, the crackdown on her care has been distressing. “I’m just as human as everyone else,” she said.

    Chloe’s doctor is still seeing her and prescribing her hormones. But her mother, Kathryn Ross, has started researching options for out-of-state care. The family has been saving money in case they need to move, Ross said, but they hope it doesn’t come to that.

    “Having just moved, and Chloe making good friends, the last thing we want to do is uproot her,” said Ross. “Moving would be the last option.”

    During the pandemic, the family relocated to a larger city within Texas, leaving behind bullies, and the teen found acceptance from new schoolmates who know her only as Chloe, someone who loves theater and wants to study genetics. But Abbott’s orders to investigate parents who allow their children to receive gender-affirming care, and legislative threats to criminalize such care, weigh heavily on Chloe.

    “I’m just trying to get through high school and stuff,” Chloe said through tears. “Having Gov. Abbott make me worry about that kind of stuff is terrible because I don’t get a normal life anymore, you know? Right now, I’m having to go to my teachers to ask them to please not turn me in for being trans. I shouldn’t have to worry about something like that.”

    For as long as she can remember, Chloe said, she has favored wearing jewelry, playing volleyball, and participating in theater. She did not know how to express what she was feeling and thought she was gay. Chloe and her mom said strangers regularly assumed Chloe was a girl even as she presented as a boy and had not yet come out as transgender.

    Echoing other parents, Chloe’s mother said that even though she was already deeply involved in LGBTQ+ support and advocacy, Chloe’s coming out as transgender was a “gut punch.” Never once did she disbelieve Chloe, but she feared for her daughter’s future. She feared for what is happening now.

    Young people receiving gender-affirming care include those who are socially transitioning — for example, wearing clothing that reflects their gender identity — and those taking puberty blockers or hormones.

    Not all young people who identify as transgender, however, move beyond social transitioning or experience the condition known as gender dysphoria, which means that they experience psychological stress when their body doesn’t match their identity. And people who take puberty blockers don’t necessarily decide to take gender hormones. Surgery is not recommended for people younger than 18.

    Although gender-affirming care for trans young people remains politically controversial in many parts of the U.S., a study published by JAMA Network Open showed a reduction in suicidal ideation in trans youths who received such care. Health care organizations that include the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association endorse gender-affirming health care.

    Despite the changes to Genecis, Cameron is scheduled for a May appointment with Dr. Ximena Lopez, the doctor overseeing his care. His mom, Myriam Reynolds, however, worries it won’t take place. Lopez has filed a lawsuit against UT Southwestern Medical Center, which jointly operated Genecis with Children’s Medical Center Dallas, alleging that the facility discriminated against some patients by preventing them from receiving gender-affirming care based on their gender identity.

    In the meantime, Reynolds picks up Cameron’s hormone refills as soon as they are available to maintain a constant supply. She also said the family is considering all options to ensure Cameron can continue receiving care despite the state crackdown.

    “They don’t care at all about trying to help my kid,” Reynolds said. “It’s all political theater.”

    It’s especially hard because access to Genecis was a consideration when the family decided to relocate from Colorado to Texas in 2017. Cameron had already come out as transgender, and, after researching the clinic, his mother believed he would receive compassionate, thoughtful care as he transitioned. Now the family is concerned about what kind of care Cameron will be able to get in Texas.

    Cameron, who hopes to study music production or become a firefighter, tries to be optimistic that politicians will stop cracking down on medical care for people like him.

    “I can’t control the way I am,” said Cameron. “This is not my mom’s doing or my doctor’s doing. This is just me trying to be myself.”

    KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

    Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • One ACLU attorney declared that every child, “regardless of whether Gov. Abbott and Border Patrol agents consider them ‘our child’ or not, deserves food and love.”


    This content originally appeared on Common Dreams – Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Over the last few weeks, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has gone on a particularly cruel, opportunistic, rampage against undocumented immigrants.

    First, he ordered state troopers to inspect every commercial truck coming into Texas from Mexico, arguing that this was a vital part of his effort to stop the smuggling of undocumented immigrants into the state. Of course, the move, which was always more of a PR stunt than a genuine effort to rein in people-smuggling cartels, was telegraphed so far in advance that the smugglers went elsewhere.

    Governor Abbott’s troopers snarled traffic with their searches, leading Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O’Rourke to accuse the governor of worsening already tough supply chain conditions. Ultimately, over the eight days the order was in effect, state troopers didn’t find huge numbers of hidden, would-be immigrants, hardly a surprise given they had telegraphed the whole operation in advance.

    Then, in another PR stunt, the governor announced his officers would start rounding up undocumented immigrants caught along the border, and, on his order, would bus them off to Washington, D.C. This, too, backfired when many of the migrants began publicly thanking Abbott for the free ride to D.C.

    Now, as the Biden administration moves toward lifting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Title 42 restrictions on the southern border, Abbott has, according to media reports, begun studying the possibility of declaring the large numbers of undocumented people currently attempting to cross the border into the United States an “invasion.” This move would essentially allow the governor to use war powers to deputize state law enforcement officers to serve as immigration enforcement, and permit those officers to summarily deport migrants unlucky enough to fall into their clutches.

    It’s a grotesque policy proposal that gives more than a nod of homage to the unsavory role played by the Texas Rangers, a state agency that too often acted as a murderous vigilante group deployed to violently police the borderlands in decades and centuries past. Even though it would almost certainly trigger a huge legal battle, the governor clearly believes the optics are in his favor as immigration rises on the list of concerns that Americans talk about to pollsters.

    The Texas governor has been cheered on by members of Texas’s increasingly far right legislature, as well as by onetime members of former President Donald Trump’s administration — who have urged him to allow state troopers and National Guardsmen to send would-be migrants back across the border.

    The National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), the union that represents Border Patrol officers and staff, also supports Abbott’s proposal. Indeed, the NBPC’s president, Brandon Judd, recently told Fox News he believed President Joe Biden was pushing an open borders policy, and that he was doing so specifically to change the demographics of the U.S. electorate. In addition to these statements being a horrifying echo of white supremacist “Great Replacement” rhetoric, they ignore the fact that undocumented immigrants and legal residents are actually already denied the right to vote.

    Governor Abbott, coming off of Texas’s recent victories at the U.S. Supreme Court regarding its law allowing private citizens to sue abortion providers and others who assist people in getting abortions, has also now set his sights on another judicial precedent: He has proposed allowing local school districts to deny undocumented children access to public schools.

    As the governor knows too well, undocumented children’s right to access to public schools has long been settled case law. Texas tried this once before, in 1975, when it amended its education laws so as to deny local school districts funds for educating undocumented children. Six years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Plyler v. Doe that this was unconstitutional.

    It was this ruling that kicked in more than a decade later, in 1994, when voters in California — at the time headed by Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, and with an electorate that had swung far to the right both on crime and on immigration — overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187, that barred undocumented kids from its public schools, and undocumented people of all ages from public health services and an array of other benefits.

    Even before Latinx activists began counter-organizing against the measure, and even before California’s increasingly diverse electorate started having second thoughts about its response to mass immigration, the courts got involved. Days after the election, a federal district court judge issued an injunction barring the proposition’s provisions from being implemented. Nearly five years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the measure was unconstitutional.

    Abbott and his Texas GOP cheerleaders would do well to pause a moment in their stampede toward xenophobia and ponder what happened to the California GOP in the years following Proposition 187.

    In 1994, when Governor Wilson whipped up voters’ fears of crime and immigration, the Republicans controlled the governorship. They had controlled it for all but eight years since 1967. For most of that time, one of California’s two U.S. senators had also been Republican. The state attorney general was Republican. The mayor of Los Angeles was a Republican, and many other top city officials around the state were members of the GOP as well. Although the legislature was controlled by the Democratic Party, the margins were small and the GOP remained influential.

    Proposition 187 marked a decisive turning point in California politics. In the decades following, the number of Latinos registered to vote in California increased roughly threefold. Young people also began voting in much higher numbers. Those new voters were key to driving xenophobic officials out of office in the Golden State and shifting its state and city politics leftward.

    Wilson would serve out his full term and leave office in January 1999. Since then, the only GOP governor has been Arnold Schwarzenegger, a moderate who, by modern GOP standards is what the Trumpites derogatively term a “Republican In Name Only,” or “RINO.” The state’s attorney general is a Democrat. Both legislative houses have Democratic supermajorities, and virtually every major city in the state, with the exception of Fresno, is run by Democratic mayors.

    Abbott is doing in 2022 what Governor Wilson did in California in 1994. He’s using undocumented immigration as a way to demagogue himself into reelection. It may well work in the short term. In the long run, however, Abbott’s shameless political stunts, if they enrage enough people in his state that new political coalitions start to emerge to counter them, could end up costing his state party dearly.

    Yet, regardless of the possible consequences for the GOP down the line, we must remember the concrete consequences for migrants in the here and now. Abbott is treating human beings as political pawns, and he’s showing no signs of easing off on his demagogic campaign.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Abortion support networks in Texas, including nonprofit organizations that provide abortion funding to low-income and marginalized people in the state, already know what it might be like to live in a post-Roe v. Wade reality.

    Even before the state legislature passed its harsh six-week abortion ban in the form of Senate Bill 8, Gov. Greg Abbott issued an executive order at the onset of the pandemic in March 2020 temporarily banning any abortion not necessary to save the life of the pregnant person as a “medically unnecessary” procedure. The order remained in place for about a month as it was jockeyed in the courts, and during that time, reproductive rights advocates in Texas learned a few things about how to operate in a state in which almost all abortions were banned.

    Activists are turning back to that knowledge and now after a draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey was leaked Monday, bracing once again to live that reality if the high court’s final ruling triggers a state statute automatically making it a felony to “knowingly perform, induce or attempt an abortion” except to save the life of the pregnant person.

    Texas-based nonprofit abortion fund staffers and grassroots abortion support organizers tell Truthout they’re ramping up efforts to support people in traveling out of state for their abortion needs. They have already had to escalate travel support to farther-away states after Oklahoma’s legislature passed a near-total abortion ban modeled on SB 8’s civil lawsuit enforcement mechanism last month.

    If all 24 states with “trigger” abortion bans go into effect in the event of Roe’s reversal, Texas organizers say they would have to regularly send abortion-seekers as far out as California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom’s promises of expanded access will prove crucial to accommodating an influx of abortion seekers from newly restricted states. That would prove challenging even with their current experience and training under Texas’s harsh abortion restrictions, they say.

    “It’s going to be more scarce for people to be able to get to clinics, the wait times will be longer, when people get to clinics, they’re going to be more pregnant, meaning that their procedures will be more complicated and more expensive,” says Erika Galindo, who is organizing program manager at the Texas-based Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, which provides abortion funding to low-income and marginalized Texans.

    Galindo and other abortion rights organizers say they are also working to distribute free reproductive health kits containing emergency contraception and pregnancy tests to the state’s most impoverished areas, as well as working more closely with allied networks in Mexico after the Mexican Supreme Court ruled in September that imposing punishment for abortion is unconstitutional. The decision has opened a closer option for some Texans seeking abortions, both surgical and medication-induced, amid the state’s six-week abortion ban.

    Four Mexican states currently allow abortions in most circumstances. Those states would become the closest option for many in Texas and across the South if current state-level trigger bans go into effect. Even before the passage of SB 8, abortion-seekers in South Texas frequently crossed the border to go to Mexican pharmacies to buy the abortion-inducing pills mifepristone and misoprostol.

    But travel to Mexico, or even out of state, is not an option for over-worked, poor, marginalized, and especially undocumented people, which is why abortion funds and grassroots support networks are also working to increase access to information, resources and guidance to assist Texans with self-managed abortions using mifepristone and misoprostol.

    The practice has long been considered safe and preferable for many people, especially those in rural areas who would have to travel hours to see a provider, and undocumented people unable to cross internal immigration checkpoints in border regions. The Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 guidelines allows practitioners to prescribe the two-drug combination up to 10 weeks’ gestation.

    If Roe is overturned and abortion providers are further criminalized, activists’ role in helping abortion-seekers manage their own needs outside the purview of traditional, clinic-based care will become all the more vital. Just as important would be helping women and all abortion-seekers understand the potential for their own criminalization — which has quickly become the biggest risk associated with self-managed abortion in the modern era.

    Abortion support organizers are already providing legal “know your rights” education and partnering with community bail funds in order to minimize the harms of existing efforts in Texas and elsewhere in the South to criminalize and punish pregnant people seeking abortions — as well as those who help them. Advocates warn that effort would be dramatically accelerated if Roe is overturned.

    Right now, Texas and other states’ trigger laws only penalize providers and clinics, not patients who obtain abortions. Still, pregnant people have faced criminal punishment for pregnancy outcomes including stillbirths and miscarriages in hundreds of cases since Roe’s protections were first put in place in 1973. According to reporting from The New Republic, National Advocates for Pregnant Women identified at least 1,600 such cases in the last 50 years involving arrests or other deprivations of liberty for pregnancy outcomes.

    In some cases, police and prosecutors have pursued charges outside the bounds of the law or used creative interpretations to target pregnant people. In fact, this happened in Texas just last month in a case that offers a grim preview of the post-Roe criminal legal landscape in the South.

    On April 7, 26-year-old Lizelle Herrera was charged with murder and held in a Starr County jail on a $500,000 bond in connection with what an indictment called a “self-induced abortion” stemming from a report a hospital made to police in January. South Texas reproductive rights groups including the Frontera Fund, South Texans for Reproductive Justice and If/When/How spearheaded the organizing efforts that eventually led to Herrera’s release.

    Frontera Fund Co-Founder and Board Director Alexis Bay tells Truthout her organization mobilized quickly around Herrera’s case, working in coalition with local reproductive rights organizations in Central and South Texas to create a legal fund for Herrera and reaching out to Central and South Texas district attorneys, who quickly issued statements condemning the arrest and calling for Herrera’s release. The pressure from elected DAs proved critical in Starr County DA Gocha Ramirez’s decision to drop Herrera’s charges three days after her arrest.

    “We should anticipate that those who seek abortion, whether it be in other states or self-induced, will face criminalization,” Bay tells Truthout. “That is the reality we are facing. [Herrera’s case] was just the tip of the iceberg.”

    The rest of that iceberg may very well end up including abortion fund organizers themselves. In fact, they’re already having tough conversations about how to retool their mission if Texas passes legislation criminalizing their advocacy work assisting Texans in obtaining abortions, providing resources and information about self-managed medication abortion, or making it illegal for anyone to travel out of state for the purposes of obtaining an abortion.

    Some Texas Republicans are already eyeing ways to criminally prosecute abortion seekers and those who would help them — even if it means going around local DAs. In a letter sent to abortion-funding nonprofits last month, State Rep. Briscoe Cain said he intends to introduce legislation that would allow DAs to prosecute abortion-related cases outside their home jurisdiction when the local DA “fails or refuses to do so.”

    Herrera’s case, alongside this week’s Supreme Court leak, has thrown the significance of local “prosecutorial discretion” in pregnancy-related cases into sharp relief. Such discretion gives DAs the power to decide which cases to take, what charges to present and how to frame evidence to a grand jury — a power that will once again take precedence if the high court guts Roe’s privacy protections.

    The decision could create a patchwork of prosecutorial approaches, even just within Texas: At least five DAs have publicly promised to not pursue abortion-related criminal charges if Roe is toppled. Others may simply quietly decline to take such cases without making public pronouncements.

    Travis County DA José Garza tells Truthout that if he finds himself on the front lines of an abortion or pregnancy-related test case involving the criminalization of a pregnant person or advocate, he will not use his office’s resources to pursue charges.

    “From my perspective, criminalizing personal health care choices, and using resources to pursue criminal charges against people for making personal health care choices would make us less safe,” Garza tells Truthout.

    Garza has previously committed to not pursuing charges against families of transgender youth who follow the advice of medical professionals to make personal health care choices amid Texas Republicans’ push to criminalize trans health care, and says he sees abortion and pregnancy-related health care choices in the same vein. But it’s “hard to fathom the depths of the cravenness” of the Texas Republican Party, he says, in terms of anticipating just how state lawmakers may legislate in opposition to the public interest and true public safety.

    Garza, however, cited the Texas Constitution in response to State Representative Cain’s planned legislation to allow DAs to pursue charges outside their home jurisdiction, telling Truthout the plan “doesn’t sound it doesn’t sound like it’s in line with what the law clearly is here in the state of Texas.”

    Still, anti-abortion DAs in other jurisdictions and states are primed take a hardline approach, especially under political pressure — and the vast criminal code stands ready to assist them. A National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers report finds more than 4,450 abortion-related federal crimes and tens of thousands of state-level criminal provisions remain on the books. That doesn’t include state conspiracy, attempt and accomplice statutes.

    In Texas, a law making it a crime to perform an abortion or “furnish the means for procuring an abortion” except to save the life of a pregnant patient is one such statute still on the books. The statute’s use of the word “procure,” some legal experts say, could extend to people seeking abortions directly.

    This law was among those lawyers challenged in the case that would go on to become Roe v. Wade. If Roe is overturned, Texas’s abortion criminalization statutes could again be enforced if the state legislature doesn’t remove them.

    In addition to penalties already on the books, new statutes are quickly being drafted: A legislative committee in the Louisiana House of Representatives advanced a bill this week that would expose a person to homicide charges if they receive an abortion.

    Overturning Roe, abortion rights activists say, adds a layer of criminalization to people already targeted by the criminal legal system in the United States, generating more fear and anxiety in marginalized, vulnerable and rural communities — a reality they’re already working to prepare those communities for.

    Lilith Fund’s Galindo says her organization is preparing to launch a second initiative of what they’re calling their “hype squad” effort encouraging people to share and uplift needabortion.org, which helps Texans find an abortion clinic out of state. The new initiative will help provide organizers and those seeking abortions with criminal legal trainings in order to protect against prosecution.

    “Right now, what we really all have to be doing is thinking about how bail funds and abortion funds are going to have to work even closer together,” Galindo tells Truthout. “We’re going to have to really think hard about just who is going to be targeted and just who is going to need all of our support and protection.”

    Roe’s reversal would also compound the effects of militarized enforcement and policing on undocumented people living in Texas’s border regions who have long seen their Fourth Amendment privacy rights eroded by U.S. Customs and Border Protection surveillance systems that collect biometric data including fingerprints, facial scans and blood samples, and slap undocumented people with ankle monitors that track their every movement.

    Overturning Roe, advocates in South Texas’s Rio Grande Valley say, would just provide one more reason for police to hand over undocumented folks to immigration enforcement.

    “Folks who are undocumented live at this complex intersection where abortion is already criminalized enough in the state of Texas, and their immigration statuses are also criminalized,” says Nancy Cárdenas Peña, who is Texas director of policy and advocacy the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice. “So often the conversations that we’re having with folks is ‘Do I go to my health care appointment, or do I risk being placed into deportation proceedings? … Do I risk being separated from my family?’”

    Additionally, undocumented people held in immigration detention centers have long been subject to human rights violations including forced sterilization and a lack of reproductive health services that have resulted in miscarriages behind bars.

    In fact, South Texas organizers say they are worried about how the gutting of Roe’s privacy protections could impact people held in detention centers in particular. In the 1927 Buck v. Bell case, the Supreme Court found that a Virginia statute that allowed for the sterilization of those held in psychiatric institutions was not unconstitutional. The case has never been overturned, and some legal experts have speculated that a state that can legally force a person to give birth could also compel the opposite.

    “It’s always this contradictory statement that we receive from immigration [enforcement] where immigration says they offer the full spectrum of reproductive health care, but we see, time and time again, these consistent violations and the need to campaign for people within detention,” Cárdenas Peña says. “We can talk about the conditions that immigration should be able to provide, but a cage is a cage.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  •  

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott put out a directive on February 22, following a legal opinion from state Attorney General Ken Paxton, insisting families with transgender kids be investigated for potential “child abuse.” While not legally binding, the move provoked several investigations into parents of trans kids.

    It’s one more state government assault in what’s beating 2021 as the worst year for anti-trans backlash. The far right’s obsession with reversing LGBTQ progress is nothing new, nor is the gross conflation of gender affirmation with harm to children. But the bigotry is experiencing an unprecedented mainstreaming—through the careful calculations of conservative media, and the callous indifference of centrist media.

    FAIR (3/3/21, 3/12/21, 5/6/21) has previously criticized corporate news outlets for their failure to respond to the vitriolic and well-funded anti-gender movement. In a new study of coverage on the Texas directive across six outlets, we found once again a dearth of trans sources and perspectives, treating those most harmed by the directive as subjects to be debated, not humans worthy of providing insight into their own lives.

    Amount of coverage

    Stories on Texas Directive by Outlet

    FAIR counted news and opinion stories mentioning the Texas directive, as well as the types of sources cited, in the centrist outlets New York Times, Washington Post and Slate, along with the right-wing Breitbart, Daily Caller and Federalist, between February 22 and March 22. The majority of stories were text-based, but some of the results for Slate were transcriptions of podcasts. Stories in the Times were found using the Nexis database, while the other five were counted directly from the sources’ websites.

    The conservative outlets published 33 stories on the directive, versus 38 in the centrist outlets. Breitbart alone covered it more times (23) than the New York Times and Slate combined (21). The coverage we studied included a total of 200 sources; 40% of these sources appeared on Breitbart, a measure of the far-right outlet’s obsession with the topic.

    It’s a principle of good journalism that coverage should be centered on those most affected by an issue. As trans people were those most impacted by Abbott’s directive, one should hope they would be centered in news coverage of the matter. Yet of the 200 sources across all the outlets, only 30, or 15%, were identified as trans.

    Cis vs. Trans Sources in Texas Directive Stories

    Outlet by outlet, 27% of sources cited by the New York Times in directive stories were trans, and 26% at Slate. Breitbart had markedly less trans representation, with 11% trans sources—though this was more than the Washington Post or Daily Caller, which each had 8%. The Federalist, meanwhile, had no sources identified as trans in its stories on the Texas anti-trans directive.

    A majority of trans sources were experts representing NGOs and media outlets, such as Chase Strangio and Gillian Branstetter of the American Civil Liberties Union. While excellent sources to inform the public on trans advocacy, they represent only a small part of the trans population. Trans people who aren’t affiliated with major organizations naturally may fear for their safety when speaking to the press, but there wasn’t even an effort to cite trans members of the general public anonymously. Excluding expert sources, trans people provided a total of 5% of sources across all outlets, while parents of trans children constituted 10%.

    Trans-suspicious ideologues

    WaPo: What I wish I’d known when I was 19 and had sex reassignment surgery

    A trans woman embraced by the right for regretting gender reassignment was spotlighted by the Washington Post (4/11/22) as well.

    The Washington Post, though it cited seven parents of trans kids, notably featured no quotes from trans youth themselves, or from any other trans members of the general public. This choice is all the more disquieting, given the lack of diversity in trans perspectives that the paper has highlighted in its opinion section.

    While there were opinion pieces (2/25/22, 3/2/22) that were critical of the directive during the studied timeframe, none were by trans people themselves. But the following month, Corinna Cohn, a transgender software engineer, was given space to tell her own story. Cohn, who has become a fixture in conservative media as an ally to anti-trans advocates, penned a mournful op-ed (4/11/22) that expressed surgery-regret and alarm at “how readily authority figures facilitate transition.” She referred to her early transition self as a “callow young man who was obsessed with transitioning to womanhood,” and encouraged gender-dysphoric youth to take their time before making long-term decisions.

    Conversations around regret, risk and the role of therapeutic interventions are essential when it comes to trans healthcare, but they’re difficult to have when the ground is almost entirely ceded to conservative gender politics. The sole trans experience detailed in the Post in the two months following the directive produces an incomplete picture of what gender-affirming care looks like. The absence of direct accounts of trans joy, pride, and resistance promotes the notion that transition is a tragic outcome, that stories such as Cohn’s are the rule and not the exception.

    According to biologist and trans historian Julia Serano (8/2/16), outlets regularly employ “trans-suspicious” ideologues who, while expressing enough acceptance of trans people to appear moderate, or even being trans themselves, nevertheless partake in constant fearmongering over the rate of gender transition. Fellow trans historian Jules Gill-Peterson (New Inquiry, 9/13/21) identifies this rhetorical strategy as “laundering extremism”: filtering anti-trans bigotry through “liberal” rationalism while still pandering to the far-right. Whether it comes from cis or trans voices, this handwringing implies that access to gender transition is too easy, and thus laws restricting access to it are justified—all the while ignoring the damaging impact restrictive medical gatekeeping has had.

    The Washington Post, despite ostensibly being to the left of outlets like Breitbart, carries water for those actively fighting to ban and criminalize gender-affirming care when it fails to provide a greater breadth of trans perspectives.

    Deny and punish

    Slate: The Biggest Threat to Trans Kids in Texas Is Child Protective Services

    Slate (3/2/22): “The child welfare system..is a particularly potent tool for transphobic politicians because it was set up to surveil families that fall outside of the white, middle class norm.”

    The suspicion and concern around gender transition in the media belies the reality that it can be lifesaving for trans kids and adults alike. Trans healthcare is linked to better mental health outcomes and lower suicide risk, while a lack of family acceptance drives the disproportionate rates of homelessness among LGBTQ youth. The domino effect of denying care means trans young people will face exorbitant costs to transition in adulthood, creating even more barriers for a demographic that is 70% more likely to live below the poverty line than cis people. Not every young person experiencing gender dysphoria may require medical transition, but to deny and punish those that would benefit from it is both classist and anti-democratic, as it inserts punitive state authority between patients and qualified practitioners.

    There were some notable exceptions to this framework. An episode of a Slate podcast (The Waves, 3/3/22) featured several prominent trans journalists and researchers, including Gill-Peterson and Evan Urquhart. They provided essential context, including the overrepresentation of LGBTQ youth in foster care, and the lack of families willing to accept them. Another article (3/2/22), by Roxanna Asgarian, took a deeper look than any of the other outlets into the carceral tactics of child protection agencies, such as their ability to investigate individuals and search their homes without alerting them of their rights, and the disproportionate targeting of poor, Black, Indigenous and LGBTQ families for problems that are often synonymous with poverty.

    But overall, trans-centered perspectives were flashes in the pan, and hardly sufficient to counteract the present emergency plaguing trans people and their loved ones.

     

    The post Trans Youth Targeted by Texas Are Marginalized by Corporate Media appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Following the leaked release of a draft ruling from the Supreme Court this week, suggesting that the Court is ready to undo nearly 50 years of abortion rights precedent, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) said he is looking at ways to dismantle a ruling from 1982 that protects undocumented children’s right to public education.

    On Wednesday, Abbott said he was setting his sights on Plyler v. Doe, in which the Supreme Court said states were obligated to provide free education to all children in their borders, not just those who were U.S. citizens.

    Perhaps emboldened by the apparent far right shift of the nation’s highest court (as exemplified in its possible anti-abortion ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson) — as well as its willingness to disregard decades of precedent — Abbott said he could relitigate the decision, citing allegedly high costs of providing education to undocumented immigrants in the state.

    “Texas already long ago sued the federal government about having to incur the costs of the education program…. And the Supreme Court ruled against us on the issue,” Abbott said during an appearance on a conservative radio talk show.

    “I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again,” he added.

    Plyler clarified whether the state of Texas, in 1975, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution when it denied schools funding to educate children who were not United States citizens. The Supreme Court, deciding on the matter seven years later, determined that Texas had indeed infringed on those students’ rights.

    The 14th Amendment does refer to citizens, not people in a general sense, in several parts of it. But at the end of Section 1 of the amendment, it says that states cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    The Supreme Court determined in Plyler that students who were undocumented immigrants were persons, in the eyes of the law, and were entitled to the same rights as students who were citizens.

    “Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an [immigrant] is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term,” the Court’s majority opinion, written by then-Justice William Brennan, said.

    “The undocumented status of these children … does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents,” Brennan added.

    Abbott’s questioning of whether he can go after those rights follows the warnings that several progressives have made this week in the wake of the draft opinion on abortion from the Supreme Court on abortion that was leaked to the public.

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), for example, stated that the same questionable rationale that conservative justices were prepared to endorse in Dobbs could also be used to dismantle marriage equality and other civil rights protections that the Court has ruled upon in the past.

    “SCOTUS isn’t just coming for abortion – they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on, which includes gay marriage + civil rights,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Monday.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On April 25, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a stay of execution for Innocence Project client Melissa Lucio and ordered the 138th Judicial District Court of Cameron Country to consider new evidence of her innocence in the death of her daughter, Mariah.

     

    Ms. Lucio’s attorneys now have the chance to present evidence to the trial court on four of the claims raised in her April 15 habeas petition:

    1. The State’s use of false evidence to obtain her conviction. 
    2. The State’s failure to turn over favorable evidence to the defense at her trial. 
    3. New scientific evidence.
    4. Actual innocence.

    The stay came as an incredible relief to Ms. Lucio, her family, all of her supporters, and her legal team, just two days before she was scheduled to be killed for a crime that never occurred. The Innocence Project joined the case in January, and, along with the Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal Defender for the Western District of Texas, Cornell University Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, and a pro bono team from O’Melveny & Myers LLP, filed the habeas that has hopefully paved the way for her eventual exoneration.

    How a coercive interrogation became a wrongful conviction

    In 2007, Ms. Lucio’s youngest child, Mariah, accidentally fell down a flight of stairs. Two days later, she could not be woken from a nap and was pronounced dead at the hospital. Detectives rushed to judgment and, just two hours after Mariah died, took Ms. Lucio in for questioning. During the five-hour-long interrogation, officers berated and intimidated Ms. Lucio, who was pregnant and in shock from the loss of her child. They used coercive methods known to produce false confessions. 

    After several hours of interrogation, Ms. Lucio said, “I guess I did it,” and made other false, incriminating statements, to get the officers to end the interrogation. Her statement was then characterized by the prosecution as a confession to murder. Two of the officers who interrogated Ms. Lucio were present at Mariah’s autopsy, leading to a biased autopsy process, and an incomplete investigation into Mariah’s health history and the causes of her injuries and death.

    In 2008, Ms. Lucio was sentenced to death based on the statements she was coerced into making during the marathon interrogation. New scientific and expert evidence show that Ms. Luicio’s conviction was based on an unreliable, coerced “confession” and unscientific false evidence that misled the jury into believing Mariah’s death was a murder, instead of the truth: She died following a tragic accidental fall.

    World renowned experts on false confessions (including police trainer and interrogation expert, David Thompson, and Dr. Gisli Gudjonsson, one of the world’s leading experts on false confessions) have analyzed Ms. Lucio’s interrogation and concluded that her admissions are “unreliable” and simply a “regurgitation” of the words and facts that officers fed her throughout a highly coercive interrogation process.

     

    False confessions elicited by guilt-presumptive police interrogation tactics — like the ones used against Ms. Lucio — are a primary cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the 67 women listed on the National Registry of Exonerations who were exonerated after a murder conviction, over one quarter involved false confessions.

    At Ms. Lucio’s trial, the medical examiner testified that the bruises and injuries on Mariah’s body could only have been caused by abuse. However, pathologists who have reviewed the evidence have concluded that this testimony was false. Mariah’s autopsy showed signs of a blood coagulation disorder, which causes profuse bruising throughout the body. At the time of her death, Mariah was healing from an injury to her arm, which the medical examiner also said was a sign of abuse. However, a pediatric orthopedic surgeon who reviewed the evidence concluded that the medical examiner’s testimony was misleading and “there is nothing about” Mariah’s “fracture that indicates that it was the result of an intentional act or abuse.” This was an extremely common type of injury among toddlers that can result from a fall from standing height.  

    Ms. Lucio will finally have the opportunity to make the case in court for a new trial, to show that her original conviction was based on unreliable and false evidence, and to present the critical evidence of her innocence that was missing from her original trial. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearings, the trial court could recommend that the Court of Criminal Appeals grant Ms. Lucio a new trial, which would give her a chance to be exonerated. The hearing date has not yet been scheduled. 

    “All of the new evidence of her innocence has never before been considered by any court. The court’s stay allows us to continue fighting alongside Melissa to overturn her wrongful conviction,” explained Vanessa Potkin, one of Ms. Lucio’s attorneys.

    Ms. Lucio’s journey for justice continues. Be sure to send her a note letting her know you will keep fighting for her

     

    Watch: Melissa’s reaction to winning a stay of execution

     

    The post What’s Next for Melissa Lucio, Texas Woman on Death Row appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • In mid-April, members of the Texas State Guard, Army and Air Force National Guard declared themselves to be the “Military Caucus” of the Texas State Employees Union (TSEU), an affiliate of the Communications Workers of America. Taking direct aim at Republican Governor Greg Abbott, who has ordered thousands of them to police the U.S.-Mexico border, these TSEU supporters called for greater legislative oversight of such open-ended missions so that Guard members are called up only to “provide genuine service to the public good, not posturing for political gain.”

    The post How Border Deployment Led To Union Organizing In Texas appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • For Alán de León, natural disasters are a way of life. Growing up in Houston, de León knew that late summer meant hurricane season, a time when his family took special care to save money and stock up on extra food.

    In recent years, those storms have gotten worse because of the climate crisis. When Hurricane Harvey hit in August 2017, flood waters swallowed de León’s father’s house up to its roof. In February 2021, when Winter Storm Uri knocked out power across the state, de León’s family huddled in the dark, with candles as their only source of light and warmth; it was so cold de León found it unbearable simply to move.

    In more ways than one, Texas is ground zero for the climate emergency. The state is home to many of the biggest names in fossil fuels, corporations that have helped power the nation and world for decades — but have also knowingly lied about the dangers of burning those fossil fuels. Now, along with supercharged hurricanes, the climate crisis threatens Texans with extreme heat, drought, wildfires and sea-level rise on the Gulf coast. The non-profit Trust for America’s Health rates Texas among the states that are simultaneously most vulnerable to climate effects and the least prepared.

    In 2021 polling by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, 65% of Texans said they are worried about global warming — on par with the nationwide average — and clear majorities said they want politicians to do more about it. But Texas is also the site of broadscale voter suppression efforts, which contribute to leaders being unresponsive to voters’ concerns, experts and advocates say.

    “If the attitudes of our communities were proportionally represented, I think we would see more climate action,” said de León, who serves as policy and advocacy manager for MOVE Texas, a nonpartisan grassroots group that specializes in voter mobilization. “We’re not seeing that, though, and the reason, in part, is we have this democracy problem.”

    Harvey was responsible for 103 deaths in Texas, and Uri killed 246, according to official figures, though for Uri the actual toll was probably higher. Today, de León said, the psychological impact of those storms is unmistakable. When it rains, many in his community are afraid to go outside. This past winter, a forecasted cold front prompted anxiety and panic buying in stores. The weather passed without incident, but to de León it was a grim sign of the times. “If there’s a natural disaster now, the mindset is you’re on your own,” he said. “Help isn’t going to come. That’s how little faith we have that our public officials will keep us safe.”

    An anti-climate tack might not surprise in a state where Republicans boast the governorship, both US senate seats, and significant majorities in the state house and senate — not to mention the fossil fuel ties that permeate the halls of power in Austin. “There are politicians in Texas who would consider climate action an explicit threat to the industry they’re in government to promote,” said Adrian Shelley, who directs the Texas office of Public Citizen, a non-profit consumer advocacy group.

    But party control and fossil fuels’ influence alone don’t explain the Lone Star state’s slow roll on climate. Due to partisan gerrymandering, political representation at both the state and federal level is skewed away from Democrats, who more often favor climate action. In the 2020 general election, Republican congressional candidates received 53% of the popular vote — yet they were awarded 64% of seats, accounting for 23 of Texas’s 36-member congressional delegation in Washington.

    That said, many Republican voters in Texas also favor climate action. In detailed polling by Climate Nexus, 71% of Texans this February said a complete transition to clean, renewable energy should be a “top” or “important” priority for the state. Lawmakers, meanwhile, routinely pass measures to stymie efforts by cities and other municipalities wanting to make their own climate progress; one 2021 law effectively banned local governments from favoring clean energy use to lower emissions.

    Gerrymandering “reduces competition in elections and basically removes incentives for legislators to be responsive to the public”, said Samuel Wang, who directs the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, a nonpartisan research group. The project’s “Redistricting Report Cards” give Texas’s congressional and state senate maps “F” grades, indicating the maps are among the least fair nationwide.

    Gerrymandering also means the “decisive election,” Wang said, is often not the general election but the party primary. Although many Republican voters might favor climate action, it’s typically not their top voting issue. Amid America’s polarized political landscape, voters tend to back their preferred party, regardless of the candidate, so even primary winners hostile to climate action can count on voters who would otherwise favor it. “Non-competitive primaries have a strong tendency to remove climate from the conversation,” Wang said.

    Due to population growth, Texas enters the 2022 election cycle with two new congressional seats (making for a total of 38). People of color, especially Latinos, accounted for 95% of growth – yet the new congressional map includes fewer districts where non-white voters “can realistically sway election outcomes”, according to The Texas Tribune.

    Republican lawmakers who drew the state’s maps insist race wasn’t a factor. But Miguel Rivera, voting rights coordinator at the Texas Civil Rights Project, says the maps’ lines tell a different story. He says they elaborately contort to “crack” up or “pack” in communities of color. “The Texas lawmakers who voted in favor of [these maps] are giving Texans a very clear message that they’re willing to put their own agendas ahead of the will of the people,” Rivera said.

    An iron-clad rule of the climate crisis is that it weighs disproportionately on communities of color, who in the US are more likely to reside in disaster-prone areas and often, because the same communities are disproportionately poor, last in line for help when disaster does strike.

    De León, the MOVE Texas activist, lives in Texas’s 29th congressional district, whose lines cut a jagged, reverse-C around Houston’s east side — and, in doing so, pack in much of the area’s Latino population. Five years on, Hurricane Harvey damage remains plain to see in parts of the district, de León said, with some families and businesses still awaiting promised aid that was never delivered. The district is also home to a legion of petrochemical facilities and the Port of Houston, where fossil fuels are exported from Texas. This means area residents must also contend with the public health consequences of fossil fuels: cancer, respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, and more.

    Texas has also pushed through other voting policies that critics say are clearly intended to limit the franchise for minority voters. Last year, citing widely debunked claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election, Texas Republicans passed an expansive elections bill that bans drive-thru voting, curtails early voting in diverse communities (while expanding it in smaller, Republican-leaning areas), empowers partisan “poll watchers”, and criminalizes various forms of voter assistance that can be critical in helping some voters to the polls, among other measures. Many of the law’s provisions roll back policies meant to make voting safe and accessible amid the coronavirus pandemic, which were implemented in 2020 with particular effectiveness in Houston’s diverse Harris county.

    Partisan attacks on voting and other democratic norms stand in the way of needed climate action all over the country, not just in Texas. “We often differentiate our ideas about democracy and climate, but they’re not separate issues,” said Diana Faraj, voting rights program manager at the League for Conservation Voters. “The overwhelming majority of Americans want free and fair elections that represent their interests. They also want [a safe climate]. So, the suppression of votes both undercuts their power and perpetuates environmental harm.”

    In the absence of federal legislation to take on gerrymandering and other voter suppression tactics, some states have instituted independent redistricting commissions to help quell overly partisan election outcomes. In Texas, though, electoral maps remain firmly in the grip of the legislature. Numerous groups, including the Texas Civil Rights Project and the US Department of Justice, have filed legal challenges to allegedly discriminatory aspects of the state’s voting laws. Another spate of lawsuits, including from Public Citizen, target the state’s climate and energy policies. Whether these suits will be successful, and how quickly, is unclear. In the meantime, groups are mobilizing to educate and organize around these issues.

    De León’s MOVE Texas is among them. On a given day, MOVE Texas activists are registering voters across the state and engaging with local leaders to build out climate plans, despite difficulties imposed from Austin. But de León worries: “It gets to the point where you can’t fully out-organize this,” he said.

    “We can keep coming up with new ways to fight this battle, but the challenge is getting steeper and steeper every time.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Rodney Reed’s petition challenging the constitutionality of the Texas DNA testing statute. DNA testing of the murder weapon could be instrumental in proving his innocence of the 1996 murder of Stacey Stites.

    Statement from Mr. Reed’s legal team on today’s SCOTUS decision:

    “Rodney Reed has steadfastly maintained his innocence for more than 20 years, and a substantial body of evidence has emerged supporting his innocence. Mr. Reed, who is Black, was convicted in 1998 by an all-white Texas jury of the murder of Stacey Stites, who is white. Among other things, new evidence of innocence points to Stites’ white fiancé, Jimmy Fennell, as the perpetrator. But Texas and the Texas courts have refused to allow DNA testing of key crime-scene evidence, including the ligature handled by the perpetrator in the commission of the crime. And when Mr. Reed sought access to DNA testing in federal court, the federal courts wrongly threw out his claims as untimely, reasoning that he could have started his federal action while the state-court proceedings were still pending. We look forward to having the Supreme Court consider our arguments.”

    The post Statement: Supreme Court Grants Cert in Rodney Reed’s Case appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Statements from Melisssa Lucio and her attorneys

    Today, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a stay of execution for Melissa Lucio and ordered the 138th Judicial District Court of Cameron Country to consider new evidence of her innocence in the death of her daughter, Mariah.

    Statements from Ms. Lucio and her attorneys are below.

    Statement from Melissa Lucio: 

    “I thank God for my life. I have always trusted in Him. I am grateful the court has given me the chance to live and prove my innocence. Mariah is in my heart today and always. I am grateful to have more days to be a mother to my children and a grandmother to my grandchildren. I will use my time to help bring them to Christ. I am deeply grateful to everyone who prayed for me and spoke out on my behalf.” — Melissa Lucio, April 25 , 2022

    Statement from Tivon Schardl, Capital Habeas Unit chief of the Federal Defender for the Western District of Texas and one of Ms. Lucio’s attorneys:

    “We know that Melissa’s children — Mariah’s brothers and sisters — and Mariah’s grandparents, aunts and uncles are all relieved and grateful that Melissa’s life will not be taken by the State of Texas. And we believe the court honored Mariah’s memory because Melissa is innocent. Melissa is entitled to a new, fair trial. The people of Texas are entitled to a new, fair trial. Texans should be grateful and proud that the Court of Criminal Appeals has given Melissa’s legal team the opportunity to present the new evidence of Melissa’s innocence to the Cameron County district court.

    “We are profoundly grateful to the hundreds of thousands of Texans and people around the U.S. and the world who advocated for Melissa, including Representatives Jeff Leach and Joe Moody, Sen. Eddie Lucio, and more than 100 Texas legislators; 225 anti-domestic violence/sexual assault organizations, including the Texas Council on Family Violence, the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, Friendship of Women, and the Lone Star Justice Alliance; over 130 faith leaders, including Pastor Jesse Rincones of the Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas; and more than 30 groups that work on behalf of Latinos, including the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators.”

    — Tivon Schardl, Capital Habeas Unit Chief of the Federal Defender for the Western District of Texas, April 25, 2022

    Statement from Vanessa Potkin, director of special litigation at the Innocence Project and one of Ms. Lucio’s attorneys:

    “The Court of Criminal Appeals did the right thing by stopping Melissa’s execution. Medical evidence shows that Mariah’s death was consistent with an accident. But for the State’s use of false testimony, no juror would have voted to convict Melissa of capital murder because no murder occurred

    “It would have shocked the public’s conscience for Melissa to be put to death based on false and incomplete medical evidence for a crime that never even happened. All of the new evidence of her innocence has never before been considered by any court. The court’s stay allows us to continue fighting alongside Melissa to overturn her wrongful conviction.”

    —Vanessa Potkin, director of special litigation at the Innocence Project. April 25, 2022

    Statement from Prof. Sandra Babcock, director of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide and one of Ms. Lucio’s attorneys:

    “Melissa’s life matters. The court’s decision paves the way for Melissa to present evidence of her innocence that should have been heard by the jury that condemned her to death 14 years ago. As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse and intimate partner violence, and now locked away for these past 15 years, Melissa’s voice and experiences have never been valued. The court’s decision signals its willingness to finally hear Melissa’s side of the story. If the district court hears all the evidence of Melissa’s innocence, and the gender bias that infected the police investigation and prosecution, we are confident she will return home to her family.” 

    —Professor Sandra Babcock, director of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, April 25, 2022

    The Court’s Stay Order re: Application for Post-Conviction and Habeas Petition: https://tinyurl.com/42h4zb6n

    Melissa Lucio’s First Subsequent Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus can be viewed here: https://tinyurl.com/2paxuabx

    The post Melissa Lucio Granted Stay of Execution by Texas Court of Criminal Appeals appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Moms like Sabrina Butler-Smith, Kristine Bunch, and Michelle Murphy, who were all wrongly convicted for their children’s deaths, are calling on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to spare Melissa Lucio’s life in a new “Moms for Melissa” PSA.

    “Melissa experienced a mother’s worst nightmare,” the video says. “Now, time is running out.”

    In 2008, Ms. Lucio was sentenced to death largely based on statements she was coerced into making during a marathon interrogation the night her 2-year-old daughter Mariah died following a tragic fall. She faces execution in one week in Texas.

    One out of seven female exonerees were accused of murdering a child who in reality died of an unrelated accident or undiagnosed pathology, according to data from the National Registry of Exonerations.

    Watch below

     

    After the tragic death of Ms. Lucio’s daughter Mariah, police rushed to judgment and erroneously concluded that the child’s death was a murder. Officers aggressively interrogated Ms. Lucio, who was pregnant and in shock from the loss of her child, for more than five hours. After asserting her innocence more than 100 times, Ms. Lucio finally acquiesced and told interrogators, “I guess I did it” and reluctantly agreed to take responsibility for some of Mariah’s injuries. Ms. Lucio is a survivor of lifelong, repeated sexual assault and domestic violence, making her even more vulnerable to falsely confessing under such coercive conditions.

    Lacking solid physical evidence, Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos presented Ms. Lucio’s conciliatory statement to the jury as a “confession” to homicide and sought the death penalty.

    The PSA calling for justice for Ms. Lucio features the voices of 13 women and mothers, including Carmen Perez, president and CEO of The Gathering for Justice, actress Edie Falco, media mogul Yandy Smith-Harris, and Bob Bland of Masks for America, who describe motherhood as life’s “greatest joy.”

    The Moms for Melissa initiative joins a growing movement urging clemency for Ms. Lucio. A bipartisan coalition of more than 100 Texas lawmakers, hundreds of religious leaders and anti-domestic violence/sexual assault organizations from Texas and across the country have already written to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles in support of clemency.

    Gov. Greg Abbott has the power to stop the state from carrying out an irreversible injustice.

     

    Take action Now

    1. Share this PSA on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Social media toolkit here.

    2. Follow @innocenceproject on social media to stay updated on the latest information on the case.

    3. Call Gov. Abbott today by dialing  956-446-2866 to be connected or visiting savemelissa.org

    4. Add your name to her petition by texting SAVEMELISSA to 97016.

    The post WATCH: Exoneree and Activist Moms Speak Out Against Melissa Lucio’s April 27 Execution appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Yesterday on HBO’s “Last Week Tonight”, host John Oliver took aim at the false confession phenomenon, highlighting various risk factors, from coercive interrogation methods to lack of judicial oversight. Since 1989, over 3,000 innocent people have been exonerated in the U.S,  and at least 10% falsely confessed to crimes they did not commit, including Innocence Project client Christopher Tapp, who was featured on the show.  

    “Allowing the police to lie to suspects is crazy, most countries do not allow it and for good reason, it is far too powerful a tool,” said Mr. Oliver. In nearly every state, it’s legal for police to use deceptive tactics during interrogation. 

    In fact, Oregon, Illinois, and Utah just became the first states in the country to ban police deception during the interrogation of juvenile suspects, who are especially vulnerable to false confessing.  

    “The overwhelming pressure of a police interrogation coupled with their ability to invent evidence can actually make people question their own memories — that happened with Christopher Tapp who served 20 years in prison for a murder he did not commit and was heavily manipulated during his interrogation,” said Mr. Oliver about Mr. Tapp who was just 20-years old at the time of the interrogation. 

    The Innocence Project, in coalition with exonerated people, community organizers, and lawmakers, are working on a series of reforms, described below, to prevent false confessions that lead to wrongful convictions, but countless people are still fighting for their freedom after falsely confessing to crimes they did not commit. 

    There are still many incarcerated people fighting convictions that have every hallmark of a false confession like Brendan Dassey …. and Melissa Lucio whose incredible manipulated interrogation we featured in our wrongful convictions piece and is set to be executed in just 10 days,” Mr. Oliver said. 

    In 2008, Innocence Project client Melissa Lucio was sentenced to death and now faces execution on April 27 in Texas largely based on statements she was coerced into making in a marathon interrogation the night her 2-year old daughter, Mariah, died following a tragic fall. Police jumped to judgment – erroneously concluding that Mariah’s death was a murder and just two hours after her daughter’s death, Ms. Lucio was brought in for questioning. Officers aggressively interrogated Ms. Lucio, who was pregnant and in shock from the loss of her child, for over five hours. After asserting her innocence more than 100 times, Ms. Lucio finally acquiesced and told interrogators, “I guess I did it” and, reluctantly, agreed to take responsibility for various injuries on Mariah. 

    Lacking solid physical evidence, Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos presented Ms. Lucio’s conciliatory statement to the jury as a “confession” to homicide and sought the death penalty.

    Similar police tactics led to the wrongful convictions of Texan Chris Ochoa, who was threatened with the death penalty and then falsely confessed to a murder he did not commit, the infamous Exonerated Five (Central Park jogger case), and untold others. In homicide exonerations proven through DNA testing, a false confession is the most common contributing factor.

    While there are some particularly vulnerable groups to false confession, including young people and people with cognitive deficits or mental illnesses, it is important to understand that perfectly mentally capable adults provide false confessions with great frequency. Even more troubling is the fact that judges and juries uncritically believe confessions when confronted with them, since, historically, it was nearly impossible to discern a true confession from a false one.

    A person might falsely confess due to stress, exhaustion, confusion, feelings of hopelessness and inevitability, fear of a harsher punishment for a failure to confess, substance use, mental limitations, or a history trauma due to sexual abuse or domestic violence. And sometimes it is psychologically coercive methods employed by law enforcement or the feeding of facts, even unintentionally, from an interrogator to a suspect that compels the innocent to confess.

    The Innocence Project’s policy agenda to reduce the incidence of false confessions includes a range of reforms, three of which were spotlighted on “Last Week Tonight”:

    1. Recording of Interrogations

    The Innocence Project’s initial foray into reforms aimed at preventing false confessions was centered on ensuring a full electronic record of the interrogation, beginning when a reasonable person would believe herself to be in law enforcement custody and ending at the close of the interrogation, regardless of whether a confession is issued. The uninterrupted electronic recording of interrogations is a foundational reform in that it:

    • Creates a record of what transpires during the course of an interrogation;
    • Ensures that a suspect’s rights are protected in the interrogation process; 
    • Creates a possible deterrent against improper and coercive interrogation techniques that might be employed absent the presence of a recording device
    • Alerts investigators, judges and juries if the suspect has mental limitations or other vulnerabilities that make them more susceptible to a false confession.

    Currently, 30 states and the District of Columbia mandate the recording of interrogations, either by statute or court action. Federal law enforcement agencies record interrogations through Department of Justice policy. The Innocence Project will continue to advocate for laws in the remaining 20 states, including one currently pending before the New Hampshire legislature.

    The recording of custodial interrogations, however, represented only the first generation of false confession reforms. Policymakers are now also focusing their attention on regulating interrogation methods employed in the interview room and the courthouse.

    2. Regulating Interrogation Methods/Bans on Police Deception

    Most police agencies in the United States, in stark contrast to their European counterparts, are allowed by courts to employ psychologically coercive yet legally permissible interrogation techniques including knowingly lying to suspects in order to get a confession. Suspects can be told untrue statements about the presence of incriminating forensic evidence –– untested or even nonexistent –– linking them to the crime. They might also be falsely told that their co-defendant or the victim of the crime has implicated them. They can be promised leniency in exchange for a confession. These are all forms of deception, which have been used in the interrogation room and shown to compel confessions from the innocent. Frighteningly, these techniques are based on the presumption of guilt – not innocence. 

    States have begun to take notice of the deleterious effects of the use of deception during interrogations, and through the advocacy of the Innocence Project and its partners, including the Center on Wrongful Conviction, the Illinois, Oregon and Utah legislatures have banned law enforcement deception during the interrogations of minors.  It is our hope that the age of the suspect does not bear on future legislation in this area and we have been encouraged to see a series of newly introduced bills, including in Connecticut and New York, that expand the banning of law enforcement deception in the interrogation of all suspects, regardless of age. Other states currently considering legislative bans on the law enforcement deception during interrogations are California, Colorado and Delaware.   

    There are other reforms directed at regulating techniques and methods employed in the interrogation room. For instance, policymakers should limit the length of interrogations, as research shows the reliability of statements after two hours of sustained interrogation decreases. Policymakers should also implement trauma-informed interviewing methods, which not only protect victims of emotional, physical and sexual violence, but also improve the reliability of statements made by suspects of crime.

     

    3. Value of Pre-trial Reliability Hearings/Assessment of Reliability of Confession Evidence

    Finally, there are reforms to confession evidence for the courts, principally the need to assess the reliability of confession evidence. Whereas reliability is the lynchpin of admissibility for eyewitness testimony, and rules of evidence mandate a reliability finding as a threshold for forensic expert testimony to be admissible, there is no constitutional reliability requirement for the admissibility of confessions. 

    Confessions are simply assessed by the courts for “voluntariness,” and we now know from the nation’s 365 exonerations involving a false confession that these confessions were, indeed,  involuntary. These are 365 examples of ironclad proof that a voluntariness assessment is an insufficient test for the admissibility of confession evidence.  Indeed, observance of Miranda, e.g. the right to remain silent, has become a shorthand for a careful examination of the facts through assessing reliability of the evidence.

    It should be unsurprising, then, that confession evidence is uncritically assessed; 81% of proven false confessors who went to trial were convicted.  In other words, the jury system is not positioned to protect people who falsely confess, which is why the Innocence Project also seeks pre-trial reliability hearings as part of its reform agenda.

    Pretrial reliability hearings are critical because so many false confessions resulted from police contamination of the confession, as highlighted on last night’s program. Contamination could be factored into a finding that it was an involuntary confession if the suspect parrots back whatever she is told by the police, her will probably overborne. However, very few of the trial courts that presided over exoneration cases considered contamination as a factor in assessing voluntariness — most courts just found the confession to be voluntary and hence admissible.

    False confession exoneration cases, including those proven through DNA evidence, demonstrate these 365 confessions were unreliable. If courts do not begin to assess the reliability of confessions before admitting them into evidence, they will routinely admit false and fabricated confessions which will be received by judges and juries as the most persuasive evidence of guilt. Legislative proposals that would mandate the assessment of the reliability of a confession before it can be admitted into evidence are currently pending in California, Connecticut and New York.

    In addition to the critical reforms that were explored on “Last Week Tonight”, a range of other reforms, including establishing a right to counsel during interrogations, must also be implemented. A combination of reforms are needed to prevent false confessions and lawmakers must race against time to ensure the implementation of safeguards that can prevent them in the future.

    Rebecca Brown is the Innocence Project’s Director of Policy. 

    The post John Oliver: “Maddened” That It’s Legal for Police to Lie to Suspects During Interrogations appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • (Austin, Texas) Attorneys for Melissa Lucio today filed a 242-page application for a writ of habeas corpus asking the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to stay her scheduled April 27, 2022 execution and vacate her conviction and death sentence. The filing represents the first time the courts will have the opportunity to consider the new scientific and expert evidence showing that Melissa’s conviction was based on an unreliable, coerced “confession” and unscientific false evidence that misled the jury. Melissa has been condemned to die for the accidental death of her daughter, Mariah.

    “If the jury had heard evidence about the coercive tactics used in Melissa’s interrogation and the medical evidence showing that Mariah’s cause of death was consistent with an accident, they would have found there was no murder, Melissa would have been acquitted, and she would be preparing for Easter mass with her children, not facing execution. She deserves a new trial,” said Vanessa Potkin, Director of Special Litigation at the Innocence Project and one of Melissa’s attorneys.

    The petition also details how the police investigation and prosecution were infected by gender bias. “Police targeted Melissa because she did not fit their image of how a grieving mother should behave. They used interrogation tactics that replicated the dynamics of domestic violence, that told her she had no choice but to acquiesce to their insistence that she take responsibility for Mariah’s injuries. New linguistic analysis shows that while the police treated Melissa as a suspect, they treated her partner like an innocent victim—even though he was also Mariah’s caretaker, and had a history of intra-familial violence. He is now a free man,” said Professor Sandra Babcock, Director of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, and one of Ms. Lucio’s attorneys.

    “We know that corruption ran deep in the District Attorney’s Office under Armando Villalobos. We owe it to Mariah and her siblings to make sure a new panel of twelve jurors hears all the evidence of their mother’s innocence,” said Tivon Schardl, Capital Habeas Unit Chief of the Federal Defender for the Western District of Texas and one of Melissa’s attorneys.

    Melissa Lucio’s First Subsequent Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus can be viewed here: https://tinyurl.com/2paxuabx 

    Melissa Lucio case summary

    Melissa Lucio, a Mexican-American who is facing execution in Texas on April 27, 2022, was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death after her daughter, Mariah, sustained injuries from an accidental fall. Although Melissa repeatedly told the police that she did not kill her daughter, they continued to interrogate her for five hours until she agreed, falsely, to take responsibility for some of her daughter’s injuries.

    Melissa suffered a lifetime of sexual abuse and domestic violence, which made her especially vulnerable to the police’s coercive interrogation tactics. Melissa had no history of violence, but her husband, Mariah’s father, was found guilty of child endangerment and sentenced to four years, even though he had a history of assaultive behavior.

    Melissa and her family. (Image: Courtesy of the Lucio family)

    Struck by the sentencing disparity and grave doubts about the reliability of Melissa’s conviction, a bipartisan group of more than 80 members of the Texas House of Representatives and a bipartisan group of 20 members of the Texas Senate oppose Melissa’s execution. Hundreds of Texas anti-domestic violence groups, Baptist, Evangelical and Catholic leaders, Latino organizations, exonerees of wrongful convictions, and Melissa’s children are urging the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Governor Abbott to grant Melissa clemency.

    Melissa’s execution would cause further suffering for her children who lost their sister 15 years ago. It would also be the first execution of a Latina in the United States since the resumption of the death penalty in the 1970s.

    Clemency application cites new evidence supporting Melissa’s innocence claim

    On March 22, 2022, Melissa’s attorneys submitted an application for clemency to the Governor and the Board of Pardons and Paroles which includes the declarations of seven nationally recognized experts, including experts in false confessions and medical and forensic experts, who have reviewed the evidence and concluded that Melissa’s conviction was based upon:

    (1) an unreliable “confession” that is essentially a mere “regurgitation” of facts and words officers fed to her during the five hour interrogation, and

    (2) unscientific, false evidence that misled the jury into believing that Mariah must have been killed by physical abuse, when the evidence is actually consistent with a conclusion that Mariah died from medical complications after a fall.

    The application also documents that Melissa asserted her innocence more than 100 times over five hours of the coercive interrogation.

     

    In addition to the new forensic analyses, the clemency application includes declarations from five jurors stating they have grave concerns about evidence withheld from them at Melissa’s capital trial and would support relief. An additional juror, an alternate who heard the evidence, but did not join deliberations, also submitted a declaration supporting relief for Melissa.

    The District Attorney, the courts, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and the Governor must undertake a meaningful review of Melissa’s case. That review can only happen if the execution date is withdrawn or stayed.

    A rush to judgment after a tragedy

    On February 15, 2007, as Melissa was moving her family to a new home, Mariah fell down a steep outdoor staircase leading to their apartment. After the fall, Mariah’s injuries did not appear life-threatening, but two days later she fell asleep on her parents’ bed and did not wake up. Mariah had physical disabilities that made her walking unstable and she had a history of falls, including a recent fall at a preschool program where she lost consciousness. At the time of her arrest, Melissa had no history of abusing her children or violence of any kind. (App. at pp. 2, 10-12.)

    Melissa asserted her innocence over 100 times during a police interrogation. (Image: Courtesy of the Lucio family)

    Two hours after Mariah’s death, Melissa — grieving and in shock — was hauled into an interrogation room where, for over five hours, armed, male police officers stood over her, yelled at her, threatened her, berated her parenting, and repeatedly refused to accept anything less than an admission to causing her daughter’s death. Melissa was especially vulnerable to the aggressive, intimidating, and psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics of the police and male authority figures due to her history of abuse, trauma, low IQ, and abnormally high levels of suggestibility and compliance. (App. at pp. 15-17.)

    After hours of continuous interrogation, Melissa acquiesced, followed their directions, and gave in to their demands. She was sleep-deprived — it was early in the morning by then — and pregnant with twins, emotionally and physically exhausted by the threats and manipulation. (App. at pp. 15-17, 39.)

    “Police targeted Melissa because she did not fit their image of how a grieving mother should behave.”

    Two experts on false confessions (including police trainer and interrogation expert, David Thompson, and Dr. Gisli Gudjonsson, one of the world’s leading experts on false confessions) have analyzed Melissa’s interrogation and concluded that her admissions are “unreliable” and simply a “regurgitation” of the words and facts that interrogators fed to her throughout a highly coercive interrogation process. (App. at pp. 16, 39-42.)

    Lacking physical evidence or eyewitnesses connecting Melissa to Mariah’s death, Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos — who is now serving a 13-year federal sentence for bribery and extortion — characterized Melissa’s acquiescence during the interrogation as a “confession” to murder. (App. at p. 19.)

    Mariah’s death was declared a murder before the autopsy even began

    The application states: “[The State’s Medical Examiner] Dr. Farley, who was told going into autopsy that Melissa had ‘confessed’ to abusing Mariah, and who was accompanied in the autopsy suite by two of the interrogating officers, assumed everything she observed was evidence of abuse and ignored all evidence to the contrary.” (App. at p. 20.)

    At Melissa’s trial, the jury was told that Mariah’s injuries could only be explained by child abuse and complications from an accidental fall were impossible. That testimony was false. Dr. Farley failed in her duty to rule out nonviolent medical explanations for Mariah’s condition before rushing to agree with law enforcement’s judgment of abuse. (App. at pp. 19-20, 28.)

    Seven experts, including nationally recognized medical and forensic scientists, have now reviewed the evidence in Melissa’s case. Dr. Michael Laposata, the chairman of the Department of Pathology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, concluded that at the time of her death Mariah had indications of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC), a disorder that causes extensive bruising following a head trauma, like the injury that Mariah suffered from her fall, or an infection. (App. at p. 21.)

    As Dr. Laposata stated in his declaration, DIC can cause profound bruising throughout the body with no trauma whatsoever. “In patients with DIC, routine handling at home or in a hospital setting can cause significant bruising. It is not possible to tell the difference between a bruise from DIC and a bruise from abuse.” (Exhibit 6 at p. 2.)

    Dr. Janice Ophoven, a pediatric forensic pathologist, concluded that Mariah’s autopsy indicates she was in DIC at the time of her death. Her records also show she had a persistent high fever, and was sufficiently dehydrated to experience shock. The application states: “[S]teeped in extrinsic, biasing information, [Dr. Farley] failed to review any of Mariah’s medical history to look for any explanation or contributing cause to her injuries, conduct any basic laboratory tests to diagnose a coagulation disorder, or even perform simple testing to confirm the presence of infection or sepsis.” (App. at p. 28.)

    Five jurors who served on the jury that sentenced Melissa to die and one alternate juror have expressed grave concerns about the evidence that they were not allowed to hear. Juror Johnny Galvan stated that “[t]he fact that you can’t pinpoint what caused Mariah’s death means that [Melissa] shouldn’t be executed.” Juror Alejandro Saldivar stated, “I think if I heard this evidence I may have decided differently.” (App. at p. 3.)

    Melissa’s lifetime of sexual abuse and domestic violence made her especially vulnerable to coercive interrogation tactics

    Melissa’s uncle and stepfather sexually abused her over a period of years, starting when she was six years old. She told her mother, but nothing was done. As a young teenager, she was raped again by an adult man. (App. at p. 44.)

    At age 16, Melissa got married, becoming a child bride, to escape the abuse she suffered and witnessed in her childhood home. (App. at p. 45.) Melissa’s first husband was a violent alcoholic, according to testimony at trial (App. at p. 45.) He abandoned Melissa after she gave birth to five children. Melissa’s next partner continued the cycle of violence and abuse. She had seven children by her second husband. He beat Melissa, choked her, threatened to kill her, and repeatedly raped her. Some of Melissa’s children also reported that he struck them. (App. at pp. 45-47.)

    Melissa Lucio with her nephew Greg Chavez. (Image: Courtesy of the Lucio family)

    The family sunk deeper into poverty and was intermittently homeless. Melissa worked cleaning houses and sought other jobs when she could. Her partner Robert was jailed for months at a time. By the time Melissa was 35, she was struggling with abuse, cognitive and psychological impairments, addiction, and poverty. She had given birth to 12 children and suffered multiple miscarriages. (App. at p. 9.)

    Melissa’s statements have the hallmarks of a false confession

    Over five hours, Melissa asserted her innocence 86 times verbally and 35 times non-verbally (shaking her head), but police refused to accept any response that was not an admission of guilt—suggesting to Melissa that the interrogation would not stop unless she told them what they wanted to hear. (App. at p. 15.) While the vast majority of interrogations last 30 minutes to up to two hours, interrogations that elicit confessions later proven false last much longer. “[T]he length of Melissa’s nighttime interrogation further increased the risk that she would falsely incriminate herself.” (App at pp. 16, 36-37.)

    The interrogating officers used manipulative, psychological techniques known to cause false confessions and disregarded Melissa’s multiple vulnerabilities, including her shock and grief over her daughter’s death hours earlier, physical and emotional exhaustion, sleep deprivation, her high levels of suggestibility and compliance, and low IQ. (App. at pp. 37-39.) According to experts, Melissa’s lifetime of sexual abuse, starting at six years old, and domestic violence at the hands of two partners, made her extremely vulnerable and susceptible to falsely confessing during an interrogation by male police officers, some armed. One detective yelled at her: “[i]f I beat you half to death like that little child was beat, I bet you you’d die too.” (App. at pp. 35, 42-47.)

    Doctor Gisli Gudjonsson, one of the world’s leading experts in false confessions, and David Thompson, an expert from one of the nation’s top interrogation training schools, have reviewed the record of Melissa’s case and determined that Melissa “was relentlessly pressured and extensively manipulated” throughout the many hours of interrogation and her statements bear the hallmarks of a coerced-compliant false confession. (App. at pp. 15-16.)

    “[T]he length of Melissa’s nighttime interrogation further increased the risk that she would falsely incriminate herself.”

    Dr. Gudjonsson concluded that Melissa’s case presents a “very high” risk of false confession and in his “extensive forensic evaluation of cases of disputed confessions internationally, the number, severity, and combination of the risk factors involved during the lengthy interrogation are exceptional.” (App. at 16.) He further explained Melissa’s “history of negative/traumatic life events is associated with increased level of suggestibility, compliance, and false confession . . . because trauma significantly reduces the resilience of the trauma victims to cope with interrogative pressure.” (App. at p. 37.)

    Mr. Thompson noted, “[r]epetitive threats combined with promises or suggestions of leniency are known to incentivize innocent subjects to confess. These tactics, alongside Ms. Lucio’s susceptibility and her state of mind in a lengthy interrogation shortly after her daughter’s death, are known to have a substantial psychological impact on a subject’s decision-making” and found her statements are a result of fact-feeding or other tactics used by investigators. (Exhibit 11 at pp. 5-6.)

    False confessions elicited by guilt-presumptive police interrogations—like the interrogation at issue here—are a primary cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the 67 women listed on the National Registry of Exonerations who were exonerated after a murder conviction, over one quarter (17/67) involved false confessions and nearly one third (20/67) involved child victims.

    What the jury never heard

    The jury never heard how Melissa’s history of trauma and abuse shaped her reactions immediately following her daughter’s death. Without that context, the jury convicted Melissa of capital murder. (App. at p. 13.)

    Melissa’s trial attorneys were not prepared for the penalty phase of the trial. Lead counsel hamstrung his mitigation specialist and expert until weeks before the trial began. As a result, Melissa’s mitigation specialist never completed her investigation and the jury never learned about the extent of Melissa’s history of child sexual abuse and domestic violence.

    Melissa Lucio poses for a portrait behind glass at the Mountain View Unit in Gatesville, Texas. (Image: Ilana Panich-Linsman for The Innocence Project)

    The omission of this mitigating evidence was particularly damaging because the prosecution had a weak case for death. Melissa had no prior record of violence and the State’s sole evidence of future dangerousness was the death of Mariah and a prior conviction for driving under the influence. (App. at p. 62.)

    So far, the courts’ hands have been tied

    A majority of judges have agreed that the trial court was wrong to exclude the psychologist’s expert testimony, which would have provided an explanation for Melissa’s acquiescence during the coercive interrogation. “The State presented no physical evidence or witness testimony establishing that [Melissa] abused Mariah or any of her children, let alone killed Mariah,” seven Fifth Circuit judges wrote. By excluding expert explanations for Melissa’s remarks during her interrogation, the trial court wrongfully barred Melissa’s right to present her defense. (App. at p. 13.) But a divided Fifth Circuit believed that current federal law cuts off the courts’ ability to correct this injustice.

    On February 18, 2022, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) issued a resolution calling on officials not to execute Melissa before the Commission has had an opportunity to reach a final decision in her case. The Commission considered the evidence that Melissa’s “life was shaped by physical, emotional, and sexual abuse,” and that the same experiences shaped her response to a coercive interrogation.

    Disparate sentencing in Melissa’s case

    Melissa regrets not getting medical care for Mariah earlier, but she is not guilty of murder. Her husband, Mariah’s father, was found guilty of child endangerment and sentenced to four years, even though he had a history of assaultive behavior. At most, a charge of neglect was more appropriate for Melissa than murder. (App. at p. 3.)

    Corrupt Cameron County DA Villalobos personally led Melissa’s prosecution. In 2007, in exchange for a bribe, he enabled the release and flight from justice of Amit Livingston, a man who had killed his estranged girlfriend. As DA Villalobos was scheming to facilitate the release of this male batterer, he was pursuing the death penalty against a woman who was a lifelong victim of sexual abuse and domestic violence. Former DA Villalobos is now serving a 13-year federal sentence for bribery and extortion. (App. at p. 19.)

    Melissa is a person of deep Catholic faith who walks with God

    Melissa grew up without much religious instruction, but began her walk with God on September 26, 2014. She is a person of deep Catholic faith who attends Catholic mass services every Monday and meets individually with a pastor, Deacon Ronnie, on Thursdays and Sundays. In 2015, Melissa and other women on death row formed a Bible study group where, she says, “we all help each other.” Her main concern now is for her family, especially having her children support each other. Because of Melissa, her son John has also devoted himself to God, and she reads a Bible verse to him at the beginning of each of their visits. (App. at pp. 54-61.)

    Reps. Jeff Leach, Joe Moody, Lacey Hull, Victoria Criado, Rafael Anchia, Toni Rose, and James White prayed with Melissa Lucio at Mountain View Unit in Gatesville, Texas, where the state houses women on death row. (Image: Courtesy of Rep. Jeff Leach)

    Widespread support across Texas for clemency

    Alarmed by the prospect of executing an innocent woman, who is a lifelong survivor of sexual abuse and domestic violence, a wide and diverse array of Texans are urging the Governor and the Board to grant Melissa clemency, including:

    • bipartisan group of more than 80 members of the Texas House of Representatives and 20 State Senators; 225 anti-domestic violence/sexual assault organizations from Texas and across the country;
    • Over 130 Baptist, Evangelical and Catholic faith leaders in Texas, including more than 50 Baptist leaders, the Executive Director of the Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas, and the Director of the Rio Grande Valley Baptist Association;
    • More than 30 groups that work on behalf of Latinos in Texas and across the U.S., including the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators (NHCSL);
    • Eighteen people wrongfully convicted of a crime in a Texas state court, including Hannah Overton and Michael Morton; and
    • Twenty-six death row exonerees, including two from Texas.

    Melissa’s children are also urging the Governor and the Board not to execute their mother. They are Mariah’s brothers and sisters and Texas law requires that their wishes be taken into account. (App. at pp. 1-2, 49-51.)

    More than 200,000 people, including more than 33,000 in Texas, have signed an Innocence Project petition urging clemency for Melissa.

     

    Abused Latinas and wrongful convictions

    Of the 67 women listed on the National Registry of Exonerations who were exonerated after a murder conviction, over one quarter (17/67) involved false confessions and nearly one third (20/67) involved child victims.

    Advocates of Melissa Lucio were seen during the yearly Cesar Chavez march in San Antonio, Texas on March 26, 2022. (Image: Christopher Lee for the Innocence Project.)

    Roughly one in three Latinas will suffer intimate partner violence in her lifetime, but the rates are higher for Latinas like Melissa who struggle with poverty and who were sexually abused as children. Also, research indicates that police tend to disbelieve women of color when they report domestic violence. At Melissa’s death penalty trial, the prosecution belittled the evidence of Melissa’s history of sexual abuse and domestic violence. (See trial transcript vol. 39 pp. 161-62.)

    According to the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1973, 187 people have been exonerated from death row, including 16 in Texas, and the number of people whose lives were taken before they were able to prove their innocence is unknown.

    The post Melissa Lucio Petitions Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for Stay of Execution and Reversal of Her Conviction and Death Sentence appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • A bipartisan group of lawmakers urged the Pardons and Parole Board to recommend granting clemency.

    A bipartisan group, comprising the majority of members in the Texas Senate, have come forward, united, in support of clemency for Melissa Lucio, who is scheduled to be executed for a crime that never occurred on April 27, 2022. Twenty, including eight Republicans and twelve Democrats, of the 31 Texas state senators signed a letter to Gov. Greg Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles asking to grant Ms. Lucio clemency, voicing the urgent need to stop this irreversible injustice.

    These state senators join the more than 80 bipartisan state representatives, who recently sent a similar letter urging the same: “We, as members of the Texas Senate, urge you to recommend that Governor Abbott cancel Melissa Lucio’s execution by either commuting her sentence or granting her a reprieve. Ms. Lucio currently is scheduled to be executed by the State of Texas on April 27, 2022. New evidence that has emerged since Ms. Lucio’s trial points to the fact that her daughter, Mariah, died after a tragic accident and not by her mother’s hands. A commutation or a reprieve would give her lawyers the time they need to develop all the evidence that could
    prove Ms. Lucio’s innocence.”

    Read the senate letter here or below.

    The post Bipartisan Texas State Senators Join State Representatives in Urging Board of Pardons & Paroles: Spare Melissa Lucio appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Today, Melissa Lucio’s attorneys submitted a supplemental clemency application to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Governor Abbott. Melissa is facing execution on April 27, 2022 for the accidental death of her daughter, Mariah, who died from complications after a fall down steep outdoor stairs.

    The supplemental application includes a new declaration from a fifth juror — Melissa’s jury foreperson — who joins the calls of four other jurors and the alternate to halt Melissa’s pending execution or grant her a new trial where new evidence of her innocence can be considered.

    Melissa’s supplemental application also includes “new declarations from key witnesses who demonstrate that the prosecution’s case against Melissa was based on false or misleading testimony” and introduces “new scientific evidence of Melissa’s innocence, analysis of the gender bias that infected Melissa’s investigation and prosecution, and additional community support for clemency.” (Supp. App. at p. 1.)

    “I believe that Ms. Lucio deserves a new trial and for a new jury to hear this evidence.”

    On March 22, 2022, Melissa filed her clemency application, which included “seven new reports, including from nationally recognized medical professionals, a pathologist, a police trainer, clinical psychologist, and neuroscientist that disprove every element of the prosecution’s case against her. It also explained that Melissa’s investigation, prosecution, and sentence were infected with bias, perhaps most evident in the disparate treatment between Melissa and Mariah’s father, Robert. And it included support for clemency from every single one of Melissa’s children; four of the jurors who voted to sentence Melissa to death; and a wide range of individuals and organizations, from faith leaders to anti-violence advocates.” (Supp. App. at p. 1.) A bipartisan group of more than 80 Texas House of Representatives have also asked the Board to grant Melissa clemency.

    Melissa Lucio’s Supplement to Application for Commutation of Death Sentence to a Lesser Penalty or, in the Alternative, a 120-Reprieve from Execution can be viewed here: https://tinyurl.com/2s39jsah

    Supplemental Clemency Exhibits can be viewed: here

    Melissa’s Clemency Application, which was filed on March 22, 2022, can be accessed here.

    Clemency Exhibits Volume I: here

    Clemency Exhibits Volume II: https://tinyurl.com/45vrbjhn

    PDF of Table of Contents/Index: https://tinyurl.com/msfkzyhw

    Jury Foreperson Joins Four Other Jurors in Calling for Relief for Melissa Lucio

    Melissa’s supplemental clemency application includes a new declaration from Melissa Quintanilla, who was the foreperson of the jury that convicted Melissa and sentenced her to death. Ms. Quintanilla’s declaration states: “I was disheartened to learn that there was additional evidence that was not presented at trial. I believe that Ms. Lucio deserves a new trial and for a new jury to hear this evidence. Knowing what I know now, I don’t think she should be executed.” (Supp. App. at p. 11. Supp. Exhibit 13 at pp. 2-3.) There are now five jurors who voted to sentence Melissa to death, and one alternate, who support relief for her.

    Melissa’s Conviction and Sentence Rested on False, Misleading, and Incomplete Testimony

     

    Melissa’s supplemental application includes additional declarations that the prosecution concealed evidence from the defense and presented false and misleading testimony to obtain her conviction and death sentence, including:

    • The declaration of Lucy Arreola, a former CPS investigator who was assigned to investigate Mariah’s death. Ms. Arreola interviewed Melissa’s children and confirmed they did not allege physical abuse by Melissa and corroborated her account of the events surrounding Mariah’s death. Ms. Arreola’s reports and recordings were not disclosed to Melissa’s trial counsel. (Supp. App. at pp. 13-14. Supp. Exhibit 8.)
    • Journalist Chandra Bozelko provided a declaration that reveals the prosecution misrepresented Melissa’s jail records during their closing arguments at the penalty phase. Later, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals relied on the mischaracterization of Melissa’s jail records to support the jury’s finding that Melissa would likely commit future acts of violence if sentenced to life in prison. As Ms. Bozelko details, Melissa had no record of violence in the jail. (Supp. App. at p. 15. Supp. Exhibit 17.)
    • A therapist who met with Melissa before her 2008 trial provided a declaration that the prosecution’s use of his reports was “misleading.” The prosecution used the therapist’s reports to claim that Melissa had denied being sexually abused as a child when, in fact, Melissa reported to the therapist that she had been. (Supp. App. at pp. 15-16. Supp. Exhibit 11.)

     

    New Expert Reports: As a Survivor of Childhood Abuse and Domestic Violence, Melissa was Uniquely Vulnerable to Police Interrogation Tactics

    Melissa’s supplemental application also includes the reports of two experts in clinical psychology, Dr. Bethany Brand and Dr. Lucy Guarnera, who, respectively, explain how Melissa’s history of childhood sexual abuse and domestic violence made her uniquely vulnerable to the pressure tactics used in the police interrogation and explain the recent evolution of scientific research linking trauma, like Melissa endured, to false confession risk. Dr. Brand notes that Melissa “endured a truly horrendous level of extreme and frequent childhood sexual abuse.”    Dr. Brand concludes, “[t]he paramedics and detectives who opined that Melissa did not show as much emotion as they thought a mother should show had no awareness of her complex history of trauma, her severe mental illnesses, nor that Melissa had survived daily abuse and degradation by dissociating and suppressing strong emotion.”  (Supp. App. at p. 5. Supp. Exhibit 2 at 16.)

    Dr. Guarnera, an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, explains new scientific research, not available at the time of Melissa’s trial, on the link between trauma and false confessions. Dr. Guarnera notes that “the dynamics of the Reid techniques of police interrogation [which were used during Melissa’s interrogation]—particularly when the interrogation is carried out by male police officers—mirror precisely the dynamics of intimate partner violence.” (Supp. App. at p. 5. Supp. Exhibit 6 at 4.)

    In addition, Dr. Guarnera provides critical information about how the factors leading to Melissa’s wrongful conviction are reflected in the national data on wrongful convictions of women accused of killing children. Dr. Guarnera cites a 2014 analysis of the National Registry of Exonerations that indicates “women are nearly twice as likely as men to be wrongfully convicted of child homicide (30% vs. 16%), and three times as likely as men to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never occurred (63% vs. 21%). In over half (56%) of these no-crime exonerations of women, the supposed victims were children. Further, in one out of seven formal exonerations of women, the woman was accused of murdering a child who in reality died of an unrelated accident or undiagnosed pathology.” (Supp. App. at p. 6. Supp. Exhibit 6 at 5.)

    New Expert Report: Abuse of Trial Court’s Discretion to Permit Texas Ranger to Testify About His Ability to Determine Melissa’s Guilt or Innocence by Her Facial Expressions

    Melissa’s supplemental application also includes a declaration from David Faigman, Chancellor and Dean of the University of California Hastings College of Law, who served as a Senior Advisor to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology’s Report, “Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods,” who concludes that “it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to permit Ranger Escalon to testify regarding his ability to determine Ms. Lucio’s guilt or innocence by interpreting her facial expressions and demeanor.” (Supp. App. at pp. 6-7. Supp. Exhibit 3 at 2.) Professor Faigman further concludes, “[t]he prejudicial nature of this error was compounded by the fact that the substance of the scientific testimony in question was false as a matter of neuroscientific consensus.” (Supp. App. at p. 7. Supp. Exhibit 3 at p. 2) (emphasis added).

    Gender Bias Affected Melissa’s Investigation and Prosecution

    Melissa’s supplemental application states, “[f]rom the moment they arrived at the scene of Mariah’s death, police and first responders formed judgments about [Melissa] that were rooted in their perceptions of how a grieving mother should behave. These visceral impressions led them to target her as a suspect even before they had gathered any evidence in the case.” (Supp. App. at p. 7.) In contrast, they treated Robert Alvarez, Melissa’s partner and Mariah’s father, as a victim and expressed empathy for his loss, even though he had a history of familial violence. (Supp. App. at pp. 7-8.)

    A declaration submitted by forensic linguist Professor Robert Leonard concludes that the language the police used while interrogating Robert is largely consistent with an effort to gather information, rather than assign blame. On the other hand, Professor Leonard states that the officers interrogating Melissa “used language that sought to blame her for Mariah’s injuries. They rejected her repeated assertions of innocence.” (Supp. App. at p. 9.)  They also “repeatedly invoked Melissa’s caretaking role during their interrogation, seeking to provoke self-blame—and a confession—for failing to live up to her role as a mother.” (Supp. App. at p. 9. Supp. Exhibit 4 at p. 21.)

    In a stunning analysis of differential treatment, Professor Leonard notes that the interrogating officers “did not allow [Melissa] to complete her thoughts: whereas the police only interrupted Robert once, they interrupted Melissa over 70 times while she was trying to answer or defend herself.” (Supp. App. at p. 9. Supp Exhibit 4 at p. 10.) Today, although both parents were responsible for Mariah’s care, Melissa is facing execution and Robert is a free man.

    Growing Calls for Clemency from Survivor Organizations

    Melissa’s supplemental application cites the growing support for clemency from community groups working to address family violence and sexual assault in Texas. In a letter to Governor Abbott, the Texas Council on Family Violence and the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault wrote: “Melissa Lucio’s looming execution date is an opportunity to send a strong statement of compassion for a victim who suffered a lifetime of violence without diminishing the tragic and complex outcome of her case.” (Supp. App. at p. 12. Supp. Exhibit 1.)

    The supplemental application also includes a letter from four women who were wrongfully convicted of the murder of their own children who write: “We have stood in Melissa’s shoes, facing accusations of causing harm to our child when, in reality, no crime had occurred, or someone else was responsible. Like Melissa, some of us experienced lifelong trauma from sexual and physical abuse prior to our wrongful convictions.” (Supp. App. at p. 13. Supp. Exhibit 10.) Later today, a letter supporting clemency will be submitted by the Lone Star Justice Alliance, which includes 40 organizations and experts in Texas who work with survivors of human trafficking and domestic violence.

    A case overview appears below my signature. Thank you for considering coverage of this new information in Melissa Lucio’s innocence case and letting me know if you would like to speak with one of her attorneys.

    Best wishes,

    Laura

    laura.burstein@squirepb.com

    (202) 669-3411

    Melissa Lucio Case Summary

    A Victim of Sexual Abuse and Domestic Violence Wrongly Convicted and Condemned to Die for the Accidental Death of Her Daughter

    Introduction

    Melissa Lucio, a Mexican-American who is facing execution in Texas on April 27, 2022, was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death after her daughter, Mariah, sustained injuries from an accidental fall. Although Melissa repeatedly told the police that she did not kill her daughter, they continued to interrogate her for five hours until she agreed, falsely, to take responsibility for some of her daughter’s injuries.

    Melissa suffered a lifetime of sexual abuse and domestic violence, which made her especially vulnerable to the police’s coercive interrogation tactics. Melissa had no history of violence, but her husband, Mariah’s father, was found guilty of child endangerment and sentenced to four years, even though he had a history of assaultive behavior.

     

    Struck by the sentencing disparity and grave doubts about the reliability of Melissa’s conviction, a bipartisan group of more than 80 members of the Texas House of Representatives oppose Melissa’s execution. Hundreds of Texas anti-domestic violence groups, Baptist, Evangelical and Catholic leaders, Latino organizations, exonerees of wrongful convictions, and Melissa’s children are urging the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Governor Abbott to grant Melissa clemency.

    Melissa’s execution would cause further suffering for her children who lost their sister 15 years ago. It would also be the first execution of a Latina in the United States since the resumption of the death penalty in the 1970s.

    Clemency Application Cites New Evidence Supporting Melissa’s Innocence Claim

    On March 22, 2022, Melissa’s attorneys submitted an application for clemency to the Governor and the Board of Pardons and Paroles which includes the declarations of seven nationally recognized experts, including experts in false confessions and medical and forensic experts, who have reviewed the evidence and concluded that Melissa’s conviction was based upon:

    (1) an unreliable “confession” that is essentially a mere “regurgitation” of facts and words officers fed to her during the five hour interrogation, and

    (2) unscientific, false evidence that misled the jury into believing that Mariah must have been killed by physical abuse, when the evidence is actually consistent with a conclusion that Mariah died from medical complications after a fall.

    The application also documents that Melissa asserted her innocence more than 100 times over five hours of the coercive interrogation.

    In addition to the new forensic analyses, the clemency application includes declarations from five jurors stating they have grave concerns about evidence withheld from them at Melissa’s capital trial and would support relief. An additional juror, an alternate who heard the evidence, but did not join deliberations, also submitted a declaration supporting relief for Melissa.

    The District Attorney, the courts, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and the Governor must undertake a meaningful review of Melissa’s case. That review can only happen if the execution date is withdrawn or stayed.

    A Rush to Judgment After a Tragedy

    On February 15, 2007, as Melissa was moving her family to a new home, Mariah fell down a steep outdoor staircase leading to their apartment. After the fall, Mariah’s injuries did not appear life-threatening, but two days later she fell asleep on her parents’ bed and did not wake up. Mariah had physical disabilities that made her walking unstable and she had a history of falls, including a recent fall at a preschool program where she lost consciousness. At the time of her arrest, Melissa had no history of abusing her children or violence of any kind. (App. at pp. 2, 10-12.)

    Two hours after Mariah’s death, Melissa — grieving and in shock — was hauled into an interrogation room where, for over five hours, armed, male police officers stood over her, yelled at her, threatened her, berated her parenting, and repeatedly refused to accept anything less than an admission to causing her daughter’s death. Melissa was especially vulnerable to the aggressive, intimidating, and psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics of the police and male authority figures due to her history of abuse, trauma, low IQ, and abnormally high levels of suggestibility and compliance. (App. at pp. 15-17.)

    After hours of continuous interrogation, Melissa acquiesced, followed their directions, and gave in to their demands. She was sleep-deprived — it was early in the morning by then — and pregnant with twins, emotionally and physically exhausted by the threats and manipulation. (App. at pp. 15-17, 39.)

    Two experts on false confessions (including police trainer and interrogation expert, David Thompson, and Dr. Gisli Gudjonsson, one of the world’s leading experts on false confessions) have analyzed Melissa’s interrogation and concluded that her admissions are “unreliable” and simply a “regurgitation” of the words and facts that interrogators fed to her throughout a highly coercive interrogation process. (App. at pp. 16, 39-42.)

    Lacking physical evidence or eyewitnesses connecting Melissa to Mariah’s death, Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos — who is now serving a 13-year federal sentence for bribery and extortion — characterized Melissa’s acquiescence during the interrogation as a “confession” to murder. (App. at p. 19.)

    Mariah’s Death Was Declared a Murder Before the Autopsy Even Began

    The application states: “[The State’s Medical Examiner] Dr. Farley, who was told going into autopsy that Melissa had ‘confessed’ to abusing Mariah, and who was accompanied in the autopsy suite by two of the interrogating officers, assumed everything she observed was evidence of abuse and ignored all evidence to the contrary.” (App. at p. 20.)

    At Melissa’s trial, the jury was told that Mariah’s injuries could only be explained by child abuse and complications from an accidental fall were impossible. That testimony was false. Dr. Farley failed in her duty to rule out nonviolent medical explanations for Mariah’s condition before rushing to agree with law enforcement’s judgment of abuse. (App. at pp. 19-20, 28.)

    Seven experts, including nationally recognized medical and forensic scientists, have now reviewed the evidence in Melissa’s case. Dr. Michael Laposata, the chairman of the Department of Pathology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, concluded that at the time of her death Mariah had indications of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC), a disorder that causes extensive bruising following a head trauma, like the injury that Mariah suffered from her fall, or an infection. (App. at p. 21.)

    As Dr. Laposata stated in his declaration, DIC can cause profound bruising throughout the body with no trauma whatsoever. “In patients with DIC, routine handling at home or in a hospital setting can cause significant bruising. It is not possible to tell the difference between a bruise from DIC and a bruise from abuse.” (Exhibit 6 at p. 2.)

    Dr. Janice Ophoven, a pediatric forensic pathologist, concluded that Mariah’s autopsy indicates she was in DIC at the time of her death. Her records also show she had a persistent high fever, and was sufficiently dehydrated to experience shock. The application states: “[S]teeped in extrinsic, biasing information, [Dr. Farley] failed to review any of Mariah’s medical history to look for any explanation or contributing cause to her injuries, conduct any basic laboratory tests to diagnose a coagulation disorder, or even perform simple testing to confirm the presence of infection or sepsis.” (App. at p. 28.)

    Five jurors who served on the jury that sentenced Melissa to die and one alternate juror have expressed grave concerns about the evidence that they were not allowed to hear. Juror Johnny Galvan stated that “[t]he fact that you can’t pinpoint what caused Mariah’s death means that [Melissa] shouldn’t be executed.” Juror Alejandro Saldivar stated, “I think if I heard this evidence I may have decided differently.” (App. at p. 3.)

    Melissa’s Lifetime of Sexual Abuse and Domestic Violence Made Her Especially Vulnerable to Coercive Interrogation Tactics

    Melissa’s uncle and stepfather sexually abused her over a period of years, starting when she was six years old. She told her mother, but nothing was done. As a young teenager, she was raped again by an adult man. (App. at p. 44.)

    At age 16, Melissa got married, becoming a child bride, to escape the abuse she suffered and witnessed in her childhood home. (App. at p. 45.) Melissa’s first husband was a violent alcoholic, according to testimony at trial (App. at p. 45.) He abandoned Melissa after she gave birth to five children. Melissa’s next partner continued the cycle of violence and abuse. She had seven children by her second husband. He beat Melissa, choked her, threatened to kill her, and repeatedly raped her. Some of Melissa’s children also reported that he struck them. (App. at pp. 45-47.)

     

    The family sunk deeper into poverty and was intermittently homeless. Melissa worked cleaning houses and sought other jobs when she could. Her partner Robert was jailed for months at a time. By the time Melissa was 35, she was struggling with abuse, cognitive and psychological impairments, addiction, and poverty. She had given birth to 12 children and suffered multiple miscarriages. (App. at p. 9.)

    Melissa’s Statements Have the Hallmarks of a False Confession

    Over five hours, Melissa asserted her innocence 86 times verbally and 35 times non-verbally (shaking her head), but police refused to accept any response that was not an admission of guilt—suggesting to Melissa that the interrogation would not stop unless she told them what they wanted to hear. (App. at p. 15.) While the vast majority of interrogations last 30 minutes to up to two hours, interrogations that elicit confessions later proven false last much longer. “[T]he length of Melissa’s nighttime interrogation further increased the risk that she would falsely incriminate herself.” (App at pp. 16, 36-37.)

    The interrogating officers used manipulative, psychological techniques known to cause false confessions and disregarded Melissa’s multiple vulnerabilities, including her shock and grief over her daughter’s death hours earlier, physical and emotional exhaustion, sleep deprivation, her high levels of suggestibility and compliance, and low IQ. (App. at pp. 37-39.) According to experts, Melissa’s lifetime of sexual abuse, starting at six years old, and domestic violence at the hands of two partners, made her extremely vulnerable and susceptible to falsely confessing during an interrogation by male police officers, some armed. One detective yelled at her: “[i]f I beat you half to death like that little child was beat, I bet you you’d die too.” (App. at pp. 35, 42-47.)

     

    Doctor Gisli Gudjonsson, one of the world’s leading experts in false confessions, and David Thompson, an expert from one of the nation’s top interrogation training schools, have reviewed the record of Melissa’s case and determined that Melissa “was relentlessly pressured and extensively manipulated” throughout the many hours of interrogation and her statements bear the hallmarks of a coerced-compliant false confession. (App. at pp. 15-16.)

    Dr. Gudjonsson concluded that Melissa’s case presents a “very high” risk of false confession and in his “extensive forensic evaluation of cases of disputed confessions internationally, the number, severity, and combination of the risk factors involved during the lengthy interrogation are exceptional.” (App. at 16.) He further explained Melissa’s “history of negative/traumatic life events is associated with increased level of suggestibility, compliance, and false confession . . . because trauma significantly reduces the resilience of the trauma victims to cope with interrogative pressure.” (App. at p. 37.)

    Mr. Thompson noted, “[r]epetitive threats combined with promises or suggestions of leniency are known to incentivize innocent subjects to confess. These tactics, alongside Ms. Lucio’s susceptibility and her state of mind in a lengthy interrogation shortly after her daughter’s death, are known to have a substantial psychological impact on a subject’s decision-making” and found her statements are a result of fact-feeding or other tactics used by investigators. (Exhibit 11 at pp. 5-6.)

    False confessions elicited by guilt-presumptive police interrogations—like the interrogation at issue here—are a primary cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the 67 women listed on the National Registry of Exonerations who were exonerated after a murder conviction, over one quarter (17/67) involved false confessions and nearly one third (20/67) involved child victims.

    What the Jury Never Heard

    The jury never heard how Melissa’s history of trauma and abuse shaped her reactions immediately following her daughter’s death. Without that context, the jury convicted Melissa of capital murder. (App. at p. 13.)

    Melissa’s trial attorneys were not prepared for the penalty phase of the trial. Lead counsel hamstrung his mitigation specialist and expert until weeks before the trial began. As a result, Melissa’s mitigation specialist never completed her investigation and the jury never learned about the extent of Melissa’s history of child sexual abuse and domestic violence.

    The omission of this mitigating evidence was particularly damaging because the prosecution had a weak case for death. Melissa had no prior record of violence and the State’s sole evidence of future dangerousness was the death of Mariah and a prior conviction for driving under the influence. (App. at p. 62.)

    So Far, the Courts’ Hands Have Been Tied

    A majority of judges have agreed that the trial court was wrong to exclude the psychologist’s expert testimony, which would have provided an explanation for Melissa’s acquiescence during the coercive interrogation. “The State presented no physical evidence or witness testimony establishing that [Melissa] abused Mariah or any of her children, let alone killed Mariah,” seven Fifth Circuit judges wrote. By excluding expert explanations for Melissa’s remarks during her interrogation, the trial court wrongfully barred Melissa’s right to present her defense. (App. at p. 13.) But a divided Fifth Circuit believed that current federal law cuts off the courts’ ability to correct this injustice

    On February 18, 2022, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) issued a resolution calling on officials not to execute Melissa before the Commission has had an opportunity to reach a final decision in her case. The Commission considered the evidence that Melissa’s “life was shaped by physical, emotional, and sexual abuse,” and that the same experiences shaped her response to a coercive interrogation.

    Disparate Sentencing in Melissa’s Case

    Melissa regrets not getting medical care for Mariah earlier, but she is not guilty of murder. Her husband, Mariah’s father, was found guilty of child endangerment and sentenced to four years, even though he had a history of assaultive behavior. At most, a charge of neglect was more appropriate for Melissa than murder. (App. at p. 3.)

    Corrupt Cameron County DA Villalobos personally led Melissa’s prosecution. In 2007, in exchange for a bribe, he enabled the release and flight from justice of Amit Livingston, a man who had killed his estranged girlfriend. As DA Villalobos was scheming to facilitate the release of this male batterer, he was pursuing the death penalty against a woman who was a lifelong victim of sexual abuse and domestic violence. Former DA Villalobos is now serving a 13-year federal sentence for bribery and extortion. (App. at p. 19.)

    Melissa is a Person of Deep Catholic Faith Who Walks with God

     

    Melissa grew up without much religious instruction, but began her walk with God on September 26, 2014. She is a person of deep Catholic faith who attends Catholic mass services every Monday and meets individually with a pastor, Deacon Ronnie, on Thursdays and Sundays. In 2015, Melissa and other women on death row formed a Bible study group where, she says, “we all help each other.” Her main concern now is for her family, especially having her children support each other. Because of Melissa, her son John has also devoted himself to God, and she reads a Bible verse to him at the beginning of each of their visits. (App. at pp. 54-61.)

    Widespread Support Across Texas for Clemency

    Alarmed by the prospect of executing an innocent woman, who is a lifelong survivor of sexual abuse and domestic violence, a wide and diverse array of Texans are urging the Governor and the Board to grant Melissa clemency, including:

    • 225 anti-domestic violence/sexual assault organizations from Texas and across the country;
    • Over 130 Baptist, Evangelical and Catholic faith leaders in Texas, including more than 50 Baptist leaders, the Executive Director of the Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas, and the Director of the Rio Grande Valley Baptist Association;
    • More than 30 groups that work on behalf of Latinos in Texas and across the U.S., including the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators (NHCSL);
    • Eighteen people wrongfully convicted of a crime in a Texas state court, including Hannah Overton and Michael Morton; and
    •  Twenty-six death row exonerees, including two from Texas.

    Melissa’s children are also urging the Governor and the Board not to execute their mother. They are Mariah’s brothers and sisters and Texas law requires that their wishes be taken into account. (App. at pp. 1-2, 49-51.)

    More than 200,000 people, including more than 33,000 in Texas, have signed an Innocence Project petition urging clemency for Melissa.

    Abused Latinas and Wrongful Convictions

    Of the 67 women listed on the National Registry of Exonerations who were exonerated after a murder conviction, over one quarter (17/67) involved false confessions and nearly one third (20/67) involved child victims.

     

    Roughly one in three Latinas will suffer intimate partner violence in her lifetime, but the rates are higher for Latinas like Melissa who struggle with poverty and who were sexually abused as children. Also, research indicates that police tend to disbelieve women of color when they report domestic violence. At Melissa’s death penalty trial, the prosecution belittled the evidence of Melissa’s history of sexual abuse and domestic violence. (See trial transcript vol. 39 pp. 161-62.)

    According to the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1973, 186 people have been exonerated from death row, including 16 in Texas, and the number of people whose lives were taken before they were able to prove their innocence is unknown.

    ###

     

    For  more information on Melissa Lucio’s innocence case, please visit https://innocenceproject.org/who-is-melissa-lucio-death-penalty-texas-execution-innocent/ and The Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide at https://deathpenaltyworldwide.org/advocacy/melissa-lucio/

    The post Jury Foreperson Supports New Trial for Melissa Lucio, Other New Evidence in Supplemental Clemency Application appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Melissa Lucio is currently facing execution on April 27 for a tragic accident, not a murder. Her 2-year-old daughter Mariah died following a fall down the stairs while the family was in the process of moving.

    Police immediately took Ms. Lucio into custody and began aggressively interrogating her using coercive techniques. Ms. Lucio asserted her innocence over 100 times during the five-hour interrogation, just hours after her daughter died. The police coerced and manipulated her until she was exhausted, and she eventually just told them what they wanted to hear, saying, “I guess I did it.”

    This was taken as a confession and along with false evidence presented at her trial, Ms. Lucio was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

    Watch powerful video

     

    Mire el video poderoso 

     

    We need to act now before Texas makes an irreversible mistake. 

     

    Share on Instagram

    The post WATCH: Melissa Lucio Asserted Her Innocence More Than 100 Times During Interrogation appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • With just 16 days until the scheduled execution of Melissa Lucio, a woman sentenced to death for a murder that never happened, numerous experts on false confessions — including those who specialize in how trauma survivors are vulnerable to false confessions — are speaking out in support of clemency for the mother of 12.

    On Wednesday, Dr. Gisli H. Gudjonsson, the world’s leading expert on compliance, suggestibility, and false confessions voiced his grave concerns about the case in an op-ed published in the Independent.

     

    “Melissa Lucio’s case is one of the most tragic I have come across in my 40-year career as a clinical forensic psychologist,” wrote Dr. Gudjonsson who is Emeritus Professor at the Institute of Psychiatry of King’s College London. Ms. Lucio has been on death row in Texas for 14 years for the death of her 2-year-old daughter Mariah, who died two days after an accidental fall. Just two hours after her daughter passed, officers began interrogating Ms. Lucio. 

     

    Dr. Gudjonsson, who started his career as a police officer, conducted a comprehensive review of Ms. Lucio’s case, interrogation, and recent psychological testing. He submitted a report that was included in the clemency petition filed by Ms. Lucio’s attorneys to Gov. Greg Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles last month.

    Ms. Lucio, who was interrogated for five hours within hours of her infant dying, asserted her innocence more than 100 times. But officers used coercive and manipulative interrogation tactics known to produce false confessions, until Ms. Lucio falsely accepted responsibility for some of her daughter’s injuries.

    As a life-long survivor of sexual assault and domestic abuse, Ms. Lucio is particularly vulnerable to succumbing to such aggressive intimidation and coersion. 

    In the op-ed, Dr. Gudjonsson highlighted the officers’ use of the controversial Reid interrogation technique, which he said “is guilt-presumptive, uses psychological manipulation to coerce confessions, and has been linked to countless false confessions.”

     

    Nearly 1 in 3 people proven innocent by DNA were wrongly convicted based on false confessions elicited by coercive police interrogation tactics, like those used against Melissa. 

    Dr. Gudjonsson found that the investigators failed to show compassion and understanding toward a grieving and sleep deprived mother still in shock from her baby’s death.

    “Instead, officers played on her vulnerabilities by relentlessly accusing her of having abused and beaten her daughter to death and being a bad mother,” he wrote. “[They] forced her to enact the alleged beatings on a doll, with one of the investigators instructing her to hit the doll harder and harder, until she complied. By the end of the five hours, in apparent distress, Lucio told officers she wished she was dead.”

    Dr. Gudjonsson wrote that Ms. Lucio’s “admissions” were “tentative and inadvertent,” noting that she simply parroted back to the officers the words and narrative that they had suggested to her for the past several hours of her interrogation.

    “There was no tangible confession to murder,” he wrote, adding that her “inadvertent admissions” were nevertheless exaggerated by the prosecution and used against Ms. Lucio at her trial.

    Dr. Gudjonsson urges Ms. Lucio’s case to be reconsidered and explains that it is “an extraordinarily potent example of how a vulnerable person can be psychologically manipulated into falsely implicating themselves in a crime in response to interrogative pressure.”

    The post ‘Texas Is Executing An Innocent Woman,’ Says False Confessions Expert Dr. Gudjonsson appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • On April 4 and 5, the University of Texas at Arlington held its semester student elections. In addition to these elections was a referendum brought forth by the administration of UTA to justify raising tuition and fee costs related to the school. This fee increase would be a four-fold increase, from $39 per semester to $150, making it more expensive than most of the UT system schools student union fees. The caveat was that this fee increase would not take place until “significant construction” had been completed on the New UC. What had not been properly conveyed is that the UT Systems Board and UTA administration reached an agreement whereby the UT Systems would grant a loan to help construct this ‘New UC’ which would approximately cost $100 million – but with the collateral that the student union fee increase be tied to it via a referendum in order to begin paying back the New UC the moment of its technical completion. Progressive Student Union (PSU) kept an eye on the issue, and resolved to be the bulwark of the ‘No’ vote when the referendum came.

    The post Texas: Progressive Student Union Wins Victory At Referendum, Fee Hike Stopped appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • A 26-year-old woman named Lizelle Herrera was arrested on Thursday and faces a murder charge in relation to her own self-induced abortion.

    Herrera is currently being held on a $500 thousand bond in the custody of the Starr County Sheriff’s Office, according to local station KVEO-TV.

    A spokesperson for the sheriff’s office gave a statement to news outlets saying that Herrera’s arrest came about when their office learned she had “intentionally and knowingly cause(d) the death of an individual by self-induced abortion.”

    “This arrest is inhumane. We are demanding the immediate release of Lizelle Herrera,” said Rockie Gonzalez, founder and board chair of Frontera Fund in a quote used by Texas Public Radio. “What is alleged is that she was in the hospital and had a miscarriage and divulged some information to hospital staff, who then reported her to the police.”

    “This is a developing story and we don’t yet know all the details surrounding this tragic event, what we do know is that criminalizing pregnant people’s choices or pregnancy outcomes, which the state of Texas has done, takes away people’s autonomy over their own bodies, and leaves them with no safe options when they choose not to become a parent,” Gonzalez said to TPR. “We want people to know that this type of legislation impacts low-income people of color communities the most when state legislators put restrictions on our reproductive rights.”

    According to the Planned Parenthood website, on September 1, 2021 the state of Texas enacted a new abortion restriction called Senate Bill 8, also referred to as The Texas Heartbeat Act. Under the bill abortion is illegal if the heartbeat of an embryo can be detected, which backers of the bill believe can happen as early as six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Earlier this week, a group of Texas lawmakers from across the political spectrum visited Melissa Lucio in prison, where she is on death row and is scheduled to be executed on April 27.

    Co-Chairs of the Texas House’s bipartisan Criminal Justice Reform Caucus, Reps. Jeff Leach (R) and Joe Moody (D) led fellow representatives Lacey Hull, Victoria Criado, Rafael Anchia, Toni Rose, and James White to the Mountain View Unit in Gatesville, Texas, where the state houses women on death row.

    “We are blessed to have the opportunity to meet with Melissa, to pray with her, to spend time with her and we’re more resolute and committed than ever to fighting over the next three weeks to save her life,” said Rep. Leach.

     

    Ms. Lucio was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death after her 2-year-old daughter, Mariah, died in 2007 following an accidental fall down a staircase when the family was moving homes. 

    Ms. Lucio was immediately taken into custody by the police and aggressively questioned for hours. Although she asserted her innocence more than 100 times, police interrogated her for five hours two hours after her daughter died. Around 3 a.m., Ms. Lucio, exhausted and in shock from the loss of her child, agreed, falsely, to take responsibility for some of Mariah’s injuries. Ms. Lucio, a life-long survivor of abuse, succumbed to the detectives’ demands to bring the nightmarish interrogation to an end. 

    The abuse Ms. Lucio suffered throughout her life made her especially vulnerable to the police’s coercive interrogation tactics. But her defense was not allowed to present any of this evidence at trial. Her attorney failed to mount a proper defense or present evidence pointing to her innocence. 

     

    There are so many doubts around Ms. Lucio’s case, and others are starting to take note. Last month, a bipartisan group of 83 Texas House members, spearheaded by Rep. Leach and Rep. Moody, sent the state’s Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Greg Abbott a letter asking them to stop the execution of Ms. Lucio by granting her a reprieve or commuting her sentence. Johnny Galvan Jr., a juror in Ms. Lucio’s trial, expressed his regret for voting for Ms. Lucio to receive the death sentence in a Houston Chronicle op-ed published on April 3.

    The seven Texas lawmakers toured the prison and then met with Ms. Lucio for 40 minutes where they all came together and prayed. In a tweet, Rep. Moody said, “She prayed with us & hugged us; today might be the last genuine human contact she has before the state kills her.”

    The post Texas Lawmakers Pray With Melissa Lucio on Death Row appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Just weeks ahead of Melissa Lucio’s scheduled execution, one juror who voted to sentence Ms. Lucio to death in 2008, wrote that he feels “deep regret” in an op-ed published by the Houston Chronicle on Sunday.

    Johnny Galvin Jr. said that at the time of Ms. Lucio’s trial, he did not want to sentence her to death because he felt that Ms. Lucio’s defense lawyers “were hardly making a case for her life.” When jurors took their first vote on Ms. Lucio’s sentence, they were evenly divided, Mr. Galvin recalled. After a second vote, he was the “lone holdout” advocating for a life sentence; however, he felt pressured by his fellow jurors and ultimately voted for a death sentence alongside the others.

    “… I wish I had never done so,” he wrote in the op-ed.

    Ms. Lucio has spent the last 14 years on death row in Texas, convicted of murdering her 2-year-old daughter, who died two days after an accidental fall down stairs. The State of Texas plans to execute Ms. Lucio on April 27, 2022. Her legal team filed a clemency petition on March 22, citing new expert evidence that supports Ms. Lucio’s innocence to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Greg Abbott.

    “There are so many problems in this case that I believe she must not be executed.”

    Mr. Galvin said the majority of the prosecution’s argument at trial rested on Ms. Lucio’s “confession,” but that the jury was not told about the aggressive tactics used in the interrogation, nor Ms. Lucio’s history as a survivor of abuse, which made her vulnerable to falsely confessing when faced with such tactics. He added that the jury was never told that Ms. Lucio asserted her innocence more than 100 times during the five-hour interrogation. 

    “No evidence was presented of that and it would have mattered to me,” he wrote. “Since learning about all the things we jurors were never told when we held Lucio’s life in our hands, I see her as a woman who had a hard life and many struggles, who could have been anyone in my community.”

    Melissa Lucio holds Mariah and looks on at her daughter Adriana. (Image: Courtesy of the Lucio family)

    Mr. Galvin said he was led to believe that the medical examiner had scientific proof of abuse, and that he and his fellow jurors were not aware there were other medical explanations for the child’s bruises, which the medical examiner claimed with certainty could only have been caused by abuse.

    “We jurors did not know there was another medical explanation for the baby’s bruises, that experts couldn’t say for sure she had a bite mark on her back, or that she could have broken her arm in a fall or roughhousing with her brothers and sisters. We were told it was clear that Lucio did those things,” he wrote.

    The fact that District Attorney Armando Villalobos who prosecuted Ms. Lucio’s case is now serving a 13-year federal prison sentence for bribery and extortion “only adds to my belief that our decision in Lucio’s case was wrong,” Mr. Galvin said.

    “If I had known all of this information, or even part of it, I would have stood by my vote for life no matter what anyone else on the jury said. But it seems some of my fellow jurors would also have voted differently if they knew all the information about Lucio’s life, her interrogation and the facts surrounding the child’s death that the lawyers should have told us,” he wrote.

    In recent months, four jurors — including Mr. Galvin — have given statements saying they would support relief for Ms. Lucio, due to their grave concerns about evidence that was withheld from them at Ms. Lucio’s capital trial. These statements were included in the clemency petition filed by Ms. Lucio’s legal team.

    Last month, 83 members of the Texas House of Representatives — the majority of its members — spoke out in support of clemency for Ms. Lucio. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle signed a letter asking Gov. Greg Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant Ms. Lucio clemency. Some 225 anti-domestic violence and anti-sexual assault organizations and 130 Texas faith leaders have also called for clemency for Ms. Lucio, who is a devout Catholic.

    Twenty-six death row exonerees, including Sabrina Butler-Smith, who was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of her child in Mississippi, have advocated for clemency, too.

    Mr. Galvin said he wishes he had known the truth when he sat on Ms. Lucio’s jury, writing, “The idea that my decision to take another person’s life was not based on complete and accurate information in a fair trial is horrifying.” 

    He hopes that Gov. Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles will hear his plea: “There are so many problems in this case that I believe she must not be executed.”

    The post ‘I Was Wrong’ Says Juror Who Voted to Sentence Melissa Lucio to Death appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Demonstrators’ signs read: “Expose & shut down the abortion industrial complex now,” “Bans off our bodies,” “Liberal atheist against abortion,” “Keep our clinics,” “Let their hearts beat,” and “Just overturn Roe already, you cowards.”

    When conservative legal provocateur Jonathan Mitchell published his 2018 law review article laying the groundwork for Texas to ban most abortions, some of the ideas he outlined were so far-fetched that they read more like thought experiments than legitimate legal theories. One was that state legislatures could give private individuals, rather than government agencies, the right to enforce abortion restrictions and other controversial statutes – a “bounty hunter”-type mechanism he claimed could make such laws all but impossible to challenge through the usual legal processes.

    Another of Mitchell’s theories was even more radical: that courts don’t have the power to strike down old laws they think are unconstitutional – for example, Texas statutes first enacted in the 1850s that made it a crime to help “procure” an abortion or furnish “the means” for it. Judges can only stop those laws from being enforced, he claimed. Unless legislators actually repeal them, America’s old laws never really die; instead, they linger in a kind of limbo, automatically springing back to life if a future court issues a new, contrary ruling. They can even be enforced retroactively, he argued. 

    At first, Mitchell’s ideas generated little attention outside conservative circles, where some of his own ideological allies were incredulous at the notion that overturned laws might rise from the grave like zombies and be used retroactively to lay waste to the foundations of contemporary American society in a legal version of “The Walking Dead.” The University of Chicago’s Richard Epstein, Mitchell’s former teacher and one of the most eminent legal scholars on the right, told a Federalist Society panel in 2018, “Jonathan always puts the fear of God in me, because God forbid he should be right on this particular question.” Epstein added, “I think most people would say that this is an enormously dangerous-type situation.” 

    Undeterred, Mitchell worked with the Texas legislature to enshrine his theories in Texas Senate Bill 8, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act. The measure not only bans abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, but it also takes the extraordinary step of giving private citizens the right to sue anyone who helps someone obtain one. 

    Now, seven months after Texas’ law became the most restrictive abortion statute to take effect in the U.S. in almost 50 years, the real-world impact of Mitchell’s ideas is becoming much clearer – as well as more urgent. Even as the effort to empower vigilante citizens alarmed legal experts across the ideological spectrum, an additional and relatively unreported aspect of the law has far greater implications beyond the elimination of abortion. Most legal experts and lawmakers still haven’t understood the full scope of Mitchell’s vision for remaking American law, but as reporting from Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting shows, it’s already being adopted by legislative leaders and being tested in court. 

    In a series of legal proceedings, threatening letters, press releases and social media posts, Mitchell and his allies are arguing that the 1850s statutes that made it a crime to help someone get an abortion in the state – the laws overturned by Roe v. Wade in 1973 – were never actually repealed and thus are still in force. And they claim that grassroots abortion funds, which raise money to help Texas patients pay for the procedure, are breaking those old laws and should be prosecuted. Ditto for ordinary citizens who’ve donated to one of those groups.  


    Last month, Republican state Rep. Briscoe Cain, a lawyer and joint author of the House version of SB 8, showed just how far anti-abortion lawmakers are willing to push the idea that helping someone in the state pay for an abortion is a crime. Cain issued cease-and-desist letters to abortion funds across Texas, claiming that they are “criminal organizations” under the pre-Roe statutes and that their employees face two to five years behind bars for breaking those laws. He sent a similar letter to Citigroup, demanding that the banking giant rescind its new policy of paying for its Texas employees to travel for abortion care outside the state and warning that it will face prosecution if it continues to cover abortions in-state under its employee insurance plan. 

    Cain himself doesn’t have the authority to bring criminal charges, but he claims local prosecutors do. In a press release, he said he plans to push for legislation allowing them to prosecute these cases even outside their own jurisdiction. Meanwhile, saber-rattling is itself a core element of Mitchell’s legal strategy. In his law review paper, he notes that “the mere threat of future prosecution” could be enough to “induce substantial if not total compliance” with pre-Roe laws.

    Some of the most powerful conservative groups in the country have joined Mitchell’s cause, including the America First Legal Foundation, which helped defend the Texas law before the Supreme Court last fall and is now also targeting abortion funds. The new foundation was created by former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows; Stephen Miller, the architect of former President Donald Trump’s family separation immigration policy; and other members of Trump’s inner circle to “oppose the radical left’s anti-jobs, anti-freedom, anti-faith, anti-borders, anti-police, and anti-American crusade,” according to its mission statement. In a press release, Miller’s description of why America First Legal has gotten involved echoes the “tough-on-crime” language that the Trump administration made a hallmark of its often-authoritarian policies: “We will maintain the rule of law,” Miller is quoted as saying.

    Mitchell’s ideas could have vast repercussions for more than reproductive rights, legal experts warn. The notion that old laws don’t go away and can be resuscitated is “awfully curious in a country where old law legalized segregation, slavery, sexual abuse and rape of wives,” said Michele Goodwin, a legal scholar at the University of California, Irvine, who focuses on issues at the intersection of gender and race. Many of these old laws, she pointed out, “subordinated people who were not White males.” If Mitchell and his allies were to succeed, she said, the result would be to resurrect a version of the country as it existed 200 years ago, when “White men controlled every branch of government in every state.” 

    Mitchell declined requests to be interviewed on the record for this article. But he has made it clear that he also wants to roll back decades of progress for LGBTQ rights. Over the past several years, when he wasn’t litigating abortion cases, he was filing lawsuits aimed at undermining same-sex marriage and affirming the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people in housing and the workplace. Mitchell’s culture-war campaigns converged in an amicus brief he wrote in the Mississippi abortion case that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide by this summer. His ominous warning: “Lawrence and Obergefell,” the Supreme Court cases that legalized sodomy and same-sex marriage, respectively, “are as lawless as Roe.”

    The Genesis of Texas’ Heartbeat Act

    Mitchell honed his ideas in some of the most elite institutions in the country. After clerking for late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, he taught at the University of Chicago and Stanford University law schools, served as the Texas solicitor general and volunteered on the Trump transition team, reviewing future executive orders. 

    Just when he seemed likely to win a more permanent role under Trump – heading the Administrative Conference of the United States, a little-known federal agency that issues recommendations on how the government can work more efficiently – his nomination was scuttled because of his role in coordinating a sprawling, multistate attack on public-sector unions. The lawsuits filed in California, New York, Minnesota and other states were funded by a shadowy litigation finance group based in Chicago that wasn’t disclosing its backers. “If he is a clandestine operative of the same powerful ultraconservative special interests out to cripple unions, he is not fit to serve in this post,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., told The New York Times.

    In an illustration, Jonathan Mitchell stands behind a lectern facing two Supreme Court justices.
    A courtroom illustration shows Jonathan Mitchell arguing in front of the Supreme Court in 2014, when he was Texas’ solicitor general. Credit: Illustration by Art Lien

    By then, Mitchell’s law review article, which was in prepublication review and bears the wonky title “The Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy,” was already making waves. Written in 2016 and published two years later, it was based on his experiences representing the state of Texas in court, where he saw how the legislature often enacted statutes that were easily blocked – including laws that sought to ban abortion. One of Mitchell’s goals, he has said, was to prod anti-abortion lawmakers out of their “learned helplessness” by empowering them with clever strategies that would make their ideas harder to defeat in court. 

    That’s where the “bounty hunter” idea came in. 

    Geoffrey Stone, former dean at the University of Chicago law school who taught Mitchell two decades ago, nodded to the “brilliance” of the idea but condemned it as “totally obscene.” The brilliant part, Stone said, is that in order to block a law in court, you typically have to sue a government official. But if only private individuals are empowered to enforce a law, there is no government official to sue – and opponents of the law are left with their hands effectively tied. The ultimate goal, Mitchell acknowledged in his paper, was to develop laws that could circumvent judicial review. But the real-world impact, Stone and other legal scholars have suggested, is that even a blatantly unconstitutional law opposed by the vast majority of citizens and courts would still be allowed to take effect.  

    Mitchell then made another argument that struck at the foundations of American law. He contended that court rulings – even those issued by the U.S. Supreme Court – are far less sweeping than mainstream legal experts believe. According to his “Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy” theory, courts don’t have the power to broadly “strike down” or “erase” laws they think are unconstitutional. Even more radical, he claimed that a law could be enforced retroactively against people who violated the statute during the time period when it had been blocked.  

    Stone took issue with the entire premise of Mitchell’s theory during a recent Federalist Society event at the University of Chicago. The law professor – who was a Supreme Court clerk when Roe was handed down – said in an interview that his former student’s strategy “simply fails to understand the critical legal concept of precedent” that “our whole legal system is based on.”

    Jennifer Ecklund, an attorney who represents the abortion funds targeted by Mitchell, found the retroactivity idea especially troubling. It “undermines the entirety of our system of constitutional justice. And that’s not hyperbole,” she said. “For this theory to take hold and become commonplace would be a complete undoing of constitutional jurisprudence in the 20th century.”

    Legal historian Mary Ziegler, author of “Abortion and the Law in America,” pointed to how retroactivity might be used if a conservative state passed a law that criminalized sodomy and the Supreme Court upheld that new law, overturning its 2003 decision that made such sexual acts legal. “Then, in theory, that criminal sodomy law could apply not only against people who committed sodomy … after the new Supreme Court decision, it would, in theory, apply before, too,” she said.

    Protesters carry a variety of homemade signs supporting abortion rights.
    Protesters gather for the Women’s March and Rally for Abortion Justice at the State Capitol in Austin, Texas, in October. Credit: Sergio Flores/Associated Press

    But there was one audience that was extremely receptive to Mitchell’s legal theories: anti-abortion lawmakers and activists in Texas. Starting in 2019, Mitchell and his allies worked with more than 40 communities to pass local ordinances that created “sanctuary cities for the unborn.” Those ordinances not only banned abortion outright, but also declared it to be “murder.”

    Then, working with Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes, Mitchell embedded his ideas last year into SB 8, a variation on the “heartbeat bills” that had passed in about a dozen other states, only to be blocked by court after court for flouting Roe. 
    Like those other bills, the Texas version banned abortion after fetal cardiac activity could be detected in an ultrasound, around six weeks’ gestation. But as Mitchell had predicted, the law’s “bounty hunter” mechanism – giving private citizens the right to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion for $10,000 per violation plus legal fees – made it extremely difficult for abortion rights groups to challenge the law in court, especially in those packed with conservative judges who shared his anti-abortion views.

    But providing a way to help the Texas law withstand a court challenge was only part of Mitchell’s plan. A second goal was to explicitly revive the 1850s laws that had once made abortion a crime in the state. To that end, Mitchell and his allies inserted another provision that was almost entirely overlooked amid the firestorm over the new statute: a legislative finding that the pre-Roe laws in Texas had never been repealed. 

    Then they went to work.

    Using Pre-Roe Laws to Go After Abortion Funders 

    The Heartbeat Act isn’t the only recent Texas law that seeks to criminalize abortion, nor is it the most draconian. For example, a so-called trigger law, also enacted in Texas last year, would outlaw abortion completely and automatically if Roe is overturned; doctors who violate the ban would face up to $100,000 in fines or life in prison. 

    The earliest that statute could take effect is this summer, when the Supreme Court is set to rule on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case out of Mississippi. In the interim, Mitchell and his allies, impatient to halt as many abortions as possible as soon as possible, have turned to the 1850s statutes and the writ-of-erasure language in SB 8 to try to accomplish the same thing by targeting groups that help patients pay for abortions. 

    References to criminalization started cropping up in court proceedings even before the heartbeat law went into effect in September. In one hearing last summer in a lawsuit involving the Austin-based Lilith abortion fund, Mitchell told a Texas judge that such grassroots groups are “criminal organizations” that are “committing crimes under state law,” even if they’re not being punished for their crimes right now. 

    In a major ratcheting up of their campaign this winter, Mitchell and five law firms filed petitions demanding the right to take depositions from leaders of the Texas Equal Access Fund and Lilith Fund for allegedly violating the heartbeat law. But the press releases cited the pre-Roe criminal statutes. Kamyon Conner, executive director of the Texas Equal Access Fund, said she was at a retreat with fellow reproductive justice activists when she learned about the attempts to force her to turn over information about employees and donors. “The people in the room saw my expression change and they were like, ‘What’s wrong?’ ” 

    For Conner, the tactic felt like an attempt to scare and shame her. Far from being intimidated, however, she and her fellow abortion fund activists decided to fight back, filing lawsuits in mid-March against America First Legal, the Thomas More Society law firm – another conservative group in the case – and two Texas women represented by Mitchell. The suits ask courts in Texas; Washington, D.C.; and Illinois – where the Thomas More firm is based – to declare the heartbeat law unconstitutional. 

    Thus far, donors haven’t been intimidated. Conner said the Texas Equal Access Fund has seen an uptick in what she called “rage donations,” though some check-writers are taking the precaution of blacking out their identifying information. The Lilith Fund has seen a tripling of its budget since last year – enough to begin covering the entire cost of abortions for people who need them. 

    Meanwhile, anti-abortion activists and lawmakers have started taking the writ-of-erasure criminalization language nationwide. In July, the National Association of Christian Lawmakers unanimously adopted a model bill that features, verbatim, the heartbeat law’s finding that the state “never repealed” its pre-Roe criminal laws. Lawmakers in at least one state with a pre-Roe statute still on the books, Arizona, have introduced legislation with this language.

    Mitchell’s ideas about reviving these pre-Roe criminal statutes could become all the more relevant if Roe is overturned. In the meantime, by challenging the right of grassroots groups and private donors to help pay for abortions, he and his allies have opened a new front in the battle over access that is likely to spread well beyond Texas. Abortion funds see this as a sign of their growing significance in a landscape where access to the procedure depends on having the means to pay for it. 

    “I think it is very telling that the (anti-abortion activists) have caught on to us and understand us as a threat, because we are,” said Amanda Beatriz Williams, the Lilith Fund’s executive director. “We are a threat to them. We are a threat to their movement.” 

    Students and staff at UC Berkeley’s Human Rights Center and Investigative Reporting Program contributed additional reporting: Gisela Pérez de Acha, Brian Nguyen, Emma MacPhee, Leah Roemer, Taylor Graham, Alex Harvey, Eleonora Bianchi, Eliza Partika, Elizabeth Moss, Anabel Sosa, Rhia Mehta, Brittany Zendejas and Sophie Hoblit. Reveal fellow Grace Oldham also contributed reporting.

    This story was edited by Nina Martin and copy edited by Nikki Frick.

    Amy Littlefield can be reached at alittlefield@revealnews.org. Follow her on Twitter: @amylittlefield

    Mastermind of the Texas ‘Heartbeat’ Statute Has a Radical Mission to Reshape American Law is a story from Reveal. Reveal is a registered trademark of The Center for Investigative Reporting and is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • A bipartisan group, comprising the majority of members in the Texas House of Representatives, have come forward, united, in support of clemency for Melissa Lucio, who is scheduled to be executed for a crime that never occurred on April 27, 2022. Eighty-three Texas representatives signed a letter to Gov. Greg Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles asking to grant Ms. Lucio clemency. Last week, they held a press conference to further voice the urgent need to stop this irreversible injustice.

    At the press conference on March 24, state representative Jeff Leach (R-Plano), co-chair of the House’s bipartisan Criminal Justice Reform Caucus, stated, “The system literally failed Melissa Lucio at every single turn. As a conservative Republican myself, who has long been a supporter of the death penalty in the most heinous cases, I have never seen a more troubling case.”

    Read the press release issued by the coalition of lawmakers below.


    83 Texas State Representatives Urge Board of Pardons & Paroles: Spare Melissa Lucio

    (March 28, 2022 — Austin, TX) A bipartisan group of Texas legislators led by Representatives Jeff Leach (R–Plano) and Joe Moody (D–El Paso) held a press conference on March 24, 2022, at the Capitol urging clemency or a reprieve for Melissa Lucio, who is scheduled for execution on April 27, 2022. Leach and Moody co-chair the Criminal Justice Reform Caucus and were recently appointed chair and vice chair of the Interim Study Committee on Criminal Justice Reform by Speaker Dade Phelan.

    “There’s simply too much doubt about whether Melissa Lucio is guilty, or even whether a crime occurred in the first place,” Leach said. “She was convicted based on discredited forensics and the testimony of a medical examiner who didn’t follow protocol and put another innocent person in prison just two months after Melissa.”

    Moody highlighted Lucio’s religious conversion. “It’s always important to balance justice with mercy. As a practicing Catholic, I know how powerful a turn to faith can be, and whoever Melissa was when she entered our system, her devotion and ministry make it clear that she’s now a different person who’s earned a measure of grace.”

    “We can’t have any confidence in how this investigation unfolded,” said Texas House Dean Senfronia Thompson (D–Houston), “Melissa’s so-called confession came after more than five hours of brutal interrogation of a woman whose history shows she’s vulnerable to giving the kinds of false confessions we see in a third of all wrongful convictions.”

    “We should be listening to the family of the deceased here,” Rafael Anchía (D–Dallas) argued. “This was a tragedy, but those people who the State of Texas is supposed to be seeking justice for are all telling us that executing Melissa will just further traumatize them.”

    James White (R–Hillister) focused on the poor representation Lucio received. “Everyone has a right to a competent defense in our state. Melissa didn’t get that. When you have lawyers handling a capital murder who haven’t even tried a criminal case before, that’s a problem, so it’s no surprise that many of our Fifth Circuit’s judges found she didn’t get a fair trial.”

    “I think the whole system failed Melissa every step of the way,” said Lacey Hull (R–Houston). “CPS didn’t adequately intervene after numerous reports Melissa was being abused by her husband, a corrupt DA who’s now in prison pushed this prosecution for pollical reasons, and Melissa’s husband, who had a violent history, got only four years in prison while she got a death sentence. What happened here is wrong.”

    Each of these House members were among the 83 Texas legislators who signed on to a letter last week urging the Board of Pardons and Paroles to act. The initial recommendation for clemency will be in the hands of the board but must then be approved by the governor.

    The post 83 Texas State Representatives Urge Board of Pardons & Paroles: Spare Melissa Lucio appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Since their state passed its six-week abortion bill in September, Texans have headed north to Oklahoma in droves. But though it has emerged as a critical access point, Oklahoma is on the verge of passing its own strict abortion ban, and clinics in nearby states are bracing for a new surge in patients seeking care. Many worry that without Oklahoman clinics, they will be unable to account for everyone hoping to obtain an abortion.

    Oklahoma’s state Senate passed a bill earlier this month that essentially copies the legislation, enforcing a ban on abortions past six weeks through private civil lawsuits that target abortion providers and anyone who “aids and abets” someone obtaining the procedure after that mark. Last week, the House passed an even stricter bill. It would use the same model of enforcement but ban all abortions, unless one was being performed to “save the life” of the pregnant person. If passed, it would be the strictest active abortion ban in the country.

    Both bills are awaiting hearings in a second chamber — something local advocates expect could happen as early as next week — and the governor is expected to sign whichever ban reaches his desk first. Both would take effect immediately upon signing. Much like Texas’ ban, the bills in Oklahoma are expected to survive legal challenges because of their unusual punitive structure, even though they violate the principles established in Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that guaranteed the right an abortion that could be weakened or upended this summer.

    The laws would decimate access for Oklahomans and have massive ramifications for people seeking abortions across the region. Abortion providers in nearby states say regional infrastructure has already been stretched to its limit.

    “These state-level laws have an impact that goes beyond their state borders,” said Kari White, the lead investigator of the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, which has studied the impact of Texas’ six-week abortion ban. About 1,400 Texans have gone to another state for an abortion each month since September, per her research. About 45 percent are traveling to Oklahoma.

    “We are already stretched to our limits trying to see Texas folks,” said Rebecca Tong, the co-executive director for Trust Women, which operates an abortion clinic in Oklahoma City and another Wichita, Kansas. “This? It will make it worse. It will make it much, much worse.”

    Since Texas’ abortion ban took effect, the Trust Women Oklahoma City clinic has seen mostly Texans. Wichita’s clinic has seen a combination of Texas-based patients as well as Oklahomans who were already unable to get care in their home state because clinics no longer had enough room for everyone. In Kansas, they are trying to hire more people to accommodate the demand. But finding support staff has posed a challenge, Tong said.

    And even if the clinic operated at maximum capacity, she fears, it wouldn’t be enough.

    “Even if we ran the clinic 24 hours a day 7 days a week, there would be people turned away. There would be people unable to get an appointment, unable to travel and some people who don’t make it to the point of calling a clinic,” Tong said. “It is not easy to reach us right now. It is not one simple phone call. People have to call multiple times because our phones are just ringing endlessly — and they have for the past six months.”

    Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as data from the Guttmacher Institute suggest that close to 5,000 abortions are typically performed in Oklahoma each year. Prior to Texas’ six-week ban taking effect, about 55,000 abortions per year occurred in that state.

    If care is unavailable in Oklahoma, it’s not entirely clear where people will go or who will have capacity. Kansas, just north of Oklahoma, has four clinics. Arkansas, to the east, has three. Both have already been seeing a surge in patients coming from Texas. And access in those states is tenuous, too. Kansas voters are weighing a constitutional amendment this August that would remove the state’s abortion protections. Arkansas has passed a so-called trigger law that could end access to the procedure if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

    “It is going to be incredibly difficult for the facilities in these areas to absorb the volume, even if it were just Oklahoma alone,” White said.

    New Mexico and Colorado, to the west, have fewer restrictions on the procedure and could become destinations for people seeking abortions. But providers there worry that they are already at their limit .

    “We are trying to absorb as many as we can,” said Dr. Christina Tocce, the medical director of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains, who is based in Denver. “But that being said, the sheer volume is formidable. And we are not going to be able to serve every patient that needs abortion care.”

    There is another pressure point for Colorado, specifically. Idaho has also enacted a Texas-inspired six-week ban. For patients seeking care, and who can afford the airfare, Boulder or Denver — cities with direct flights to Boise and Idaho Falls – could be the most viable option.

    The crush of patients and shortage of providers is already affecting what kind of care is available. Since September, clinics in all the states neighboring Texas and Oklahoma have reported longer wait times for patients seeking an abortion — at least two weeks, if not three. That pushes many patients out of the first trimester, when medication abortion is a viable option, and into the second trimester, when the only choice is a more expensive, more invasive surgery.

    That has another ripple effect: Surgical procedures take longer, and clinics are already short on time to see everyone.

    “What’s going to happen in Oklahoma, it will very likely increase our volume,” said Dr. Eve Espey, who chairs the OB-GYN department at the University of New Mexico and founded its center for reproductive health. “There are only three clinics in Albuquerque that provide abortion care, so there’s a limit. We’re talking about how we can ramp up more. We thought we’d have more medication abortion, and that’s not happening.”

    She, along with other providers, worries that wait times will only grow longer with fewer clinics providing care for more people, pushing more abortions later in pregnancy.

    So far, many people have been able to travel for care, often at great personal expense. But increasing restrictions could make those barriers eventually insurmountable, White said – especially for those who cannot afford a plane ticket, or who have never been on a plane.

    “There are going to be some people for whom this is just not going to be possible. They could get themselves to Oklahoma, and they’re not going to be able to drive the extra two hours to get to Kansas,” she said. “There is going to be someone who is able to figure it out because they did end up having just enough social support or financial assistance. And there are going to be other folks who just aren’t going to be able to do it.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Saturday, thousands of people marched in San Antonio at the 26th Cesar E. Chavez March for Justice — an annual march that pays tribute to labor and civil rights leaders Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta, both of whom are dear to Chicanos and organizers around the world. Among them, dozens of supporters wore “Save Melissa” t-shirts and held signs to bring attention to the case of Melissa Lucio, a Chicana from the Rio Grande Valley, who faces execution on April 27 for a crime that never occurred. If the state moves forward with her execution, she would be the first Latina in Texas history to be executed.

    “Melissa is a Mexican American who was sentenced to death for a crime that never happened. It’s fitting that the thousands of people who marched in Cesar Chavez’s memory today, included her fight in their call for justice,” said Amanda Marzullo, an attorney working with Ms. Lucio’s campaign.

    Last week, attorneys for Ms. Lucio filed a clemency petition to Gov. Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole, including new evidence showing that she was wrongly convicted and condemned to die for the accidental death of her daughter.

    Nearly 1,000 Texans have called Gov. Abbott and urged him to grant Ms. Lucio clemency. And this week, a bipartisan group of nearly 90 members of the state legislature have signed a letter urging the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Abbott to grant clemency for Ms. Lucio because of the many doubts in her case.

    Little Joe, a tejano musician, speaks out in support of Melissa Lucio at the Cesar E. Chavez March for Justice in San Antonio on March 26, 2022. (Image: Christopher Lee for the Innocence Project)

    “I have never seen a more troubling case than the case of Melissa Lucio,” Rep. Jeff Leach said at a press conference on Thursday. “We gotta use that voice to save an innocent person.”

    Barring intervention from the courts, Gov. Abbott is the person who can stop Ms. Lucio’s execution.

    Take a look at highlights from today’s rally.

    The post Texans Rally for Melissa Lucio at Cesar E. Chavez March for Justice in San Antonio appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Workers drop ballots into a secure box at a ballot drop-off location in Austin, Texas, on October 13, 2020.

    The rate of rejected mail ballots soared in the March primary elections in Texas — and those rejections disproportionately affected Democrats, especially Black voters in the state’s biggest county.

    Nearly 23,000 ballots, or about 13% of all returned mail ballots, were thrown out across 187 Texas counties in the March primaries, according to an analysis by the Associated Press. In past election years, the rejection rate was around 1% to 2%, according to the Texas Tribune.

    The rejection rate hit more liberal areas of the state with more than 15% of mail ballots thrown out in Democratic-leaning counties, compared to 9.1% in Republican-leaning counties. In Tarrant County, election officials rejected 813 ballots in the Democratic primary under the new voter ID rules, but just three ballots in the Republican primary, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

    One of the highest rates of rejections was in Harris County, which includes Houston and is the state’s largest population center (and the third most populous county in the nation). Election officials were forced to discard nearly 7,000 ballots there, about 19% of all returned mail ballots. They threw out just 0.3% of returned mail ballots in the 2018 primaries.

    The March election data also shows a stark racial disparity, according to an analysis by The New York Times. Voters in areas of Harris County with large Black populations were 44% more likely to have their mail ballots tossed than voters in areas with large white populations.

    Texas already limits mail voting to voters over 65 or those who have a verified excuse to vote absentee. The startling increase in mail ballot rejections could foreshadow an even larger wave of thrown-out ballots in the general election, which is likely to see much higher turnout. That could potentially be echoed in the 18 other states that have imposed harsh new voting restrictions after former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss.

    Most of the rejected ballots were flagged under a provision in the new voting law that requires voters to provide their driver’s license number or a partial Social Security number. Some voters left the field blank or entered an ID number different than the one election officials had on file. The state provides a limited period of time for voters to correct problems on their ballots, but the vast majority of ballots flagged for rejection were not fixed before the deadline.

    The reason for the disparities in rejection rates between Texas counties is unclear. While Harris County, which has 2.5 million registered voters, rejected about 19% of mail ballots, Dallas County, which has 1.4 million registered voters, rejected only about 9.5% of mail ballots.

    Geographic and demographic differences between those counties could well play a role. Harris County spans more than 1,700 square miles, nearly twice as much as Dallas County, which made it challenging to “reach every voter with very limited resources,” Harris County Elections spokeswoman Nadia Hakim said in an email to Salon.

    Hakim also said that Harris County officials “did not receive any guidance or materials from the Texas Secretary of State, nor did we receive a budget to run campaigns or advertisements to educate voters on the changes.” She added that county election officials spent three months educating voters before the election and allocating staff to focus on outreach to voters whose ballots were marked for rejection.

    Hakim said that her office “is deeply troubled by the number of mail ballot rejections” during the March primary, especially considering the much lower number of rejections in 2018. “The new voting laws brought on by Senate Bill 1 are leading to the disenfranchisement of Harris County’s most vulnerable populations, including communities of color, the elderly, and voters with disabilities.”

    Sam Taylor, a spokesman for the Texas secretary of state’s office, told Salon that state officials have heard from county officials that the vast majority of rejected mail ballots “were due to voters who did not provide any ID information on their carrier envelope,” even though they had successfully applied for a mail-in ballot using the same ID information.

    Taylor said the office is now devoting “a significant portion of our voter education campaign to enhancing awareness of the new mail-in ballot ID requirements.” He continued, “We are confident we will have all the information we need to apply any lessons learned during the primary to an even more robust voter education campaign” directed at the general election in November.

    Voting rights groups are skeptical that Texas officials will do enough, and say the stark increase in ballot rejections demonstrates the need for federal intervention.

    “Texas was already the hardest state to vote in before Republicans passed these laws that made it even harder,” said Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of Common Cause Texas, in a statement to Salon. “What we’re seeing today is a small preview of what we can expect to see at a far wider scale in November unless the federal government finally takes real action to intervene.”

    Gutierrez said the Texas secretary of state’s office was repeatedly told about the potential for these problems when the voting-restriction bill was going through committee. He suggested that state officials had “ample opportunity” to address these issues but “instead chose to focus on playing politics [as] implementation was left to local officials who received little to no guidance or communication from our state’s chief election officer.” He predicted “far bigger problems in November when we have exponentially more people showing up to the polls.”

    Last November, the Justice Department sued Texas over the new voting law, alleging that restrictive measures in the bill violate both the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. The complaint specifically notes that the provision requiring the rejection of mail ballots due to “certain paperwork errors or omissions that are not material to establishing a voter’s eligibility to cast a ballot” violates the Civil Rights Act.

    The bill’s restrictions on “which absentee ballots cast by eligible voters can be accepted by election officials are unlawful and indefensible,” DOJ Civil Rights Division chief Kristen Clarke said last year.

    More than a dozen Texas Democrats sent a letter to Clarke earlier this month asking the federal government to expedite its lawsuit against the state due to an “unprecedented” increase in rejected mail ballots.

    “Unfortunately, this wrongdoing is a direct — and intended — result of Texas Senate Bill 1 … with the sole purpose of making it more difficult for Texans to vote and, thereby, undermining the democratic process,” the letter said, calling on the Justice Department to “deploy the necessary resources to combat this injustice.”

    Rep. Mark Veasey, the lead author of the letter, said in a statement that the “destructive” Republican voting law “disproportionately undermines the voice — and vote — of minority and low-income communities.”

    It’s by no means clear that the federal lawsuit will succeed, especially since it is likely at some point to come before the current Supreme Court, whose conservative supermajority has already let other legally dubious election laws stand. Attorney General Merrick Garland warned last year that the DOJ’s power to protect voting rights was limited after the Supreme Court gutted part of the Voting Rights Act that required states with a history of discrimination to pre-clear any electoral changes with the department.

    Democrats have repeatedly attempted to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore the pre-clearance requirement (among other voting reforms) but it has been repeatedly filibustered by Republicans. Two “moderate” Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have rejected their own party’s efforts to repeal the filibuster, effectively dooming the legislation (which both claim to support).

    Voting rights groups say the Senate needs to renew its effort to pass the voting rights legislation ahead of the upcoming elections. The Texas law “caused heart-breaking confusion” in the March primaries that “hit older voters and voters with disabilities particularly hard,” Grace Chimene, president of the League of Women Voters of Texas, said in a statement to Salon.

    “In Harris County, older Black voters were especially impacted by this anti-voter legislation,” Chimene said. “This law is a throwback to the poll taxes of the Jim Crow era. … The federal Voting Rights Act must be restored to ensure that every voter in Texas — regardless of where they live, what they look like, how old they are, if they have disabilities, or what language they speak — has equal access to the ballot box.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Widespread Call for Clemency from Hundreds of Texas Anti-Domestic Violence Groups, Baptists, Evangelicals and Catholics, Latino Organizations, and Exonerees; Five Jurors File Declarations Expressing Support for Relief

    (Austin, TX — March 22, 2022) Today, attorneys for Melissa Lucio submitted an application for clemency to Governor Greg Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. New evidence in the application that the jury never heard shows that Ms. Lucio, a victim of sexual abuse and domestic violence, was wrongly convicted and condemned to die for the accidental death of her daughter, Mariah. Ms. Lucio is scheduled for execution on April 27, 2022.

    The application includes the declarations of seven nationally recognized experts, including scientists and forensic experts, who have reviewed the evidence and concluded that Ms. Lucio’s conviction was based upon (1) an unreliable “confession” that is essentially a mere “regurgitation” of facts and words officers fed to her during the five-hour interrogation, and (2) unscientific, false evidence that misled the jury into believing that Mariah must have been killed by physical abuse, when the evidence is actually consistent with a conclusion that Mariah died from medical complications after a fall. The application also documents that Ms. Lucioasserted her innocence more than 100 times over five hours of the coercive interrogation.

    “Mariah died from medical complications after an accidental fall. She was not murdered.”

    In addition to the new forensic analyses, today’s application includes declarations from four jurors stating they have grave concerns about evidence withheld from them at Ms. Lucio’s capital trial and would support relief. An additional juror, an alternate who heard the evidence, but did not join deliberations, also submitted a declaration supporting relief for Ms. Lucio.

    Hundreds of Texas anti-domestic violence groups, Baptist, Evangelical and Catholic leaders, Latino organizations, exonerees of wrongful convictions, and Ms. Lucio’s children also filed letters urging the Board and the Governor to grant Ms. Lucio clemency. (See Exhibits attached to application.)

    “Based on a rush to judgement and a biased and inadequate death investigation, the State extracted an unreliable ‘confession’ and used false scientific evidence to convict Melissa Lucio of a crime she did not commit and in fact never occurred. What we know today is this: Mariah died from medical complications after an accidental fall. She was not murdered,” said Vanessa Potkin, director of special litigation at the Innocence Project, and one of Ms. Lucio’s attorneys.

    Ms. Lucio’s Application for the Commutation of Death Sentence to a Lesser Penalty or, in the Alternative, a 120-Reprieve from Execution can be viewed here:

    A Rush to Judgement After a Tragedy

    On February 15, 2007, as Ms. Lucio was moving her family to a new home, Mariah fell down a steep outdoor staircase leading to their apartment. After the fall, Mariah’s injuries did not appear life-threatening, but two days later she fell asleep on her parents’ bed and did not wake up. Mariah had physical disabilities that made her walking unstable and she had a history of falls, including a recent fall at a preschool program where she lost consciousness. At the time of her arrest, Ms. Lucio had no history of abusing her children or violence of any kind. (App. at pp. 2, 10-12.)

    Melissa Lucio with her son John Lucio. (Image courtesy of the Lucio family)

    Two hours after Mariah’s death, Ms. Lucio — grieving and in shock — was hauled into an interrogation room where, for over five hours, armed, male police officers stood over her, yelled at her, threatened her, berated her parenting, and repeatedly refused to accept anything less than an admission to causing her daughter’s death. Ms. Lucio was especially vulnerable to the aggressive, intimidating, and psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics of the police and male authority figures due to her history of abuse, trauma, low IQ, and abnormally high levels of suggestibility and compliance. (App. at pp. 15-17.)

    After hours of continuous interrogation, Ms. Lucio acquiesced, followed their directions, and gave in to their demands. She was sleep-deprived — it was 3:00 in the morning by then — and pregnant with twins, emotionally and physically exhausted by the threats and manipulation. (App. at pp. 15-17, 39.)

    “I think if I heard this evidence I may have decided differently.”

    Two experts on false confessions (including police trainer and interrogation expert, David Thompson, and Dr. Gisli Gudjonsson, one of the world’s leading experts on false confessions) have analyzed Ms. Lucio’s interrogation and concluded that her admissions are “unreliable” and simply a “regurgitation” of the words and facts that interrogators fed to her throughout a highly coercive interrogation process. (App. at pp. 16, 39-42.)

    Lacking physical evidence or eyewitnesses connecting  Ms. Lucio to Mariah’s death, Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos — who is now serving a 13-year federal sentence for bribery and extortion —  characterized Ms. Lucio acquiescence during the interrogation as a “confession” to murder. (App. at p. 19.)

    Mariah’s Death Was Declared A Murder Before the Autopsy Even Began

    The application states: “[The State’s Medical Examiner] Dr. Farley, who was told going into autopsy that Ms. Lucio had ‘confessed’ to abusing Mariah, and who was accompanied in the autopsy suite by two of the interrogating officers, assumed everything she observed was evidence of abuse and ignored all evidence to the contrary.” (App. at p. 20.)

    At Ms. Lucio’s trial, the jury was told that Mariah’s injuries could only be explained by child abuse and complications from an accidental fall were impossible. That testimony was false. Dr. Farley failed in her duty to rule out nonviolent medical explanations for Mariah’s condition before rushing to agree with law enforcement’s judgment of abuse. (App. at pp. 19-20, 28.)

    Seven experts, including nationally recognized medical and forensic scientists, have now reviewed the evidence in Ms. Lucio’s case. Dr. Michael Laposata, the chairman of the Department of Pathology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, concluded that at the time of her death Mariah had indications of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC), a disorder that causes extensive bruising following a head trauma, like the injury that Mariah suffered from her fall, or an infection. (App. at p. 21.) As Dr. Laposata stated in his declaration, DIC can cause profound bruising throughout the body with no trauma whatsoever. “In patients with DIC, routine handling at home or in a hospital setting can cause significant bruising. It is not possible to tell the difference between a bruise from DIC and a bruise from abuse.” (Exhibit 6 at p. 2.)

    “[Dr. Farley] failed to review any of Mariah’s medical history to look for any explanation or contributing cause to her injuries.”

    Dr. Janice Ophoven, a pediatric forensic pathologist, concluded that Mariah’s autopsy indicates she was in DIC at the time of her death. Her records also show she had a persistent high fever, and was sufficiently dehydrated to experience shock. The application states: “[S]teeped in extrinsic, biasing information, [Dr. Farley] failed to review any of Mariah’s medical history to look for any explanation or contributing cause to her injuries, conduct any basic laboratory tests to diagnose a coagulation disorder, or even perform simple testing to confirm the presence of infection or sepsis.” (App. at p. 28.)

    Four jurors who served on the jury that sentenced Ms. Lucio to die and one alternate juror have expressed grave concerns about the evidence that they were not allowed to hear. Juror Johnny Galvan stated that “[t]he fact that you can’t pinpoint what caused Mariah’s death means that [Melissa] shouldn’t be executed.” Juror Alejandro Saldivar stated, “I think if I heard this evidence I may have decided differently.” (App. at p. 3.)

     

    Ms. Lucio’s Statements Have the Hallmarks of a False Confession

    Melissa Lucio. (Image courtesy of the Lucio family)

    Over five hours, Ms. Lucio asserted her innocence 86 times verbally and 35 times non-verbally (shaking her head), but police refused to accept any response that was not an admission of guilt—suggesting to Ms. Lucio that the interrogation would not stop unless she told them what they wanted to hear. (App. at p. 15.) While the vast majority of interrogations last 30 minutes to up to two hours, interrogations that elicit confessions later proven false last much longer. “[T]he length of Melissa’s nighttime interrogation further increased the risk that she would falsely incriminate herself.” (App at pp. 16, 36-37.)

    The interrogating officers used manipulative, psychological techniques known to cause false confessions and disregarded Ms. Lucio’s multiple vulnerabilities, including her shock and grief over her daughter’s death hours earlier, physical and emotional exhaustion, sleep deprivation, her high levels of suggestibility and compliance, and low IQ. (App. at pp. 37-39.) According to experts, Ms. Lucio’s lifetime of sexual abuse, starting at six years old, and domestic violence at the hands of two partners, made her extremely vulnerable and susceptible to falsely confessing during an interrogation by male police officers, some armed, and one impliedly threatening to “beat [her] half to death like that little child was beat.” (App. at pp. 35, 42-47.)

     “[T]he length of Melissa’s nighttime interrogation further increased the risk that she would falsely incriminate herself.”

    Doctor Gisli Gudjonsson, one of the world’s leading experts in false confessions, and David Thompson, an expert from one of the nation’s top interrogation training schools, have reviewed the record of Ms. Lucio’s case and determined that Ms. Lucio “was relentlessly pressured and extensively manipulated” throughout the many hours of interrogation and her statements bear the hallmarks of a coerced-compliant false confession. (App. at pp. 15-16.) Dr. Gudjonsson concluded that Melissa’s case presents a “very high” risk of false confession and in his “extensive forensic evaluation of cases of disputed confessions internationally, the number, severity, and combination of the risk factors involved during the lengthy interrogation are exceptional.” (App. at 16.) He further explained Ms. Lucio’s “history of negative/traumatic life events is associated with increased level of suggestibility, compliance, and false confession . . . because trauma significantly reduces the resilience of the trauma victims to cope with interrogative pressure.” (App. at p. 37.)

    Mr. Thompson noted, “Repetitive threats combined with promises or suggestions of leniency are known to incentivize innocent subjects to confess. These tactics, alongside Ms. Lucio’s susceptibility and her state of mind in a lengthy interrogation shortly after her daughter’s death, are known to have a substantial psychological impact on a subject’s decision-making” and found her statements are a result of fact-feeding or other tactics used by investigators. (Exhibit 11 at pp. 5-6.)

    False confessions elicited by guilt-presumptive police interrogations—like the interrogation at issue here—are a primary cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the 67 women listed on the National Registry of Exonerations who were exonerated after a murder conviction, over one quarter (17/67) involved false confessions and nearly one-third (20/67) involved child victims.

    Widespread Support Across Texas for Clemency

    Alarmed by the prospect of executing an innocent woman, who is a lifelong survivor of sexual abuse and domestic violence, a wide and diverse array of Texans are urging the Governor and the Board to grant Ms. Lucio clemency, including:

    • 225 anti-domestic violence/sexual assault organizations from Texas and across the country;
    • Over 130 Baptist, Evangelical and Catholic faith leaders in Texas, including more than 50 Baptist leaders, the Executive Director of the Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas, and the Director of the Rio Grande Valley Baptist Association;
    • More than 30 groups that work on behalf of Latinos in Texas and across the U.S., including the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators (NHCSL);
    • Eighteen people wrongfully convicted of a crime in a Texas state court, including Hannah Overton and Michael Morton; and
    • Twenty-six death row exonerees, including two from Texas.

    More than 100,000 people, including more than 20,000 in Texas, have signed an Innocence Project petition urging clemency for Ms. Lucio.

    Ms. Lucio’s children are also urging the Governor and the Board not to execute their mother. They are Mariah’s brothers and sisters and Texas law requires that their wishes be taken into account. (App. at pp. 1-2, 49-51.)

    The faith leaders wrote to the Governor and the Board:

    In this case, you have an extraordinary opportunity to show compassion for a woman and a family that has already suffered greatly, first from the tragic death of Mariah and then by the incarceration of Ms. Lucio. Through the clemency process, you alone can compensate for the rigidities of the judicial system, which has been unable to correct this injustice despite support from numerous federal judges. . . .  In accordance with the shared values of our diverse religious and faith traditions and in the name of mercy, we respectfully urge you to commute her death sentence. (App. at p. 6.)

    “In Melissa’s case, the legal system’s failure to acknowledge the effects of child sexual abuse and domestic violence led directly to the conviction and death sentence of an innocent woman. Meanwhile, her abusive partner is now a free man. This is why Texans who have spent their lives helping survivors of gender-based violence are pleading with the Board and the Governor to grant clemency to Melissa Lucio,” said Professor Sandra Babock, director of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, and one of Ms. Lucio’s attorneys.

    The post Melissa Lucio, Scheduled to be Executed on April 27, Appeals to Texas Pardons Board and Governor for Clemency appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Minnesotans hold a rally at the capitol to support trans kids effected by anti-trans legislation in Minnesota, Texas, and around the country, in St. Paul, Minnesota, on March 6, 2022.

    More than one-third of the estimated 150,000 transgender youth and young adults in the United States are at risk of being denied gender-affirming health care as politicians push a deluge of anti-LGBTQ bills through multiple state legislatures, and authorities in Texas threaten to tear apart families over transphobic allegations of “child abuse.”

    Fifteen states have restricted access to gender-affirming care or are considering laws to do so, putting an estimated 54,000 transgender youth ages 13 to 17 at risk of losing access to health care that is shown to be essential for improving mental health and saving lives, according to a new report from the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. Another 4,000 young adults are also at risk of losing access to care under proposals in Alabama, North Carolina and Oklahoma that target people between the ages of 18 and 20.

    The report comes as Republican politicians across the country attack the rights of LGBTQ youth and their families in an attempt to capture media attention and rally their base to the polls in 2022 and 2024. More than 100 bills attacking trans and gender-nonconforming people have been introduced in state legislatures since 2020, and 2021 was the “worst year for anti-LGBTQ legislation in recent history,” according to civil and human rights groups. The bills in 15 states currently targeting trans youth would punish and, in some cases, criminalize parents and medical providers.

    Right-wing lawmakers across the country have already pushed to bar trans athletes from school sports, and now they demand that the government interrupt or even criminalize health decisions that advocates say should be left up to youth, parents, counselors and doctors. All major health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatricians (APA) and the American Medical Association, oppose legislation that would ban gender-affirming care for adolescents.

    While gender-affirming medical care may include the use of hormones to delay puberty and to promote physical development that is consistent with a child’s identity — which is recommended by the APA for trans youth when they reach an appropriate age but exploited by the right to spark outrage — these treatments are only one part of a much broader model of care for trans, nonbinary and gender-nonconforming people.

    Many hospitals will only offer hormone treatment to patients ages 16 and older, and some patients may choose other services instead. The gender-affirming care model includes counseling and psychological evaluations, as well as support during and after social and legal transitions, with an emphasis on affirming a patient’s identity in health care settings. Some patients receive speech therapy or laser hair removal, for example. Research has shown that rates of attempted suicide are lower among transgender people who want and receive gender-affirming health care.

    Victoria Kirby York, deputy executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, an LGBTQ+ and racial justice group, said Black youth are facing a suicide crisis, and bills peddled by lawmakers that could “take a child’s life” are a “disgrace.”

    “Gender-affirming care is a model with a range of treatments, not just hormones or surgery, which is getting lost in the national conversation about these bills,” York said in an email. “For instance, gender-affirming care treatment from a mental health therapist could include the recommendation of social transition for transgender youth (name, clothing, pronouns shift, use of a binder, etc).”

    While many of the anti-trans bills target hormonal treatments for transgender youth, advocates say the legislation threatens an entire medical model that has become standard treatment for trans people. Right-wing politicians cling to false claims that minors are undergoing gender-reassignment surgery, but these procedures are typically only available to adults.

    Last year, lawmakers in Arkansas succeeded in passing a law to ban gender-affirming care for transgender and gender-nonconforming minors. In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton and Gov. Greg Abbott, both Republicans, have been widely condemned for declaring gender-affirming care “child abuse” and ordering the state’s child protective services to investigate parents of trans kids. The policy is terrorizing families and putting youth at risk of being removed from their homes, forced into a broken foster care system and made to suffer serious emotional harm. Health officials in the Biden administration call Abbott’s order “discriminatory and unconscionable” and vowed to extend federal protections to Texas families.

    The anti-trans efforts in Texas and Arkansas face lawsuits and are currently blocked by courts, at least for now. However, an anti-trans bill introduced in Missouri would rip a page from Abbott’s playbook and enshrine gender-affirming care as “child abuse” in state law. Anti-trans bills in 10 states would allow private citizens to file civil lawsuits against medical providers who violate proposed bans on gender-affirming care for youth, a tactic that mirrors the Texas “bounty hunter” anti-abortion law that has devastated reproductive health care services in the state.

    The anti-trans bills across 15 states carry severe penalties for health care providers and, in some cases, family members and parents of trans youth, according to the Williams Institute. In each of these states, the bills would either criminalize providers of gender-affirming care or subject them to discipline from state licensing boards. Thousands of frontline doctors already oppose any legislation that criminalizes patient care for trans and gender-nonconforming patients.

    Additionally, bills in six states would penalize parents who facilitate gender-affirming care for their children. The report continues:

    About half of these bills would further limit access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth by barring certain insurance providers from offering coverage for gender-affirming care, by placing restrictions on the use of state funds or state facilities to provide this care, or by excluding gender-affirming care as a tax-deductible health care expense. Bills in seven states would prohibit certain health insurance plans from offering coverage for gender-affirming care. In eight states, bills would prohibit the use of state funds for gender-affirming care or more broadly prohibit distribution of state funds to any organization or individual that provides gender-affirming care to minors, seemingly regardless of what the funding is used for. In five states, bills would prohibit gender-affirming care by or in government-owned or operated facilities, and by individual providers employed by government entities. In four states, bills would exclude gender-affirming care as a tax-deductible health care expense.

    The right’s onslaught of anti-trans policies is already taking a heavy toll on the mental health of trans youth and their families, and research shows that anti-trans messages in the media are associated with adverse mental health outcomes in adults. Advocates and researchers say trans and other LGBTQ youth are particularly vulnerable due to discrimination, the harms of negative media messaging and bullying by their peers, especially if they are also youth of color.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.