Page 1 of 1

Teen who may be mentally retarded faces death if convicted

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2003 12:30 pm
by TexasStooge
Two days after he turned 17 years old, Cedric Harrison went to an apartment complex in southwest Houston to visit his girlfriend. Within an hour, prosecutors say, the teenager shot a man dead in cold blood, stole his car and led police on a high-speed chase that ended when the car crashed into a ditch and burst into flames.

When testimony starts Monday in Harrison's murder trial, the case should begin as a relatively straightforward prosecution. Prosecutors will call eyewitnesses, residents, police officers and others in an effort to prove that Harrison is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of killing 36-year-old nurse Felix Sabio II and then fleeing in his car.

But for prosecutors, winning a conviction is just Job One. They have charged Harrison with capital murder, a charge that would make the teenager eligible for the death penalty if he is found guilty.

Although he will turn 18 next month, Harrison's lawyers say he has the mental development of a much younger person and should not be facing a potential death sentence.

Last month, the defense presented a psychiatrist's testimony that Harrison has an IQ of 69. Texas, like many states, considers a person to be mentally retarded if they have an IQ below 70 and have related mental deficiencies.

The defense is not arguing for Harrison's innocence based on his mental retardation. His lawyers maintain that a 2002 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision bars the execution of mentally retarded people so he should not even be tried for capital murder.

The high court concluded that executing mentally retarded people constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" and therefore is unconstitutional. The justices left it to the states, however, to define mental retardation.

In late March, Texas District Judge Bob Burnette declined to rule on whether Harrison is mentally retarded. Instead, he ruled that the state could seek the death penalty and left the issue of Harrison's mental retardation something for a jury to decide, if it comes to that.

"I am not saying the court finds as a matter of law that Mr. Harrison is not mentally retarded," Burdette said, according to the Houston Chronicle. "This could come into play again during the course of the trial."

In a metropolitan area like Houston where more than 200 are murdered each year, Cedric Harrison's plight would have gotten scant notice if not for a request by the PBS television program "Frontline."

The documentary program wanted to videotape Harrison's trial from start to finish, including placing an unmanned camera in the jury deliberation room while jurors debated his fate.

State District Judge Ted Poe ruled Nov. 11 that "Frontline" could film the capital murder trial in its entirety. The defense had no problem with that, but prosecutors objected.

Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal petitioned an appeals court, arguing that Texas law and tradition mandate that jury deliberations be conducted in secret. He feared that jurors might play to the cameras and that the verdict could be swayed by considerations other than the evidence presented in court.

The state's highest court of criminal appeals ruled just last month that Poe had no authority to authorize the camera in jury deliberations.

With the jury-room camera issue settled, the case was transferred to Burnette and jury selection resumed.

Jurors will be told during Burnette's final instructions that a death penalty hearing will only be conducted when and if they determine Harrison murdered Sabio while committing felony robbery.

When he was killed, Sabio was preparing to pick up out-of-town relatives at Houston Intercontinental Airport. The state reportedly has witnesses who will testify that Harrison and Sabio exchanged words and that Harrison asked for a ride and was denied.

It is unclear whether jurors will be told that Harrison would not be facing the death penalty if Sabio had been killed three days earlier. Under Texas law, minors under age 17 cannot be put to death.

Prosecutor Warren Diepraam and defense attorneys were not available for comment.

The trial is expected to last about three weeks.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 12:40 am
by streetsoldier
There was one inmate that got a reprieve in Missouri due to this issue; he was one of three young men who drove two girls onto an unused bridge in St. Louis, got hammered on coke, and the three raped both girls and threw them off that bridge to certain death in the Mississippi in 1990.

But for a matter of a few minutes, my stepdaughter might well have been victim no. 3 (they came by the house looking for her, but she'd already left).

I don't buy the "diminished capacity" argument at all.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 7:45 am
by j
streetsoldier wrote:There was one inmate that got a reprieve in Missouri due to this issue; he was one of three young men who drove two girls onto an unused bridge in St. Louis, got hammered on coke, and the three raped both girls and threw them off that bridge to certain death in the Mississippi in 1990.

But for a matter of a few minutes, my stepdaughter might well have been victim no. 3 (they came by the house looking for her, but she'd already left).

I don't buy the "diminished capacity" argument at all.


Hey Streetsoldier....I suspect you....like myself, wouldn't have to worry about whether he might get the death penalty had he got a hold of your daughter or mine. Am I right??

Sorry...but I have NO tolerance for a murderer...mentally handicapped or not. That's just the way I feel. Our society has perfected the defense strategy for murder defendants. I'm sick of there always being an excuse for someones actions. If it wasn't this defense it would be another....like he had watched too many friday the 13th movies.

My position is if he's found guilty by a jury of his peers, he needs to be put to death. Remember now, even if he gets the Death Penalty, he will still LIVE for another 10-15 years awaiting execution. The man he killed will be nothing but a rotted corpse by then. Cruel and unusual punishment ? Bulls**t!

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 9:37 am
by deb_in_nc
I'm with you guys.What's 1 little point ? He knows right from wrong. He knows how to drive a car. I think thathe knew what he was doing and should be tried accordingly.

Debbie

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 9:44 am
by Amanzi
I have to agree with you Deb, if the young man knew how to drive a car and attempted to escape from the police, he knows the basics of what is right and what is wrong. Just my opinion

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 10:47 am
by j
Amanzi wrote:I have to agree with you Deb, if the young man knew how to drive a car and attempted to escape from the police, he knows the basics of what is right and what is wrong. Just my opinion


Well put Amanzi...the differance between right and wrong...is exactly what is at issue here.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 2:02 pm
by JQ Public
i dunno i am undecided only b/c i am not very familiar with this case.

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 2:32 pm
by pojo
j wrote: Sorry...but I have NO tolerance for a murderer...mentally handicapped or not. That's just the way I feel. Our society has perfected the defense strategy for murder defendants. I'm sick of there always being an excuse for someones actions. If it wasn't this defense it would be another....like he had watched too many friday the 13th movies.

My position is if he's found guilty by a jury of his peers, he needs to be put to death. Remember now, even if he gets the Death Penalty, he will still LIVE for another 10-15 years awaiting execution. The man he killed will be nothing but a rotted corpse by then. Cruel and unusual punishment ? Bulls**t!


Well put.