[CUADPUpdate] Vigil to Save Kenneth Foster's Life and End Death Penalty

[Abraham J. Bonowitz]

Greetings All,

I hope you are having a lovely August.  Our friend Art Laffin asks 
that I pass along the following.  I hope you will read it and take 
action.  But before Art's piece is another about a killing scheduled 
for next month, and after Art's piece are some news items of 
interest.  Thanks for your prompt action!

--abe

**************

From: <mailto:sherriestone4you at aol.com>sherriestone4you at aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 4:15 PM
Subject: From Sherrie Stone Not a Business E-Mail Is a Personal Request

If you are receiving this e-mail, you have meet me or worked me at 
some point in the last few years. This is not a business e-mail.  I 
have a father on death row in Alabama.  Most of you never knew this 
about me.  He has been there for 25 years for a crime he did not 
commit.  He is scheduled to be executed next month 09-27-2007.  His 
web site is 
<http://www.ThomasArthurFightForLife.com>www.ThomasArthurFightForLife.com 
There is history about his case there and links to legal 
documents.  What I am asking of you is to sign the petition that is 
on the web site.  I am asking the Governor of Alabama to stay the 
execution until we can have the crime scene evidence DNA tested. 
There is actual crime scene evidence that was collected and still 
exists that the State of Alabama refuses to DNA test. If you look at 
the site and do not want to sign the petition, I will truly 
understand. If you do sign and want to e-mail the Governor, I will 
appreciate it with all my heart.  I will on some national news show 
in the coming weeks in an effort to change some laws in Alabama, and 
to plead with Governor Riley in Alabama to stay the execution until 
we can DNA test the crime scene evidence at our own expense. If you 
look at the site and decide to sign the petition and know anyone you 
can pass this information to, I would appreciate it with all my heart.


Sincerely,

Sherrrie Stone

Make Every Day A Great Day !!

Sherrie Stone Realtor
People's Choice Realty Services, LLC
813-293-9139 Direct Line
<mailto:SherrieStone4you at aol.com>SherrieStone4you at aol.com



***************


SAVE THE LIFE OF KENNETH FOSTER!

          Abolish the Death Penalty!

Vigil at Supreme Court on Wednesday, August 29, from 4:30 - 6:00 p.m.


Dear Friends,

As a murder victim family member who opposes the death penalty, I'm 
writing to invite you to join me and other death penalty 
abolitionists in helping to save the life of Kenneth Foster, who is 
scheduled to be executed in Texas on Thursday, August 30, at 6:00 
p.m. (See below more info about Foster's case).

I also ask you to oppose two other scheduled executions in Texas this 
week: Daroyce Mosley--August 28, and John Amador--August 29.

Kenneth Foster is innocent of the murder of Michael LaHood. The state 
of Texas has admitted that Foster did not commit the murder. LaHood 
was killed by Maurecio Brown, who has already been executed. The 
murder of LaHood occurred when Brown left the car that Foster was 
driving and got into an altercation with LaHood. Foster had no prior 
knowledge that Brown would carry out this killing. But under the 
state's "Law of Parties" Foster was convicted and sentenced to die. 
We can not let this happen.

All over Texas people are organizing and demanding that Foster's life 
be spared and that he be pardoned. Foster is now on a hunger-strike 
to protest his execution. According to Democracy Now, Foster and 
another prisoner, John Amador, are refusing all food since Wednesday, 
August 23. Both men said they will commit to a protest of passive 
non-participation in their executions. In a statement released on 
August 22 the men said: "We will not walk to our executions and we 
will not eat last meals. We will not give this process a humane face."

What can we do here in the D.C. area? I would like to invite you to a 
vigil at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, August 29 from 4:30 - 6:00 
p.m. to call on the Supreme Court Justices to grant a stay of 
execution for Kenneth Foster as well as for John Amador. If you 
cannot come to this vigil, please sign the below petition to Gov. 
Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons.

Thank you for doing what you can to save Kenneth Foster's life and to 
stop state-sanctioned homicide.

In peace and hope,

Art Laffin



[]

Kenneth Foster Jr. is currently facing the death penalty in the 
notorious Polunsky Unit, Texas.

Kenneth was convicted as the getaway driver in the 1996 murder of 
Michael LaHood Jr., outside the LaHood family residence north of 
downtown. Foster was one of four implicated in the alleged botched 
robbery attempt that led to LaHood's death; though he was not the 
triggerman, and played no direct role in LaHood's murder, he was 
convicted for the crime under the state's law of parties. In invoking 
that statute, prosecutors had to prove that Foster and his cohorts 
agreed to commit armed robbery, and that they should've anticipated 
that their risky behaviour might cause LaHood's death. In Foster's 
case, the jury agreed that Foster should've foreseen that the 
reckless actions of his acquaintance, Mauriceo Brown, could result in 
LaHood's murder. As such, they convicted Foster and sentenced him to die.

We are asking you to help with Kenneth's struggle and to unite with 
us in getting Kenneth off death row as he surely doesn't deserve to 
die for his involvement.

Kenneth is a father to Nydesha, a son to Ronnie and a grandson to 
Lawrence Foster. Like us they all want to save the life of this man 
who needs our help.


The Kenneth Foster Support Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


What: Call-in, fax-in day to save Kenneth Foster
When: Monday, Aug. 27  (EXTENDED THROUGH TUESDAY, AUG 28)

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles is scheduled to make a 
decision by Aug. 29 on whether to recommend clemency for Kenneth 
Foster Jr., who is scheduled to be executed Aug. 30 even though the 
State of Texas admits he did not kill anyone. For Gov. Rick Perry to 
consider clemency for Kenneth, 5 of the 7 members of the Texas Board 
of Pardons and Paroles have to recommend clemency for Kenneth. On 
Monday & Tuesday, Aug. 27 & 28, please call the Board of Pardons and 
Paroles and Gov. Rick Perry and urge them to grant clemency to 
Kenneth Foster. With 3 days left to fight for Kenneth, let's keep up 
the pressure!

Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles:
Phone (512)406-5852
Fax (512)467-0945

Gov. Rick Perry
Phone (512)463-1782
Fax (512)463-1848

THE CASE

Kenneth Foster's case "is a new low for Texas," says Larry Cox, executive
director of Amnesty International USA. "Texas has the most far-reaching 'law
of parties' in this country, further marking it as the death penalty capital
of the United States. In essence, Kenneth Foster has been sentenced to death
for leaving his crystal ball at home. There is no concrete evidence
demonstrating that he could know a murder would be committed. Allowing his
life to be taken is a shocking perversion of the law."

Kenneth Foster killed no one.

The state of Texas is the first to acknowledge this. But Texas--which
recently executed its 400th prisoner since the reinstatement of the death
penalty--is the only state in the country that uses a legal statute called
the law of parties to sentence people to death despite their having no
proven role in a murder. In Texas, a prosecutor only has to prove that a
defendant involved in a crime that led to a murder "should have anticipated"
that a murder was going to take place to find them criminally responsible
for murder.

On the night of August 15, 1996, Kenneth Foster was driving a car carrying
Mauriceo Brown and two companions, who over the course of the evening
committed two robberies. At the end of the night, Mauriceo Brown shot and
killed 29-year old Michael LaHood, while Foster sat in the car, 80 feet
away, with the windows rolled up, and the radio on. Mauriceo Brown was
executed last year. Before his death, Brown took responsibility for Michael
LaHood's murder, reiterating that Foster could not have possibly known that
he was going to kill anyone.

NEGLIGENCE IS THE LEAST CULPABLE MENTAL STATE KNOWN TO CRIMINAL LAW

Keith Hampton, Foster's lawyer, says that Texas is using the law of parties
"to make persons death-eligible on nothing greater than a negligence
standard and negligence is the least culpable mental state known to criminal
law." This drastically lowers the bar for the ultimate punishment; one
supposedly reserved for the "worst of the worst."

*************


THE FOLLOWING INCLUDES:
    Dallas Morning News editorial
    Waco Tribune-Herald OpEd
    San Antonio Express-News column
    San Antonio Express-News NS
- - - - -
<http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-death_26edi.ART.State.Edition1.42111de.html>http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-death_26edi.ART.State.Edition1.42111de.html
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Not a Killer: Kenneth Foster does not deserve execution
Dallas Morning News

Kenneth Foster was a robber. He was a drug user. He was a teenager making very
bad decisions.

He is not an innocent man.

But Mr. Foster is not a killer.

Still, the State of Texas plans to put him to death Thursday.

Ours is the only state in the country to apply the "law of parties" to capital
cases, allowing accomplices to pay the ultimate penalty for a murder committed
by another. Mr. Foster was driving his grandfather's rental car when one of
his partners in crime killed Michael LaHood.

That night in 1996, Mr. Foster and three of his buddies appeared to be looking
for trouble. They robbed a few folks, chugged some beers and smoked marijuana.
But, as all four have testified, murder was never part of the plan. Mr. Foster
and two others sat in the car nearly 90 feet away when the fatal shot 
was fired.

They had followed an attractive woman into an unfamiliar neighborhood, where
they encountered her boyfriend, Mr. LaHood. The other passengers have
testified that they had no designs on robbing - let alone shooting - him. And
the admitted triggerman said that his friends did not know what he was doing
when he approached the victim.

But using the law of parties, prosecutors argued that Mr. Foster, who was 19
at the time, either intended to kill or "should have anticipated" a murder.
For this lack of foresight, he has been sentenced to death.

The death penalty, proponents argue, is the appropriate punishment for the
worst of the worst criminals. They express confidence that death row inmates
are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

But the case against Mr. Foster falls far short on both counts.

A 19-year-old robber/getaway driver cannot be classified as one of Texas' most
dangerous, murderous criminals. On this point, even prosecutors agree: Mr.
Foster did not kill anyone.

By applying the law of parties to this capital case, prosecutors are asking
jurors to speculate on whether he should have anticipated the murder.
Conjecture isn't nearly good enough when a defendant's life is on the line.

And relying on a mind-reading jury leaves plenty of room for reasonable doubt.

Several other states have imposed or are considering a moratorium on
executions, relying instead on life without parole as a tough alternative.
Even though Texas juries now have the option of life without parole, our state
continues to broadly impose capital punishment.

The unfair application of the death penalty and the possibility that an
innocent man could be executed compelled this newspaper to voice opposition to
capital punishment. This case only reinforces our belief that state-sanctioned
death is often arbitrary.

While Mr. Foster's execution date approaches, the two passengers from his car
sit in prison with life sentences. His only hope for a reprieve lies with the
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and the governor.

This case raises serious questions about whether state leaders are comfortable
with this degree of ambiguity in death cases. We aren't.

Mr. Foster is a criminal. But he should not be put to death for a murder
committed by someone else.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Texas is the only state that applies the "law of parties" to capital cases,
allowing accomplices who "should have anticipated" a murder to receive the
death penalty. Kenneth Foster is scheduled to die Thursday under this
provision. You can urge the governor to stop the execution.

Write the governor:
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

E-mail the governor through his Web site:
<http://www.governor.state.tx.us/contact>www.governor.state.tx.us/contact

Call the governor's opinion hotline:
1-800-252-9600

/ / / / /
<http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2007/08/26/08262007wachankins.html>http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2007/08/26/08262007wachankins.html
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Lamar Hankins, guest column: Executing this man is bloodlust, not justice

Waco Tribune

You might have missed the story. After all, the football season is starting,
and we had all the excitement of a tax-free weekend.

But Texas is about to execute an innocent man, that is, a man who killed no
one, who did not want to kill anyone, who did not help kill anyone.

On these points, there is unanimous agreement between all the parties
involved. How could this happen in Texas?

Kenneth Foster is scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection Thursday
for a murder committed by Mauriceo Brown, a friend of Foster who was executed
for murder last year.

The incident in question is the murder of Michael LaHood. In an altercation,
Brown pulled a gun and shot LaHood. Brown testified that LaHood had drawn a
gun on him first. Whatever happened, it is undisputed that Foster sat in the
car 80 feet away from the shooting.

There is no evidence that Foster had felonious intent. When he heard the shot,
he started to drive off before Brown got back in the car, a fact kept from the
jury.

Part of what got Foster charged with capital murder is a legal concept known
as "the law of parties."

In Texas, a person is responsible for the criminal conduct of another if he
intentionally assists the other in committing a crime. If a second crime is
committed, and it can be anticipated, he can be held criminally responsible
for that crime, as well.

Problematic law

Nearly thirty years ago, I was appointed to represent a capital murder
defendant in Brazos County where the "law of parties" was involved.

In that case, my client agreed with another person to do physical harm to the
victim and the victim died as a result.

Even though there was no direct evidence that my client intended the death of
the victim, his conduct fit clearly within the "law of parties."

This is not the case with Kenneth Foster. Foster was merely present in the
vicinity of the murder, not a participant in it in any way except that he was
driving the car in which the killer, Brown, left the scene.

It should surprise no one who keeps up with such cases that Foster is a black
man accused of killing a white man, a factor in many capital murder cases.
Michael LaHood was the son of a well-known attorney in San Antonio. The LaHood
family, through the media, made it known it wanted the guilty parties executed.

The prosecuting attorney withheld evidence that would have supported Brown's
testimony that LaHood was armed and that Brown shot him in self-defense.

Foster was tried with Brown, a decision by the judge and prosecutor that
prejudiced Foster's chance to receive a fair trial. Foster's court-appointed
attorney made no inquiries into Foster's background. Had he done so, he would
have found many factors that would have mitigated against sentencing him to
death by lethal injection.

Proponents of capital punishment argue that we need this punishment for those
who are the worst of the worse; for those who commit murder under the most
cold and heinous circumstances; for the irretrievably lost among us. None of
these conditions comes close to describing Kenneth Foster.

This case is not about revenge against Kenneth Foster because Foster didn't
kill Michael LaHood, nor did he even want to kill him. It is about blood lust.

Whether the proponents of capital punishment take refuge in Scripture or their
general outrage at crime, their hands will be covered with the blood of
Kenneth Foster if this travesty of justice is not stopped.
- - - - -
Lamar Hankins is a San Marcos attorney.

/ / / / /

<http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA082707.02O.kathylittle.24576e5.html>http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA082707.02O.kathylittle.24576e5.html
Monday, August 27, 2007
Kathy Clay Little: In Texas, bad company can mean capital punishment
San Antonio Express-News


"Shun evil companions ... "
"Yield Not to Temptation"
Baptist Standard Hymnal

"That's too cold!"
Black slang from 1970s
describing hard, merciless fact

Kenneth Foster will be executed in three days.

His execution is unique among Texas' many executions in that he 
murdered no one.

Foster was driving the vehicle that Mauriceo Brown exited on a muggy August
night in 1996 to shoot and kill Michael LaHood, the son of a prominent
attorney in Bexar County.

Brown was executed last summer, and the two other men in the car are serving
life sentences for other capital murder cases, though neither was prosecuted
for the LaHood murder.

Foster was convicted under the Texas Law of Parties statute, which states "if,
in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony
is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the
felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it."

In other words, the law's position is that even if Foster had no knowledge
that Brown was going to kill LaHood, he should have anticipated it and, thus,
he is eligible for the death penalty.

Although four other states have law of parties statutes, Texas is the only
state that attaches the death penalty to the statute.

There are many troubling aspects of Foster's trial, particularly that Foster
was tried with Brown, the admitted shooter, and the fact that attorneys for
Dewayne Dillard and Julius Steen -- the two other men in the car -- refused to
allow Foster's attorney to interview them because they were each under
indictment in capital cases. The prosecution, however, had full access to both
men.

Furthermore, Foster's court-appointed attorney had tried only one other death
penalty case before Foster's case.

One of the more troubling aspects of Foster's case is his grandfather's
allegation that he could not find an attorney to take the case.

Lawrence Foster told the Austin Chronicle that local attorneys said they were
afraid of reprisals if they represented his grandson.

Foster's case has attracted international attention, and last week
award-winning Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist Bob Ray Sanders challenged
the state of Texas not to execute Foster. Whether one believes in the death
penalty or not, Sanders wrote, "a man who did not plan or commit a murder will
die Aug. 30 unless somebody -- a judge, the Board of Pardons and Paroles and/or
the governor -- has the heart and the guts to stop it."

LaHood was a law student. It is tragic that hundreds are deprived of the legal
talent he could have brought to the justice system. Foster, with the help of
his grandfather, had overcome a childhood scarred by drug-addicted, criminally
inclined parents, to become a business owner by the age of 20 and was
attending college. It is tragic that his potential was cut short.

But we accomplish nothing if we extract nothing but state-mandated revenge
from these tragedies.

Therefore, we must make Foster's situation instructive. The life lesson
learned from his execution is one that every parent or caregiver should
forcefully relate to his or her child: Shun evil companions.

We also need to educate kids on the Texas Law of Parties statute and teach
them how to remove themselves from the type of situation Foster found himself
in. This is particularly important for at-risk kids, whose behavior
continually lands them in detention. Information can be a powerful tool in
preventing tragedy.

Foster is being executed as much for choosing the wrong companions and not
having the courage to say no when they robbed two people earlier in the night
as he is for driving Brown away from the scene after LaHood was murdered.

Of all the men in the car, he came to the situation the most innocent. Yet on
Friday, Dillard and Steen, who had already participated in capital murders
when LaHood was killed, will experience another day of life while Foster's
body will most likely lie on a cooling board in a morgue.

Heart and guts are in short supply when it comes to stopping an execution in
Texas.

That's too cold!
- - - - -
Kathy Clay-Little is publisher of African-American Reflections, online at
aareflections.com.

/ / / / /

<http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA082607.01A.FosterExecution.34225d5.html>http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA082607.01A.FosterExecution.34225d5.html
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Death debate centers on intent
Brian Chasnoff; San Antonio Express-News

More than a decade after Michael LaHood Jr. collapsed in the driveway of his
parents' North Side home, one question has echoed as resoundingly as the
gunshot that killed the 25-year-old.

What was Kenneth Foster Jr. thinking?

For the Texas death row inmate scheduled to die in four days for LaHood's
murder, that question is much more than an empty admonition. For Foster, it's
a vital inquiry that could save his life.

The reason is that Foster, 30, did not fire the gun that killed LaHood, the
son of a prominent local attorney.

After a night of taking part in armed robberies, Foster was behind the wheel
of his grandfather's rental car when a friend, Mauriceo Brown, got out and
shot LaHood.

Foster and a growing chorus of supporters insist Brown acted alone, an
assertion relatives of the victim find offensive.

"It's a farce," Nicholas LaHood said. "They were out jacking. Unless your
brother is shot in the face, and you walk out and stare at his body for four
hours and help load his body onto the gurney, then I'll respect your opinion."

A jury sided with the state, convicting Foster of capital murder under a
statute known as Texas' law of parties in a joint trial with Brown, who was
executed last year.

Foster was guilty, the jury found, because he had conspired with Brown to rob
LaHood and should have anticipated that he'd be killed, even if Foster didn't
intend to commit the murder.

When the same jury was considering his sentence, it determined Foster actually
anticipated the murder of LaHood and was a future danger to society. As a
result, it sentenced him to death.

One federal judge found fault with that, concluding the jury never found
Foster played a major role in a robbery conspiracy that led up to LaHood's
murder -- as required for a death sentence.

His ruling, however, later was overturned, and a volley of appeals has upheld
Foster's penalty.

Still, the question persists: What was Foster thinking? Did he really know
Brown was going to rob LaHood?

In 11 years, that question has ricocheted off a welter of conflicting and
changing testimonies. Most recently, two of Foster's co-defendants have sworn
there was no conspiracy to rob LaHood -- the bedrock on which the jury rested
Foster's conviction and death sentence.

"The problem here, if there is a problem, is not one of the law of parties,"
said George Dix, a law professor at the University of Texas. "That's a pretty
general law. To me, the question is really whether Foster got a fair hearing,
and the concern that there was enough care taken that the jury had a
substantial basis for its decision."

Prosecutors and relatives of LaHood still consider Foster a ringleader in the
crime, insisting he followed the victim for miles with the intent to commit
another robbery. The tragic result warrants the severest of punishments for
the man behind the wheel, they say, even if he didn't fire a gun.

Foster's own position is simple.

"I'm not responsible for what happened with Michael LaHood," the inmate said
two weeks ago from death row. "I'm not. And I know that."

Bolstered by media coverage, some even overseas, devoted relatives and an
organized contingent of death row opponents, Foster has grown increasingly
defiant. At a rally last week in Austin, about 100 supporters of Foster,
including his wife and 11-year-old daughter, marched loudly to the Governor's
Mansion through torrents of rain.

Before they did, an activist shouted a letter penned by the inmate himself. In
it, Foster vowed to engage in "passive non-participation" in the days before
his lethal injection.

"Starting on (Thursday) we will begin refusing all food," Foster wrote, in
solidarity with a fellow inmate. "If we are to be unjustly taken, then we do
not want to go silently. We will not walk to our executions and we will not
eat last meals.

"We will not give this process a humane face."

'Want to jack?'

On the night of Aug. 14, 1996, Foster, then a 19-year-old college student,
picked up three friends -- Brown, Julius Steen and DeWayne Dillard -- 
in a white
Chevrolet Caprice that Lawrence Foster had rented so his grandson could pursue
a fledgling career in rap music.

That night, the four friends, high on marijuana, would pursue other ends.

"I have the strap," Brown announced, "do you all want to jack?"

The "strap" -- a .44-caliber pistol -- belonged to Dillard, who'd given it to
Brown. The plan was simple. With Foster behind the wheel and Steen up front to
look for victims, Dillard and Brown would exit the car and collect 
the proceeds.

They did it twice, robbing four people at gunpoint. The first victim, a woman
who surrendered her purse, testified that one of them slugged her in the eye.
Foster since has conceded his role in these first crimes, but he and his
attorney consider them extraneous to the murder.

What happened next depends on whom you believe.

Steen, who accepted a plea deal from prosecutors to testify against his
friends in exchange for a life sentence, said at the joint trial that they
drove away from the scene of the second robbery in search of more victims.

What's clear is that around 2 a.m. Foster was trailing two cars -- one driven
by LaHood's girlfriend and the other by LaHood -- for about 5 miles, from
Blanco and Old Bitters roads into a North Side neighborhood, where the LaHoods
live on a dark and circuitous street that leads to no major roads.

"It was coincidence that we were going in this same direction as these two,"
Foster said in the death row interview. "We were taking back roads heading
back to the Northeast Side, which is where Brown and Dillard and Steen stayed
together in apartments."

Mike Ramos, a prosecutor at the joint trial, stressed the absurdity of such a
claim.

"There's no way you could happen to turn down that road," Ramos said.

Foster passed the LaHood home, then turned around and stopped at its
semicircular driveway. Steen testified at trial that Mary Patrick, LaHood's
girlfriend, had flagged them down.

Patrick testified that she walked up to the car to confront its occupants
about following her. After an unpleasant conversation, she turned away and she
and LaHood walked toward the house. At that point, she said, a man with a
scarf across his face and a gun in his hand got out and ran toward them.

Patrick said the man demanded LaHood's wallet and money. Two minutes later, he
shot LaHood at close range in the face.

Brown admitted to police he was holding the gun that fired the fatal shot, but
he insisted at trial that he left the car to get Patrick's phone number and
pulled out his gun only because he thought LaHood had a handgun. At that
point, Brown testified, the gun accidentally went off.

According to Brown, he never intended to rob or shoot LaHood.

Foster claims he thought Brown, a "Romeo-type individual," had left the car to
flirt with Patrick. He insisted in the interview that Brown did not have a
scarf across his face.

"Let's use common sense," Foster said. "If this was a planned robbery, why
would Mauriceo Brown -- one man -- why would he go and approach two people by
himself?"

The testimony that many believe damned Foster at trial was that of Steen, who
said he "understood what was probably fixing to go down" when Brown left the
car.

After the shooting, Brown got back in the car, and Foster drove off. He claims
that Brown was "catatonic," not answering questions about what happened.

Back at the LaHood residence, relatives of the victim found LaHood lying face
down on the driveway, his blood flowing toward the street. Norma LaHood fell
on top of her dead son and told him she loved him. Pacing back and forth,
Michael LaHood Sr. apologized to his son for not protecting him. In a rage, he
grabbed a handgun and jumped in his car, seeking immediate justice. Thinking
better of it, he turned around.

Police pulled the foursome over about 30 minutes later.

A major role?

Prepared to go to jail, a swarm of activists took over Lavaca Street in Austin
last week as others sat in the governor's driveway, defying the commands of
some annoyed Texas Highway patrol officers. Lawrence Foster, 80, spoke into a
bullhorn from across the street.

"If (Rick) Perry doesn't hear us here, there's really no heart in the man,"
Lawrence Foster told the crowd, which sought a commutation of his grandson's
sentence to life in prison. "This is Texas, y'all. This is the United States.
We're supposed to be civilized."

The bone of contention between Foster's supporters and detractors lies in a
U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which forbids imposing the death penalty on a
getaway driver who did not commit murder or intend anyone be killed. An
exception to that rule, however, holds the death sentence constitutional for
an accomplice whose participation in the crime was major and who displayed
"reckless indifference to human life."

Keith Hampton, Foster's attorney, has argued in appeals that Foster neither
displayed such a state of mind nor played a major role in the attempted
robbery of LaHood. As evidence, he points to the testimony of Dillard, now
serving a life sentence in a separate capital murder case, at a 2001 hearing
and an affidavit given by Steen in 2003.

Both men asserted in those statements that there was no agreement to 
rob LaHood.

Dillard claimed at the hearing that Foster wanted to stop committing robberies
after the second one and that it was he who told Foster to drive through
LaHood's neighborhood.

In his affidavit, Steen clarified his previous testimony that he "understood
what was probably fixing to go down" when Brown left the car, claiming, "What
I meant by that is that when I saw Mauriceo Brown on the driveway facing
(LaHood) I understood at that point what might be going down."

In 2005, U.S. District Judge Royal Ferguson rejected both men's statements as
"highly dubious." But in the same order, he overturned Foster's death
sentence, asserting that a jury had not found Foster played a major role in a
conspiracy to rob LaHood.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that order in 2006 on a procedural
technicality, ruling that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that
Foster played a major role in the crime and displayed reckless disregard for
human life.

Hampton insists that court never did.

"It's extremely frustrating," the attorney said.

Some observers of the case said it raises questions about a misapplication of
the death penalty.

"The idea has always been it's the most heinous offenders who get it," said
Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in
Washington. Foster is "not forgiven for driving, but it would be hard to say
he is the most heinous of all."

For others, justice was served on May 6, 1997, when a jury of 12 people found
Foster should be executed. The punishment phase of the trial had included
testimony that Foster was in a violent street gang and that he'd been placed
on deferred adjudication in connection with the shootings of two people in a
separate incident.

"I just wonder if the jury was able to set all of that aside and look at, does
the evidence show (Foster) really knew (Brown) was going to take a life?"
asked Dix, the professor.

Relatives of the victim already have answered that question.

"I do not want to execute an innocent man," said Norma LaHood, who still
sleeps with a stuffed frog that belonged to her son when he was a toddler. "I
want justice for an innocent man, and that is my son."