15. January 2009 by Mary Ellen.

“In America we recycle our trash and throw away our children.”  Those words were spoken by a mother whose 16-year-old is serving life in prison without possibility of parole (LWOP). Her son was convicted in one of those “redneck” states, but his sentence isn’t unusual. America is the only nation on earth that sentences its children to die behind bars. We have thousands of throw-away children wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in prisons stretching from sea to shining sea.  Colorado is the first state to reverse that trend, by lowering life to 40 years. A modest beginning.  Thanks to a partnership among district attorneys, Rep. Cheri Jahn,  Governor Bill Ritter and  The Pendulum Foundation,  our Governor  also created the nation’s first juvenile clemency board, which has been universally lauded. With this act Governor Ritter and the board acknowledge that, from their brain development to their capacity for rehabilitation,  children are different from adults. Theoretically, those who were convicted as 14-15-16 or 17-year-olds deserve a second look.  

Posted in Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

12. January 2009 by Rev Young.

This article raises even more questions concerning our quest for justice.  This young man’s trial ended 3 1/2 months after his arrest.  Three and a half months is not enough time to gather, examine and share evidence between prosecutors and attorneys.  Again, a young man was convicted on the statements given in a plea agreement rather than having his conviction based on fact finding.  Again we acted out of our anger and fear of young people instead of keeping our heads and seeking the truth. 

Then I have another question, how can the victim’s family hold on to their anger when there is a strong possibility this young man is innocent?  How can they justify their harsh words and demand for punishment when this young man could very well be a victim……just as they are?  Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to ask that the court to take the time to assure guilt/innocence before this young man spent any more time behind bars?  Shouldn’t that be their first concern? 

Finally there is the question of juvenile status.  How can we say that any juvenile should be discarded and condemned to life in a box?  Have we forgotten that they are KIDS?  Have we forgotten that they have just begun their life and are, therefore, prone to making some bad choices? 

We have a fit when we see that a puppy mill was exposed for inhumane treatment of animals.  We are appalled when we see that these animals are kept in tiny kennels where they must live, sleep and play in their “bathroom”.  Yet we condemn human beings to those same conditions and the same inhumane treatment everyday……..and then expect them to become better human beings.  Read on…….

Inmate serving life asks Michigan gov. for freedom

By DAVID EGGERT

BLACKMAN TOWNSHIP, Mich. (AP) - Efren Paredes Jr. wasn’t old enough to
drive when he was sentenced to life in prison without parole for
murdering his boss.

Now 35, he has an outside chance at freedom after proclaiming his
innocence for almost two decades.

The possibility is a nightmare for the victim’s family, who thought his
killer would die behind bars. But it means hope for Paredes and
supporters who say he was wrongfully convicted because of a rush to
judgment, an unfair trial and slanted media coverage.

The decision rests with Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who under the state
constitution can commute criminal sentences. She likely will give weight
to whatever recommendation comes from the Michigan Parole Board, which
recently held an emotional, nine-hour public hearing on Paredes’
clemency request.

“I will not take responsibility for a crime I did not commit,” Paredes
told parole board members. “I never will do that even if it meant I
could leave today.”

Grocery store manager Rick Tetzlaff, 28, was shot to death March 8,
1989, during a robbery at Roger’s Foodland in St. Joseph, in
southwestern Michigan. Paredes was a 15-year-old part-time bagger at the
store who had no criminal record before his arrest.

The hearing before the parole board drew more than 140 people. Somber
police and prosecutors who worked the case, along with Tetzlaff’s
tearful family and friends, traveled hours to testify against Paredes’
release.

A large group of supporters came out for Paredes, including family, a
Lansing radio host, Michigan State University Latino students, peace
activists and a private investigator who has helped free innocent people
from prison.

While commutation proceedings have become more common in the governor’s
second term, few - if any - have gained as much attention.

More than just about Paredes’ guilt of innocence, the case has become a
referendum of sorts on whether convicts should get mandatory life
sentences without parole for crimes committed before age 18. Paredes is
among more than 300 juvenile lifers in Michigan’s 49,000-inmate system.

Advocates see Paredes as an inspirational figure who made the best of
prison by earning a GED, becoming a teacher’s aide, writing poetry and
transcribing textbooks into Braille. Paredes wants to start a Braille
transcription business if he is freed.

“Please don’t sacrifice this man’s future to cover up the mistakes of
the justice system,” said Joyce Gouwens, who has served on a county
juvenile justice task force.

Opponents see Paredes as a cold-blooded monster with a comfortable
upbringing who would be a threat to society.

“I’m angry I have to be here,” said Tina Tetzlaff, Rick’s wife, who was
pregnant with their second child when her husband was killed.

She acknowledged Paredes is making strides in prison but told the parole
board her two sons grew up without their dad, afraid of the world and in
need of psychological treatment. She said Paredes should serve his full
sentence.

Prosecutors argued that mandatory life without parole for first-degree
murder is Michigan’s promise to victims’ families, a trade-off for not
having the death penalty.

Chairwoman Barbara Sampson said the parole board has no authority to
exonerate Paredes. Instead, it will address questions typical in parole
and clemency cases: Does the punishment fit the crime? Does a prisoner
pose a risk to society? Has he or she made progress in prison?

Board members usually want to see remorse. But Paredes has repeatedly
said he’s innocent, leading an assistant attorney general and board
members to spend much of the hearing probing evidence.

They heard competing versions of Tetzlaff’s death.

Prosecutors said Paredes planned and executed a “thrill kill.” He was
the last worker to punch out before the after-hours shooting. A teen who
served time for his role in the crime told jurors he picked up Paredes
from the store after Paredes shot his boss and took $11,000 in cash and
checks.

But Paredes’ mother said he was home at the time of the murder,
insisting she saw Tetzlaff drop off her son before returning to the
store. Supporters said those responsible for the crime lied, cut deals
and blamed Paredes to save themselves.

Paul Ciolino, a Chicago-based private investigator who was hired by
Paredes’ family and has helped free five men from Illinois’ death row,
called his case a “classic” wrongful conviction.

The trial ended 3 1/2 months after Paredes’ arrest. Paredes said he had
an inept lawyer who didn’t investigate on his behalf or counter negative
pretrial publicity coming from law enforcement.

The jury foreman was a co-worker of the victim’s wife’s aunt. Paredes
alleged the foreman persuaded other jurors who initially voted 9-3 for
acquittal. State and federal courts have upheld the conviction.

Paredes’ backers want age to be a factor in the governor’s decision. He
was 16 when he was convicted.

“I could have turned out to be the person others have tried to make me
out to be,” Paredes said. “I’m asking for a second chance to reclaim my
life.”

Posted in Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

12. January 2009 by Rev Young.

We pick up (after the holidays) on our quest to show the move toward true justice.  The article below outlines the request and move toward a new trial in the case of Nathan Yabanez.  This case is a perfect example of the need for changes in the handling of juveniles in our court system.  The need to review our accountability and procedures is evident in this case.  The other question raised is whether or not the sentence of “Life Without The Possibility Of Parole” is constitutional.  Is it possible that this sentence can fall under the constitutional language of “Cruel and Unusual Punishment”?  I believe so.  Think of it this way:  After suffering a life time of abuse (16 years), repeatedly trying to flee from the abuse AND having the abuse reported to authorities, this young man finds himself face to face with the same situation…….again.  This time he is older, stronger and more hopeless.  He reacts to the situation and kills his mother.  He KNOWSthere is no one to save him from this abuse, he is on his own.  Once the crime is committed, the charges filed and the trial day comes……no one protects him.  When sentencing day comes, no one protects him.  He has already lost the innocence and hope of the first 16 years of his life, now we (the people) decide to take the rest of his life and confirm what he was told all of his life……..he has no value.  There is nothing good in him to save.  He is dispensable.  Cruel?  Absolutely.  Unusual?  Absolutely.  Punishment?  Beyond Comprehension.  Read On……..

Nathan Ybanez deserved a better defense than the one he got

Rocky Mountain News

Published December 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More stories »

Jurors in Nathan Ybanez’s trial 10 years ago for murdering his mother should have been told about the apparent abuse the teenager was subjected to in his home, but they never were.

They should have been informed about reports to social services and how Ybanez allegedly fled his home in Douglas County more than once in fear, but the boy’s lawyer never bothered to let them know.

Now, a decade after Ybanez was sentenced to life in prison without parole, another lawyer is seeking a second chance for him. The attorney is asking for a new trial, permission to appeal the conviction (appeals are almost routine in such cases, but never occurred in this one) or a ruling that Ybanez’s sentence is unconstitutional.

He’s got a strong argument - at least for a new trial or an appeal.

As for the third option, we’d be surprised if a court ruled that life without parole is unconstitutional, even for a 16-year-old whose judgment is far from mature. Such a sentence is no doubt extremely harsh - so harsh, in fact, that the legislature changed the law two years ago, thank goodness, to permit the possibility of parole after 40 years. But claiming that the previous mandatory sentence was actually unconstitutional sounds like a bit of a stretch.

By contrast, the facts seem to support a new trial or an appeal.

“Nathan’s attorney called no witnesses,” attorney Michael Gallagher pointed out in his motion for a retrial. “He presented no evidence. He failed to cross-examine Nathan’s father, who retained him, about the abusive home environment.”

Gallagher argues that Ybanez’s original lawyer found his hands tied. “Simply put,” he said, “Nathan could not be defended by an attorney hired by Nathan’s abusive father because that abuse was the heart of Nathan’s defense.”

Maybe so. Or maybe Craig Truman, Ybanez’s highly-regarded attorney at the time, simply thought he had a better defense strategy - one that failed in the end to achieve its goals. Whatever the reason, the defense ignored the background of abuse - a decision that clearly turned out to be a mistake.

Ybanez’s role in the murder of his mother is not in dispute. The issue is whether the jury would have had second thoughts about sending the teenager to prison for the rest of his life if it had known of abuse he apparently suffered in the home where he committed the crime. We believe the answer might well have been yes.

Very few teenagers are reduced to fleeing their homes in the middle of the night in their underwear for fear of a parent’s rage, yet Ybanez once appeared at a friend’s house in precisely such a state.

And while his home life, however fearful and wretched, is no excuse for the horrible crime that he eventually committed, it does raise the question of whether a conviction for second-degree murder might have been more appropriate under the circumstances.

Posted in Legal News, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »