The Moratorium Campaign

CLINTON URGED TO GRANT CLEMENCY IN CONTROVERSIAL FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY CASE

Powerful Claims of Innocence and Evidence of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Pervade the Case of Ronnie Chandler

Sole Witness Admits He Lied on the Stand; Trial Counsel Failed to Prepare for Sentencing Hearing in Case Riddled with Doubts

(Atlanta) January 10, 2001- Lawyers for federal death row inmate David Ronald Chandler, the first person sentenced to death in a federal case since the reinstatement of the federal death penalty in 1988, today filed a Petition urging President Clinton to commute his death sentence. Chandler's, case has been the subject of grave concern because of powerful claims of innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel.

According to the Petition Chandler's sentence should be commuted because of substantial doubt as to his guilt for inducing the murder for which he was sentenced to death sentence and because of the extraordinary failure of his trial counsel to inform the jury that sentenced him about the "remarkable redeeming qualities in his character."

The case against Chandler depended upon the testimony of the actual murderer, a man named Charles Ray Jarrell, who, in exchange for a plea bargain-- which insured that he would not face the death penalty-- testified at trial that he was paid $500 by Mr. Chandler to commit the murder. Jarrell has since unequivocally recanted that testimony and has testified under oath that he was in no way induced by Chandler to commit the crime. He has changed his story notwithstanding the fact that in doing so his risks his plea bargain and subjects himself to a possible death penalty prosecution. Everyone concerned with the case, including the trial judge, concedes that the prosecution depended on Jarrell's testimony. Furthermore, the one-vote majority of the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld Chandler's conviction and sentence, concluded, "the evidence of guilt …was not overwhelming."

According to Chandler's attorney, Jack Martin, "if a jury heard the case against Mr. Chandler today, they would obviously have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt"; a sentiment echoed by the foreperson of the jury when he was informed of Jarrell's change of heart. Furthermore, Jarrell had ample reason to murder the victim, Marlin Shuler, without any inducement. Shuler was Jarrell's brother-in-law and he had a well documented history of brutalizing Jarrell's sister and mother. As a result of that abuse, on two occasions Jarrell attempted to kill Shuler before finally getting it right.

Nonetheless, Chandler was denied a new trial on direct appeal at which he would have had the opportunity to prove his innocence because the trial judge held that Jarrell was such a liar that his testimony was untrustworthy. As there is no other direct evidence connecting Chandler to Shuler's murder, the court's logic effectively precluded Chandler from ever being able to prove his innocence. As the Petition states "both Judge Hancock [the trial judge] and all of the other courts which have reviewed Chandler's request for a new trial have ignored the fact that Chandler's conviction and death sentence for the Shuler murder was based upon the testimony of the same untrustworthy witness whose testimony Judge Hancock found insufficient to warrant granting Chandler a new trial."

Chandler's nightmarish circumstances were compounded at the sentencing phase of his trial. Believing his client would be acquitted of the murder charge, his lawyer failed to prepare any witnesses to testify to Chandler's character; a fundamental feature of the mitigation process. Acknowledging that he had done "basically not anything explicitly" or "very little" to prepare for a sentencing hearing, hoping that mitigation evidence might be "volunteered" to him. Had trial counsel conducted even a cursory investigation, he would have located numerous witnesses on his behalf. Subsequently, at the post-trial phase, 40 people were willing to testify to Chandler's character and the Court permitted testimony from 27 of them. Based on this record a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals over turned Chandler's death sentence. However, a bitterly divided full Court of Appeals 6-5 narrowly reversed that ruling. Chandler has sought review of that 11th
Circuit's decision from the Supreme Court. That petition is pending.

While it is not typical for clemency to be sought before all legal appeals have been exhausted, the Petition states it is not precluded by the rules governing clemency and further that the rules in no way "restrict the authority granted to the President to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States.

According to Jack Martin this is an extraordinary case, which requires extraordinary consideration. "Whether on not the Supreme Court agrees to review this case, there is no doubt in my mind that it is appropriate, indeed, it is in the interest of justice that President Clinton consider whether Ronnie Chandler should be executed. The record of this case is such that failure to act may result in a travesty of justice."