November 14, 1996
PETITION FOR EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
OF
RONALD BERNARD BENNETT
Donald R. Lee, Jr.
Framme, Macaulay & Lee LC
1108 East Main Street
11th Floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 649-2128
Counsel for Ronald Bernard Bennett
I THE COMMONWEALTH SHOULD NOT EXECUTE A MAN WHO MAY BE
INNOCENT.
Ronald Bernard Bennett is scheduled to be executed on November 21, 1996 for the 1985
murder of Anne Vaden in Chesterfield County, Virginia. Developments in Bennett's case during the
course of his federal habeas corpus proceedings raise a genuine concem that the Commonwealth may
execute an innocent man, based solely upon the testimony of the people who in fact were responsible
forthe murder. Counsel for Bennett files this petition for executive clemency to assist the Governor
in ensuring that the Commonwealth will not execute a man in the face of evidence casting a
substantial doubt upon his guilt.
A. EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY IS THE "FAIL SAFE" FOR THE
CONDEMNED MAN WHO MAY BE INNOCENT.
No one seriously can question that our system of justice is imperfect. In the wake of Joe
Payne's case, it is obvious that, for a variety of reasons, even a death penalty case can reach the point
of execution despite remaining unresolved questions concerning the condemned's guilt, and without
any legal avenue of recourse.
The recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the Payne
case explains that the federal habeas courts are not the "traditional forum" to address such unresolved ;
questions raised by after-discovered evidence. See Payne v. Netherland, No. 4106, 1996 WL
467642 at 3 n.2 (4th Cir. Aug. 19, 1996). Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has emphasized
that executive clemency is the appropriate avenue for relief based on evidence suggesting the
innocence of a man on death row:
Executive clemency has provided the "fail safe" in our criminal
justice system...it is an unalterable fact that our judicial system, let
alone the human beings who administer it, is fallible. But history is
replete with examples of wrongly convicted persons who have been
pardoned in the wake of after-discovered evidence establishing their
innocence.
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 415 (1993).
Unlike the Payne case, the possibility that Bennett is innocent has not been the centerpiece
of his habeas corpus litigation. This is so mainly because the evidence now presented to the
Governor was not developed until long after Bennett's state habeas proceedings and well into his
federal habeas proceedings. Nevertheless, this case presents a question similar to the one presented
by Payne - should aman be executed in the face of evidence creating a substantial doubt concerning
his guilt?
B. BENNETT WAS CONVICTED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY UPON
THE WORD OF A PROVEN LIAR.
The opinion of the Supreme Court of Virginia affirming Bennett's conviction and sentence
is reported as Bennett v. Commonwealth, 374 S.E.2d 303 (Va. 1988), and it is included as Exhibit
A.' The Court acknowledged that Bennett's conviction rested almost exclusively on the testimony
of his wife, Mary Bennett. 374 S.E.2d at 307 ("the evidence adduced at trial by the Commonwealth
came in large part from Mary's testimony"). ;
Ina detailed videotape affidavit given on August 30, 1994, Mary Bennett, who now is known
as Mary Stroh, recanted her trial testimony completely. In fact, Mary admitted that on the night of
the murder, she accompanied Bennett's cousin, Kenneth Harris, to the crime scene. There, she says
she watched Harris kill Anne Vaden.
Admittedly, Mary also has disclaimed her recantation, and today claims that she told the truth
at trial. Nevertheless, one thing is certain - Mary is a liar, and Bennett's conviction rests almost
exclusively upon seriously questionable evidence. A copy of Mary Bennett's videotape affidavit
' The opinion of the federal district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit appear as Exhibits B and C.
accompanies this petition.
I. THE PRESENT STATE OF THE EVIDENCE RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS
ABOUT BENNETT'S GUILT.
A. THE UNSOLVED ER OF ANNE VADEN.”
The offense for which Bennett was convicted occurred on November 16, 1985. On the
evening of November 15, 1985, the victim, Anne Vaden, spoke with her parents, because all three
of them were planning to leave on a trip early the next morning. Ms. Vaden agreed to meet her
parents at their house in time to leave by 5:30 a.m.
At 4:50 a.m., the morning of November 16, 1985, Ms. Vaden's father, Mr. Keller, called her
to make sure that she had awakened. When she answered the phone she said in a weak voice,
"Daddy, are you coming to get me?" He reminded her that she was supposed to be at his house at
5:30.a.m. She replied, "Oh, that's right." Because he believed that something was wrong, Mr. Keller
asked his wife to call her again. She called at 5:00 a.m. This time Ms. Vaden said, "Mother, I'll be
all right." :
Mr. Keller called again at 5:20 a.m., but got no answer. He thought she might have left to
come to his house, but decided to drive to her apartment, which was eight miles away. When he got
there, Ms. Vaden's car was still there, but she did not respond to his pounding at the door.
Mr. Keller returned home and had his wife call the apartment complex to have someone meet
him with a key. When Mr. Keller arrived at the apartment, he touched the door and this time the
door flew open.
Mr. Keller found his daughter's nude body at the foot of the bed. Her body was still warm.
? All of the facts described herein, unless otherwise noted, are derived from the trial
transcripts, the Supreme Court of Virginia's opinion, and Bennett's federal habeas corpus
petition.
She was bound hand and foot with blue pantyhose, and the same blue material was around her neck.
She was dead.
At trial, the medical examiner testified that Ms. Vaden had been beaten over much of her
body with a blunt object, probably a liquor bottle found at the scene. She had sustained multiple
blunt impact injuries to her head, face, and right hand. She had been stabbed four times: three times
in the neck and once in the abdomen. She had been strangled. All of the injuries had been inflicted
while she was alive. Each injury was potentially fatal. In the medical examiner's opinion, it would
take twenty to thirty minutes for the victim to have sustained all of these injuries. The cause of death
was determined to have been all the separate categories of injury.
The crime remained unsolved for more than a year, and the Chesterfield County Police
Department investigated several suspects, including Ms. Vaden's estranged husband. No
unidentified fingerprints were found in the apartment, but the clear imprint of a bloody, gloved left
hand was found on one of the sheets. An examination of hairs taken from Ms. Vaden's sheets and
pillowcases identified hairs of Negroid origin. The hair fragments, however, were such that no more
specific identification could be made.
B. THE ARREST OF MR. BENNETT.
For more than a year, Bennett was not a suspect, even though he worked at the apartment
complex where Ms. Vaden was murdered, and even though other employees were suspected and
were actively investigated.
During this time, Bennett separated from his wife, Mary Bennett, and she returned to
California, where the couple had lived before returning to Virginia. Early one morning in December,
1986, -after an entire evening spent drinking heavily, Mary told her roommate, Sharon
O'Shaughnessy, that the custom-made diamond ring which she wore once belonged to Anne Vaden,
4
and that her husband, Ronald Bennett, had murdered Vaden in the course of a robbery. Mary
Bennett gave the ring to O'Shaughnessy for safekeeping, asked her not to tell anyone about her story,
and told her that she needed to speak with a priest.
O'Shaughnessy's former husband was a parole officer in California. O'Shaughnessy was
disturbed by the story Mary had told her, and she decided to seek advice from her former spouse.
She confided in him, and he told her that it was imperative that the Virginia authorities be notified
immediately of Mary Bennett's story.
When O'Shaughnessy told Mary Bennett that she had gone to the authorities with the story,
Mary flew into a rage.
California law enforcement officials called the Chesterfield County police and told them
about Mary's story. Chesterfield police officers flew to California, interviewed Mary, and retrieved
from her the diamond ring which, according to Mary, had belonged to Anne Vaden. Based on the
information provided by Mary, Ronald Bennett was arrested in December, 1986 and he was indicted
in March, 1987.
Cc. PRE-TRIAL EVENTS.
When he was arrested, Bennett was indigent. In December, 1986, the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield County appointed Richmond attorneys Robert J. Rice and Fred A. Talbot to represent
him.
The only direct evidence linking Bennett to the crime was Mary's statement and a
corroborating statement made by his cousin, Kenneth Harris implicating Bennett. There was no
physical evidence linking Bennett to the crime.
*The police statements and transcripts of testimony of Mary Bennett and Harris are included
as Exhibits D - H.
Bennett submitted a Physical Evidence Recovery Kit to the police. None of the physical
evidence he submitted matched physical evidence found at the scene. The police also searched the
car driven by Bennett the night of the murder, but found no blood or other physical evidence linking
him to the crime, despite the fact that Mary and Harris claimed that Bennett arrived at his apartment
the next moming completely covered with blood, and despite the fact that the crime scene
demonstrated that the assailant must have been covered with blood. The police did not examine the
car driven by Mary Bennett and Kenneth Harris on the night of the crime.
Bennett's trial originally was scheduled to begin on August 20, 1987. On August 15, 1987,
defense counsel requested a continuance. They refused to state, in the presence of the
Commonwealth's Attorney, their reasons for requesting the continuance.
The trial court permitted Bennett's counsel to state their reasons in an ex parte proceeding.
There, they advised the court that Mary Bennett and Ronald Bennett had participated in a marriage
ceremony on September 22, 1980, in California, but that previously, on November 12, 1976, also
in California, Mary Bennett had married Donald Allbee and the couple never had received a final
judgment of divorce. Defense counsel thus admitted that, as of August, 1987, Mary and Ronald
Bennett were not married because their marriage was bigamous and, therefore, void.
Defense counsel also explained to the court that, in July, 1978, in California, Mary Bennett
had filed for divorce from Donald Allbee and that in July, 1979, she had been awarded an
interlocutory judgment of divorce. Counsel acknowledged that the interlocutory judgment was not
a final judgment of divorce. They explained, however, that under California law, once an
interlocutory judgment has been entered, a third party, such as Mr. Bennett, who is interested in
securing the divorce, could request that the divorce be made final. Further, the California courts
were empowered, by statute, to grant a nunc pro tunc final judgment of divorce which would
6
validate Mary Bennett's subsequent marriage to Ronald Bennett. Bennett's counsel asked for a
continuance so that they could validate the marriage and keep Mary Bennett from taking the witness
stand, pursuant to Code of Virginia § 19.2-271.2.
During the ex parte hearing, defense counsel made clear to the trial court that their entire
strategy was to surprise the Commonwealth with the nunc pro tunc divorce judgment. The court
granted a continuance to defense counsel until October 13, 1987. Although defense counsel initially
succeeded in securing a nunc pro tunc judgment of divorce, thus validating the marriage between
Mary and Ronald Bennett, their strategy-ultimately failed because the court permitted the
Commonwealth to take long continuances, enabling the Commonwealth to invalidate the nunc pro
tunc judgment. Consequently, Mary Bennett was permitted to testify at trial.
D. THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT TRIAL.
It appears that, at the beginning of trial, Bennett's counsel intended to introduce an alibi
defense, based upon Bennett's testimony. During part of counsel's opening statement to the jury, he
promised that Bennett would testify in his own defense:
You have all promised and you have all acknowledged that Mr. Bennett doesn't have
to prove anything to you, and that is a decision that Mr. Talbot and I will make, but
I fully expect evidence will be presented in this case.
...Mr. Bennett was with [his wife and cousin], we're not contesting that. This was the week
that Ronald Bennett's father had died. Kenneth Harris had been staying at Ronald Bennett's
apartment with Ronald Bennett, and who he thought was his wife, but it turns out it wasn't
his wife because she lied under oath. But, in any event, they were there, and they went to
this house on Church Hill.
Ronald Bennett wasn't feeling much like doing what was going on there, and he will tell you,
you know, it was a shooting gallery, people sitting around. It was an area in Church Hill
predominately black. Mary Bennett is white. They were up in there, but Ronald Bennett
didn't feel - he sat around with them for awhile, but didn't feel like doing any more drugs and
told them to come on, I'm leaving. Do you all want to go with me? I'm going. He went out
and sat in the car about five minutes. They never came out.
Ronald Bennett went to a friend's house about two o'clock in the morning. He left his
friend's house and went home. Is that significant to you? Well, it should be because Ronald
Bennett doesn't give any alibi to you as to where he was at the time Ann Vaden was
murdered. He could have easily have said, I was at my friend's house all night. He says he
went home, left about two o'clock, got home about 2:15 and went to bed.
Trial transcript at 1406-08.
Defense counsel fought hard to keep Mary Bennett's testimony out of the trial because the
prosecution's case depended upon her. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Virginia describes as follows
the evidence introduced through her testimony:
The evidence adduced at trial by the Commonwealth came in large part from Mary's
testimony. Prior to and after Anne's murder, Bennett had worked as a maintenance
man at Anne's apartment complex. On two occasions, Bennett had done work in
Anne's apartment; once when she was at home, another time when she was not. On
the occasion when Anne was at home, she gave Bennett and his supervisor something
to eat. As amaintenance man, Bennett had access to the apartment complex's "grand
master key." This key gave Bennett access to every unit at the complex. Prior to the
murder, Bennett had secretly made a copy of the grand master key.
On November 15, 1985, at about 5:30 pm, Bennett, his cousin, Kenneth Harris, and
Mary went to the Church Hill section of Richmond to a "dope house" to purchase and
use drugs. After his money ran out, Bennett said he was going to get more money
and left Mary and Ken at the dope house. He left between 9:30 and 10:00 pm. Mary
and Ken waited until 1:00 a.m., but Bennett never returned.
Mary called Bennett's mother who picked up Mary and Ken and took them to the
apartment shared by Mary and Bennett. Mary's keys were locked inside so Ken
forced the door open to gain entry. Mary retrieved her car keys and she and Ken
drove around until 3:00 am looking for Bennett; they did not find him.
Bennett retumed to the apartment about 7:00 am on November 16. Ken opened the
door. Bennett was covered with blood and carrying a brown airline-type carry-on
suitcase. Blood was on Bennett's shirt, pants, and tennis shoes. He explained to Ken
and Mary that he had gotten into a fight with some men in Church Hill. Mary did not
believe him.
Bennett and Mary went into the bedroom. There she argued with him about his
being out all night. He then told Mary that "he had just killed a girl at the Boulders
Apartments." Later, he explained that he had to kill her because she could identify
him. Bennett removed his bloody clothes and took a shower. Then he put the
8
discarded clothes in a garbage bag and threw the bag in a dumpster behind his
apartment.
That night, he took some rings from the brown flight bag and put them on the kitchen
counter saying that he had taken them from the victim's apartment. One ring was a
diamond ring with one large stone and eleven smaller stones. Another was an opal
ring. The victim had worm these rings almost all the time. She was last seen wearing
them at work about 3:00 p.m. on November 15. Mary kept the diamond ring.
Bennett gave the opal ring to his brother who in turn gave it to his wife.
After the murder, Mary broke up with Bennett and ultimately moved to California.
There, in December 1986, Mary showed the diamond ring to a friend, told the friend
how she had gotten the ring and made clear that she wanted to tell someone what had
happened. Mary told authorities in California who called authorities in Virginia.
These calls resulted in Bennett's arrest.
He was advised of his rights and taken to police headquarters where his arrest
warrants were read to him. One warrant was for aggravated sexual assault. When
this warrant was read to him, Bennett remarked as follows: "you ain't saying I raped
that girl, are you." A search of Bennett's mother's house produced the brown flight
bag taken from the victim's apartment.
374 S.E.2d at 307-08.
After the Commonwealth rested its case, defense counsel's motion to strike the
Commonwealth's evidence was denied. Immediately thereafter, counsel informed the trial court that
the defense also rested.
Bennett was surprised that his trial counsel decided to rest without putting on evidence in his
behalf. It was his understanding that defense counsel always intended to put on an alibi defense,
because he steadfastly had maintained his innocence. In fact, Bennett had insisted from the start that
he wanted to take the stand and testify in his own behalf. Counsel explained to Bennett that, in his
opinion, the trial was so infected by error that it was sure to be reversed on appeal. Therefore, they
explained, they would save Bennett's testimony for the new trial, so that the Commonwealth would
not have the benefit of a preview of their defense.
During closing arguments, the defense presented by counsel was that Mary Bennett and
9
Kenneth Harris may have been responsible for the murder. In support of this argument, defense
counsel pointed to certain inconsistencies between Mary's testimony and the testimony of Harris.
Counsel also pointed to inconsistencies between the trial testimony of these witnesses and prior
statements made by them.
Nevertheless, the jury convicted Bennett of capital murder. After a separate sentencing
proceeding held the following day, the same jury sentenced Bennett to death.
E. THE FEDERAL HABEAS INVESTIGATION - MARY
BENNETT RECANTS HER TRIAL TESTIMONY.
Bennett was represented on direct appeal by the same counsel who defended him at trial.
Bennett was represented by new counsel during state habeas corpus proceedings.
State habeas counsel, however, chose not to represent Bennett during the course of his federal habeas
corpus proceedings. Instead, the Virginia Capital Representation Resource Center represented
Bennett. As part of the federal habeas investigation, the Resource Center sought to interview Mary,
because her testimony secured Bennett's conviction. Mary had long since left Virginia, and at first
she was difficult to locate. Eventually, however, an investigator working for the Resource Center
managed to locate her in the state of Washington, living under the name of Mary Stroh. Mary
initially was very reluctant to discuss Bennett's case with the Resource Center's investigator.
Eventually, however, Mary told the investigator that she wished to make a statement to him
concerning her testimony at Bennett's trial. The investigator explained to her that he would rather
not take this statement, but instead asked her if she would give a statement to Bennett's counsel. She
agreed.
On August 30, 1994, Resource Center counsel and the Resource Center's investigator met
Mary in Spokane, Washington, where they had made arrangements to take a videotape affidavit of
10
her statement. Counsel decided that it was important to perpetuate Mary's testimony on videotape
because of her precarious physical condition. Mrs. Bennett suffers from hepatitis and other serious
illnesses, and she informed the Resource Center's investigator that her illnesses might be life-
threatening. ,
Mary's videotape affidavit now is before the Governor, and it speaks for itself. According
to Mary, Bennett had no involvement in the murder of Ms. Vaden. Instead, as originally suggested
to the jury by defense counsel, Kenneth Harris was responsible for Ms. Vaden's brutal slaying, and
Mary was present that night. Mary's statement is remarkable, given that at the same time it
completely exonerates Bennett, it implicates her in a case of capital murder.
After securing Mary's affidavit, the Resource Center continued to investigate, hoping to find
evidence to support her claim that Harris, and not Bennett, killed Ms. Vaden. The Resource Center's
investigators continued to stay in contact with Mary, and hoped to uncover further evidence through
her. During the course of this investigation, however, Mary told one of the Resource Center's
investigators that she had lied during the videotape affidavit in an effort to save Bennett's life. Since
then, a Resource Center investigator has continued to investigate Bennett's case, with little further
success.
Not surprisingly, Mary continues to disclaim her videotape affidavit. She has strong
incentive to continue to do so. Obviously, an admission to being present during the course of a
capital crime carries with it weighty implications. One thing, however, is certain about Mary
Bennett - either she was lying at trial or she was lying in her videotape affidavit. It is disturbing that
Bennett's conviction and death sentence rest entirely upon evidence of such dubious quality.
If... RON BENNETT SHOULD NOT BE EXECUTED WHILE A
SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT EXISTS CONCERNING HIS GUILT.
11
In the wake of the Payne case, counsel for Bennett is well aware that the Governor
understands the nature and purpose of executive clemency in Virginia. Clemency indeed is the "fail
safe" to avoid a terrible miscarriage of justice in the event evidence exists that casts grave doubt
upon the accuracy of a capital conviction, but that cannot be properly considered in the courts.
Indeed, this is not a situation faced only recently by Virginia's Governor. Historically, Virginia
Governors long have provided just such a "fail safe" through grants of clemency. So far as records
show, no one has ever been executed in Virginia based solely on the uncorroborated’ testimony of
a witness acknowledged to be unreliable. For example, in 1912 Governor William Hodges Mann
commuted the sentences of Eugene Dorsey, Calvin Johnson and Richard Pines because the
accomplice who testified against them had "proven himself to be unworthy of credit." See
Governor's List of Pardons, Commutations, etc. and reasons therefore, March 4, 1912. In an
explanation that applies forcefully in Bennett's case, Governor Mann asserted the necessity for
clemency as follows:
[the accomplice] was a confessed perjurer, and the judge in sentencing him declared
that he was a perjurer, and no human being could tell whether he told the truth first
or last, and this is the condition which confronts my conscience and involves the
lives of three men. If all these facts had been before the juries trying the cases, I
would have less difficulty in reaching a conclusion, but they were not, and after
careful thought I am in such a frame of mind that, while I do not think the prisoners
entitled to pardon, I do not think it just to them..., or to the Commonwealth which
only deserves to punish those certainly guilty, to permit them to be electrocuted and
thus to put correction of any mistakes which have been made out of the power of the
State if the mystery which now surrounds the murder...shall ever be cleared up.
Id (emphasis added).
More recently, this same desire to punish only those "certainly guilty" and repugnance
* Admittedly, certain parts of Mary's testimony were corroborated by Kenneth Harris. Given
that her videotape affidavit implicates Harris, however, the existence of his testimony alone
should not be a sufficient basis upon which to execute Bennett.
12
towards exclusive reliance on unreliable and possibly perjured testimony in capital cases was the
basis for Governor L. Douglas Wilder's commutation of Herbert Russell Bassette's death sentence.
Bassette's conviction was based solely upon the testimony of three alleged accomplices. In 1992,
Bassette's sentence was commuted because the unreliable testimony of the three alleged accomplices
was not corroborated, thus raising serious doubts as to his guilt. Governor Wilder also commuted
the death sentences of Joseph M. Giarratano and Earl Washington based on evidence demonstrating
the likelihood of their innocence.
Based on the present state of the evidence, it cannot be said that Bennett is "certainly guilty"
of murdering Anne Vaden. Yet, he is scheduled to be executed based upon the testimony of a liar -
indeed, based upon the testimony of a woman who may have been involved in the murder of Ms.
Vaden, who had powerful incentive to lie at trial. It is unlikely that Bennett has any recourse in the
courts based on the present state of the evidence. But, given Mary's conflicting statements, there
remains doubt that, if the Commonwealth carries out Ron Bennett's execution, it will execute the
guilty party and not an innocent man.
IV. CONCLUSION
Ron Bennett should not be executed for the murder of Anne Vaden unless the
~ Commonwealth can be certain that it is executing the man who actually killed her. In this case, the
only way to eliminate the tragic possibility that the Commonwealth will execute an innocent man
is to grant clemency.
If, however, the Governor is not yet convinced that, based on the present state of the
evidence, Bennett is entitled to clemency, we submit further that, at the very least, the Governor
should grant a reprieve, and order a state police investigation to resolve the questions that remain.
13
14
Respectfully submitted,
RONALD BERNARD BENNETT
By: Counsel
Donald R. Lee, Jr.
Framme, Macaulay & Lee, LC
1108 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 649-1334
