BEFORE THE GOVERNOR FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
AND
THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES
In re
ROBERT WALLACE WEST
Petitioner
APPLICATION FOR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT, CONDITIONAL PARDON
OF HIS DEATH SENTENCE, AND A REPRIEVE
FROM EXECUTION OF HIS DEATH SENTENCE
Submitted by:
JAMES REBHOLZ
Attorney at Law
Rebholz, Auberry & Malone
633 West Wisconsin Ave. #2001
Milwaukee, WI 53203
(414) 276-5850
(414) 291-5145 fax
ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT
INTRODUCTION
Robert Wallace West, Jr., is innocent of capital murder. Because Harris County
prosecutors Texas withheld information that would have proven that he had not stolen a
necklace in the course of the predicate burglary, Mr. West was wrongfully convicted of
capital murder rather than simple murder.
Although Mr. West has always admitted that he killed Deanna Klaus in a drunken and
emotional rage over her involvement in the slaying of his close friend, Mr. West was unfairly
and untruthfully convicted of stealing Ms. Klaus’ necklace from her motel room. The State
presented no physical evidence and no testimony at trial regarding the necklace. Had the
State disclosed to the defense that it had no evidence of a theft of a necklace, as it was
required, Mr. West would only have been found guilty of a non-capital homicide.
Mr. West’s trial lawyer, who introduced no evidence at either the guilt phase or
sentencing phase, despite its availability and critical importance, failed to even ask his client
about the truthfulness of the theft of the necklace in Mr. West’s confession. Because Mr.
West’s trial lawyer never appreciated the importance of the necklace and never asked his
client about its truthfulness, the lawyer doomed his client to a conviction of capital murder
rather than the simple murder for which Mr. West is guilty.
Although Mr. West has attempted, since his conviction, to prove his allegations that
prosecutors withheld evidence, the post-conviction judge never gave him a fair opportunity
to do so because the state court judge was biased. Indeed, before ruling on Mr. West’s post-
conviction requests to prove that the State had withheld important evidence, the judge (who
2-
is now retired) admitted his personal friendship with West’s trial attorney and the attorney’s
family and then vowed to see the “motherfucker fried.” No Texas court has previously been
presented with this post-conviction transcript proving the judge’s bias, or been asked to rule
on the profound consequences of this outrageous bias. However, the new Texas habeas
corpus statute may prevent any evaluation of this bias by the court, despite its profound
consequences on whether Mr. West lives or dies.
This Board has the power to do what the Courts have been arguably been prescribed
from doing. That is, granting relief to a man who is innocent of capital murder.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Robert Wallace West, Jr., accidentally encountered his victim, Deanna Klaus, on
August 23, 1982, when they both were fiving at the Memorial Park Motel in Houston, Texas.
He decided he needed to talk to her later that day concerning the death of Mr. West’s close
friend, Brett Barstow. Much later, and after he had consumed large amounts of beer and
wine, everything began “going too fast for (him)”. Inebriated and depressed over Brett’s
recent slaying, he broke into Ms. Klaus’ motel room to find out whether she had, in fact,
“fingered” Brett by pointing him out to his assassin. When she admitted she had fingered
Brett, West “blew up” and, ina rage, strangled and killed Ms. Klaus.
Mr. West has always admitted that he killed Ms. Klaus, but the false information he
provided to Houston police regarding the theft of a necklace caused the State to charge him
with capital murder in the course of a burglary by theft. In fact, Mr. West had never taken
the necklace and made up the story about the necklace in order to have his roommate, Gon-
zalo Tagle, arrested so that Mr. West could punish Tagle for consenting to a search of West’s
motel room where police found incriminating evidence. Rightfully so, charges against Mr.
Tagle for his involvement in a theft of a necklace were eventually dismissed. The prosecutor
chose not to call Tagle as a witness at trial.
Following the filing by Mr. West of his post-conviction petition for writ of habeas
corpus and his other related motions, on July 9, 1987, the parties convened for a status
hearing on August 24, 1987. West’s post-conviction lawyer told the Court that he wanted
to make a recusal motion because he had personal information that the judge was biased.
The judge refused to hear the recusal motion on August 24, 1987, but agreed to hear the
motion the next day, before he ruled on the other motions.
At the recusal hearing, West’s lawyer told the judge that he should have recused
himself because the judge had admitted his biased relationship to West’s trial lawyer several
days earlier and had told West’s post-conviction counsel that the only response West would
get to his claims and motions would be for the judge to see the “motherfucker fry.” Tr. of
August 25, 1987 hearing.
Mr. West’s trial lawyer presented no evidence at either the guilt or punishment phase
of his client’s trial. In the post-conviction proceedings, Mr. West proffered evidence which
was available to present at sentencing, including a relevant sworn statement from Dr. Jerome
Brown regarding West’s mental problems; brain damage testimony from Dr. James
4.
Merikangas; Will Grey, Alberta West (West’s mother) and Faye Hicks (West’s grand-
mother).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. On February 3, 1983, Petitioner Robert Wallace West, Jr. was convicted of
capital murder and sentenced to death in the 182™ District Court of Harris County, Texas.
With Judges Onion, Teague, and Clinton dissenting, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
affirmed Mr. West’s conviction and sentence on September 17, 1986. West v. State, 720
S.W.2d 511 (Tex. Cr. App. 1986). The United States Supreme Court denied Mr. West’s
Petition for Writ of Certiorari on May 26, 1987. West v. Texas, 481 U.S. 1072 (1987).
2. An execution date for Mr. West was scheduled for September 2, 1987.
3. On July 9, 1987, Mr. West filed a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus in the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, under Tex. Code Crim. P. Art. 11.07. He amended his
writ on July 24, 1987. At the post-conviction status hearing on August 24, 1987, the Court
agreed to hear Mr. West’s recusal motion prior to ruling on his claims and motions. How-
ever, on August 25, 1987, the Court denied all of Mr. West’s motions but allowed counsel
to put his recusal motion, and supporting facts, on the record. Later, the court ruled on the
petition, signing the State’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. See R.E. 11.!
For purposes of this document, the record will be cited as follows:
RECORD EXCERPTS > RE.
RECORD OF DISTRICT COURT : RL
STATE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT: : Vol. at
STATE TRIAL EXHIBITS po dEges =
STATE HABEAS PROCEEDINGS : = S.Hab.__
5.
The court forwarded the case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which denied Mr.
West’s Petition on August 31, 1987. R-E. 12, but without any record information regarding
the judge’s bias, particularly a copy of the recusal transcript, which was ordered on August
25, 1987 but was not prepared until November 22, 1987. Tr. 11. Ex parte West, No.
17318-01 (Tex.Cr.App. August 31, 1987).
4. On August 31, 1987, Mr. West filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C., Sec. 2254 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas. No. H-87-2197 (S.D. Tex.). He moved for an evidentiary hearing and requested
funds necessary for the presentation of his claims. Respondent filed an Answer and Motion
for Summary Judgment on May 2, 1988. The Petition was referred to a Magistrate who
recommended that the Petition be denied. R.E. 4. No evidentiary hearing was held. Mr.
West’s timely objections to the Magistrate’s recommendation were overruled on October 4,
1988. On October 19, 1988, the United States District Court granted Respondent’s Motion
for Summary Judgment and entered judgment dismissing the Petition. R.E. 3.
5. On November 16, 1988, Mr. West filed a timely notice of appeal and applica-
tion for certificate of probable cause to appeal in the district court. See R.E. 2. The District
Court denied the application for certificate of probable cause on November 17, 1988. Mr.
West then applied for a certificate of probable cause from this Court, which granted his
application. West v. Lynaugh, No. 88-6108 (5" Cir. December 21, 1990) (per curiam).
STATE HABEAS FACTFINDING q S.H.Fact.
RECUSAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT: Tr.
.
6. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Mr. West’s request for relief on
August 18, 1996 and dismissed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. West v. Johnson,
92 F.3d 1385 (5" Cir. 1996). The Court denied Mr. West’s request for rehearing and rehear-
ing en banc in an order dated September 25, 1996. West v. Johnson, No. 88-6108 (Order)
(September 25,1 996).
Ts On December 23, 1996, Mr. West filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari in
the United States Supreme Court. This Petition for Writ of Certiorari was denied on May
27, 1997. West v. Johnson, No. 96-7332, U.S.__—(1997).
8. A Petition for Rehearing of the Order dismissing the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari was timely filed on June 23, 1997 and is pending the Court’s consideration and
decision.
9: Mr. West has filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on July 17, 1997,
his Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging novel facts and law in support of his
application, as required. The Court has not ruled on this application. This clemency request
is made at this time due to the filing requirements mandated in the Texas Administrative
Code and Mr. West’s scheduled execution date of July 29, 1997.
ISSUES RAISED IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS
Robert West has asserted, in the various state and federal courts, but without ever
having had an evidentiary hearing to prove those claims in those courts, the numerous rea-
sons why: his conviction and sentence of death were imposed unfairly and why he is innocent
of capital murder:
-7-
MR. WEST IS INNOCENT OF CAPITAL MURDER
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
THE BURGLARY BY THEFT WHICH WAS NECESSARY
TO CONVICT MR. WEST OF CAPITAL MURDER.
MR. WEST IS INNOCENT OF CAPITAL MURDER
BECAUSE THE PROSECUTORS WITHHELD CRITICAL
AND EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD HAVE
PROVEN THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT A BURGLARY BY
THEFT.
THE POST-CONVICTION JUDGE’S BIAS AGAINST MR.
WEST PRECLUDED A FAIR EVALUATION OF HIS POST-
CONVICTION CLAIMS AND MOTIONS FOR EVI-
DENTIARY HEARING AND DISCOVERY.
TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL THROUGHOUT MR. WEST’S TRIAL IN
VARIOUS RESPECTS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT
TRIAL COUNSEL NEVER DISCOVERED, EITHER PRIOR
TO OR DURING TRIAL, THAT MR. WEST HAD NOT
TAKEN A NECKLACE IN THE COURSE OF A BUR-
GLARY.
TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL TO MR. WEST AT HIS SENTENCING HEAR-
ING WHEN HE PROVIDED NO MITIGATING EVIDENCE
ON HIS CLIENT’S BEHALF, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS
A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE TO BE PRE-
SENTED.
WHETHER MR. WEST’S CAPITAL MURDER CONVIC-
TION IS UNSUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, IN
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT.
WHETHER THE TEXAS CAPITAL SENTENCING SPECIAL
ISSUES PRECLUDED MITIGATING CONSIDERATION OF
EVIDENCE, IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AND FOUR-
TEENTH AMENDMENTS.
-8-
8 WHETHER MR. WEST WAS IMPROPERLY DENIED AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN THE UNITED STATES DIS-
TRICT COURT UNDER TOWNSEND v. SAIN, 372 U.S. 293
(163) AND 28 U.S.C., Sees. 2254(d)(1), (4)(2), (DGB), DO),
(d)(7) AND (4)(8).
9. WHETHER MR. WEST WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT GUILT-INNOCENCE, SEN-
TENCING, AND ON APPEAL, IN VIOLATION OF THE
SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.
10. WHETHER THE TEXAS SPECIAL ISSUE AGGRAVATOR
ON “FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS” FAILS TO PERFORM
ITS CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION OF NARROWING THE
CLASS OF THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR DEATH IN TEXAS.
11. WHETHER MR. WEST’S CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED
IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.
12. WHETHER MR. WEST’S CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED
IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.
13. WHETHER THE PROSECUTOR WITHHELD MATERIAL
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WHICH PROVED MR. WEST
WAS NOT GUILTY OF CAPITAL MURDER.
VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT
Mr. West has had no contact with the family of Ms. Klaus since the time of trial.
REASONS WHY CLEMENCY OR A 30 DAY REPRIEVE
OR A CONDITIONAL PARDON
SHOULD BE GRANTED TO ROBERT WEST
1. Mr. West Is Innocent of Capital Murder.
Robert West has always maintained that, although he is, at most, guilty of the offense
of “murder” under Texas law (Tex. Penal Code §19.02), he is actually innocent of the greater
charge of “capital murder” of which he was convicted. See Tex. Penal Code §19.03. He is
innocent, because he did not actually commit a burglary (which made the killing a capital
offense) as argued by the prosecution at trial. Specifically, the prosecution maintained that
Robert West was guilty of capital murder, because he had unlawfully entered the victim’s
habitation and while inside, supposedly took a necklace. This, the prosecution maintained,
established a burglary -- unlawful entry into a habitation accompanied by this alleged theft
of a necklace -- thereby establishing capital murder: murder in the course of a burglary.
As a matter of fact, however, and as Robert West would demonstrate to establish his
claim, he took no necklace. In fact, to this day, the State of Texas has not shown the exis-
tence of any such necklace, nor can the State even establish what this “necklace” supposedly
even looks like. The State cannot, because there was and never has been any such “neck-
lace,” and no such “necklace” was ever taken by Robert West.
In support of his claim, Robert West has attached, as prima facie evidence of his
innocence, an Affidavit establishing that he never took any necklace from the victim’s
habitation and how police believed this information was true. Mr. West has never been
given the opportunity by any State or Federal court, to prove that the police investigation of
the case (a) never revealed the existence of any such necklace, and (b) that no such necklace
exists as official evidence in this case, and (c) that Gonzalo Tagle was intentionally not
called as a witness at trial, despite his presence, because his testimony would have specifi-
cally disproved the necklace theft. Since the Harris County District Attorney refuses to
-10-
disclose the truth about the necklace and since no court will grant Robert West the right to
an evidentiary hearing on his innocence claim, this Board must grant appropriate relief.
2. The Unprecedented Bias of the Post-Conviction Judge
Toward Mr. West Denied Him the Fair and Reasonable
Opportunity to Prove His Claim in the State Court That
He Was Innocent of Capital Murder.
The judge’s bias is unequivocal in two respects. One, he promised to see “the
motherfucker fried.” Tr. 10. Two, the judge admitted that he “formed an opinion” on the
merits of the petition before the judge ever considered it, having personally concluded that
family friend and trial counsel Scardino “had done an excellent job in representing Mr.
West.” Tr. 8-9. This opinion of trial counsel’s representation of Mr. West was formed prior
to any review of Mr. West’s support for his post-conviction claims and, accordingly, Mr.
West has presented a prima facie case that the judge was incapable of impartially reviewing
those claims.
The prima facie showing of the judge’ bias established by the transcript of the August
25, 1987 hearing requires, at least, additional hearings and discovery for a determination
whether the State court’s uncontroverted promise” to see Mr. West “fry,” denied him due
process. Mr. West asserts that this bias denied him due process because it denied him a fair-
minded judge to rule on his post-conviction claims and motion for evidentiary hearing. This
2 The post-conviction judge did not disavow counsel’s proffer and the State
has not provided any affidavit disavowing this proffer.
“tis
bias existed at each critical step of the post-conviction process in the trial court and this bias
unconstitutionally infected each ruling made by the Court.
Furthermore, in denying Mr. West a hearing, the state court’s bias denied him the
opportunity to present relevant evidence which supported his allegations of the ineffective
assistance of his trial lawyer, the judge’s friend. Though Mr. West sought to present proof
in support of his claims, the State court’s bias prevented him from presenting that proof and
therefore did not consider the substance of such evidence.
Mr. West specifically proffered the relevant, material evidence which he wanted to
present as proof of his claim. This relevant evidence included evidence from Dr. Jerome
Brown, Dr. James Merikangas, Will Gray, Alberta West and Faye Hicks. R.E. 6, 7. Having
proffered material evidence but having been denied the opportunity to enter the substance
of that proof by a biased judge, Mr. West was not provided “both procedurally and in sub-
stance, a full and fair hearing.”
The Court’s bias towards Mr. West also denied him a fair hearing on his ineffective-
ness claims because the state court did not hold a live hearing and instead relied exclusively
on two uncorroborated, unconfronted affidavits presented by the State, including family
friend Scardino’s affidavit. Without a live hearing, Mr. West was completely denied any
opportunity to test, by cross-examination, the validity of the assertions made by the affiants.
He was denied due process and a fair hearing and deserves the opportunity from this Board
to prove those claims.
-12-
Because new facts establish that the state court was biased, it is appropriate and
necessary for this Board to evaluate whether the biased court fairly considered these impor-
tant and relevant questions regarding the necklace including: (1) what investigation counsel
actually did and what facts counsel actually knew and why; (2) why counsel didn’t investi-
gate more; and (3) why counsel chose to litigate the case as he did. Only with these facts
could the court have determined whether: (1) counsel’s investigation was reasonable; (2)
whether counsel’s decision not to investigate further was reasonable; and (3) whether coun-
sel’s strategy was reasonable. The answers to these questions profoundly affect this Board’s
evaluation whether it should grant any of Mr. West’s request.
At sentencing, counsel presented absolutely no mitigating evidence on Mr. West’s
behalf. The post-conviction judge’s bias prevented a legitimate evaluation of the reasons
why Mr. West’s trial lawyer presented no mitigating evidence, even though ample mitigating
evidence was available.
3. Robert West’s Death Sentence Was Based Upon a Finding
of Alleged Future Dangerousness Which, As a Matter of Fact,
Is Simply Not True in Violation of Due Process and The Prohibition
Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
As the Supreme Court recognized in Jurek v. Texas, in 1976, jurors are capable of
answering the factual question posed by Texas’ second special issue on future dangerous-
ness: “It is, of course, not easy to predict future behavior. The fact that such a determination
is difficult, however, does not mean that it cannot be made.” Later, in the Barefoot case, the
-13-
Court again recognized that “it is not impossible for even a lay person sensibly to arrive at
that conclusion” about future dangerousness, as required by the second special issue.
Nevertheless, just as Jurek and Barefoot hold that jurors can make a prediction of
future dangerousness, it necessarily follows that jurors can, as a matter of fact, be absolutely
wrong in their prediction. And when the jury has made such a factually inaccurate prediction
of future dangerousness, it is clear that any death sentence based upon this inaccurate jury
factfinding is a violation of due process and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punish-
ment under the Texas Constitution and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. This is
exactly the situation here, as it is clear that the jury’s finding that Robert West would be
dangerous in the future is simply not true.
For a Texas jury in a capital case to find that a criminal defendant will be criminally
dangerous in the future, it seems that the jury must first unequivocally believe that the heart
and soul of this capital defendant are both so significantly sick and damaged that this human
being could never, in the future, experience “goodness” in himself as a part of a community,
whatever that community may be. Second, since the capital defendant will never be able to
experience this “goodness,” the capital jury would then conclude that this capital defendant
will never develop he degree of respect for himself or the members of his community (or
their property) required to behave appropriately within that community. Third, without any
possibility that this capital defendant could achieve both of these intertwined aspects of
respect toward himself and his community, this capital jury should then rationally conclude
M1,
that this capital defendant will be criminally violent in the future which, under the Texas
capital scheme, makes him eligible to be executed.
Of course, the challenge to the capital jury in Texas is to not only predict the future
behavior of a human being based on what he has done in the past (including murder) but to
predict this capital defendant’s future behavior independent of past behavior. This is true
because it is universally and statistically accepted that past behavior does not guarantee a
prediction of future behavior. If this were not so, the universe would be inescapably without
hope. Unfortunately, this complicated judgment required of the capital jury is often limited
not by the relative depth or emptiness of the capital defendant being judged. Rather, this
judgment is often and sadly limited by the enthusiasm or skill of his trial lawyer.
Robert West has spent 14 years on death row, not all of which have been as produc-
tive or righteous as others. Robert’s early acceptance of responsibility for the death of
Deanna Klaus (he told police the truth about his responsibility for Deanna’s death shortly
after his arrest and has never wavered in that responsibility), along with his intelligence and
maturing insight, has, somehow, combined to produce a personal development and growing
spirituality not often experienced on death row and one certainly not presented to Robert
West’s sentencing a
This personal development and spiritual growth have sparked a constructive energy
and generosity which has touched the lives of scores of people worldwide as well as many
on.death row. See Exhibit A, attached.
-15-
While Robert is most known on death row for his honest and satirical contributions
to death row publications, those others of us with whom he communicates personally on a
regular basis have experienced his sensitive soul and his dynamic growth through his devel-
oping ability and talent to communicate with words.
This development includes his reconciliation of the Christian faith with his Native
American heritage and its religious implications. His sober and grounded spirituality, not
born of self-pity or human frailty, is succinctly noted in the Christmas card forwarded to
counsel in 1993. See Exhibit B.
Surely Mr. West’s jury would have appreciated, in 1983, before they judged him
unsalvageable, some indication of Robert’s later capacity, while suffering the daily
indignities of the condemned, to wish “peace, health, happiness and love” as well as a
capacity to appreciate the “secrets” and complexities of the human condition. Indeed, the
jury would have appreciated knowing in 1983, before they condemned Robert to die, Rob-
ert’s later capacity to express in his poetry the joy, happiness and peace of which he was
capable and which his execution would silence. See Exhibit C.
Since Robert West “was sentenced on the basis of assumptions . . . which were
materially untrue” and particularly since Robert West has very apparently not committed
criminal acts of violence since he was condemned to death, his jury would be compelled
today to find him not to be-a future danger to society. Robert West, therefore, is entitled to
relief from this Board from his sentence of death.
2165
MR. WEST REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD PROVIDE
THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES SO THAT HE CAN
REASONABLY PRESENT FACTS IN SUPPORT
OF THIS CLEMENCY APPLICATION.
In order for Mr. West to fully prepare for and present his reasons in support of his for
clemency application, Robert West requests that he be provided the following procedures:
A. A hearing.
B. A hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act pursuant to
Texas Government Code Sec. 2001.051, providing Mr. West the
opportunity to participate in the hearing along with reasonable
notice of the hearing with the opportunity to respond and pres-
ent evidence and argument on each issue involved in the case;
Cc. A hearing at which he would be personally present.
D. A hearing conducted by impartial officers;
E. The right to confront evidence and witnesses through cross-ex-
amination at the hearing;
F, The right to present evidence and live witnesses at a hearing,
secured by Board subpoena, if necessary;
G. The right to a written summary of the findings of the decision
of the hearing officer;
H. The right to representation by counsel at the hearing;
AT:
ep!
L The right to have the hearing transcribed by a court reporter;
and
J. The right to adequately prepare for the hearing.
CONCLUSION
The Board of Pardons and Paroles has a duty to carefully scrutinize Mr. West’s
clemency application. However, while this Board seldom holds clemency hearings and has
apparently not even met to discuss the application of more than 20 individuals who have
applied for relief during 1997, a hearing on Mr. West’s application is necessary given the
information presented in this document and the information which would be presented at any
hearing provided by this Board.
Mr. West can and will prove that he is innocent of capital murder should he be pro-
vided a live hearing and the right to present evidence in support of this claim. The new
procedural barriers created by the State of Texas and Congress have prevented thorough
litigation of Mr. West’s claim that he is not guilty of capital murder in the courts. Therefore,
this Board and the Governor’s Office have a profoundly increased responsibility to hear
evidence in support of any applicant’s meritorious claims, and particularly Mr. West’s claim
that he is innocent of capital murder.
-18-
Accordingly, Mr. West requests a hearing including the procedures described above
and a grant of commutation, conditional pardon or reprieve.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 18 te, of July, 1997.
P.O. S:
Suite 2001
633 West Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53203
(414) 276-5850
(414) 291-5145 (Fax)
REBHOLZ, AUBERRY & MALONE
py. Kos Cb
J S REBHOLZ
ttorrjey for Robert Wallace West
-19-
ROBERT WALLACE WEST
in
U.S.A.:
A. Ferguson
Northern Cheyanne Tribal Council
Wendy Brown
Jason Kebler
Steve Fram
Jane Winifred Hardy Peters
Mary E. Howard
Ryan Amptmeyer
Kathleen Pugh
Helen Pajama
Bobby H. West
Heartbeat Prison Ministries
The Catholic Worker
Don Timmerman
Amnesty International U.S.A.
Barak Epstein
Reba Latimer
Sharyl Tarantino
Gretchen Ney Laugier
November West
Marta Glass
ACLU of Texas
Gloria Calcina del Vecchio
Daniel Prather
Sheldah Holmes
Deborah Jean Stone
Jeanne Ercej
Pat Tompkins
Ireland:
Marie Altziner
Eugene J. Doyle
Audrey S. Kaufman
Laurie Mulligan
f ency*
Lame Deer, MT
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Los Angeles, CA
Holland, PA
Atlanta, GA
Monticello, IN
Salem, OR
Old Town, ME
Roanoke, VA
New York, NY
Milwaukee, WI
Chevy Chase, MD
Dallas, TX
Milwaukee, WI
New Hope, PA
New York, NY
Houston, TX
Newtown, PA
Anchorage, AK
Milwaukee, WI
Bakersville, NC
Germany:
Karen Weitzemkamp
Klaus and Rena Lubberger
Maren Wandt
Karl H. Rodenberg
* Letters from these organizations and individuals have
previously been forwarded to the Board and Governor Bus.
EXHIBIT
RS
iA.
/
Capsmnite 43
We have seen his star
in the east,
ae: and are comé.to worship him.
saw — “3: MATTHEW 22:
Rote got i a + ge. Try
| ’
Th aise op abe pag. tee wal an, othe
Sia och and tour iste Jace meth,
oe
God rest you merry, gentlemen;
Let nothing you dismay,
Remember Christ, our Saviour,
Was born on Christmas Day,
To save us all from Satan’s pow’r
When we were gone astray.
O tidings of comfort and joy!
EXHIBIT
iB
Toor ms wwe 4 wy ee qumeyo LHLINKING That Act) Write It down in the morning, but 1
aflways forget because by morning 4% done stipped away. caught this cre aa eo) |ES19V966
17 : "at gubyay < 194d VF das8 pontyoroeys ors srt Wondoot
ota yaad 2¢ tem sce ot sat F
t
PES PONES SREY Orval aaaq ret wey A-BAT
Ht $ootvag tsa zi “pat std and 229s snotsatth ofdatieshaa ax
eved tedt slgoug edt b; Snepeyon git cout phase fiquony «4 iThy sis4d tt 2 of oak¥ bac
etoarolgque sd¥ io eat Front! a Leedtnun $ $25q 9 yar0 20 tt
boseussixe I ogu 4s al a REN 20Oq al duq TOT z d1915 geadndys
ot beat$esd 913 2yntig sts frog 1 dud 003 2919099 y94dd> 49 fsb 45972 By bas 2satN291 Ya
+812 N91} dab dfuar ytd Baty a tine WOID YTIVI M2 -bsto99) tesef te ev'l bh 1 ott aah etodigrs asqgsd
at ,noteined ats 4 Of abitiv x3 N59 Q4 ty wheasr pat 242 Yo att
ott Mute eit an faded, off eglor,yetfon Saostnes ven a we ae TE aN Taunt 31H
wD9btIOW Joa atl gody we and;gn Sa neter atagts root f sett ofgo9q 1 to* 9901 GE Yo Wife
Tez rot bay vm t39 + floats a luxury sHiget, Sty ange see t sts
43a pAIAdo% baa stot coorog ae age
ytquay 4d Sedt ysa of tie
tyra a, 3fg093 adt ac 8 Tag bofring gs dou tT
Sedu vont of at + ob of ye o [Puatenygravty.. Vb a abit vot dane gua ttodt
&@ ghost ship, 2399 x9 OF
ot Ffta exatt adit fost s4aqy 8 Sh$pzof,Jpver: vob ousy gthit «maw dash yfateties T
> ethos 3
ey va24R6I"Bs, FY osdt preod
o nknty spoaldve,sn, thelr drei.’ :
atl uoay pecause dreams are Aorever,.
wietaey s1qDanging, they whisper. a8
fos. oy dkhowing. that, Jom, Jooking, taet
A fF0n 1996, , YWetooe goeti
_ esTegten rom tie window os
: LP det ithe has gate
etrinods yte widoira
Jo daa bet PMiag tadde pat yak
vettyy bas
ait zt nett Taeds on bat
ano dett
DAyis7e gabe ath age
sad Lali te ost
. TROD Ast tue
Yeo24 cy Soritts
et oyt Foot
4 nd
aa Sota gut radt ,
totrelom SDB +
hae * .aftuo
oF aE* 4ytuy
rian Se nt tsad
tttt pant
woe 22
gis ditty
feta a
12
ened any st
eet mpopT taht am?
Tovers 5 See F
) Phe, shir fac ay o8e tant
mee wbordara
‘off ann
Yoowe
RE gate tas
oa a eae
Todeea wre bk
noite
afoot tna
al
$ Vede cabot
outed eit tao 6
aterise ecatonnod Q520?
Le a
3 ond Ipdd addin >
ath Te S gu gy Gay tdety test nodt
odd at 9 co 6 ytno ten Seal Toe
»Ylots> ont binots ©
Cot brswsot Soot Ths as thas 3} wor 229)
dedasi> 9239 | ot motel ut gntved
aah {['uoy g faled Site te it nodt iguott
DRS WONENG 94 2138 hT gg otal ithe, Niner, passes ay a; nf atts atte bas gntldrwe etdt tivp of yatog ail
“tt00d ut of, the, mopn} igh tayaod nt tno base of agmaT gy? aznaion ban efotiys gaoe
BT 46"F patwowd bus ertitga PI the masic.patch OF WRLET yoni eoslossr edd aqui! T
and of existence, ffoy voy satiety 2ysuls
untfl the dream returns,
I wonder {f the lovers dance
1f the music st{11 plays
and {f my dream continues
after I quit dreaming 1t?
" Aren't dreams forever?
a" 9) m the 5, OF, iis
a atuisfe soothing. Fe,
fy ghost dancers, Dt pisoo soa;
» afte SPORE SEEPS os att ut 22
Fog noad suad ecnict cw ot Shat, Ship, of dreams. .;.
The Glen Hiller Band
vagta staal git na ifron, abe Starlet Ballroom
509 mcd 2 FU, SAI oy
falty) sub at 1 Playing ip, The, Mood
294T,
1"
catty 2h
Robert West #731, Ellis 1 Unit, Huntsville Texas, 77343-0001, U.S.A,
EXHIBIT
REQUIRED EXHIBITS
Robert West has been unable to obtain certified copies of the indictment, verdict,
judgment and sentence due to the shortage of time between his execution date and the filing
deadlines for the clemency petition. Mr. West requests that the Board consider these uncerti-
fied copies to substantially comply with 37 TAC Sec. 143/42(3). Uncertified copies of the
indictment, verdict, judgment and sentence are attached. He is aware that the Board has
considered uncertified copies in prior clemency applications.
-20-
ee ee ee ee ee ee ee
«
, INDICTMENT
FILED: . OCTOBER 5,
Vv fl
THE STATE OF TEXAS na REV. 5/80
ROBERT WALLACE WEST, JR. aka spn: DATE prepare; —2<-1-82__py:__bIh _pano:__CH
HICKS WM poa,__12-22-61 agener: EPD O7A WO: 52376982
FRONT OUNCE exe cove:_0907 10 07 ARREST DATE: f= 24=R2
oe RELATED CASES:
CAPITAL MURDER +262nd 64
CAUSE NO... 36 - . S
HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT NO: >! 62ND eal wo pond _votlS3 Paget! ax ors
PRIOR CAUSE NO.:
IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
‘The duly organized Grand Jury of Harris County, Texas, presents in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, that in Harris County, Texas,
ROBERT WALLACE WEST, JR. aka ROBERT WALLACE HICKS
‘AUGUST 24, 1982 vas
hereatter styled the Defendant, heretolore on o# about
then and there uniawiulty
while in the course of committing and attempting to commit burglary of a
habitation owned by DEANNA KLAUS, intentionally cause the death of DEANNA
KLAUS, hereafter styled the Complainant, by strangling the Complainant
with his hands and by strangling the Complainant with a belt and by
strangling the Complainant with a sheet and by suffocating the Complainant
with a hand towel and by stabbing the Complainant with a piece of wood.
8 i
AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.
ow A lodshing len
o
FOREMAN OF THE GRANO JURY
Pies
Gr 3 2 3) piers
-—EL 10 EG:
j Pa
- oN &)
The Special Issues, with forms for your answers, are as
follows:
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 1
Whether the conduct of the defendant, Robert Wallace West, Jr.,
that caused the death of the deceased, Deanna Klaus, was committed
deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death
of the deceased or another would result?
ANSWER
We, the Jury, unanimously find and determine beyond a
reasonable doubt that the answer to this Specia’ sue is "Yes."
ILE D
RAY HARDY
Distriot Clerk
We, the Jury, because at least ten (10) jurors have a
reasonable doubt as to the matter inquired about in this Special
Issue, find and determine that the answer to this Special Issue
is "No."
FOREMAN OF THE JURY
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 2
Whether there is a probability that the Defendant,
Robert Wallace West, Jz., would commit criminal acts of violence
that would constitute a continuing threat to society?
ANSWER
We, the Jury, unanimously find and determine beyond a
reasonable doubt that the answer to this Special ue is "Yes."
ILE
RAY HARDY
District Clerk
FEB - 3 1983
We, the Jury, because at least ten (10) jurors have a
reasonable doubt as to the matter inquired about in this Special
Issue, find and determine.that the answer to this Special Issue
is "No."
FILED; __ FE]
- Date
182nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
We, the Jury, return in open Court the above answers as our
answers to the Special Issues submitted to us, and the same is our
a an
a) OF THE JURY
verdict in this case.
Thereupon, the duns in occordance with low, heard further evidence, and havin, been
charged by the Court, the jury retired in chorge of the proper officer ond retimned no on
Court on the 3rd__dey of __ February 1983 |, the f
" which wos received by the Court and is here entered of record pen the minutes: Sileting serdtet,
SPECIAL ISSUE N i
Whether the conduct of the defendant Robert Wallace West, Jr. th
Caused the death of the deceased, Deanna Klaus, was committed, deliberately
and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or
another would result?
‘ANSWER
a: "We the Jury, unanimously find and determine beyond a reasonable
‘doubt’ that me answer to this Special Issue is "Yes" .
- : /s/ Basil Cervas
° FOREMAN OF THE JURY"
: 7+! SPECIAL ISSUE NO.2 *
whether -there is. a probability that the Defendant, Robert Wa.
a continuing: ShEeSe to society? . a
: ANSWER 8
"We, the Jury, unanimously find and determine beyond a___
sonable doubt that the answer to this Special Issue is "Yes" .
/s/_Basil_ Cervas
FORMAN OF THE S JURY"
or .
We, the Jury, because at least ten (10) jurors have a reasonable
vubt as to the matter inquired about in this Special Issue, find and
‘termine that the answer to this Special Issue is "No".
FOREMAN OF THE JURY
‘LED: February 3, 1983
/s/_Donald kK. Shipley
DONALD K, SHIPLEY, Judge Presiding
182nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
“We, the Jury,. return ‘.. in open Court the above answers as our
West. ar... would. commit criminal acts of .violence | epee would constitute _
iswers to the Special Issues submitted to us, and the same is our verdict
: this case. .
/s/ Basil Cervas
FOREMAN OF THE. JURY"
ae AS pystRICT COURT OF Hal COUNTY, TEXAS:
arte November tem, ap. 19__ 82 : =
JUDGMENT
0. 362661
HE STATE OF TEXAS ;
pote Tanuary ie 19 83
aka Robert Wallace Hicks on motion of the
cefendant's name changed to Robert Wallace West
or.
Robert Wallace West Jr.
mrt—the-tourt—order the
ittorney for Stote + Asst, Dist. Atty. Carl Hobbs
tttorney for Defendant “Robert Scardino and Roy Ashe
Wrense Ss- 0." CAPITAL MURDER
igs .et Orrakaa k August 24, 1982 A. DL 19
"Yea 2 _Not Guilty :
‘fount, ond/er
‘arogroph 1st count lst paragraph ~
n/a
°unishment 2 Deoth
- The Defendant hoving been indicted in the obove entitled and numbered cause for the felony —
sffense indicated above ond this couse being this day called for tricl, the State oppeared by her
district Attorney as named cbove ond the Defendant named above oppecred in person with Counsel os
vened cbove, ond both parties onnounced ready for tricl. : se
(A Jury composed of -Basil Cervas + -='- + ond eleven others wos selected,
imponelled, ond sworn, The Indictnent was reed to the Jusy ond the Defendont, entered a plea of
wot guilty thereto, after having heard the evidence subaitted; ond hoving been charged by the :
Tourt os to their duty to determine the guilt or innocence of the Defendant ond the argument of
Toonsel, the Jury: retired in charge of the proper officer ond returned into open court on the
2nd_ dey of _ Februa: : » 1983 ___, the following verdict, -
Which wos received by Te Gs ts here ont “¢ entered of record upon the minutes: © .
"We, the Jury , find the Defendant, ROBERT WALLACE.WEST, JR.
GUILTY OF CAPITAL MURDER AS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.’
: /s/_Basil Cervas’ :
TADEMAN OR FORNLADY OF -THE JURY" |
‘of our Court of Crimianl Appeals in this behalf.
qt is therefore considered, ordered, and edjudged by the Court that the Defendant is
guilty of the offense Indicated obove, o felony, os found by the verdict of the jury, ond that
The Zotd Defendont commited the said offense on the date indicated above, ond that he be
shed, os has been determined by the Jury, by death, ond that Defendont be remanded to Jail to
await further orders of this court. ve
Ard thereupon, the said Defendont was asked by the Court whether he had onything to soy
why sentence should not be pronounced ogainst him, ond he answered nothing in bar thereof.
Whereupon the Court proceeded, in presence of said Defendant to pronounce sentence agoinst
him os follows, to wit, "It is the order of the Court that the Defendant named obove, who hos
been adjudged to be guilty of the offense indicated above and whose punishment has been assessed
by the verdict of the jury ond the judgment of the Court ot Death, shall be delivered by the
Sheriff of Harris County, Texos immediotely to the Director of Corrections of the State of Texos,
er any other person legally authorized to received such convicts, and said Defendant shall be
confined in said Department of Corrections in accordance with the provisions of the law governing
the Texas Department of Corrections until a date of execution of the said Defendant is imposed by
this Court after receipt in this Court of mondate of offirmonce by the Court of Criminal Appeals
of the State of Texes.
The said Defendant ts remanded to jofl until said Sheriff can obey the directions of this
sentence. From which sentence on appeal is taken os o matter of law to the Court of Criminal
Appeals of the State of Texas, Austin, Texos.
Signed and entered on this the 35d day of February 83 .
Judge 182nd District Gard =
Horris County, Texas
copy To ro¢__2~3-83
To which action of the Court the Deferfant then and there , in open
Court, excepted and gave notice of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appea
of the State of Texas, Austin, Texas. : .
And inasmunch as said Defendant has given notice of appeal herein, ex-.
ecution of the sentence is deferred to await the judgment and order
No bond allowed. f ’ : .
ch
KK. 183
