SENT. BY: WMC&D ; G- 1-99 11:31AM WILLTAMS&MULLEN- 8046436819;# 2/ 7
‘ WitiiamMs MULLEN QS. CUEMaUCY
t PHONE: (004) 049-1991 CHRISTIAN & DOBBINS OPHICES IN:
: Pana ee ‘ATTORNEYS & COUNSBLORS AT LAW WARE ite
ee igi * ‘A PROFES3/QNAL COXPORATION FNpow.
AFPILIASY OFFICE:
WAITRR'S DIRECT DIAL: er eer Den“orr
(B04) 783-6433 me Ox I as RIYADH
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 25218-1320 ERE ADE,
http fanned ce
wa 89 DRAFT
BY DE
The Honorable James 8, Gilmore, IIL
Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia
State Capital
3rd Floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Re: George Adrian Quesinbeny, Jr. - EXECUTION DATE MARCH 9, 1999
Dear Governor Gilmore:
Please accept this petition for clemency on behalf of George Adrian Quesinbarry, Jr., a
Virginia inmate under a sentence of death,
I Far
Mr, Quesinberry was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by a Chesterfield
County jury in 1990. The homicide occurred in Chesterfield on the premises of Tri-City Electric,
an electrical parts wholesale supplier. The victim was Tri-City’s owner, Thomas L. Haynes.
Throughout the evening and early morning before the shooting Mr. Quesinberry and his friend,
Eric e, had been drinking heavily. broke into Tri-City sometime after $:00 a.m, to steal tea*
petty cash. Mr, Haynes confronted them shortly before 6:00 am, and demanded to know whet = Sv
they were doing. Mr, Quesinberry panicked, grabbed s gun Mr. Hinkle was holding, and shot and eee
killed Mr. Haynes. uem®
After the shooting, Mr. Quesinberry was devastated by what he had done. See Exhibit A
(Affidavit of George A. Quesinberry, Jr.), J 13, and Exhibit B (Affidavit of Eric Hinkle), 9 5.
None of Mr, Quesinberry’s family or ftiends, including Mr. Hinkle, had ever seen Mr. Quesinberry
hurt or even threaten anyone before, Sex Exhibit B, J 2; Exhibit C (Affidavit of Dwight Cox);
Exhibit D (Affidavit of Lana David) 7, Exhibit E (Affidavit of Rhonda Ortolano), {| 15; Exhibit
F (Affidavit of Joyce Harrell), ¥ 3; and Exhibit G (letter from Lana Rowe), Mr. Queginberry was
30 upset that he contemplated committing suicide, but did not do so because he had been taught
that suicide was an unforgivable sin, Mr. Quesinberry, expecting his arrest, did not attempt to flee
or ayoid his apprehension, showed the police where he had left the gun, gave a fulll confession and
urged Mr, Hinkle to be truthful with authorities.
SENT BY :WMCED ; $- 1-99 31:31AM; WILLIAMS@MULLEN> 8046436619;# 3/7
Wu.tiAMs MULLEN
CHRISTIAN & DOBBINS
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT'.AW.
v
The Honorable James S. Gilmore, IIL
March 2, 1999
Page 2
IL___History of Mr Quesinberry’s Case
Mr, Quesinberry's conviction and sentencing for a capital crime was based on the statutory
predicate of murder committed during a robbery, No one claimed that Mr. Quesinberry and Mr.
Hinkle had any intention of committing an armed robbery of Mr. Haynes when they broke into
Tri-City, and nothing was taken from Mr. Haynes' person. The Commonwealth's case was that,
because Mr, Quesinberry and Mr, Hinkle had not physically removed the petty cash and other
small items of property ftom the Tri-City building priar to their discovery, the entry by Mr.
Haynes transformed the situation into a robbery and the murder was committed for the purpose of
escape.
At trial, Mr. Quesinberry’s attorneys argued that Mr. Quesinberry’s crime was not robbery
but, rather, a burglary followed by a murder. They lost this argument with the judge and with the
jury. Other than this legal defense, trial counsel simply failed to prepare for the guilt and
sentencing stages of this capital trial. They were unprepared to permit Mr. Quesinberry to testify
on his own behalf, nor was he in a condition to do so because af his attorneys’ inability to
understand or communicate their client’s mental state. Despite the information given fo them by
Mr. Gueslabersy and his family, they had not investigated Mr. Quesinbesry’s modical history, his
educational and personal development, his extentsive history of physical and mental abuse, or his
mental and emotional condition on the morning of the Tri-City break-in, with the result that they
had virtually no mitigating evidence to present to the jury during the sentencing phage,
Most importantly, trial counsel failed to employ the assistance of mental heath expertsto
assist in his defense even though Mr. Quesinberry was entitled to this assistance as a matter of
statutory right. Had trial counsel done so (as current counsel has done), Mr. Quesinberry would
have been afforded with a compelling defense as demonstrated by the attached affidavits of Dr.
Robert Hart and Dr. Mary Beth Williams, Ph.D. (Exhibits H and I, respectively). From their
testimony, the jury would have learned that Mr, Quesinberry suffers from neurological and
psychological dysfunotions that inhibit his perception, his memory, and his ability to openly
express remorse, The jury would have understood that Mr. Quesinberry’s fear when he was
unexpectedly confronted by Mr. Haynes triggered an extreme response traceable to Mr.
Quesinberry’ s traumatic experiences of violence and his psychological dysfunctions, and moreover
that Mr, Quesinberry's dysfunctions are treatable with counseling. Even with the dearth of
evidence presented at sentencing the jury still deliberated over seven (7) hours over two days
before returning its recommendation for a sentence of death
ee
ecm iinennie hse
uA
Mr. Quesinberry's traumatic childhood and subsequent events of his teenage years are well
\ documented in the attached affidavits of friends and family members submitted to, but not
\ considered by, the United States District Court. Suffice it to say that Mr. Quesinberry’s life is no
H ordinary story of poverty and abuse, At age two, he witnessed his awn mother’s shooting death
i (ruled a suicide by rifle, but occurring in the presence of Mr. Quesinberry’s abusive and alcoholic
{ father). Abandoned by his father, he was moved from place to place to live with various relatives,
one of whom raped him before he was five years old, another of whom repeatedly beat him and
locked him in enclosed spaces as a form of “discipline,” Before he was ten years old, he had a
SEND BY: WMC&D 5 ge 1-89 311:924M ; — WILLTAMS&MULLEN~ 8046436619;# 4/7
WILLIAMS MULLEN
CHRISTIAN & DOBBINS
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW
The Honorable James S. Gilmore, Ili
March 2, 1999
Page 3
ctippling, but undiagnosed learning disability, and had undergone extensive psychological
counseling and treatment with controlled substances, After a friend accidentally shot him with a
shotgun at age fifteen, Mr. Quesinberry spent almost & year in recuperation and was never able to
complete his high echool education,
Such information is not simply something that could have made the jury “feel sorry” for
Mr. Quesinberry, Rather, the pattems of abuse that he suffered and the resulting behavioral
dysfunctions, which Dr. Hart and Dr. Williams recognized and explain cogently in their affidavits,
are absolutely essential to understanding the tragic confluence of events that confronted Mr,
Quesinberry in Tri-City. Had trial counsel a this type of expert asaistance, they would have
understood Mr, Quesinberry and the factors that motivated his behavior, and Mr. Quesinberry
would have had a more than probable chance of success at the trial stage of the proceedings,
Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the clear discrepancies between the trial counsel affidavit
(Bxhibit J) and the two affidavits submitted by mental health professionals at the University of
Virginia who were contacted but not employed by trial counsel, trial counsel simply dropped the
ball regarding their only viable trial defense. See Exhibit K (Affidavit of Garry Hawk, Ph.D.), and
Exhibit L (Affidavit of W. Lawrence Fitch, ).D.), In sum, Mr. Quesinberry’s appointed trial
lawyers simply formed no strategy for effectively rebutting the Commonwealth's portrayal of Mr.
Quesinberry as a dangerous killer, when such a rebuttal was plainly available,
The errors of trial counsel were compounded by the performance of state appointed
counsel at the habeas stage. State habeas counsel simply refysed to investigate ar avoeate Mr,
Quesinberry's claims of what his trial counsel should have, but did not, investigate or develop for
the trial. In fact, in a clear breach of his duty of loyalty to Mr. Quesinberry, state habeas counsel
informed the state habeas trial court (but not Mr. Quesinberry) that the claims had no merit, and
then unilaterally decided not to include the claima in an appeal, Because of the faderal courts’
application of a rule of procedural default in habeas corpus proceedings, no court has cver heard,
or been allowed to hear, the merits of these claims. Clemency is the sole avenue to address this
fundamental failure of the judicial system to provide Mr, Quesinberry with a fair opportunity to
defend and explain himself at trial.
pene her ots Of Mr, i i iK and Si i
Unlike many death row inmates and contrary to the public’s perception of capital convicts,
Mr, Quesinberry does not have a prior record of violent or armed crime. He stole two purses at
age eighteen, broke into a grocery store to steal food at age twenty while homeless, and, finally,
he skipped out on a cab fare in Houston, Texas. At his capita! trial sentencing phase, the cab fare —
incident was “transformed” into an attempted armed robbery. Despite defense counscl’s ade + @
knowledge that Mr. Quesinberry's co-defendant in Houston has passed 4 lic detector test and that ~,
the conduct was nothing more than a skipped cab fare, the cab driver was allowed to testify ake es
without effective cross-exatnination that he had been robbed af knifepoint. See Exhibit MW dake tut
(Adfidavit of Allen C. Isbell, Esquire). This portrayal of the incident was the linchpin for the \ve
Commonwealth's Attomey to argue effectively in closing about Mr. Quesinberry’s "escalating"
criminal career.
SENT BY :WINC&D 5 9° 1-89 :11:32AM ; WILLIAMS@MLLLENs «8 048436819;# 5/ 7
Wi.iaMs MULLEN
CHRISTIAN & DOBBINS
ATTORNEYS & COUN$BLORS AY LAW
The Honorable James $. Gilmore, IIT
March 2, 1999 .
Page 4
age 6 geptery
Ay hae
he ee
Further clouding the sentencing problem was the then-current nature of Virginia law
tegarding parole and about informing jurors about parole eligibility. When Mr. Quesinberry was
convicted in 1990, had he been given a life sentence he would not have even been cligible to
receive parole until the year 2020 (at an age of fifty-nins), Under the then-cxisting law, he was
refused a jury instruction to inform the jury of his ineligibility to receive an earlier parole. Counsel
has learned from juror interviews that the true meaning of a “life sentence” was the primary
voncem in the jury deliberations, and that it was believed that Mr, Quesinberry's incarceration
‘would be no mare than twenty years (as opposed to no less than thirty)’ Accurate information
regarding Mr. Quesinberry’s mandatory incarceration under a life sentence could well have tipped
the balance in Mr, Quesinberry's favor.
TV. Conalusion
This administration has often taken the position that the death penalty is appropriately
reseryed for the worst of the warst. In fact, as recently as December 13, 1998, you were quoted
in the Richmond-Times Dispatch as stating the following in defense of Virginia's imposition of the
ultimate penalty: i ot
—_
After all, capital punishment is restricted sy narrowly to only & ee
murder . . , [that] was so heinous a to be inhuman or that there = oa rs
was a likelihood of it ocourring again... . You have to meet [that] we Le ad
test{] before you can even impose the death penalty. ve ad
That description simply does not fit Mr, Quesinberry or the circumstances of hia ctime| Of Ya”
course, Mr, Quesinberry’s murder of Mr. Haynes was wrong and tragic, as, indeed, all murderg gy" * -
fre wrong and tragic. The incident at Tri-City occurred not, however, from a pre-planned armed ux
robbery, nor from hate or sociopathic behavior, but rather from fear and panic in the midst of Pd .
bungled burglary. All those wha know Mr. Quesinberry agroe that he does not belong an death ?
Tow, his inherently passive nature and desire for friendship and acceptance are manifestations fyom
' Counsel learned this from an April, 1996 interview with juror Claiborne Chane
who then resided at 4772 Cochise Trail in Chesterfield, Virginia, and whose telephone number
was 271-9085. Mr. Chaney says that he told his fellow jurors that a life sentence would mean that
a defendant would verve no more than twenty years, and that others voiced similar
understandings, He said that he wished that juries could receive accurate information about th
meaning of life in prison.
Mr. Chaney was aware that he had a right not to speak to anyone about the deliberations,
but was more than willing to discuss the case and his view that the jury had reached a proper
determination on the evidence presented (a position which, in light of what was presented by Mr.
Quesinberry's counsel, I would not contest). He thought that the trial judge and the tawyers di !
good job, but that the prosecution was mors prepared and thet the defense did not have anythin
to go on after they conceded in argument on the guilt phase that Quesinberry shot Mr. Haynes,
~
SENT BY:WNC&D
5 3+ 1-99 511:824M ; WILLIAMS&MULLEN= 804643681934 6/ 7
Wiruams MULLEN
CHRISTIAN & DOBBINS
ATTORNEYS & COUNGRLORS AT LAW.
The Honorable James §. Gilmore, I
March 2, 1999
Page 5
the events of his unfortunate childhood. He is not a hardened murderer, but an inexpressive and 7
deeply remorseful individual who, in one moment of panic, took the life of another individyal.| He :
is constantly tormented by the fact that he took another life but hes not had an opportunity to} —— fret so
express that regret to Mr. Haynes family. See Exhibjt N (Handwritten letter to you ftom Mr.:
Quesinberry) and Exhibit O (Letter dated October 4, 1991, ftom prison authorities returning
sympathy card that Mr. Quesinberry had wanted to send to Mr. Haynes’ family)
George Adrian Quesinberry, Jr. has never denied that he caused the death of Tammy
Haynes. After he was apprehended, he freely admitted his guilt. From that moment, George
Quesinberry was destined | to receive a murder conviction and to be incarcerated in a Virginia
prison for most, if not all, of his life. Mr. Quesinberry would be the first to agree that his actions
on September 25, 1989, merit harsh and life-long punishment.
As both an experienced trial attomey and az the chief executive elected by the people if
this Commonwealth, however, you will appreciate the fact that Mr, Quesinberry’s undeniable guilt
of first degree murder does not foreclose any consideration of the equities af this case, This |
petition for clemency raises a fundamental failure of the adversary process by which the facts
about George Quesinberry were presented and judged after the events of September 25, 1989.
Under a duty to make the difficult choice between first-degree and capital murder, and betweet
imposing a sentence of life imprisonment or death, the trial jury never leamed the essential facts
about George Quesinberry’s life before, during, and after September 25, 1989.
That the jury did not leam these facts cannot be attributed ta George Quesinberry, Asan
uneducated, indigent defendant, he had little chaice but to rely on the expertise of his trial and
state habeas counsel, As the result of an ineffectual trial defense, the Commonwealth was ableito
portray Gearge Quesinberry not as a petty thief who killed 2 prominent businesaman out of fea}
and panic, but as sociopathic killer. He is not a sociopathic killer, Instead, he is a man who
suffered horrific physical and mental abuse throughout his childhood. Crippled by undiagno:
(though curable) psychological dysfimnctions, a lack of formal education, and substance abuse,
nonetheless had never physically hurt anyong until he was confronted by Tommy Haynes at Tri
City in September, 1989.
a
While Mr. Quesinberry is guilty of first degree murder, he is not deserving of the death _ oP
penalty for capital murder, His scheduled execution will not advance any interest of the Ve pryeeted &
Commonwealth or its citizens, On the contrary, the granting of clemency to Mr, Quesinberry will P Be
demonstrate that the Commonwealth and this administration is not powerless to apply rational | |, Baste jn Ye ang
thought to a politically charged issue; to protect the integrity and fimdamental fairness of this V .
Commonwealth’s criminal justice system, when trial lawyers appointed for that very purpose have Chreelermtorle, &Q
failed and refused to do so; and to correct a wrong Which the courts claim they are unable to “
address.
2
Counsel has respected the privacy of Mr, Haynes’ family and has not sought to
communicate to them Mr. Quesinberry’s remorse.
SEND BY:WNC&D 5 3+ 1-99 11:39AM i WILLIAMSSMULLEN» = gaggageaig:# 7/ 7
1 wd
WituiaMs MULLEN
4 CurisTIAN & DOBBINS
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW.
‘The Honorable James 8. Gilmore, IT
March 2, 1999
Page 6
Along with other coungel for Mr. Quesinberry, 1 would appreciate having an opportunity
to speak with you or your designated representatives about Mr. Quesinberry’s case before yoy
make your difficult decision. I will contact your office to schedule such an appointment, th the
meantime, please let me know if you have any questions and please accept my appreciation far
considering this petition for clemency,
Sincerely,
A. Peter Brodel!
APB:mss
Enclosures
cc: Mr. George A. Quesinberry, Jr, (w/encl, by mail)
Patrick R. Hanes, Esq. (w/o encl.)
Donald R. Lee, Jr, Esq. (w/enel, by hand-delivery)
Robert Lee, Esq. (wiencl, by hand-delivery)
osonsveat
