Kenneth's case

Kenneth Foster and his supporters wish to first express their deepest sympathy to the LaHood family and friends for their loss. Kenneth does not take the death of a fellow human being lightly. He regrets this tragedy every day.

Kenneth had no part in the death of Mr. LaHood. He did make the mistake of not driving away from the argument that was taking place between Mr. LaHood and Mr. Brown. For the foolish mistakes of failing to immediately run away from the group of men who were engaged in criminal activity earlier in the evening is an act of poor judgement that Kenneth will live with for the rest of his life.

He is paying far too dear a price for simply being reluctant to object to the conduct of others much earlier in the evening. Kenneth's supporters strongly believe that Kenneth should not be on death row for failing to drive away when Mr. LaHood and Mr. Brown were arguing when he never once expected a death to occur as a result of a wrong turn on an unfamiliar street and a flirtation between Mr.Brown and Ms. Patrick.

Kenneth Foster is a twenty-six year old, African-American, living on death row in Texas. Each day he lives in hope that the safeguards in the judicial system will remedy the tragedy of his imminent death at the hands of the State of Texas for a crime he did not commit. Kenneth did engage in activities that were foolish and illegal. He did not join in any plan to harm Mr.LaHood. Kenneth had said that he had been wrong to join in the earlier conduct and had said he wanted to go home when he took a wrong turn on an unfamiliar street and ended up driving behind Ms.Patrick. He then made the mistake of not driving away when Mr. brown engaged in an argument with Mr. LaHood and again in failing to refuse to let Mr. Brown back in the car. However, these are not crimes for which he should give his life. He took no part in the death of Mr. LaHood. He did not anticipate that Mr.LaHood would be in any danger when he waited for Mr.Brown. Then he simply agreed to go along with the request of Mr.Dillard to not leave Mr.Brown behind at the crime scene. This is conduct that calls for punishment, but not death.

In light of the subsequent investigation, it is clear that Kenneth’s trial suffered from a number of major defects that rendered his trial unfair and unconstitutional. Kenneth is not guilty of capital murder. Kenneth should never have been charged with capital murder on the basis of the evidence. Kenneth's conviction resulted from being tried with the admitted shooter, but none of the evidence presented at the joint trial demonstrated that Kenneth was guilty of capital murder or deserved the death penalty, even under Texas law.

The constitutional violations Kenneth suffered at trial go to the heart of his conviction and raise serious questions over his guilt. There are strong reasons to doubt the factual credibility of the prosecution’s case, in addition to compelling facts to support a view that a new jury with the complete picture will not render the same verdict at the guilt/innocence or punishment phase of a retrial. In a Habeas Corpus hearing in 2001 Kenneth presented evidence to demonstrate to the Texas State courts that he must be granted a new trial because he is innocent of capital murder and his joint trial with the admitted shooter was constitutionally deficient and resulted in an unjust verdict and sentence. The District Court found that Kenneth was entitled to a new trial. However, the fifth circuit has now found that Kenneth is not entitled to a new trial. However, the fifth circuit did not receive a clear cut presentation of the claim of innocence in regard to a capital case. The attorney for Kenneth inadvertently omitted this argument in his brief which weakened Kenneth's case with the court.

Kenneth is guilty of committing two robberies on the night that Michael LaHood was tragically killed. Kenneth sincerely regrets these crimes and has spent the last 10 years expressing his sincere remorse and sympathy for the LaHood family. However, he is not guilty of capital murder, nor should he have been convicted of murder under the Law of Parties.

the flaws in the prosecutions case -
mary patrick

The state’s case suffers another destructive blow when Mary Patrick’s situation is dissected carefully. Her testimony was inherently unreliable because she originally identified Dillard as the shooter only minutes after the shooting occurred. Both Mr. Steen and Mr. Brown gave testimony that was consistent with Kenneth’s claim of innocence. The four young men assumed a party was taking place at the house where Ms. Patrick had stopped. Ms. Patrick testified that she talked to Mr. Steen through the passenger window about who they were and asked them what they were looking at. Mr. Brown got out of the car to talk to her and followed her as she walked towards the house.

There are inconsistencies between the evidence Ms. Patrick gave at trial and what she said to a psychiatrist the day after the shooting. Also, Ms. Patrick’s testimony that she heard Mr. Brown ask for Mr. LaHood’s wallet and keys provided the essential element of robbery to convict Kenneth and Mauriceo Brown of capital murder. Under Texas law, Mr. Steen’s testimony as an accomplice witness had to be corroborated because the jury was not permitted to convict solely on the testimony of Mr. Steen, who had made a deal with the State in return for his testimony. Such "snitch" testimony is inherently unreliable in the first place. Ms. Patrick failed to identify Mr. Brown as the shooter and instead picked out Mr. Dillard in a police lineup that night. The jury had no explanation for why she stopped Kenneth’s car.

Presented only with the State’s explanation that the car followed her and stopped independent of her actions, with an intent to commit robbery, the jury had no reason to believe Mr. Brown and Mr. Steen’s testimony that Ms. Patrick had actually approached the car herself. Kenneth’s attorneys were prevented from bringing this fact to the jury’s attention by the trial judge, and the jury rejected the testimony of Mr. Brown and Mr. Steen when Ms. Patrick denied at trial that she had signaled to Kenneth to stop the car.

Page 1 of 3

<< 1 2 3 >> >

Related sites
.