College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Legislator proposes bill to halt the death penalty for those in murderers’ company

Representative hopes proposal will eventually end capital punishment

By Matt Stephens

Daily Texan Staff

Print this article

Published: Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Updated: Monday, March 2, 2009

Lawrence Foster

Jeffrey McWhorter; The Daily Texan

Lawrence Foster listens to his son, Kenneth Foster Sr., talk at the capitol Tuesday morning about his grandson, Kenneth Foster Jr., who was sentenced to the death penalty under the Law of Parties.

Correction: Kenneth Foster Jr. was not the triggerman despite the fact that he was convicted of murder. The sentence stating “despite Foster’s best efforts, Brown left the car and approached the woman” should have been attributed to Foster’s family.
The Texan regrets the errors.

On August 30, 2007, Gov. Rick Perry commited death row inmate Kenneth Foster Jr. to life imprisonment. Foster had been on death row for 10 years for the August 1996 murder of Michael LaHood Jr., a crime he did not commit.

“I don’t think he should be there now,” said his father, Kenneth Foster Sr.  “He should be out here with his family.”

Foster was charged with the murder under the Texas Law of Parties, which convicts anyone in the murderer’s party as if he or she had committed the crime.

Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston, presented a bill Tuesday that would end death penalty sentences under the Law of Parties.

Foster’s grandfather, Lawrence Foster, said his grandson had no intent to commit murder and no idea that his friend, Mauricio Brown, had intended to murder LaHood.

While driving with two other friends, Brown spotted LaHood’s girlfriend and asked Foster to stop the car. Despite Foster’s best efforts, Brown left the car and approached the woman. At some point in the conversation, LaHood approached the two and during a fight, Brown drew a firearm and killed LaHood. 

Foster’s grandfather said his grandson did not know Brown was carrying a gun and that he did not see the shot fired.

The other two men in the vehicle, Dwayne Dillard and Julius Steen, faced lighter sentences, because they assisted police in the investigation of Foster and Brown.

“The court said he should have anticipated what he was going to do,” Lawrence said. “But can you anticipate what I’m going to do when I leave here today?”

Dutton said there have been at least 12 people executed under the Law of Parties and possibly as many as 20. He said he has seen cases in which a convicted murderer had been released from prison while members of his party were still on death row.

Twenty-five other states have the Law of Parties, but Texas is the only state that allows the death penalty for defendants convicted under the Law of Parties.

“Nobody knows that you could just be along for the ride and be executed by the death penalty,” Dutton said. “Today, we’re asking the whole Legislature to do what they did for Kenneth Foster.”

Dutton said that legislation has passed each session since he became a representative in 1985 that narrowed laws involving the death penalty in Texas. Dutton said that he hopes the death penalty will be abolished in Texas in the future and he believes the state has turned the corner.

“People are starting to understand the difference between factually innocent and legally guilty,” he said. “Just because a jury found them guilty and they were arrested for a crime didn’t mean they did anything.”

Dutton said there are many other problems with the death penalty in Texas, including poor crime labs, prosecutors who withhold evidence and inadequate judges.

“These are problems that beg people to get involved,” he said.

Comments

7 comments
Patrick
Tue May 26 2009 20:50
Michael Lahood was my best friend. I could not tell you how much Istill miss him. He was followed to his home and murdered in his yard a few feet from his parent's bedroom in the middle of the night. The killers got away.. for a little while. Then they were caught. The guy who pulled the trigger was executed. The Guy who get the triggerman enough guts to pull it has had his sentence commuted. I am 38 years old and I am still living in this nightmare in Texas. My American dream was shattered in August 1996 when I knew I was not safe to go home without threat of being gunned down for peanuts. Every day has been a critique of the world we have created since.
SPO
Mon Mar 2 2009 18:55
There are two more errors. The first is trivial--Governor Perry "commited" the sentence? No, he "commuted" the sentence. I guess the spell check function didn;'t work that day.

The second error is more substantive: "Twenty-five other states have the Law of Parties, but Texas is the only state that allows the death penalty for defendants convicted under the Law of Parties."

First of all, most states don't call their accomplice liability/felony murder rules the "Law of the Parties" and there are usually some permutations among the states. Second of all, and more importantly, accomplices can get the death penalty in states other than Texas. Imputing murder to accomplices and sentencing them to death is permissible under Supreme Court case law. Gee, I wonder how that "fact" was sourced.

I'd love to see the editors defend this slanted, error-filled piece.

But hey, there's a job waiting for Mr. Stephens at the NY Times, assuming that the Times hasn't gone broke by then.

Your name
Mon Mar 2 2009 10:01
Ok Your Name, here goes.

First of all, the victim's family opposed the commutation, and that was a matter of public record at the time of the commutation. (I think student "journalists" can at least handle getting that info.)

Second of all, the murderer's family got some real estate to peddle the BS that Foster could not have anticipated what Brown was going to do. LaHood's family, I am sure, would have had something to say about that. Remember, the night's action for Brown, Foster and the other two criminals started with "I'm strapped, you want to jack?" And then they proceeded to drive around San Antonio sticking guns in people's faces. And, your name, was Foster's family's comment a "first hand account"? No. So why didn't you complain about a murderer's family being treated better by the Daily Texan than the victim's family?

Third of all, this "news" article was so bad--no one can defend it. It whitewashed the actual facts of this crime in order to portray Foster in a far better light than reality. Moreoever, it smeared the dead victim here as well. LaHood didn't get into a fight. He went to help his girlfriend--a gun was stuck in his face and he was robbed and then executed. Getting something from LaHood's family probably would have prevented such nonsense.

There are also factual errors in the article. Care to defend those?

You know, if you actually read the description of the facts in the case and then in the Daily Texan article, you'd think we were talking about two different crimes. One wonders if the "reporter" actually even bothered to read the description of the crime in the court decisions.

Your name
Mon Mar 2 2009 00:50
Yes, because I'm sure that the victim's family was available for comment or was easy to come by for a student journalist. Also, what would the victim's family have added to the story? What first hand account could they tell? Perhaps when you're an actual journalist writing for a publication you can make that judgment call. Until then, maybe you should leave it to the people who are actually doing the work and not pass judgment onto the journalist who tried to write the story as it presented itself to him...
Mike
Fri Feb 27 2009 13:29
Yeah, they really blew it here. LaHood got robbed--that's not in the write-up. Also, Foster was following LaHood's car--that's not in the write up.

And if Foster's murder conviction remains, how can the article say that the death of LaHood is a crime that Foster didn't commit? Could the author please explain that one?

SPO
Thu Feb 26 2009 16:59
Those who wish to see what actually happened in the case can look up the Fifth Circuit's decision. Just google Foster v. Quarterman. The actual facts of this crime are a far cry from the whitewash provided by the "reporter" covering the story.
SPO
Thu Feb 26 2009 15:07
The student "journalist" who wrote this needs to retake Journalism 101.

No quotes from victim's family. Slanted description of the crime (Foster & Co. were just driving around). No opinion in support of the law of the parties. Gotta love it.

Probably the most laughable part of this "news" article is when Stephens writes, "Despite [Foster's] best efforts . . . ." Yeah, we always take the word of a convicted murderer at face value and present it as a fact. Must have missed that day in journalism class. Oh, I'm sorry, Foster isn't a murderer because we are helpfully told that Foster didn't commit the murder. Funny, he's still serving a life sentence for something . . . .

You know, if you're going to engage in propaganda, you gotta be good at it. This "news" article is so bad it discredits the cause.

Don't worry Matt, there's a job waiting for you at the New York Times . . . .







log out