Death Penalty Rejected Again for Killer of Pioneering Dallas Civil Rights Attorney
For the second time in eight years, Texas' Court of Criminal Appeals has reversed the death sentence of a man who was convicted for the brutal killing of pioneering Dallas civil rights attorney Fred Finch, one of the first African-American graduates of Harvard Law School, because a jury was not properly instructed about the defendant's intellectual disability.
December 07, 2018 at 03:31 PM
4 minute read
For the second time in eight years, Texas' Court of Criminal Appeals has reversed the death sentence of a man who was convicted for the brutal killing of pioneering Dallas civil rights attorney Fred Finch, because a jury was not properly instructed about the defendant's intellectual disability.
Kenneth Wayne Thomas was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 1987 for the slayings of both Fred Finch, one of the first African-American graduates of Harvard Law School, and his wife, Mildred Finch, a college math instructor, in their modest home in South Dallas.
Fred was a World War II veteran who served as a Tuskegee Airman before graduating from Harvard Law in 1954. He later returned home to Dallas, where he became a civil rights attorney who helped desegregate the University of Texas at Arlington and Texas Woman's University. His wife was a beloved professor at Dallas' El Centro College.
According to the decision, Thomas stabbed 64-year-old Mildred more than 80 times and 66-year-old Fred more than 20 times. Thomas, known on the street by the name “Clean” for his well-dressed appearance, stole Fred's clothes and watch and later told family members that he had “killed them folks on TV,” referring to news reports about the murders, adding “dead folks can't talk,” according to the decision.
Thomas was later charged with and convicted in 1987 of the murders. In 2010, the CCA affirmed the convictions but voided Thomas' death sentence because the 1987 jury was not allowed to consider whether Thomas' low intelligence, brain damage and mental illness warranted the imposition of a life sentence rather than a death sentence.
In 2014, a trial court held a second punishment hearing for Thomas and again sentenced him to death.
Thomas again appealed his death sentence to the CCA, arguing that the evidence standards used during his 2014 trial for deciding whether a person has an intellectual disability had since been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
And in a 5-4 decision released this week, the CCA agreed with Thomas' argument and granted him a third punishment hearing that could decide whether he receives a life sentence or a third death sentence.
“Based upon our review of the record, we hold that, because the jury was not presented with the proper diagnostic framework regarding Thomas's claim of intellectual disability, then as a matter of due process, Thomas is entitled to a new punishment hearing,” wrote Judge Bert Richardson in the majority decision. “We vacate Thomas's death sentence, and remand this cause for a new punishment proceeding.”
CCA Presiding Judge Sharon Keller dissented to the majority decision, noting that Thomas' claim of intellectual disability was not preserved for appeal and because the majority did not conduct a harm analysis.
“The court should either have conducted a harm analysis or explained how this particular claim was immune from a harm analysis,” Keller wrote in her dissent. “Because the court has done neither of these things, even if I believed that Appellant's claim was preserved, I would not be able to join the Court's opinion.”
Kimberlee Leach, a spokeswoman for the Dallas County District Attorney's Office, said the decision on whether to seek a third death penalty punishment hearing for Thomas will be left up to incoming DA John Creuzot. Creuzot, a Democrat, defeated Republican Dallas DA Faith Johnson in the November 2018 general election and will take office in January.
John Tatum, a Richardson attorney who represents Thomas, did not return a call for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSamsung Flooded With Galaxy Product Patent Lawsuits in Texas Federal Court
Haynes Boone, Hicks Thomas Get Dismissal of $1.3B Claims in 2022 Freeport LNG Terminal Explosion
3 minute readIn Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
6 minute readDLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging a 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250