Save Jeff Wood

Many of you were among the more than 17,000 outraged citizens who successfully petitioned Texas Governor Rick Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles last year demanding the commutation of the death sentence for Kenneth Foster.

Foster was convicted under Texas' notorious Law of Parties, under which the distinction between principal actor and accomplice in a crime is abolished. The law can impose the death penalty on anybody involved in a crime where a murder occurred whether a person had anything to do with the murder or not. (Texas is the only state that applies this statute in capital cases, making it the only place in the United States where a person can be factually innocent of murder and still face the death penalty.)

Now, Jeff Wood faces similar straits on Texas death row with an execution date of August 21. Having no prior criminal record, Wood was convicted and sentenced to die for killing a convenience store clerk during a January 1996 robbery in Kerrville, TX under the "Law of Parties." Wood was not the shooter in this case and he can reasonably claim that he had no idea that a murder would occur during what he says was meant to be a gas station robbery. The actual shooter in this case -- Daniel Earl Reneau -- was executed by the state of Texas more than six years ago.

Here are the facts:

At approximately 6:00 am on January 2, 1996, while Wood waited outside in a car, Daniel Earl Reneau entered the gas station with a gun and pointed it at Kris Keeran, the clerk standing behind the counter. At some point for some reason Reneau fired one shot with a 22 caliber handgun that struck Keeran between the eyes. Death was almost instantaneous. Continuing with the robbery, Reneau went into the back office and took a safe. When hearing the shot, Wood got out of the car to see what happened. Reneau then ordered Wood, at gun point, to get the surveillance video and to drive the getaway-car. Both men were arrested separately within 24 hours and gave confessions to the police. Wood, however, was forced into interrogation by the police with no attorney present and says he was kept awake the entire time and eventually broke down saying it was a planned robbery. He later revoked this statement.

Click here to ask Governor Perry and the Board of Pardons and Paroles to commute Wood's sentence and sign an online petition to stop the execution. I happen to be opposed to capital punishment in all instances but from any humane perspective state-sponsored killing of people we know did not commit murder should be way beyond the pale.

Comments (14)

1. PETER, way off an important topic, but...

   Can you or anybody else see me? (this post)

   Posted by Mask at 06/30/2008 @ 4:15pm

2. Peter, with all due respect, the young is not innocent either.

   It is such a sad commentary that two young men lacked good judgment on the night in question. I'm also curious as to why the young man did not have his confession thrown out if it was made under duress? Did he know his rights as a suspect? Did he request a lawyer? Or did he waive his right to counsel? If the answer to the first questions are "yes", then he has the right to a new trial. Another thing, you don't mention how old he is. So I'm guessing he was an adult when he did it. (over 21?) I more questions than answers.

   Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 4:17pm

3. <i>Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 4:17pm </i>

   Peter isn't defending him getting a new trial, he's saying that the sentence should be commuted, a power that the state governor has.

   In this case, I actually agree with him; if the facts are as he has stated them (and I put in that caveat because juries tend to have more information than just the blips released in advocacy settings), Wood should not get a sentence of death. His actions were certainly criminal, but not deserving of death.

   Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2008 @ 4:26pm

4. I'll sign the petition. However, the movement against the death penalty must be reminded that criminals rarely make good poster children for this cause.

   The most significant problem with the "party law" is that any one of us could mistakenly drive somebody to a place where he or she commits a capital crime - and then be convicted, or perhaps even executed, as equally co-responsible, perhaps on the basis of coerced testimony. This is the dangerous overreach that everybody needs to know about.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 06/30/2008 @ 4:33pm

5. "In this case, I actually agree with him; if the facts are as he has stated them (and I put in that caveat because juries tend to have more information than just the blips released in advocacy settings), Wood should not get a sentence of death. His actions were certainly criminal, but not deserving of death."

   Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2008 @ 4:26pm

   By no means am I suggesting Peter is defending him. I need to read the court transcripts before any petition is signed.

   Posted by ACook at 06/30/2008 @ 8:30pm

6. First, ACook wrote: "the sentence should be commuted, a power that the state governor has". This is not correct. In Texas the governor only has the unilateral authority to issue a one-time 30-day reprieve in a death penalty case. Otherwise, the governor may only commute a death sentence with the prior recommendation of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. And then, even with this recommendation to commute a death sentence, the governor may reject it.

   Thus, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles AND the governor must approve a commutation.

   More importantly, PETER ROTHBERG wrote: "Texas is the only state that applies this statute in capital cases, making it the only place in the United States where a person can be factually innocent of murder and still face the death penalty."

   This is a ludicrous statement. Of course Texas is the only state that applies the Texas Law of Parties. It's a Texas statute. The statute only has jurisdiction in Texas state criminal cases.

   Two, the Texas Law of Parties is Texas' way of dealing with criminal conspiracy. All states have their own ways of dealing with criminal conspiracy.

   For example, three people decide to rob a bank - two will enter the bank and the third will drive the car. There is nothing factually illegal about driving a car, stopping in a legal parking zone in front of the bank, letting two people get out of the car, staying in the car for a few minutes, letting the same two people get back into the car, then driving off.

   That's perfectly legal.

   But it's most assuredly illegal to participate knowingly in the robbing of a bank, even if it's only driving the car. And if the conspiracy to rob the bank also includes the intentional murder of the bank's security guard, then it's capital murder - and all three are equally culpable.

   I'm not saying this is the case with Jeff Wood, but anyone who's going to contact the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and/or the Texas Governor about this should know that the Texas Law of Parties (whereas extremely strong) is not that despicable.

   What's despicable is the manner in which the original trial prosecutor used the Texas Law of Parties, how the original trial judge allowed the prosecutor to use the Texas Law of Parties, how the court appointed attorney for Jeff Wood put up no meaningful (nonetheless zealous) defense, and how the appellate courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys fell in line.

   Posted by wardlarkin at 06/30/2008 @ 9:05pm

7. Here are some more facts about Jeff's case:

   * Jeff did not plan the robbery. He and Danny were approached by Bill, the manager of Texaco, who is the "mastermind" behind the whole robbery attempt in the first place. (He turned states evidence, and did not get into trouble even though he walked them through how to do it step by step.) * At no point in time did Jeff ever plan to kill anybody. Jeff was threatened by Danny prior to the robbery. (In a room with 9 of us in there witnessing this fact.) Danny (the shooter in this crime who has already been executed by the state of Texas) told Jeff in front of all of us that if anybody ever "narked" on him that he would kill Jeff's family starting with his daughter Paige. * The robbery was actually to take place on the 1st, but Jeff, and Kris (the person who was actually shot and killed (who was friends with Jeff)) backed out with the plan because they had a bad feeling about it. (That is why it happened on the 2nd, and not the 1st.) * When the robbery took place on the morning of the 2nd, Jeff thought Danny was supposed to go in and get "road drinks and munchies." Danny decided to go through with the robbery on his own, and made the decision to kill Kris on his own. * Right before they left the house that morning… Jeff told Danny to put the gun up, they did not need it; which he did in front of Jeff, but pulled it out again when Jeff went to the restroom. (There are witnesses to this…and this is one of many things that the jury never got to hear.) * Jeff, at the time of the robbery, was reminded about the "narking" comment, and went along with Danny in order to protect his daughter.

   Posted by hooman at 07/01/2008 @ 01:34am

8. First, ACook wrote: "the sentence should be commuted, a power that the state governor has". This is not correct.

   Posted by wardlarkin at 06/30/2008 @ 9:05pm

   I did not say that! That was Thrawn's response to me. This is what I wrote: "I'm also curious as to why the young man did not have his confession thrown out if it was made under duress? Did he know his rights as a suspect? Did he request a lawyer? Or did he waive his right to counsel? If the answer to the first questions are "yes", then he has the right to a new trial."

   I am not anti-death penalty.

   Posted by ACook at 07/01/2008 @ 08:45am

9. Posted by hooman at 07/01/2008 @ 01:34am

   Now I understand why the jury voted for death. From what you've written, everything James Woods said flys in the face of convention and logic. In spite of the threat of harm from the shooter, he still accepted being an acessory to committing felony murder in the commisson of an armed robbery. Did he even try to find a way out of the potential consequences of his actions if caught and convicted? Did he call for help? And, if his family was in so much danger, why not make steps to keep them out of harms way? For that matter, why didn't he arm himself? He was within his rights to do so. Afterall, he had no prior criminal history.

   Why? Why risk life in prison?

   I'm sorry, but the threat of death is not be enough for me to partcipate in a robbery.

   Incredible...

   Posted by ACook at 07/01/2008 @ 2:17pm

10. "...At some point for some reason Reneau fired one shot with a 22 caliber handgun that struck Keeran between the eyes..."

    LMAO!! Come on, Pete! You know what reason that thug did this!

    Posted by woodyee at 07/01/2008 @ 9:31pm

11. The main clue is the time - 6:00 am. Why else would a welfare thug like Wood get out of bed that early? ROBBERY AND MURDER!!!

    Posted by woodyee at 07/01/2008 @ 9:35pm

12. Lovely there Woodeye. Did you get lost on your way to the Klan rally and stumble into the public library? Let the adults to their business now child. Run along.

    Posted by yutsano at 07/02/2008 @ 8:30pm

13. No, I went to your Mom's house instead. Now let's execute Jeff Wood!

    Posted by woodyee at 07/03/2008 @ 01:55am

14. As for the Klan remark, Jeff's white. Maybe that's why you want him to live, you racist pig!

    Posted by woodyee at 07/03/2008 @ 01:59am