From
Arrest to
Prison in 17 Days
Reno Francis and
Other OK Innocents
By
Verna Wood
Investigative Reporter
Oklahoma,
USA
- Ron Williamson, Dennis Fritz, Calvin Lee Scott, Jeffrey Pierce, Thomas
Webb III, Timothy Edward Durham, Robert Lee Miller Jr. and Arvin McGee.
What do these people have in common? They each served several years
in an Oklahoma prison for a crime they did not commit. Reno Francis
was literally railroaded for a crime he didn’t commit. 17 days
after receiving his false charges he began serving his nearly 37 years-to-date
in prison in the “Great State of Oklahoma”
Ron
Williamson and Dennis Fritz (read about their case in John Grisham’s
best seller “The Innocent Man”) spent 11 years in prison,
serving from 1988-1999. Calvin Lee Scott spent 20 years, from 1983-2003
in prison. Jeffrey Pierce was incarcerated from 1986-2001 for a total
of 15 years behind bars. Thomas Webb III was freed after spending 13
years in prison from 1983-1996. Timothy Edward Durham served 4 years
in prison from 1993-1997. Robert Lee Miller, Jr. spent 10 years in prison
from 1988-1998. Arvin McGee lived behind prison walls for 13 years from
1989-2002.
It
makes one wonder - if these people have been cleared of the crimes of
which they were convicted, how many more people languish in our prisons
for crimes of which they are not guilty? According to Florida Supreme
Court Justice Gerald Kogan (retired), “Anybody who understands
the justice system knows innocent people are convicted every day.”
Each of these men have been cleared by DNA evidence. But what happens
to those innocent people in prison that cannot be cleared using DNA?
Is there any help for them?
What
about Reno Francis, (U.S. Observer, volume #1 - number 15), who has
sat behind bars for almost 37 years for a crime he had nothing to do
with? When he was sentenced to life in prison in September 1970, for
the murder of Cathy Scott there was no thought of DNA evidence. It would
be 19 years before the first conviction was overturned due to DNA testing.
So for Reno that avenue is closed.
Although
Reno was innocent of this brutal crime, he was coerced into signing
a confession written by a “man in a suit” in order to avoid
the possibility of dying in the electric chair. Studies have shown that
at times law enforcement officers use harsh or threatening interrogation
tactics with uncooperative suspects. Some police officers or district
attorneys use tactics so persuasive that an innocent person feels trapped
into confessing. Sometimes, as in Reno’s case they are told they
will be convicted with or without a confession and their confession
is the only way to avoid the death penalty.
![](../nov-06/images/reno.jpg)
Reno Francis
According
to statistics, in more than 25% of cases exonerated by DNA innocent
defendants had made incriminating statements, confessed to committing
the crime or pled guilty. This tells us that confession is not always
synonymous with guilt, but can be influenced by external factors. As
human beings we have a strong survival instinct and if confessing to
a crime we did not commit allows us to live longer we are likely to
choose “life” over death. As Reno has often said, “As
long as there is life there is hope. Once you are dead it is all over.”
According
to a University of Michigan study false confessions were most common
in murder cases. Those are the cases where there is the greatest pressure
to obtain confessions and confessions are often the only way to solve
those types of crimes. Of 328 exonerations between 1989 and 2004, 199
were murder exonerations. Death row inmates represent a quarter of 1
percent of the prison population, but 22 percent of the exonerated.
Reno
Francis was arrested in Hughes county in August 1970 by officer Orville
Rose as he walked in a hospital parking lot for being “high on
an unknown substance.” Seventeen days later he was in the Oklahoma
State Penitentiary in McAlester serving a life sentence for murder.
He had a hearing in front of the Honorable Judge Bob Howell but no trial,
he was in a line-up but he was the only person in that line-up, he had
a court appointed attorney but he was not even a criminal lawyer. The
assistant district attorney, John R. Turner, who prosecuted and threatened
Reno with the electric chair unless he agreed to confess to the murder
of 13-year old Cathy Scott, lived close to and was good buddies with
the oil and gas lawyer, Stanley Huser, Jr. who was appointed to represent
Reno. According to records, Mr. Turner was fired from his position as
assistant district attorney shortly after Reno’s case for using
underhanded tactics and threatening defendants who refused to plead
guilty. But it was too late to help Reno.
The
head district attorney in Hughes county at the time was a well respected
lawyer, Gordon Melson. After Reno was approved by the parole board in
2002, but consequently denied by then Governor Keating, his case was
brought to Mr. Melson’s attention. After hearing about Reno’s
case, Mr. Melson wrote a letter on Reno’s behalf to the parole
board requesting that they bring Reno up again for parole consideration
right away rather than making him wait the usual 3 years until 2005.
He stated that Reno is not a danger to society and requested that the
board release him. The parole board refused to do this. When Reno came
up for his regular parole hearing in 2005 Mr. Melson again wrote to
the parole board and asked them to release Reno. That time Reno only
received 1 “yes” vote from the board and 4 “no”
votes, nowhere near the majority he needed for approval.
During
his 36 ½ years in prison Reno has been before the parole board
over a dozen times including one time when a board member continued
to read his newspaper during the hearing and completely ignored Reno.
As the law now stands the parole board does not have to see an inmate
who is classified as a violent offender if they look at his file and
decide he is unworthy of their time. For this group of prisoners the
parole hearing is a two stage process. Stage one is a jacket review
where the parole board reviews the inmate’s file. They then vote
on whether to pass the inmate to stage two where he or she is permitted
to go before the board and speak to them in person or on closed circuit
television. If the inmate does not receive a majority of positive votes
from the parole board during stage one he is automatically put off for
3 more years. At that time his file will be reviewed again and the process
repeated. If, however, he is approved to go to stage two and the board
consequently approves his parole, the ball then passes to the governor.
Oklahoma
is the only state in the union that still requires the governor’s
approval for all paroles. It is amazing that the governor, being only
one person who has never met the inmate, has the final say over the
parole board who did actually speak with the person. It seems that the
governor has many other jobs to accomplish and the parole board, who
has been hired for the task should be allowed to do the job for which
they are being paid by the taxpayers. Also removing the governor from
the parole process would remove a great deal of the political pressure
from the decisions that must be made regarding the lives of the inmates.
It would allow the parole board to evaluate each individual based on
their problems or their accomplishments rather than on how each decision
will affect their own political career as can be the case with the governor.
According
to Pardon and Parole records, in 2004 the board denied 56.6% of the
8,395 inmates who were brought up for parole. In 2005 they denied 67.1%
of the 7,895 people who came before them. In 2006 68.5% of 7,052 prisoners
were turned down for parole. These denials total up to 14,887 people
who were denied parole in the past three years. Considering the drastically
over-crowded conditions that plague the department of corrections this
level of parole denials seems to defy logic.
Justin
Jones, Director of the corrections department made the statement on
April 27, 2007 that the department would have to quit accepting inmates
in approximately two weeks.
According
to a recent statement by Terri White, Commissioner of the Dept. of Mental
Health & Substance Abuse, 60% of Oklahoma inmates are locked up
for non violent offences. She indicated that they should not be in the
department of corrections. They will continue to be incarcerated, however,
until laws are changed or the parole board and Governor Henry take a
stand and release them. Will they ever begin to do the right thing or
will we continue to throw hundreds of millions of dollars per year into
the department of corrections that could be spent on our schools, roads,
and programs for the elderly?
Besides
non-violent offenders there are also many inmates listed in the violent
category who have served 15, 25, even 40 years and who have a long record
of good conduct. Reno Francis, who has served almost 37 years, falls
into this category. Yet the parole board or the governor or both are
not willing to even give him a second chance. This is especially damning
for the parole board and governor’s reputations as they should
be releasing Reno due to his innocence and unconstitutional incarceration
from the very beginning. Imagine being in his situation - locked away
from the world for a crime he did not commit, no write-ups for misconduct
in over 20 years, and denied parole time after time. Regardless of the
fact that he has completed all of the programs available to him in prison
– he actually completed them back in the 80s and regardless of
the good activities he has participated in such as the Speak-out program
and the Prisoner’s Run Against Child Abuse, he still wears the
“violent” label.
The
public has been so frightened by the news media coverage of so-called
violent people that a great deal of pressure has been applied to the
legislature and the governor so that no one is willing to pass more
lenient laws or to appear to be “soft on crime.” There is,
however, a difference in being “hard on crime” and in being
“stupid on crime.” Many people who were convicted years
ago of a harsh crime have changed their lives for the better and are
now prepared to be productive members of society. If allowed to do so
they are now capable of being a part of the solution rather than a part
of the problem.
So
what about Reno Francis? He was railroaded through our “justice”
system and convicted of a crime of which he was not guilty. He has been
denied parole many times. Because of the type of crime and the time
frame in which it was committed he has no hope of being cleared by DNA
evidence. The former district attorney of Hughes County, Gordon Melson,
has written letters to the parole board on Reno’s behalf, but
what of the present day district attorney, Bill Peterson (also one of
the players in “The Innocent Man”)? He will be contacted
by this newspaper shortly. Will he be concerned with truth and justice?
Will he do the right thing and be a hero or will he try to block efforts
to clear Reno’s name? That remains to be seen. Mr. Peterson, we
are on our way.
Reno
can only be cleared by the truth. The question is do people out there
care about truth and an innocent man who has spent his life in prison?
Do the people in positions of power who can help him care enough about
an innocent man to try to correct the wrong that has been done to him?
Is there anything to the old expression, “truth, justice, and
the American way”? For Reno Francis that remains to be seen.
Sign-up
for our free e-mail News Flash Alerts!
Subscribe
Me!