Quote of the Day

"No reasonable person believes Clarence Aaron deserves to die in prison"  - Sam Morison, former attorney adviser, U.S. Pardon Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, on the Melissa Harris-Perry Show (MSNBC), 5/27/2012.

Morison on MSNBC

Sam Morison, former attorney adviser for the Office of the Pardon Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice will appear on the Melissa Harris-Perry Show (MSNBC) tomorrow (Sunday) around 10:15 am.

Among other topics, Morison will share with viewers his angle on the clemency application of Clarence Aaron.

No student of the pardon power will want to miss this one!

Merciful President v. Harsh (Incompetent) Bureaucrat(s)

The New York Times made the announcement on May 1, 1907, in a headline that read: MAY PARDON JANUARY. The brief article that followed informed readers that President Roosevelt might exercise the pardoning power in the case of John William January of Missouri by granting a commutation of January’s sentence “at once” or by granting a “outright” pardon. Roosevelt was reported to have become “interested” in the case.

January, whose real name was Charles William Anderson, was charged with breaking into the Post Office at Hennessey, Oklahoma, with the intent to commit larceny. The Federal Court at Guthrie sentenced the twenty-one year old to five years in prison in December of 1895. January was considered a “model prisoner” but, eventually, he decided that he would rather do other things. The Times originally reported January had served “the greater part” of his sentence, but he escaped from Leavenworth in October of 1898. That is, he served thirty-four months of a sixty-month sentence. On the other hand, with allowances for good conduct, January could have been released as early as sixteen months after the day he decided to escape.

The fugitive from justice first found a job with a railroad construction gang. He then moved to Kansas City and worked on a street railway. TheTimes said he was “steady and sober, worked hard, and saved his money.” After a few years, January bought out a small restaurant, then sold the business for a “good price” and went looking for a new one in a more “thriving locality.”

John William January had his pockets lined with cash. He was considered “one of the best citizens” of the community, although some were said to marvel at the fact that he could never be convinced to vote. In addition, January had a loving wife and child. And that is when his world came crashing down.

One day, as January was walking the streets, considering where his new restaurant might be built, he ran into a former inmate in the penitentiary at Leavenworth. The ex-convict knew that he could receive a sixty-dollar reward for information leading to January’s arrest, so he contacted prison officials. Two local policemen, who knew the restaurant owner and thought highly of him, were charged to make the arrest.

So, in 1907, the Times reported that, after “nine years of liberty,” the fugitive January had been “rearrested.” Eight days after the announcement of the President’s interest in the case, the former fugitive from justice was clearly a hot topic in and outside of Washington. It was now reported that the President had requested a “prompt report” on January from the Attorney General, Charles Joseph Bonaparte - promptness not being one of the primary characteristics of Bonaparte's Department. As the Times put it, "the most ordinary business" of Bonaparte's Department of Justice was prosecuted with noticeable "languor." It would respond to neither "kick" nor "prod." Roosevelt himself could not "stir" it.

Meanwhile, a “large number” (later reported to be in the “thousands”) of petitions were filed requesting clemency and the House of Representatives in the State of Missouri had approved of a resolution calling for such. The trial judge, the prosecuting attorney, the Chief of Police in Kansas City and the Warden at Leavenworth all supported a presidential pardon. They were joined by the Board of Trade the Chamber of Commerce and the Mother’s and Home Maker’s Club. Soon Senator William Warner (R-Missouri) and Representative Edgar Ellis (R-Missouri) were on board. Even the two policemen that reluctantly arrested January got into the act. As it turned out, only “citizens” were eligible for the sixty-dollar reward for the information leading to the arrest. The ex-convict who told on January had not yet attained that status, so the money was given to the arresting officers. They considered it “blood money” and started a “pardon fund.”

A sworn certificate reported thirty seven thousand citizens of Kansas City had signed a petition. The Times felt comfortable enough to suggest “all" of Missouri and Kansas were “clamoring” for a presidential pardon. January, the Post Office robber, was frequently compared to Jean Valjean, the pitiable (but fictitious) character in Hugo’s Les Miserables Valjean, incidentally, spent time in prison for stealing bread from a broken shop window. January led an “exemplary” life while fleeing from the law. He was – said the newspapers - “the modern Jean Valjean.”

The Times argued any other Attorney General would have needed only 24 hours to act on the case. But Bonaparte? He was another story.

More than a week after the Times had headlined the case, the Attorney General called a meeting of the press to answer critics and comment. Bonaparte told reporters he did not believe an “outright” presidential pardon was in order. After all, there were twenty-six months remaining on January's original sentence and sixteen months remaining with allowances for good behavior. Instead, the Attorney General recommended that President Roosevelt exercise the pardoning power by commuting the remainder of January’s sentence to some shorter specific period. The Pardon Clerk then dramatically carried an official copy of Bonaparte’s opinion out of the room, and over to the President, while the press conference continued.

In a matter of minutes, the Pardon Clerk returned to the press conference in what was reported as a “high state of consternation.” Bonaparte was informed that, despite his previous announcement, President Roosevelt (perhaps not without his own sense of high drama) insisted that a pardon be granted. As the Times reported the matter, the Attorney General had “hastily” considered the case and found himself “reversed” by the President.

After telephone communications between Roosevelt and the Department of Justice, a “compromise” was reached. January would return to prison. But a pardon would have the effect of commuting the sentence to a mere three months.

A red-faced Bonaparte issued a statement regarding the compromise. Refusing to just let it go, the Attorney General emphasized that it was “important” to “discourage attempts to escape among prisoners." On the other hand, he admitted that it was important to weigh this consideration against “the eminently beneficial effect of encouraging the real reformation of convicts.” If not anything, January’s “orderly and law abiding life” might offer an “inducement” to men “in a situation like his” to “lead such a life.”

In his Annual Report, Bonaparte (who called for public whippings of those who violated sedition laws and the death penalty for "habitual felons") repeated his view that January deserved to spend “some appreciable time in prison” to show “as a matter of strict right” that he “still belongs there.”

Two days after the pardon, a Times editorial rebuked Roosevelt for listening to Bonaparte’s “head” and for failing to trust his own “heart.” Those with a “gentler and wiser” view would have recognized that the “one good reason” for sending men to jail “had been attained” in January’s case. Indeed, the Times went so far as to argue that January’s exemplary conduct as a fugitive proved that “before he escaped he had been kept [in prison] too long.” His imprisonment was thus a “social waste.” As far as the Times was concerned, the President should have granted “an immediate and full pardon” for January’s “early indiscretion.”

Memorial Day 2012

Memorial Day is the day that we remember the sacrifice and loss of American soldiers. It is (or should be) a thoughtful, sombre occasion, at least for a period of time. It is an opportunity to renew our own gratitude (if not momentarily) and impress upon our children that our many blessings are no accident at all. The cost of our liberty, freedoms and standard of living has been enormous. Vietnam: 58,000 casualties. Korea: 30,000 casualties. WWII almost 300,000 casualties. WWI: more than 50,000 casualties. The Civil War: around 600,000 casualties. And these numbers do not even consider those who were wounded, physically and emotionally, or the direct, stunning, crushing impact of war upon their friends and loved ones, their husbands and wives and mothers and fathers. To think we are somehow "better" than, or "more deserving" than any one of them is utterly preposterous. We are all more akin to being something like winners of a social - or historical - lottery.

II. O.Henry: Trial and Conviction

In Mid-December 1894, there were signs that there were complications with William Porter's accounts at the First National Bank (Austin). That is also when he "suddenly" resigned from his position as teller. In the background, it was rumored / known that his humor weekly, The Rolling Stone, was struggling financially, and that, on occasion, Porter was prone to gamble.

F.B. Gray, the federal bank examiner, insisted on prosecution over the initial protests of Robert U. Culberson, the U.S. Attorney in Austin, who insisted that, at most, Porter may have made a "series of mistakes" without any criminal intent (O, 46, 47).  Officers of First National, including the Vice President, also let it be known that they did not believe Porter had committed any crime (O,47). So, while Gray did appear before a grand jury, in July of 1895, and dramatically accused William S. Porter of embezzlement from bank funds, the members of the grand jury didn't buy it.

Seven months later, Gray managed to have the case resubmitted. This time, he claimed to have found no less than 50 instances in which William S. Porter "unquestionably embezzled" funds amounting to $5,654.20. As impressive as that display may have been, the eventual indictment, however, contained a mere three counts amounting to slightly more than a thousand dollars. More specifically, the flowing amounts were reported missing on the associated dates:

Case Number 1174, October 10, 1894 - $544.48
Case Number 1148, November 12, 1894 -  299.60
Case Number 1175, November 12, 1895 - 299.60

Porter was arrested in Houston and jailed in Austin. Although he was released on bail, Porter consulted with no attorneys previous to trial (O, 53). On July 6, 1895, he boarded a train for Austin, exited at a station fifty miles short of the target and fled toward New Orleans. From there, the fugitive made his way to Honduras, where he may have met the notoriously self-promotional Al Jennings, a supposed Wild West, movie-reel out-law (and gubernatorial candidate) who eventually received both a commutation of sentence (McKinley) and a pardon (Roosevelt). One author notes, "had [Porter] gone he would have certainly have been acquitted" (S,136)

Upon hearing that his wife was near death, Porter returned home in January of 1897. The complete stenographic transcript of the trial has been lost (O, 64), but it began on February 7th. Porter plead guilty but communicated very little with his attorneys throughout the process. Gray, the indefatigable federal bank examiner, testified. Ten days later, the jury found Porter guilty on all three counts and the Judge sentenced the thirty-five year old to five years in the Ohio Penitentiary. Federal prisoner 30664 stepped into his cell on April 25, 1898, and the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals on December 13. Porter remained in prison just over three years, until July 24, 1901.

Previously: The Early Years

I. O.Henry: The Early Years

The following is the first part of a series of posts on William Sydney Porter (O. Henry), informing readers of O'Henry's life, accomplishments and federal conviction. Readers are encouraged to join the PardonPower blog and GritsforBreakfast in our effort to secure a presidential pardon for this Great American writer. Sign our petition here!

William Sydney Porter  was born on September 11, 1862, at  "Worth Place," a plantation in Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina. “Will” was named after his mother’s father, William Swaim (a journalist), and his father’s father, Sidney Porter. Will’s mother, Mary Jane, was a college graduate. His father, Dr. Algernon Sidney Porter, qualified for the medical profession by clerking in a drugstore. But, eventually, Dr. Porter was known as a leading physician in his county (O, 6).

With the exception of Will’s imagination, wit and humorous pen and pencil sketches, there is little about his childhood that translates into storybook idealism. His mother died of tuberculosis at the age of thirty. Her own mother had died from the same malady and, throughout his teens, Will was notable for his hacking cough. Many did not think he would live long himself (O, 14).

Will was only three years old when Mary Jane Porter died and his six-month old brother died soon thereafter. There was an older brother as well, who worked as a construction worker in lumber camps. It appears Will was often bullied by the older brother and the two never really got along. On top of all of this, Dr. Porter struggled with depression and alcoholism.

As he once put it, Will received a “common school education” (S, 71), his one and only teacher being his aunt Miss Evelina Maria Porter (aka “Miss Lina”). This private “education” ended, however, when he turned 15. Will went to the pharmacy to work with his father and became a “licensed pharmacist” by the age of nineteen (1881).

In 1882, the 5’6”, dark-hair, freckle-faced pharmacist decided to visit La Salle County, Texas for a change of pace. After living some time on a sheep ranch managed by Jesse Lee “Red” Hall, Porter took a position as pharmacist at Morley Brothers Drug Store (in Austin), a position he held for almost two years.

Porter then worked a couple of years (till January of 1887) as a bookkeeper for an Austin real estate firm Maddox Brother and Anderson.

At 25, he landed a position as Assistant Draftsman for the State Land Commissioner (State of Texas), where he served from January 1887 to January 1891. There, his artistry skills were tested in map making. The job in the Land Office ended, however, when there was a change in administrations (O,37).

On July 5, 1887, Porter married a 19-year old "German," Athol Estes. He then took a position as a teller for First National Bank (Austin). He held that position for three years, 1891-1894. Along the way, Porter and James P. Crane started a humor weekly, The Roling Stone, which published from April 28, 1894 till April 1895. After resigning from his position at the bank, Porter wrote part-time for the Cleveland Plain Dealer before landing a full time position with the Houston Daily Post, from October 1895 to June 22 1896.

Next: Trial and Conviction

Ohio: Kasich and the Pardon Power

The Columbus Dispatch reports Gov. John Kasich "has used his executive clemency power moderately during his 16 months in office, sparing the lives of two convicted killers (Shawn Hawkins and Joseph Murphy) but approving only 5 percent of 412 requests" (with 278 others waiting). On the other hand, the report says, he has "done far better than his predecessor, Ted Strickland, in keeping up with clemency requests." According to the report:

Strickland made no decisions for nearly three years in office and rushed to complete hundreds of cases in his last few months as governor. 

Records show he has approved pardons "in 14 older, less-serious cases for former prisoners who wanted to clear their criminal records for employment or education purposes." A spokesman (oh Lordy!) says Kasich sees clemency as:

being “about giving some deserving people a second chance. ... He looks at what’s the right thing to do in every case. “There are some people whose closest friends aren’t aware of their records because they’ve dramatically turned their lives around and made something good out of it.” 

According to the Dispatch, Kasich’s 5 percent approval record compares with Strickland's roughly 20 percent (of 1,615 cases between 2005 to 2010). Former Gov. Richard F. Celeste, a Democrat, granted 67 clemencies just before leaving office in 1991. Former Govs. Bob Taft and George V. Voinovich each approved less than 10 percent of the clemency requests they received. James A. Rhodes approved clemency in 56 of 320 cases, 17.5 percent, in 1982, his last full year in office. All three were Republicans. See story here.

Oh Canada! $631 Mercy

The Star reports that the Conservative government’s "decision to quadruple the cost of getting a criminal pardon has left a backlog of about 22,500 applications and a two-tier system for handling applicants." In February, the fee for a “record suspension” was raised to $631 and "new faster processing times" appear to "only apply to the pricier applications."

Anyone who applied under the old fee ($150) is "being pushed to the bottom of the pile and may wait two years or more." There is another option, however. If they want to, they can "forfeit the $150 already paid and cough up another $631."

 The Conservative government is said to have "pursued a very public crackdown on the whole pardon system."  See story here.

MSNBC: Eat the Turkey. Pardon O. Henry!

MSNBC reports Scott Henson, "a former investigative journalist and blogger on the criminal justice system" has launched a petition drive Thursday, with the aim of "delivering 10,000 signatures to President Barack Obama by Sept. 11, O. Henry’s birthday." Says Henson:

"This petition aims both to honor and exonerate a great American writer and to call attention to a withering and atrophied clemency process, one which no longer functions as robustly either as justice demands or America's constitutional framers intended" 

O. Henry, whose real name is William S. Porter, was convicted embezzling from an Austin bank, but historians say the conviction was questionable. Porter made things worse, however, by becoming a fugitive from justice. He turned himself in, eventually, when he heard that his wife was ill. There followed a five-year prison sentence.  Upon release, Porter moved to New York where he wrote, but "died of alcoholism at the age of 47, nearly penniless." The article notes:

The most prestigious award for American short stories is the PEN/O. Henry. There are museums that celebrate his legacy — and towns, schools and other buildings named after him, including the University of Texas-owned building that housed the court where Porter was convicted. This year, the 150th birthday of O. Henry’s birth, the U.S. Postal Service is rolling out a postage stamp featuring O. Henry’s face. When President Obama pardoned the Thanksgiving turkey in 2011, who did he quote? O. Henry. 

Henson says O. Henry's case "is an excellent opportunity for a presidential pardon, an executive power held by governors and U.S. presidents that is exercised far less than it was half a century ago." An O. Henry pardon might signal that President Obama understands (and values) "the true purpose of executive clemency powers in the justice system — not just as a symbol but also a remedy for both actual innocence and unfortunate guilt,' (referring to an expression from the Federalist Papers) one that provides a healing salve even for century-old wounds," says a letter accompanying the petition to Obama."

Obama has so far been among the stingiest American presidents in exercising the powers of clemency, but Henson says that this is merely "the continuation of a trend among modern presidents."  See story here.

FAMM Event

Families Against Mandatory Minimums will be hosting an event at the National Press Club in Washington DC on Thursday, May 24, from 10-11am. A panel will discuss Clarence Aaron’s commutation request and will feature former OPA staffer Sam Morison and Molly Gill, Director of Special Projects for FAMM. FAMM is calling on Congress to investigate OPA.

It's On !

Don't wait another second ...

Go HERE !

Louisiana: Waiting on Jindal

The Times-Picayune has an excellent piece of clemency in Louisiana. It observes that, when the State's five-member Louisiana Pardon Board votes to make someone eligible for parole, they join "a growing subset in Louisiana's criminal justice system" - "several hundred felons -- the vast majority of whom have already served their time and been released -- whose pardon recommendations are waiting on the desk of Gov. Bobby Jindal."

It is reported that, since January 2008, the Pardon Board has sent 450 pardon recommendations to Jindal. "As of early May, he had signed 36 and rejected 36, leaving the rest in limbo. Only one of Jindal's pardons has gone to a person still behind bars."

Previous Gov. Kathleen Blanco, signed 285 of the 331 pardon recommendations that reached her desk during her four-year term. "87 went to prisoners, either shortening their terms or setting them immediately free." Republican Mike Foster, signed 460 pardons during his eight years in office, "with the vast majority coming in his second term when he was a lame duck."

Jindal says that he reviews each pardon request, but stresses the Pardon Board's recommendation is just a recommendation. He articulates his philosophy of pardon as follows: "Nobody that comes before the board or comes to the governor's office is automatically entitled to a pardon." Profound.

But, says the TimesPicayune, "Some wonder what the Pardon Board and its members' $36,000 annual salaries are good for if the governor so rarely takes its recommendations." Indeed.

See lots of other great details in the story here.

Arizona: Brewer's Charade

The Arizona Republic correctly notes the assertion that a state clemency is guilty of "incompetency" is a "novel development in the nation's long-running fight over the death penalty. Only in Arizona." Well, only in Jan Brewer's Arizona!

The Republic notes the State's "clemency" board "is intentionally stacked to avoid recommending clemency" because Brewer "so dislikes granting forgiveness." Which raises the obvious question: "then why bother with a "clemency" charade at all?"

Brewer's "stunning mass-firing of three clemency-board members earlier this year" included "longtime chairman Duane Belcher and Marilyn Wilkens, who was appointed in 2010 by Brewer herself." As a result, the "mandate" of the new clemency board "could not be clearer. Trouble this governor with clemency recommendations at your peril."  See story here.

America's Favorite 9/11 Would-Be Murderer

John A. Mason was a Virginian by birth, but served with the Union Army in the Civil War. While he fought as a volunteer with Company D of the 78th Ohio Regiment, each of his five brothers served in the Confederate Army. Mason gained a reputation for being a good soldier, an excellent marksman, a “sober man” and a gentleman. By September 11, 1881, he was a handsome 35-year-old 15-year veteran, serving as a Sergeant in Company B of the Second Artillery.

That evening, Sgt. Mason joined three wagonloads of soldiers in a trip from the Armory in Washington to a jail where they were to relieve a set of day guards. Some of the men in the wagon would later testify that Mason fumbled with the lock of his gun throughout the ride and “acted strangely.” Upon arrival, Sgt. Mason was the first to leap from the wagons. Those around him observed that he threw his cape to one side and marched toward a cell window. To everyone’s general amazement, Mason lifted up his .45 caliber rifle, stuck it in between the bars and fired away. He then said to a private standing by, “I wanted to kill that wretch in there … I hope I have done the work in good style.” Mason then calmly walked over to his commanding officer and said, “Captain, I have tried to kill that dirty loafer in there. Here is my gun and bayonet. Take me in charge.”

If Sgt. Mason had fired his rifle into any other cell in the world, no one may have even noticed. And his punishment would have probably been swift, certain and severe. But Mason did not choose the window that he fired into randomly. He sent a bullet flying into the cell of the person who, in September of 1881, may very well have been the most hated, despised and loathed individual in the United States of America: Charles J. Guiteau.

Two months earlier, Guiteau had gone to a Washington train station and shot newly-elected President James Garfield in the arm and the back. Garfield struggled from the wounds for several weeks and Mason’s act certainly struck an emotional chord with those who were following the President’s health via the pages of the Nation’s newspapers. Indeed, it was perhaps inevitable that firing a rifle into the cell of the most hated man in America would earn Mason a position as the most popular man in America, or at least the most popular criminal. When President Garfield finally died, eight days after Mason fired at Guiteau, the sergeant was indeed considered a “hero” by many.