|
Shaka Sankofa spent 19 years in jail transforming himself from a seventh grade drop-out to an articulate and learned social advocate, writer, and responsible man. He was a self-educated man who earned his GED, co-founded a newspaper and social justice organization (the Endeavor Project), and spoke on radio programs urging young people not to get involved with the criminal justice system. Shaka was a childhood victim of poverty abuse and neglect. His mother suffered from sever mental illness often requiring hospitalization in state mental facilities and his father was an alcoholic who spent years in prison. Once Shaka reached adolescence and dropped out of school, unable to fully read and write, he grew out of control escalating from nonviolent petty offenses to a brief but destructive bout of violence. No one was killed although there were injuries. He never committed or was convicted of rape. He candidly acknowledged his mistakes and took full resposibility for his criminal acts. For these crimes he served almost two decades in prison, apologizing verbally and in writng to the victims of these crimes and expending time and energy to get the message out to young people to turn their back on criminal conduct. While in jail on the robbery charges, Shaka was targeted as a possible suspect in the murder investigation of a white man, Bobby Lambert, in a Houston supermarket parking lot in 1981. Lambert had a lengthy criminal record for trafficking large quantities of narcotics in a plane and other offenses. Police charged Shaka with robbery as well as murder, despite the fact that Lambert was found to be in possession of $6,000 in cash at the time of his death. The police never followed up on the leads that linked Lambert's death with his own criminal affairs. Lambert's own widow, Loretta Lambert, publicly appealed to then Governor Richards to spare Shaka's life declaring her doubt of his guilt of her husband's death. Shaka was ultiminately charged with robbery/murder of Lambert after he was identified by a single eyewitness to the crime. This witness initially failed to identify Shaka in a photo array shown by police, stating that the assailant's face was "thinner and darker" than that of Shaka. Nevertheless, police placed Shaka in a line-up a few days later where the same witness pointed him out as the gunman. Based on this single piece of questionable evidence, Shaka was sentenced to death in October, 1981 after a two day trial. His court-appointed attorney at trial assumed he was guilty and never investigated the case. In 1993. twelve years after Shaka was convicted, new lawyers finally launched a full investigation into the case. Much of the evidence was in police reports and could have been found earlier. * At least six crime scene witnesses listed in Houston police reports have sworn in affidavits under oath that Shaka did not kill Lambert because he did not meet the physical description of the killer. Several of these witnesses have independently corroborated that the killer was shorter than Shaka, under 5'6 rather than 5'9. Several have also sworn under oath that the actual killer had different facial characteristics. * Four alibi witnesses passed polygraph tests attesting to their claim that Shaka was with them on the night of the murder. In 1993, Governor Ann Richards acknowledged the compelling evidence and granted a stay of execution stating that his case warranted further consideration. This was only the second time that she gave a stay to a condemned prisoner. However, she failed to take any other steps to ensure that further consideration was given to his case before she left office. At least two Texas courts admitted that the evidence in this case is compelling and credible; and the Fifth Circuit also admitted that there was a substantial amount of relevant and important evidence that should have been heard. Despite these proclamations, Shaka was executed on June 22, 2000. The state of Texas falsely accused Shaka of abusing the court process and argues that his case has been in court over 35 times. In 19 years, the courts have allowed only one hearing where witnesses could testify. That hearing took place in 1987 in state court. Two alibi witnesses testified along with Shaka. His lawyer had not fully investigated the case and had not uncovered the evidence of the crime scene witnesses who could have testified on his behalf. The federal courts have never held a hearing where witnesses could give live testimony in court. The revolving door process kept Shaka in perpetual pursuit of justice but he did not receive any form of actual review except in 1987. Shaka's case was not reviewed 35 times, it was reviewed once before the most important evidence was found. Information from the International Action Center |
From
GRANMA JUNE 24, 2000
|
||
|
There have been visitors to my site since 05/21/99 |
